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.
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!