Serious question - why patriotism for their country in preference to their state, country, city, continent, or planet? I've heard that Texas people don't like the rest of the USA. Perhaps they'd be more inclined to disallow out of state workers because their patriotism is applied at a different level than other Americans?
If one wants an economic "justification", I'm sure a quick google search can find articles a lot like this one - a quick stats dump with no controls showing that black people get paid less. Look at those greedy employers lowering wages by hiring black people!
Additionally, the market-based alternative to H1-B is higher wages for domestic staff and expanded (and higher paying) contracting work abroad.
Mostly that blacks have equal rights and are people too, so they should be paid the same. You know, like those Indians employers bring in so that can pay them less than American developers...
If they are all for equality and against "arbitrary lines", they can start by paying those immigrant workers the same...
>* Look at those greedy employers lowering wages by hiring black people!*
Only if one believed that black are somehow inferior would that be a logical conclusion.
In any other case, and assuming you're not racist, the problem is "paying less", not "paying black people", just in the case of Indian developers the problem is paying them less than Americans for work they do in the US.
And yeah, back in the day those Jim Crow employers also thought themselves very generous for giving those blacks a job. After all, like those "poor Indian developers", they would starve without it, so they would better appreciate it, even if it's smaller than what they'd pay whites...
You drew an arbitrary line at "patriotism" before. Why "patriotism (USA)" rather than "white nationalism" or "patriotism (CA)"? Just your personal preference?
Only if one believed that black are somehow inferior would that be a logical conclusion.
It's unclear to me how it would be a logical conclusion even if one did believe blacks are inferior on some dimension. Could you explain?
Not just mine, but the vast majority of the US.
And "personal preference" goes by a name---voting.
Democracy is a pretty scary moral philosophy.
Why, has there been another measure of good in human history? (If one doesn't believe in any divine being handing down laws that is).
And I don't get the "moral high ground in hindsight" thing. If you lived in 1890, statistics say you'd most probably be all for Jim Crow too.
>Democracy is a pretty scary moral philosophy.
Better than the capitalism, which has no morals at all outside what society enforces upon it. If it could sell crack to small children or use people as slaves it would (and it does).
Where the main justification is the BS fabrication that "egotism works for the good of all in the end".
Regarding capitalism, of course it needs controls, but on this subject, it's hard to see the harm in giving intelligent people opportunities that will benefit them. Sadly, popular opinion tells us that Indians deserve to be poor because they have the wrong parents (aka, citizens of a poor country).
Or to take a contemporary example, for reasons I don't understand Indians really seem to dislike Africans. I guess if we get Jim Krishna laws with popular support, you'll favor them also?
Better than the capitalism, which has no morals at all outside what society enforces upon it.
Yet capitalists view Indians and Africans as having "equal rights and are people too", unlike the protectionists.
No, I think "morally justifies it" in the absolute sense (which you use it) is BS, since it assumes some pre-existing morality framework.
"Morally justified" only has sense in the "is it acceptable by the moral standards of a society/era". Of course, most people naively only take it to mean "is it acceptable by the standards of OUR society/era", which they consider as some absolute definition of morals.
Fact: for the people of time it WAS morally justified. Heck, slave owners themselves were respectable and celebrated members of society.
Owning slaves was just what one did if he could, just like for business owners today setting shop in impoverished areas not to offer the same wages as elsewhere but to take advantage of poverty to offer lower wages (as if those people are worth less) is "just what you do".
I agree, but it would have to come with granting an H1B to every applicant or having an open door immigration policy. Otherwise it's not paying them the same, it's "segregating" them to India where they have to suffer lower wages. Much like black people not being allowed to work in high paying jobs.
It's amazing that people can believe it's wrong to discriminate against race (accident of birth) while at the same time insist on discrimination against nationality (almost the same accident of birth).