HN loves to rail against the corrupt H1-B system, but apparently actually getting asylum seekers is amoral.
What would be more honest is to say “I don’t like cheap tech labor, so therefore clamping down on H1-Bs is good.” And “I don’t like the Trump administration and I want an open immigration system, so what Trump is doing to asylum seekers is bad.”
It’s all politics.
Also, claiming asylum because of local criminal elements (non-state actors) is an automatic no-go for an asylum claim.
(Note, Obama's DOJ fucked this one up by letting an immigration judge (unlawfully) grant an asylum claim because of local non-state criminal threats.) Hence, the flood gates opened and people began sending women and children first, rather than adults to sneak in and find work.
It is lengthening the process no matter how I or anyone "sees" it. It's comparative, I didn't give a value judgement.
It is all politics. Part of the current administration's campaign promises was to let in less immigrants. They now take political moves to do so, including lengthening the asylum process.
There are other reasons besides not liking cheap tech labor to not like H1-B visas. Because they are tied to employers, workers that hold them are easier to abuse, as they have few other options. Other people don't like that it is based on a lottery system, and so companies that request the most H1B visas will get the most H1B visas.
It is not dissonant to believe that H1B should be reduced or removed in its entirety but other visas and legal immigration avenues should be also be opened up.
Edit: arguing about the legality of the asylum seekers is also missing the point.
One of these means is lengthening the asylum-seeking process and requirements. Another is reducing the allowed number of successful asylum seekers through informal quotas.
The current administration has done both. They are intentionally gumming up the asylum system in order to make good on their campaign promises.
"It's the fault of invalid economic migrants" is a talking point.