I've repeatedly argued here on HN that while I support immigration generally, and would like to see a good program for skilled immigration, I am generally opposed to the H1B and other employer sponsored visas.
The reason comes down to basic freedom. Immigrants should be free to choose their career path in response to personal interests and market signals, just as people born in the US. I don't think that tech employers should have the right to decide who is and isn't allowed to live and work in the US. I think that is virtually guaranteed to be abused.
I think that this power on the part of tech companies has skewed the market, badly. If I refuse, for instance, to take google's white-board exam on data structures as part of an interview, google can say to me "ok, then we won't hire you", and that's fine. But what if they get to say "ok, then we won't bestow upon you the right to live and work in the US, or grant you a spot in the queue for permanent residency"?
I pretty much believe that if people with the freedom to choose their path in live don't want it to involve becoming a software developer in the valley at the salary offered under the conditions demanded by tech companies, that's the market's answer. I absolutely do not support giving google control over a shadow immigration system where they can coerce would-be immigrants as a condition of living and working in the US.
Beyond that, there have been some pretty horrendous black eyes for the program, such as Epson, Disney, and UCSF's decision to fire tech workers and have them train their replacements brought in on a visa marketed specifically for people with skills you can't find in your existing workforce.
This ad campaign, though, to me, is cringeworthy. Ever see that argument hat allows your opponents to see you the way they want to, attribute to you positions you don't hold, and avoid engaging with the arguments you've raised? This is pretty much it.