Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No more international college students graduating into jobs they should go back

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...

DP. When I went to an Ivy many years ago the international students were definitely not smarter or harder working but they were pretty much universally much, much wealthier. Because they are cash cows for universities. But you are right that wealth can give you more internship options as you can get random things through connections or do unpaid internships in HCOL areas.

Employers don't have to pay social security or medicare for that employee so that means they save 8% for each worker under OPT. Nearly 540,000 foreign nationals hold jobs in the U.S. without any FICA taxes taken out of their paychecks. This is costing the US billions and causing employers to give preference to foreign nationals over Americans.

At a minimum employers should be made to pay employment taxes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No more international college students graduating into jobs they should go back

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...

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.

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?

Due to visa policies Americans already get preferential treatment by default (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.

Anonymous wrote:
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.

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.

This is called free market economy capitalism.

If you want to force companies to hire more expensive American workers, you need that dirty R word.... regulation.

Or you could close the border and have a closed ecosystem with protective tariffs but then you’ll have to embrace some icky “ism” like nativism.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No more international college students graduating into jobs they should go back

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...

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.

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?

Due to visa policies Americans already get preferential treatment by default (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.

Corporate entities are legal fictions that exist with permission of the people. Their purpose is to serve societal goals. If you don’t care about your fellow citizens don’t be shocked when they form populist voting blocs adverse to your interests.

^^ Terrible. It's not just our kids either. It's trying to hold on to one's job after age 40 when you're laid off. Trying to find a job post age 50 is nearly impossible.

This is not just tech either. Almost any back office work like accounting and finance (business degrees) is impacted.

Walk into any hospital and most workers are not from the US. I asked why on another thread and was labeled racist.

[twitter]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No more international college students graduating into jobs they should go back

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...

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.

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?

Due to visa policies Americans already get preferential treatment by default (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.

Anonymous wrote:
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.

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.

This is called free market economy capitalism.

If you want to force companies to hire more expensive American workers, you need that dirty R word.... regulation.

Read a little please. When the federal government subsidizes foreign labor over our own children , how is that capitalism?

Let them eat cake

Federal gov makes it cheaper to hire F1s and OPTs than US citizens. Also employees are effectively slaves to one company

About 10,000 per year subsidy. It is a disgrace , companies do not have to pay Medicare or payroll taxes on opts

Note carefully that OPT did not arise out of legislation. Instead, the executive branch, many years ago, devised it on their own, declaring a post-graduation internship to be part of being a student. The original duration was one year, but was increased to 29 months by George W. Bush and then 36 months by Obama. the idea that someone graduating with a Master’s degree then needs a 3-year “internship” is preposterous.

We take jobs from our own students and give them to foreign students to increase the wealth of elites.

Anonymous wrote:No more international college students graduating into jobs they should go back

This.

A few of us have been pointing out that high tech companies are canning HIGHLY SKILLED -- BRILLIANT -- American employees and handing those jobs to less qualified and less intelligent Indian H1B holders.

With all the DEI incentives under the Democrats, more Indians became managers. Once Indians become managers, they won't hire Americans, hiring only fellow Indians under the H1B program. Maybe Americans like to talk inclusiveness, but these people are tribal. That is the reality.

These high tech jobs are some of the highest paying jobs for middle class Americans, commanding salaries rivaling some physician salaries. The Indians who are replacing them are commanding similar salaries. Make no mistake - they are not getting hired on the cheap.

What kind of idiots are we to allow our fellow Americans to get replaced by a foreign work force for some of the highest paying jobs in the U.S. ??

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No more international college students graduating into jobs they should go back

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...

Typical democrat

Devoid of facts. Full of contempt

The troubling fact is that the OPT program was created entirely through regulation with no authorization from Congress whatsoever. It has been going on for so long, that many people assume that Congress authorized OPT when in fact, Congress has explicitly changed the law to prohibit it.

Here is a history of how OPT came about. In reading this history, keep in mind that the regulations described here employ the euphemism "practical training" to refer to work.

In 2007, Microsoft concocted a scheme to use OPT as a means to circumvent the H-1B quotas. Microsoft's plan was to extend the duration of OPT from a year to 29-months, so that the duration would be sufficient to serve as a guestworker program, rather than just an internship-type program. Microsoft proposed this scheme to the Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff at a dinner party at the home of the owner of the Washington Nationals baseball team. (See pp. 229-230 in the book Sold Out.) From there, DHS worked in absolute secrecy with industry lobbyists to craft regulations implementing Microsoft's plan.

In a classic example of Washington cronyism, the first notice that DHS was even considering such regulations came when they were promulgated as a fait accompli, without notice and comment, on April 8, 2008 (73 Fed. Reg. 18,944). These regulations made three major expansions to OPT. First, they allowed aliens to remain in student visa status while they were unemployed so they could look for work. Second, they allowed aliens working under OPT to remain in student visa status from the time an H-1B petition was filed on their behalf until a final decision was made on the petition or the start date. This adds a maximum of 6 months to the OPT duration. Finally, they authorized a 17-month work period for aliens with degrees in fields DHS designates at Science/Technology/Engineering/Mathematics (STEM). This gave a maximum OPT duration of 35 months.

The OPT program has been the subject of continuous litigation since then where, after nearly a decade, the federal courts have been unable to come to a decision on whether it is lawful. However in 2015, the D.C. District Court held that the 2008 OPT regulations had been promulgated unlawfully without notice and comment. In response to this opinion, DHS promulgated new regulations that did the same as the old regulations except that they expanded the STEM work period from 17 months to 24 months, giving a maximum OPT work period of 42 months (24+12+6).

OPT is an example of the administrative state run amok. Instead of law coming from Congress, we have law coming from bureaucrats working hand-in-hand with lobbyists. OPT also illustrates the slippery-slope problem of regulation. Work on student visas started innocently as an integral part of a course of study to give foreign students an experience not available in their home country, but eventually was transformed into a full-blown guestworker program whose stated purpose is to provide labor to American business.

https://cis.org/Report/History-Optional-Practical-Training-Guestworker-Program

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No more international college students graduating into jobs they should go back

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...

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.

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?

Due to visa policies Americans already get preferential treatment by default (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.

Anonymous wrote:
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.

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.

This is called free market economy capitalism.

If you want to force companies to hire more expensive American workers, you need that dirty R word.... regulation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Damnit I hate when Vance says something I actually agree with. Insanity to still be handing out H1Bs for CS work right now given the layoffs and difficulty of CS majors in finding jobs. Tech firms can do some internal training if they need to bridge skill gaps - just like most other companies do.

https://www.newsweek.com/jd-vance-issues-warning-h1-b-visa-immigration-2103296?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwY2xjawLu_1FleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHggVzornDQc4-zR77B62fK6CwhsrSFtzDz3qlOpfStRtz8ZMeUVEIw5KIH2C_aem_039eRMW6a8E42zd4am4GBQ#Echobox=1753351866

Vance: "You see some big tech companies where they'll lay off 9,000 workers, and then they'll apply for a bunch of overseas visas. And I sort of wonder; that doesn't totally make sense to me.“

From article…
“Microsoft is facing mounting scrutiny over its use of the H-1B visa program after announcing a wave of layoffs in July that will impact approximately 9,000 employees globally.

The latest cuts, affecting about 4 percent of the company's total workforce, follow two earlier rounds in May and June, which together eliminated around 8,000 positions. In total, Microsoft has laid off nearly 16,000 employees so far this year, out of its global headcount of 228,000.

In the aftermath of the layoffs, social media posts began circulating on X, formerly Twitter, alleging that Microsoft has submitted applications for more than 6,000 H-1B visas since October, the start of the current fiscal year. While that specific figure has not been independently verified, official data shows that Microsoft filed 9,491 H-1B applications during the previous fiscal year, all of which were approved.”

Why are Democrats so afraid of helping US workers? Repeal H1B, repeal OPT. Stop the exploitation of US citizens so that big tech can get richer.

I will add my own experience.

In 80's and 90's I was able to hire African Americans from 2 year schools or community colleges, train them to be testers or developers.  Almost all were successful and were launched into successful careers.

Now I am forced to hire H1Bs from Indian Bodyshops.  We do NOT hire entry level with intent to train.  We hire 15 H1Bs with the intent to fire 33% and keep the other 67% for 2 years and then fire and start over.   It is a way to replace US workers with cheap desperate guest workers.

And the Indian Bodyshops are the most racist firms in America. They have no african americans and few hispanics. And they NEVER recruit from HBCs.  Never. 

Add to this the millions of low wage workers allowed in from illegal immigration, that take low wage jobs, and impact African Americans directly.  

The single best policy for African American workers is to STOP ALL IMMIGRATION.  Force US Businesses to hire from US citizens.  

But for DCUM and Democrats this is heresy.

I just don’t get it.

Independent leaning Democrat voter over here who agrees with everything you wrote. I've been saying this for at least two decades

It's how the Democrat party operates from the inception, the party of Jackson. It's an unseemly feature of Majoritarianism that they like to pick on small segments of society. Yes, as it turns out, Democrats will vote for enslaving a minority. For Democrats people skilled in STEM are easy targets. Our society will never need very many of them and they aren't very popular, except for maybe an Uber geek here or there, and most of the Uber geeks are foreigners anyway. But wait, I'm in bioinformatics and we only need like fifty of us to begin with, if you bring in one hundred no one will be employed. Oh well. Thats Democrats.

oh please, Rs have supported H1s, too. Trump loves them now that Musk basically owns him.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/370650-hatch-bill-would-dramatically-increase-h-1b-visas/

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) plans to release legislation on Thursday that would expand high skilled immigration visas and allow the spouses and children of such visa holders to legally work in the U.S.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/elon-musk-vows-war-over-h-1b-visa-program-amid-rift-with-some-trump-supporters-2024-12-28/

President-elect Donald Trump on Saturday sided with key supporter and billionaire tech CEO Elon Musk in a public dispute over the use of the H-1B visa, saying he fully backs the program for foreign tech workers opposed by some of his supporters.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No more international college students graduating into jobs they should go back

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...

I don’t disagree with companies wanting to hire the stronger candidates but often that is not the way it is.

Trying to compete with the market is difficult when visa holders make 30+% less than US workers. They are often like indentured servants to the companies that sponsor them. Switching jobs is difficult for them since they need to get the other company to sponsor them. If companies can just get the govt to drop some of the red tape, many more of us would be replaced.

They aren't always stronger candidates either. I've worked in IT for over 30 years and have dealt with a ton of companies, and yes, some of the Indian engineers I've worked with are brilliant and hard working but I've also seen plenty who can barely code their way out of a paper bag, not to mention dealing with tons of communication issues. Often they aren't stronger, they're just cheaper.

+100%

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No more international college students graduating into jobs they should go back

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...

I don’t disagree with companies wanting to hire the stronger candidates but often that is not the way it is.

Trying to compete with the market is difficult when visa holders make 30+% less than US workers. They are often like indentured servants to the companies that sponsor them. Switching jobs is difficult for them since they need to get the other company to sponsor them. If companies can just get the govt to drop some of the red tape, many more of us would be replaced.

They aren't always stronger candidates either. I've worked in IT for over 30 years and have dealt with a ton of companies, and yes, some of the Indian engineers I've worked with are brilliant and hard working but I've also seen plenty who can barely code their way out of a paper bag, not to mention dealing with tons of communication issues. Often they aren't stronger, they're just cheaper.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No more international college students graduating into jobs they should go back

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...

I don’t disagree with companies wanting to hire the stronger candidates but often that is not the way it is.

Trying to compete with the market is difficult when visa holders make 30+% less than US workers. They are often like indentured servants to the companies that sponsor them. Switching jobs is difficult for them since they need to get the other company to sponsor them. If companies can just get the govt to drop some of the red tape, many more of us would be replaced.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No more international college students graduating into jobs they should go back

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...

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.

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?

Due to visa policies Americans already get preferential treatment by default (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.

Anonymous wrote:
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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No more international college students graduating into jobs they should go back

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...

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.

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?

Due to visa policies Americans already get preferential treatment by default (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.

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.