Having to go through a lottery based visa system to work?

I know you're not the parent commenter, but is your issue with the intent of the policy (presumably, to manage immigration) or with the implementation of said policy (via a lottery based system)?

Both, but mostly the implementation of policy.

Out of curiosity, is there a method of implementation you'd be more in favor of?

Yes, a preference system similar to the Canadian one, which has a points system based on a variety of factors. Especially factoring in the fields with the most need and also education level (or equivalent experience that is actually verified). That is a more clearer approach than a lottery based one. This is what I would suggest if I was American.

Speaking as a non-American:

I have issues with the intent too, because I am not happy about the fact that this is a country developed by immigrants, yet there is anti-immigrant sentiment. People have to 'prove' themselves to get in, and even there's no guarantee of success there with clear goalposts, and only extra-ordinary ability people (O-1 visa) can get in without much headache. A bit like locking the door behind you IMO.

I want to say that I understand the problems unrestricted immigration will place on the country. However, there is a position that will allow many more immigrants than current immigrant visa system allows for, and we are not close to that.

I believe the reason is that people aren't comfortable possibly having their salaries drop by a small percent. The hypocrisy is what really gets to me though. America is touted as a free market economy, especially by the Republicans who fight for less government intervention in business, yet they're the ones advocating for tighter immigration controls which is the opposite of free market.

Apologies if this seems like a rant. You might not get what I'm trying to convey because you probably not know the feeling of being dealt the shitty hand of being born in a place that isn't a first world country.

I'd disagree on the salaries drop. Imagine if poor immigrants weren't allowed in the US. Bathrooms wouldn't clean itself (maybe in Japan?). What would happen is that many more Americans would be working on entry-level jobs than currently: this is something hard to see because we take what we have for granted, and seeing what we wouldn't have is harder. Another point is that we produce just a couple of things our whole lives, but consume hundred of thousands. The more diverse the knowledge, expertise, and wish to work of people around us, the better we tend to be.

I don't disagree with you, and actually phrased it as a 'possible' situation, not a definite one.

There is also another way of looking at it, that I actually believe, which is that immigrants create more jobs than they take in the long term (not talking generations). If you look at the big startups right now and even the Fortune 500, you'll find that many are founded by first generation immigrants, and a lot more second generation immigrants.

However, your Joe six-pack doesn't see that far, and neither has the long term health of America in mind, because if he did, he would venture out to think more critically. He's worried about what is going to happen to his job a year or two from now. Unfortunately, that affects policy to a greater effect, because that affects who he votes for and what political platform he agrees with.

I'll end this discussion with my opinion that specific immigration policies like the H1-B can hurt avg. salary because they tie the employee to the company. And the company can abuse this by paying a lower wage than market rate.

The solution to this is to allow free movement within companies without fear of being kicked out, and you won't see the abuse everyone brings up when they talk about H1-B. I haven't seen a proper discussion about this on HN. The discussion almost always oscillates between two entirely different topics, one of which is if we should allow immigrants to come in and work at all, and the other topic being how staffing companies abuse the lottery system and inflexibility of the H1-B visa.

What about if we move this discussion to focus on how you fear people from poor countries might have the competency to be your competitor in the job market?

I used to make just USD 5-10 an hour as a senior software engineer before joining a company in another country. I have no sympathy for people who were born in a developed country and feels entitled to get a job I could possibly get just because I wasn't born there. Sure, locals should be valued, but that doesn't mean you should forbid people from outside a geopolitical area to compete with fairness.

Mind your own business instead of tyring to regulate other people businesses through the government as you were a soviet. If you like communism so much and want to have the state control the employement market, why don't you move to North Korea?

Now, instead of trying to show how a heartless libertarian am I, what about if you expose why you think you have a right to force people to hire you instead of letting them choose between you and me?

This type of reaction doesn't reflect on you very well and doesn't generally fit with the HN guidelines to provide substantive discussion while assuming good faith. I'm sorry you were paid poorly. The unfortunate reality is that we are often paid commensurate with our ability to negotiate and not necessarily based on our skill.

With that said, you made an awful lot of assumptions based on a single comment. I am honestly curious about what (if any) regulations you feel are necessary and which you do not.

I'll help make the discussion easier. Trimming the snark out of your comment, it sounds like you'd rather favor a merit-based immigration policy. What do you think is the best way to implement that?

You say my comment doesn't reflect on me very well. Very well, except my comment was exactly trying to make you see you were doing exactly this: you suggested I'd be for using child labor for something [preposterously dangerous like mining arsenic, I guess].

I don't favor a merit-based migration policy. I favor free markets. Free trade or free migration should be the norm. I don't believe in the central government. This isn't something to be 'implemented'. In actually, most the state does is to hinder immigration by those who would provide great value to the society. If you are uneducated and have not much to lose, it doesn't make much difference for you to migrate to somewhere where you will end up with the lower-income jobs, and there is nothing bad with it. You even freed a person born in a wealthier place to go work on something better for themselves. This is how you end up seeing people from some ethnics working as janitors more often than even americans, in the USA. This is good for both the immigrant [who are willing to spend, say, ten years working illegally] and to the local people. However, the people with higher education will likely just go somewhere else (like me) if you don't let them work legally there, then you have something like a brain drain. The only difference is that the brains weren't there in the first place, so you won't notice much what you are losing [1].

Related: [1] That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen Frédéric Bastiat http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html

My comment was not suggesting you were in favor of child labour. It was merely enumerating a couple examples of labour regulations that, in general, society has been in favor of enforcing, just as some are in favor of enforcing certain immigration policies. I was asking which, if any, you were in favor of; I was asking because, unlike you, I was not bold enough to presume I knew where you stand.

I can tell this discussion is very personal to you but it doesn't help discourse to jump to such conclusions.

The staunchly libertarian stance ironically seems to have some of the same shortfalls as those holding the communist perspective that you railed against. Namely, they only seem to work well in theory rather than practice. There appears to be some pushback in countries where constituents feel they have too loose of an immigration policy. In those cases, many have not felt liberated by the influx of immigration like your comment predicted. So I was curious if you had a nuanced perspective on where the appropriate balance lies.

For those without a nuanced vantage point (to quote HL Mecken), "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." Unfortunately, it seems like there are people on both sides of the debate lacking that understanding.

Why should I as a member of local labour pool support globalizing my own competition? With globalized competition will come global wages, and I outright cannot survive living here on a global wage. 5-10/h doesn't cover food+shelter for me

You don't need to support it. What you don't have a right to do is to try to use the state to prohibit it. If you want to buy local, it's your prerogative, and there is nothing wrong with your choice. However, if your neighbor wants to buy from elsewhere, it's theirs as well, and this is valid for both buying bananas or engineer work.

Are you using "Your neighbour" as a way of saying "another member of your local labour pool"? It isn't obvious to me that there would be anybody rational in the local labour pool who would willingly argue in favour of reducing their earning potential through moving bargaining balance towards capital by globalizing labour competition.

I mean why should ANY worker want to make less and thus have lower standards of living. Just doesn't make much sense to me.

If they live in the United States they have a right to use the state to prohibit it. The First Amendment guarantees the right to petition the government for redress of grievances (whether real or perceived).

In the words of the Copley First Amendment Center, "People have the right to appeal to government in favor of or against policies that affect them or in which they feel strongly. This freedom includes the right to gather signatures in support of a cause and to lobby legislative bodies for or against legislation"

It might be lawful, but it isn't ethical. It's just legal plunder at its best.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_plunder

I'm assuming you mean the actions of the state are unethical and not the freedom of speech to petition the government

I agree with the above comment, people who are complaining against h1b driving wages down, should know that the companies that hire h1bs or any one else at lower salary in general are meant for profit right?. In a country based on capitalism, how could someone force the corporations to spend more than they need to?.

Having said that I strongly think that people usually exaggerate the effects of h1b on wages and employment for natives in general.