Have to is the wrong way to look at it. He hired this person because he thought he would be the best at the job. Why should he have to prefer the talent in the US?
Promoting US citizens just because they are US citizens may work for a while, but I doubt that it is a good long-term strategy.
Unfortunately, this doesn't work as well in practice: the fact that the H-1B is completely tied to a particular employer makes it the modern equivalent of indentured servitude and the H-4 makes things worse by not allowing your family members to work.
Therefore, when people say "H1 transfer", it is actually just a new H-1B petition, all over again, without the restriction of the H-1B cap.
So the only thing this allows you is to skip the cap. Every other bit of bureaucracy is still there.
Not sure how it happened, but maybe it's not so hard after all (especially if they lawyer up)
Granted there is some bureaucracy (which is largely handled by lawyers hired by the new employer, as it should be), and as with any bureaucratic system there is always a (low) probability of (unwarranted) rejection.
The H-1B is a far cry from "the modern equivalent of indentured servitude". I wonder how many "free men" wouldn't love to be "modern indentured servants" while getting paid 6 figures (and unlike the 18th century version, without being subject to physical punishment and having the opportunity to leave whenever they desire).
I agree wholeheartedly with your statement about the H-4, that's just sad.
Why should we discriminate against someone who is poorer and better skilled in favor of someone who is richer, privileged, and less skilled, just because of the quirk of geographic origin?
Morally I find that abhorrent, and personally it drives me insane that I don't get to work with the best people in the world.
I get that there are political barriers to following that moral claim to its logical conclusion, but they shouldn't mean we discard that moral claim; we should try to remove the political obstacles.
The freedom lover inside me gets your point though.
I feel for your town and I hope everyone there gets a good job; I just don't think "but we're American!" is the advantage that should get them there.
Hardest doesn't equal most productive. Furthermore, there were less obstacles to him hiring Columbians. I don't see what the problem is here.
Anyway, silly patriotism? Nah, real patriotism. There's more to being an American than paying your taxes. That said, I'm not some patriotic radical. I can see why it would be better to hire a team abroad. Just not in this case.
My issue is how the article's framed, like it's somehow America's fault! I don't buy it!
But on your bigger point, remember this guy was going to move to the US to do this work until he was told no by our government. I want him to work here instead of in Columbia because I care about the US economy and I want it to do well [1]. The question is really about whether this job in San Francisco should go to someone who was born in the US or elsewhere (with, like you said, everything else being equal). I find it really hard to have a pro-natural-born-American job bias when my (and I'm guessing your) ancestors also came here from other countries seeking work, and more generally, I just don't think foreigners are less deserving of good things than people who happen to have been born here. I guess you'd say that's not supporting my own countrymen, and if so, I'm OK with that.
[1] Wait, why do I care about the US economy more than the Colombian economy? I'm not sure, and I struggle with this. Selfishness, I suspect--I live in the US.