[shas3]

I think there are a lot of misconceptions on this thread, especially since the article mostly talks about OPT!

US domiciles' desire for protectionism is understandable. But it cannot be couched in language of fairness and equity.

In a truly meritocratic society, one cannot claim competitive advantage based on where they were born. The objective of legal immigration is to help companies hire the best talent, irrespective of nationality. OPT folks must have an American education. So, part of your tax payer money has gone to subsidize their education, either through NIH/NSF/DoD grants or, via the X % of a State University's total grant outlay that comes from the state. It is truly a win-win situation. Regarding 'lower pressure for wages to rise': you are not competing with people of your own country, but in reality with the world. So if someone from China or India can earn 10x more, even if it depresses wages when they immigrate to a richer society, it is still fair. The companies are looking for good talent + low costs, so instead of moving the division to India or China, they hire top Chinese / Indian talent educated in the US.

[jquery]

> The objective of legal immigration is to help companies hire the best talent, irrespective of nationality.

This is radical stuff. No, the objective of legal immigration is to help Americans. The objective of the federal government is to serve Americans. It's not clear at all that flooding the American labor market with foreign nationals is good for Americans.

[adam419]

This is beyond a discussion of meritocracy.

What this would do is not further a meritocracy but change the supply/demand equation in way that like others have pointed out, resembles a race to the bottom.