I mean, it's not like your people are being forced to use and buy products from these companies. So why should the US be forced to take in workers from other countries?
You've got it backwards. Nobody is forcing the US to take anyone. Instead, employers in the US are instead being forced to hire native workers, and are effectively being prohibited from hiring from the rest of the world. It's this prohibition that needs to be defended.
I'm an employer, and I want to hire a French software developer. I'm willing to pay him $160,000 a year. But now, immigration restrictionists are getting in my way and saying that I can't hire him. If I hire him disregarding the laws prohibiting me from doing so, I would get hit by heavy fines and might literally be thrown in jail. Immigration restrictionists effectively advocate for the use of state violence to block me from employing non-Americans.
Now this isn't some hypothetical story that I came up with. I work for a French company that has an office in New York, and we've tried to bring a Software Developer from our Paris office for two years now. For two years in a row, he lost the H-1B lottery both times. The L-1B visa didn't work out either. My company which is French-owned and French-based and has to deal with this stuff. It's this restrictionism that has got to be justified.
That and language, I have worked with devs and testers who just didn't have a great grasp on the english language which lead to a lot of frustration on both sides as we probably used half our jira comments clarifying/confirming what the other person meant.
One objective reason to favor hiring a candidate living locally over one abroad is effective communication. The less local a candidate is, the greater the chance of poor communication due to increasingly diverging dialects and cultures and a lack of knowledge about the local culture.
Ah, fair enough, I guess the reason is to "avoid the process of bringing someone from abroad". Sounds pragmatic enough to me.
> One objective reason to favor hiring a candidate living locally over one abroad is effective communication. The less local a candidate is, the greater the chance of poor communication due to increasingly diverging dialects and cultures and a lack of knowledge about the local culture.
You have just contradicted yourself; but let's bite: Even if this looks reasonable to you, it's nowhere near the problem you think it is and most of the times far outweighed by the other reasons you had to choose a non-locally-born-or-raised candidate.
It also decreases diversity, which studies show is an advantage and not just a nicety.
I listed that was a reason, not the only reason. Skill sets being equal, the candidate with a knowledge of the local culture will likely be the better candidate. That's not saying choose the local candidate solely because he is local. I fail to see how it's contradictory. I think we're talking about two subtlety different things. I'm talking about where someone currently resides, not where that person was born or raised.
> It also decreases diversity, which studies show is an advantage and not just a nicety.
I'm pretty sure you meant "increases diversity" because that's the popular trend. I've never comprehended why the "diversity" attribute magically makes a candidate superior. Typically, "diversity" superficially targets ethnic diversity rather than diversity in expertise, experience, or thought. Granted, those aren't mutually exclusive but they're not mutually inclusive either.
Why is it better to know the local culture? E.g. would a local 65 year old be a better or worse culture fit than a 25 year from Canada?
> That's not saying choose the local candidate solely because he is local. I fail to see how it's contradictory. I think we're talking about two subtlety different things. I'm talking about where someone currently resides, not where that person was born or raised.
The problem is you haven't given a pragmatic reason why it's better to hire a local person. Well, in fall fairness that's not fully true, you might have implied less hassle during the hiring process (the remote person has to move locally, find a place, might need more time to settle due to that).
> I'm pretty sure you meant "increases diversity" because that's the popular trend.
I meant decreases, then I've meant that diversity is an advantage as per several studies. I'm sorry it was not clear.
I am the one referencing objective reasons, not sure why would you precisely call me out as a trend follower though.
> I've never comprehended why the "diversity" attribute magically makes a candidate superior. Typically, "diversity" superficially targets ethnic diversity rather than diversity in expertise, experience, or thought. Granted, those aren't mutually exclusive but they're not mutually inclusive either.
It's interesting that I keep seeing this "diversity of thought" mantra more and more often. I am seriously asking: Where did you get it from? I mean, it starts to look like a meme, so I wonder if it's on purpose.
Anyway, back to the point: What do you think diversity brings? And what do you think we refer to with "diversity"? For me it is:
- Different age
- Different gender
- Different socioeconomic background
- And any other thing that would've exposed you to different challenges in life: Your skin colour, your country of origin, your native language, where did you study, your level of studies, etc
Bringing e.g. more women or people from a different ethnic background to the team is a sure way to increase your so-called "diversity of thought". These people have probably faced different challenges than you did. Now if you want to hire someone that looks like you, grew in the same part of town, studied at the same place, had a similar socioeconomic background while growing up... Your chances of getting very similar points of view are very high.
And again, please spend some time researching the different studies, there are several by reputable sources. Apparently it is a fact that diversity is an advantage.
Oh wait, but that's communism, nvm then.
But, what we are talking about here is government policy. We have a government and it makes rules. There are other governments and they make rules too. Since that's the system we have, we need to analyze and balance what's right, and what works.