[thedufer]

I don't think the point you take issue with is really debatable. The only way it could not be true if there is actually no one in the local labor market who can do the job, and that's a very difficult argument to make. Outside of that, every H1 is a job a citizen isn't getting.

You didn't touch on this at all, so I'm not really sure what your point is. I think you're debating a strawman.

[thrwy10]

> The only way it could not be true if there is actually no one in the local labor market who can do the job, and that's a very difficult argument to make. Outside of that, every H1 is a job a citizen isn't getting.

Does that mean being a citizen entitles one to a job regardless of qualification? Also, does that mean 100% of the US should be employed before bringing in foreign workers? I think such generalizations are far fetched. The conspiracy theory that claims that H1s are all low paid workers falls flat when examined closely.

[anjc]

> Does that mean being a citizen entitles one to a job regardless of qualification? Also, does that mean 100% of the US should be employed before bringing in foreign workers?

You're making up arguments and arguing with yourself here. Nobody said that being a citizen entitles a person to a job. But the law states that a H1B visa can be extended only IF a citizen can't be found that fulfils the requirements. Companies have been caught flouting this law, and purposely not finding citizens. You seem to have a problem with "every H1 is a job a citizen isn't getting", but, that's the point of a H1B.

> The conspiracy theory that claims that H1s are all low paid workers falls flat when examined closely.

They are not conspiracy theories, and they do not fall flat. The information is all open and available.

[thedufer]

Note that there's no value judgment being made here. Nor am I claiming that H1s are low paid. You're still arguing against the same strawman.

To reword: if an H1 gets a job, a qualified citizen is not getting that job. Except in very exceptional circumstances, this hurts said citizen, and by extension the labor pool of people who could be substituted in for said citizen.

[thrwy10]

You didn't specify 'qualified' in the original post. If it was implied and I didn't get it, I'm sorry. I agree that if there is a qualified local, they should get these jobs before bringing in foreign labor. Although, my argument isn't a straw man.

[thedufer]

I thought that "local labor market" implicitly only contained people who were local and could do the requisite labor, but that might not be the agreed-upon meaning. Sorry for the confusion.

Strawman-ness is contextual. You were arguing against an argument that is, in fact, used. However, you did so after quoting something that was not making that argument, but instead a weaker one, and one which your response didn't really respond to.

[davidw]

By this logic, we should not allow people to have more than two children, or else the surplus children will grow up and take the jobs. Because there are only a fixed number of jobs to go around, right? I read last week that the bureau of labor statistics determined the number: 309,219,419.

[thedufer]

I don't know what logic you're using, but it didn't come from my post. As I pointed out elsewhere, I didn't make any value judgments. I claimed, essentially, that someone taking a job hurts others who may have competed for that job. I did not claim that there's any need to protect them, with legislation or otherwise.

[davidw]

> someone taking a job

The problem is that you're thinking of "a job". The economy is composed of many, many jobs, and is fairly dynamic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy

[icebraining]

Removing a specific job from the market is not necessarily hurting local labor; that depends on the overall effects of immigration. Take a person who comes here on a visa, manages to stay and starts a company which employs other engineers - is s/he hurting the local labor market? What about the person who simply is a great worker and allows the company to grow and hire faster?

In any case, software engineers complaining about having less jobs just strikes me as hypocritical. Our whole professions are essentially centered about eliminating the need for human labor. At least in this case, someone is still getting paid to do the job, even if it's not someone who happened to be born with the right citizenship.

[klipt]

> every H1 is a job a citizen isn't getting

That's assuming the job market is entirely inelastic, which seems unlikely.

By that same logic, every foreigner not allowed to start a company in the US is N jobs citizens aren't getting.

[thedufer]

Okay, fine. I may have sounded as if I was trying to be precise, when in fact I'm just trying to point in the right direction.

Let's try "every H1 is a positive percentage of a job a citizen isn't getting". This doesn't require that the job market be entirely inelastic; just that the response not go in the opposite of the expected direction. The same conclusion results; said H1 hurts citizens who are also qualified for said job.