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.