So your evidence of racism in the hitech industry is a Northside Storm? YOu are looking at this as a zero-sum static game. H1-B's visas are needed because at the moment there aren't enough Americans to meet the needs of not just the hi-tech industry but several highly skilled industries. In my own field there is starting to get a shortage of people knowledgeable in architecture, structural engineering and other fields. At the same time schools and the licensing boards are reforming the system to educate more people for my field. They only way your argument makes sense is if industry could just cut off bringing in skilled immigrants and wait for people to get educated and the only reason they are not is because they want to sweep people aside. That doesn't make sense given the rapid pace of change. Skilled industries need more people now and is pressing for it through both immigration and education. From the skilled industry side there is no contradiction between more immigration and more education both are needed to meet the continued development and growth. Regarding your argument regarding redlining you do realize that historially prior in the time prior to Civil Rights most of the Asian countries weren't that developed so there was no sense in bringing in those people. FOr that matter much of the US immigration and other policy was openly racist (ie Exclusion Acts). Civil Rights changed that and one reason why the vast majority of Asian immigration is post Civil Rights is because the US didn't allow a lot of Asians in and didn't see the value of it.
You're basically giving an argument for affirmative action and job set asides. I'm not aware of any laws that say businesses have to hire an immigrant over an American. It sounds like to me though that you would like laws saying that businesses have to hire Americans over immigrants. I think you're looking at this in the wrong way. I agree that there are many communities that are suffering from job losses as economies shift. Protecting them though from foreign competition, immigrant or trade, just guarantees that inefficient and non-competitve industries survive causing much greater problems down the road. That strategy has been tried in this country and others and it's never worked in the long run. Another poster talked about education versus increased immigration and he is right about one thing that much much more education is needed. The answer to solving the problems of the rust belt and failing mill towns isn't to build walls and shield them from foreign competition in the belief that those factories will suddenly reopen and everyone will be employed like they were 30 years ago. Even if they open those factories most likely automation will take the place of the labor that previously was used. What is needed is more and bettter education in those places so they can address the modern global economy rather than trying to turn the clock back. Yet I've heard very little from the Trump campaign and most of his supporters about education. Mostly they focus on walls.
For the citizens of the country? Not even close to affirmative action. It's foreigners vs. citizens. Guess who pays the government not to screw them over? There are a lot of ways to regulate businesses. Laws are one thing but that isn't the area to do it. I'd just limit the number of migrants in areas where there's a surplus. BS. You're talking about protectionism. Protectionism has been about products and services, not migrant labor. The only benefit here is that companies are able to pay their workers less and keep more money in their own pockets. And actually, Trump's said a lot about bringing business back. A lot of the jobs America has lost abroad are still manual jobs that went because of the cheap labor. Automation is something the left uses to justify policies for a future that's just not here yet. Why don't you just let the market decide on what is best?
I don't believe in an America catering to weaklings and laggards and spits in the face of free market economy. You want America to hand you a job when someone else does is better and is willing to do it for cheaper? You want America's employers to subsidize your lack of skills and unwillingness to take a lower pay for your failings? WTF are you anyway? A Democrat? This is rich, talking to a Republican about why handout is wrong. Heh.
Those people are not Americans. The American government should not work for Americans - you're saying that? Because that's just r****ded.
Ironic thing is that rural areas get more Fed funding than large cities or coastal regions. As a general rule of thumb, cities subsidize rural areas by virtue of where Federal tax money goes. The OP's article has some points not discussed here, such as corporations that once supported small towns with a factory or industry are now long gone. It's as bad as those Wild West ghost towns once the gold dried up. For some reason, I remember that 90s comedy Roseanne that touched on a lot of the pain going on during that time. They pretty much went through layoffs and the compromise jobs that followed slowly and surely eroded their future without them even realizing it until they got hit with a big bill like an accident, medical costs, or lawyer fees. It's a pretty sad divide, and I don't feel the same way. To me, there's plenty of opportunity if people are allowed to be around the right people and the right places. If you're in tech, the amount of location agnostic opportunities has grown quite a bit. I still worry about retirement, the environment, and the fact that the world has too many people living in it to adjust, but the economy is different. I'd fear depression, but I don't fear stagnation. America needs a lot of things. I guess the cure to this helpnessness is to do more to break it.
Well good. I was getting tired explaining to someone who was absolutely clueless about the basic idea that a country's government should work for the betterment of its people anyway. And I have a STEM degree actually.
I'll admit to trolling a bit when I wrote that. But, I was reacting to the tone of the article about how these small-town white Americans who, facing lack of opportunity in the country, are afraid of or have an aversion to coming to live in the cities, cram themselves into little apartments, see the freaks on the sidewalks, suffer the godlessness of their new neighbors, etc. That's resistance to assimilating into society. It has nothing to do with immigrants except that it's a psychology that is also found in immigrants. City dwellers that dominate American society are as American as any guy in the country. They might be a little more brown, but every ounce as American. The article's author explains their political behavior by describing how different their world is and how they are unwilling to come join the rest of us where the opportunity is. Instead of destroying the country with a vote for some narcissist as president, they might want to reconsider the trade-off they've made to continue to live their small-town life. If the company-town's company has gone out of business, don't try to hold the rest of us hostage. Just move to somewhere you can find work.
Yes you are arguing for affirmative actions and job set asides for citizens. You're sayign that the government needs to set aside jobs in favor of US citizens who otherwise can't compete with immigrants. Consider why would you even be arguing if you didn't think that this situation required government intervention to protect jobs? Clearly you see it as a problem that requires government action. That is the very essence of affirmative action and set aside programs. The government intervenes to address a structural problem regarding employment by what is considered a disadvantaged group. Under your argument those are American citizens. How would you limit the number of migrants without using laws? Protectionism applies to labor too as you're protecting a particular sector of the labor market. Ironic considering your whole argument is about government intervening in the labor market.
....well.... ....not to be a butt-insky here or anything... ...but the Federal Government DID forcibly remove Mexicans and Mexican-Americans from the United States during the Great Depression in order to make room for white American workers under some of the New Deal Programs. ...so there's at least a fairly recent history of America picking winners and losers... ...many of those Mexican and Spanish people at the time were a lot like what we have now...a part of the populace doing some manual labor jobs that weren't being done by "real" Americans. The more things changes, it seems.... ...just an aside by me...carry on....
