We tacitly approve of inhumane working conditions when we allow countries with no human rights or workplace safety standards to compete on a level playing field with us.

No, we don't. When American companies were caught using near-slave labor consumers revolted, causing widespread changes in manufacturing policies for a great number of corporations.

In fact, nowadays many manufacturers go out of their way to advertise their workers' working conditions and wages in an effort to demonstrate their social responsibility. Why? Because consumers demand it.

And then there are the Wal-Marts of the world, who do not do as above, because there are also consumers who do tacitly approve of inhumane working conditions.

The free market seems to be taking care of this problem - I don't see regulation needed here. Not to mention the fact that many of these "inhumane" conditions are actually pretty par for the course as far as those regions go.

My own mother worked as a child laborer in a textiles mill when she was still in primary school. The extra income allowed her desperately poor family to move into the city, find jobs, and get educations. I doubt I would be typing on this computer if it were not for the opportunities presented by what the Western world would have, at the time, seen as atrocious workplace safety standards and an abuse of labor. Modernization is a long and arduous process that can be sped up with the right pressure, but preventing these countries from competing is simply condemning them to continual and perpetual poverty.

If your position is that we should allow child labor in textile mills, and my position is that we should enact trade penalties on other countries that allow child labor, there's no useful discussion for us to have. So, duly noted.

The slippery slope is an easier thing to address; the comment that "Microsoft is not a public work" basically refutes all labor, trade, and immigration regulation. It's not a betrayal of the GOP to suggest that Microsoft might comply with the rules we already have.

Child labor is but one of many issues. My point is that there is a progression to modernizing a country, and that certain evils need to be tolerated while progress is being made. Do I agree with child labor? No. But I do believe that, in certain contexts, it is unavoidable and needs to be accepted temporarily, for the alternatives are certainly worse (e.g. condemning a large segment of the population to perpetual poverty).

Expecting a 3rd-world country to act like a 1st-world one, when it clearly isn't, does not work. In the same way that the US often forces American-style democracy upon other countries without going through the requisite social changes beforehand, so do Western nations force first-world labor standards on countries that are simply not ready.

What we, as modernized nations, should be doing is not unfairly punishing these countries, but rather establishing a roadmap to eliminate these evils through economic development. This may take years and decades, but at least in my birth nation child labor and sweatshops are all but eliminated, with the help of the US government no less. To try and play it black and white is foolish and solves nothing.

Here's a good Paul Krugman column that addresses this:

http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/smokey.html

Also, you should take into consideration whether the US as a country should be in the business of telling other countries what to do.

In the context of Microsoft, isn't this basically an argument for allowing the US to backslide on labor policy? We're talking about jobs that are already fulfilled by our domestic work force, at one of the world's most profitable corporations.

Living abroad as I do, with lots of Italian friends, I can't help but take the side of the guys who want a shot at living and working in the US. I am in favor of helping out US workers with things like more or less universal health care and unemployment insurance, but also in favor of letting in immigrants who are capable of taking care of themselves: if you're in the US working, more power to you. If you're mooching, maybe it's time to move along.

Just to get my wife (not some random person) and mother of my daughter into the country is a 3 or 4 month process. She has a doctorate in biochemistry and speaks English well. To add insult to injury, she'll apparently have to go through a doctor's examination before she can get a green card, should we decide to go to the US.

The US has some serious issues with regards to immigrants, which is especially ironic for a country where a very minimal percentage of the people are really people who have been there for hundreds of years, let alone before 1492.

Furthermore, the US has some weird import policies - we can't send prosciutto to my parents because of some BS health regulations (as if Italy didn't care deeply about the quality of its food products).

Yes, there are practical issues: Luxembourg couldn't open up its borders to India and China, for instance, without some serious issues, but on the whole, I have to come down in favor of openness and opportunities for foreigners. Part of that might means some practical measures like loosening the restrictions on H1B workers so they are better able to seek market rates once they've arrived. Another thing I strongly believe is that if you opened things up between "wealthy" nations: US, Canada, Europe, Australia, NZ, etc... there wouldn't be any huge population shifts.

... Wow... it's easy to write lots when the rant is strong within :-)

US import restrictions on food are notoriously brain-dead. They're even bad inside the company; for instance, it's difficult to ship raw milk cheese. But that's neither here nor there.

I'm married to someone who moved to Switzerland for work, and my understanding is, the US is not alone in the world for onerous immigration and work visa policies.

> US is not alone in the world for onerous immigration and work visa policies.

That's correct - basically everyone treats their immigrants like shit. I was in Italy more or less illegally until I got married, although it must be said that they do respect the institution of marriage more than in the US: once you're married, you can stay, no questions asked.

The US gives you citizenship if you marry a citizen as well. All we do is investigate a little to make sure the marriage is real.

No, the US does a lot more than just investigate, and does not give you citizenship just for marrying someone (few places do that - most give you the right to live in the same place as your spouse, though). Going through the whole process involves something like 2 or 3 trips to whatever town has the US consulate you need to go to (a 5 hour trip for me), and in the end, and involves a lot of fees, and requires things like doctor visits, which is kind of degrading.

Bureaucracy in the US isn't all that bad for many things, but from the point of view of a potential immigrant, it can be pretty ugly. Anyone remember when they were stringing along Linus Torvalds and people raised a fuss about it?

My point is that there is no slippery slope. There is a very clear dividing line: forced labor and slavery. H1B's are on one side of that line, women trapped in caged compounds are on the other.