Or maybe it's just the pendulum swining back I guess. When democrats and republicans were young, new, parties, republicans were definitely left-wing and democrats were right-wing. Maybe it's just switching around again.
Similarly, an economically right person might say that work visas are necessary to make certain kinds of labour affordable for business owners. A socially right person might say that work visa programs are abhorrent because they bring foreigners into the country.
"Left" and "right" are broad tents - they're sure to contain conflicting or mutually exclusive viewpoints on some issues.
Free migration empowers labor in the same way that free movement of capital empowers capital; real immigration systems in capitalist regimes tend not to favor free and reciprocal movement but instead are regulated to favor domestic capital, but it's a foolish leftist that is opposed to free migration rather than migration regulated to favor capital.
OTOH, H-1B is one of the most blatantly capital-serving elements of the current US immigration[0] system.
[0] well, it's really a guest worker, not immigration, program, though it's possible for people to move into the immigration system directly from it.
So in reality, free movement of capital is bad for 99.99% good for 0.01%.
However, I get it, it is a very popular illusion among business owners that this is not in fact true. That they could do better if they could just put their business in more places, deploy their money and capital more flexibly.
99% of them are wrong. Of course, you wouldn't be running a business if you didn't think you could do this, I get it. But time and time again it is shown: 99% of them can't.
No, it's a fact, which is why...
> It is a well established fact in economics that free movement of capital will concentrate the capital in fewer hands.
Yes, the nature of capital is such that policies which empower capital also accelerate it's concentration, whereas policies which empower labor decelerate (or even reverse) the concentration of capital.
Let's think about the power of labor for a minute. I think we can both agree that it's heavily contingent on its replaceability. When workers are difficult to replace they are naturally valued more highly. Doctors don't earn huge paychecks because there's some enormous value placed on their work, but rather because there are few doctors relative to demand and so each doctor has a very low level of replaceability. It's the same thing for jobs like athlete or actor. These workers become irreplaceable which gives them a tremendous amount of negotiating leverage.
Even unions can easily be seen in the same framework. Unions work to treat a large number of employees as a single force whose entire source of power and leverage comes from the fact that that 'single' force is less replaceable. This is also why unions in fields where workers are easily replaceable generally don't work (without some sort of third party protection or more underhanded tactics) as they are unable to sufficiently reduce their level of replaceability.
And I think we can also both agree that free migration would massively increase the replaceability of nearly all workers. I'm completely open to your idea, but I'm not seeing the logic!
American tech companies are basically the richest companies on the planet, and they can well afford to hire and train American workers. In light of growing income inequality, it makes me sick to think that so many of the best paying jobs in the economy go to foreign nationals.
Oh, and, as I've said many times before, non-profits, which include basically all hospitals and universities in the entire country are exempt from the annual cap.
H1-B produces terribly unjust outcome for American workers.
And yet, the words "anti" and "h1b" in the same post ? -5 karma, at least !