Really, though, my overall complaint was that this fluff piece tried to say "Immigrants create more jobs" when statistically speaking, they often take more jobs than they save, and only on very rare occasions actually create brand new shiny jobs that help the unemployment situation.
My anger doesn't even remotely apply to the cream of the crop, the genuine masterminds who come here to work their magic. Whether they're founders or very senior level hackers. Most of them aren't being underpaid here, and they're not contributing to the problem. They're not par for the course, either.
so what would your argument be against just an average programmer, say from japan, being hired to work at a company in the bay area?
Given the possibility that you have to leave the US if you lose an H1B job (unless you can find a new one immediately), that makes you less likely to buy a house or a decent car that you will have trouble unloading if you have to leave on short notice. And I have deliberately shifted savings into cash vs. a 401k plan because I can take the cash with me when I leave.
on the other hand "us native minions" (as you termed it) have an interest in artificially reducing the availability of skill in the labor market. some of your tone makes me think there's also an element of this in your stance?
i can't agree with the idea of restricting labor on the basis of the coincidence of where someone was born. there might be a sociological argument to be made when considering unskilled labor from less developed countries - but how can anyone justify restricting skilled labor, and movement between countries with socioeconomic parity (us/canada/eu/japan/etc.)?