It's racist to prefer citizens over non-citizens though. The US government should pass laws benefiting all people of the world equally.

Governments exist to take care of their own citizens—that’s their main job. Citizens pay taxes, follow the laws, and contribute to the country, so it makes sense for a government to prioritize their needs. That’s not racist; it’s just how countries work.

If a government tried to treat everyone in the world the same, it wouldn’t be able to meet the needs of its own people. Things like healthcare, schools, and public services are paid for by citizens, so they have to come first.

Also, preferring citizens isn’t about race. Citizenship is something anyone can earn, no matter where they’re from. Calling it racist mixes up two very different things.

It's hard not to break the rules in replying to something like this.

> Governments exist to take care of their own citizens—that’s their main job. Citizens pay taxes, follow the laws, and contribute to the country, so it makes sense for a government to prioritize their needs. That’s not racist; it’s just how countries work.

Are you trying to tell us immigrants to the US do not pay taxes? They don't follow laws? And they don't contribute to the country?

Obviously, given the context, I am not trying to say immigrants don't pay taxes or follow the law. I am saying the the job of a government is to look after its own. If you have some better term for "its own people" go for it.

I'd also say, immigrants are only temporary non-citizens. If they are immigrating to stay, then it's the government's job to take care of them. Countries like the US and Australia were founded on immigrants.

If their loyalty is not to the country they are immigrating to, and is to their previous country's government, I am not sure why it would be a priority to support them.

I'm not being sarcastic this time. You seem to have missed the zeitgeist, especially among younger generations. For them, it's very much true that the government shouldn't look out for the interests of its citizens over the interests of people in general, and they do think it's racist if the government does this. It's impossible to explain to them the very simple game theory implications of such policy, and it's difficult to argue that the government isn't already doing it (in the United States, in other countries it's impossible to argue that).

>If their loyalty is not to the country they are immigrating to

This goes against human nature. Loyalty would come later, not before or even immediately.

It's nationalist, not racist. Passports and border controls are the practical foundation of all nationalism.

not sure if your comment was an attempt at sarcasm and I just missed it. In case it wasn't - it's not racist for country to look after its own economic interest or the interest of its own citizens.

Huh? There are US citizens of all sorts of ethnic/racial backgrounds.

Preferring US citizens over outsourcing is patriotic, not racist. It's also being a good corporate citizen - supporting the country/people you are gaining your profits from.

House sharing is a problem with the numbers of people that FAANG wants to employ in West Coast communities that aren't having it, not with their identities. When people making $300-500k can't have their own houses, the problem is not money.

If the H1B is paid $400k, is it really depressing salaries? It's more about having employees that are 10-15% better than the competition if you can, which makes you much more likely to beat them.

Yes, even at 400k it's still salary depression. The whole thing is, essentially, regulatory capture that is being used to do a sort of "arbitrage" over people. Big corporations in the West are cannibalizing society because governments are failing at defending the interests of the majority due to the lobbying power of a minority. Mind you I am not talking about an uprising or some bullshit like that, but, for example, the situation around medical service/insurance in the US is appalling.