Reply to Vance on H1B

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Vance on H1B "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]No more international college students graduating into jobs they should go back [/quote]

Awwww let me guess, either you or your kid could not get the job you wanted because there was someone smarter and more qualified than you (or your kid) that got it (more/better work/internship experience, higher ranked university etc). And rather than thinking "hmmmm how can I become a stronger candidate" you blame international students for your (or your kids) failure.

Pathetic. How about you try and compete in the market rather than expecting to be handed the good jobs just because you were born here...[/quote]

This is one area where the maga base and the dem base have a ton of overlap. Not really a ton of people in favor of giving good paying jobs to foreigners, except the tech billionaires. But everyone hates them now. [/quote]

DP. Agreed. And can someone explain why an American born citizen wouldn’t get preferential consideration in their home country? I mean — doesn’t the federal government give hiring preference to citizens that have already served in some capacity? Why not incentivize corporations to do the same?[/quote]

[b]Due to visa policies Americans already get preferential treatment by default[/b] (1 year Opt that then require H1b lottery, risky to hire).

But more specifically, as someone hiring to fill a need, why would I care if someone is US born or not. I am looking for the best candidate, if that happens to be someone US born, great, if not, that's completely fine as well. Employers want the best candidate, not someone who feels entitled to the job just because they were born here. [/quote]
[quote=Anonymous]
Thanks, I wasn’t aware of the bolded.

I hear your second point—but what’s missing from the perspective in this discussion is the role of corporate responsibility, especially for companies that are headquartered in the U.S. and benefit directly from the legal, financial, and infrastructure systems funded by American taxpayers.

If a corporation enjoys the protections of U.S. law, the use of U.S. infrastructure, and the advantage of U.S. consumer markets—then it stands to reason that investing back into that system by hiring its own citizens should be part of its social contract.

This isn’t about nativism—it’s about balance. A company that avoids paying state and federal taxes while actively bypassing American talent isn’t optimizing—it’s exploiting.

I could understand this logic if we were talking about a company based overseas. But U.S.-based corporations aren’t exempt from civic accountability just because they’re private entities. They’re operating in a public-private ecosystem—and the “public” part matters.[/quote]

What best candidate means is usually "cheapest" to a corporation.  Why should they pay more if someone from an oppressive state will do it for less and even forgo most personal freedoms to do so?

Though we really need to discuss if it is ethical to meet force with force when the globalists are using force to subject their spineless peons and want to move them here so that they can subjugate us in a similar fashion.

Exhibit A: Foxconn riots and Apple, coming to factory near you.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics