Y Combinator's Ankit Gupta faces backlash over H-1B comments
americanbazaaronline.com
americanbazaaronline.com
This is easily one of the most eyebrow-raisingly dangerous things I've ever seen a leader of any kind (business or political) in the US say out loud. It summons images of the USA on fire from coast to coast in riots.
We can argue whether the term DEI has been misused, but...what does it take for someone to come to the conclusion that country first is DEI?
Heck, why not spin up YC Foundries elsewhere in the world?
No H1B needed.
Was that a rhetorical question or do you miss the regularly scheduled front page posts complaining that the EU kills innovation?
John Miano, an attorney with the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), said the debate speaks to fundamental questions about the role of the United States and its immigration system.
"The center of this dispute is over what America is. I, and I think most Americans, believe America as a nation state; a commonwealth for the improvement of its citizens. Mr. Gupta clearly views America as an [economic] zone. The graves at Arlington and cemeteries around the world are not the product of Americans fighting and dying to save an economic zone. I would not want to share a foxhole with Mr. Gupta," he told Fox News Digital.
He added, "There is no such thing as the [Libertarian] ideal of economics without borders. I would wager that Mr. Gupta opposes open borders regarding intellectual property. The H-1B program is designed to replace Americans with cheap foreign workers. The U.S. Congress is apparently the only national legislature that has voted to make it explicitly legal to replace citizens with foreign workers, as it has done with H-1B. The H-1B wage system is designed to allow employers to pay H-1B nonimmigrants extremely low wages. The biggest problem with H-1B is that it works exactly as Congress designed it to work."
"Our federal (and most state) employment laws mandate a level playing field for American workers vis-à-vis foreigners — yet many American tech (and other) companies prefer to hire cheaper/exploitable foreign workers to do routine jobs Americans could do, and they do this by failing to post jobs on their normal hiring channels (PERM violations), letting foreign-born hiring managers pipeline cheap foreign labor from body-shop mills over American workers (H1-B abuses), lie about their eligibility for no-cap H1-B hiring, abuse other visa categories such as J-1 visas (we see you, universities!), abuse OPT hiring to get cheap, exploitable foreign labor, and sometimes — getting super arrogant, gaslight laid-off and sidelined Americans while doing any of the above," she wrote.
No, Ankit. It’s called putting your own citizens first.
American companies. American jobs. American workers first.
If that offends you, the problem isn’t America. It’s your sense of entitlement.
I grew up immersed myself in American history. I told countless people in my life: I am grateful for America, and I came here to be American.
(2) There’s very few sustainable global competitive advantages. Sometimes you might have a better natural resource by virtue of geography and getting in first to “own“ it. But for most businesses, reducing trade barriers really just introduces more competition.
While it sucks that people from other societies dont feel like those societies are good for them, it doesnt mean that citizens of the host society should extend that responsibility to people who do not share responsibility for that society like citizens do.
Essentially these foreign workers are mercenaries, and do not derserve the same loyalty and protections that citizens do
Even removing legal barriers, it can't be as easy, since changing citizenships necessitates a very large geographical move, while changing jobs may a require a large move, a small move, or no move. Changing countries changes your entire life - you are leaving your home, its culture, and everybody you know there. It's cruel to imply the people who would be made miserable by such changes simply don't matter.
Another reason is that the responsibilities between citizen and society are fulfilled on a long timescale. A society will educate you, and then you need to contribute to the economy in that society to pay it back so to speak. Technological innovation, military service, rasing future citizens. Any of these things can only happen on a long timescale so quickly switching citizenship doesnt allow that contract to be fulfilled
If that was the case, most existing citizens would lose their status :)
> You cant switch those that quickly
It is much faster with the globalization and youtube-ization. After all, "We all live in Amerika".
Btw, the notion of what we call today a citizenship arose just at late 18th century. So, it's not something fundamental that has always been there.
To be specific, for clarity: "Most" is a dishonest word in this context, and regardless the parent did not imply a legal distinction. As for definition: First, nobody here is necessarily using the word by some specific definition invented at a particular time, but rather in the colloquial sense of being a member of a country; and second, even if they were restricting the sense of the word to the one you are referring to, recency (if that's what you're implying by "18th century"...?) does not imply some kind of triviality.
As for the specific wording, replace "Most" with "Many", the point still stands.
Again, please refrain from moderation and silencing attempts. Thank you.
It's demoralizing how common it is in places where more "traditionally" racist discourse is more properly shunned.