The only other comments I found were by union proponents, who celebrated the fact that with unions, it wouldn't matter if someone was an immigrant, or how many immigrants worked in the US, because unions would protect them and native citizens alike and equally[3]:
> I feel like rather than pitting immigrants against native born workers, and trying to come up with the perfect arcane rule, we should have sectoral bargaining where the workers could negotiate pay standards directly with their employers. Then it wouldn't matter where someone is from, because they'd be covered by that contract, and the government could get out of the way of the labor market.
To me, it seems like you're projecting anti-immigrant sentiments on people who are both pro-immigration and pro-union.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24704597
But you can win me over trivially. Take your union. Add a single immutable tenet: This union will always act to increase legal immigration in America. Now you have a union I will support. After all, if you're pro-immigration, this is merely a formalization of your position. It's a win-win.
I think you will find that most unions support immigration, and provide protections for immigrants.
For example, the largest union in the US, the AFL-CIO, is currently running a "Protect All Workers" campaign[1] specifically for immigrant protections:
> In recent weeks, the federal government took vital steps to address our national health emergency and mitigate its economic damage by passing a series of COVID-19 bills. Unfortunately, millions of immigrant workers who help to build, serve and feed our nation were excluded from the essential coverage and benefits in these bills.
> Congress is currently at work on a fourth COVID-19 bill, and it is vital this one addresses the needs of our nation’s immigrants. It should lift immigrant restrictions on emergency Medicaid testing and treatment, extend work permits for essential workers under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals and temporary protected status programs, provide cash payments and other vital benefits to all taxpayers, and halt immigration policies that elevate risk in our communities.
I highly doubt that any of the anti-immigrant posters in the H1B thread would agree with any of those benefits being given to immigrants of any status.
Though that might seem superficial and only skin deep, however the AFL-CIO has been promoting immigration reform for years[2].
Here's what they say about immigration on their site[3]:
> Since our nation’s founding, immigrants and refugees have enriched the fabric of our communities, our workforce and our labor movement. Like it was for generations of immigrants before, the labor movement is the natural home for new immigrants struggling to achieve economic security and win social justice, and our commitment to building an immigration system that represents the needs and interests of all working people is fierce and unwavering.
> The only way to stop the race to the bottom in wages and standards is for working people of all races, religions and immigration status to stand together and demand an end to policies that put profits over people. The entire workforce suffers when millions struggle to support their families without a way to speak up on the job, and ramping up fear in our workplaces only serves to increase exploitation. Instead of deporting immigrants, we need to ensure that all working people have rights on the job and are able to exercise them without fear of retaliation. Enacting meaningful immigration reform is critical to our long-term efforts to lift labor standards and empower workers, and the labor movement will continue to stand in solidarity with all working people.
> America's labor movement is never backing down, not an inch, on its commitment to full immigrant rights in this country.” -Tefere Gebre
> $900B: The amount in lost revenue over 10 years that mass deportation would cost the federal government.
[1] https://actionnetwork.org/letters/protect-all-workers-3
[2] https://aflcio.org/resolution/labor-movements-principles-com...
Given the anti H1-B sentiment often displayed in various places, should any of the foreign-born here trust that a software developer union would remain pro-immigration? I wouldn't; there's too much historical precedent.
Today, they feel this. When tomorrow they must cast us aside to win something more essential to them, will they stand strong? They didn't in the past. Why would they now?
Even 2 million strong they are subject to Stolper-Samuelson.
Those guys are waiting on the sidelines and they're stronger than you so when you make the weapon they will take it from you and they'll point it at me. You're no opponent to me, but I've got the Maginot Line and you're the Low Countries. So when I see the Wehrmacht prep the Sichelschnitt, I can either sink the Low Countries or I can extend the Line. And I'm all out of bricks.
And of course you don't see those comments. They rarely speak the truth which they think, but every now and then it glimmers through a crack¹.
Why do I say your argument relies on an abstract notion? Because you've not provided any evidence that any of the efforts to unionize in the U.S. tech industry- whether the Kickstarter union, or the TWC, or any other fledgling efforts to organize- constitute an actual threat to immigration. Sure, you've provided evidence that there are anti-immigrant voices in the industry, and that is definitely a cause for concern. That said, you haven't established any material link that the two distinct phenomena are connected. There's no evidence that anti-H-1B nativists are agitating for unionizing in tech. And no, the US Tech Workers Trojan horse [0] does not count. The only comment you cite is yourself making the case for them and one commentator agreeing with you. Hardly an entire Know-Nothing movement.
But tech is dominated by rampant xenophobia from the have-nots. They fear the Chinese, the Indians, the god-knows-who-else. This much is clear. While they are weak and disunited, their force is dissipated in online froth. If they are united, they can probably move mountains.
So, while the status quo is undesirable to me, I'm not all that keen on your providing a platform for xenophobes to unite. Preventing this egg from hatching is the optimal play.
Alternatively, you could adopt a measure of good faith: A founding immutable tenet of all these organizations can be that they will always act to increase the number of legal immigrants that can arrive in America. It's pretty easy to demonstrate that the bomb cannot work against me and all those millions who I count similar to me.
So show me.
I understand that there is an undercurrent of right-wing reaction in Silicon Valley. TechCrunch was breaking the news on neoreactionaries as early as in 2013, and recent political developments have only accelerated right-wing radicalism since then.
That said, by refusing to do something to advance worker power in the fear that it might be used by xenophobes seems like a fundamentally defeatist attitude to take, and rather ignorant of who's who. Xenophobes are not the ones pushing for tech workers to organize.
I'm asking for the equivalent of an ignition interlock device. It is not the world. It merely prevents subversion against the cause. Easy to do. Shuts down my line of argument entirely and honestly, I'll be fine with that.
It sort of reminds me of the Sierra Club in SF. I recall it being some sort of enviro org but now all they discuss is housing and all the outdoors guys are sad about it. I'm sure when your organization is parasitized and similarly subverted, you will feel sad too.
But not all the tears of your founding members will undo the harm done. No, better the bomb remain unbuilt².
¹ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24702393
² And I went to the Chase Bank near Avalon Street in San Francisco the other day. Avalon Street wasn't called Avalon, originally. The story of how it became Avalon, how another became Peru, and yet another became Excelsior provides a nice backstop to any weakening of my resolve. Unions are a Brazen Bull.