You expect that kind of thing from a cynic, but it's pretty sad (and telling) when The Economist is saying things like that.
It seems like anyone that takes half a second to think about it would realize that having H-1B visa holders is a great thing for our country, but they'd have to get past the daddy model (to borrow PG's term).
There seems to be this standard view that there are X jobs in America and that by allowing in Y immigrants, Americans are left with X - Y jobs. But with H-1Bs, the people are guest workers for a specific job with a specific employer. Since they are such a pain in the ass to get, you have to reason that the company wouldn't go to the trouble/expense if they could just hire local talent to do it. If the choice is between an unfilled job and one filled with immigrant, how hard can it really be?
Sadly the prevailing view is that all immigrants are bad, no matter what, and you can't explain H-1Bs in a soundbite.