This particular group is controversial (also) because they are taking a position on controversial non-immigration issues, such as oil drilling and pipelines.
"Controversial" doesn't mean it's right or wrong. It means that many people have strong arguments and emotions both for and against.
It is a pernicious practice all around and only advantages the wealthy of the destination country, i.e., USA. It's destructive, poisoning, and exploitative all around for everyone else.
I know (personally) at least 100 other people like me.
GP didn't single out immigrants who come here on short-term visas, but even if he had, I came here on a short term visa, and so did every single one of the 100 people I referred to. It is true that many had to go back to their places of origin. In some cases they suffered because of it, although I'd argue their place of origin benefited. In some cases they started startups after returning, and both they and their place of origin benefited.
Evidence suggests otherwise (http://www.epi.org/publication/bp356-foreign-students-best-b...). Now, I'm not saying you can't find H-1Bs with high salaries or genius intellects. The study linked simply says it's not a majority of the people coming in. Most of them are decidedly not "best and brightest" and certainly aren't pulling six figures annually. That is, the program isn't being used for its stated purpose. Rather, it certainly seems that the goal is _not_ to find local talent, even if it's there (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCbFEgFajGU), because one wants to manipulate the meaning of "prevailing wage" and "qualified worker" to suit a lower labour cost margin.
As well, there are other economic indicators to consider. If there really is a widespread tech shortage you'd expect wages to rise. And you can see various market niches' wages spike at certain localized times of labor shortage. But you don't find high and increasing wages across the board, sustained for years at a time. That is, one of the key indicators of a crippling shortage, simply isn't there. The low unemployment rate in tech hubs like Silicon Valley is further perplexing in the face of a claim that the talent can't be found. When companies like Facebook whinge about having a hard time finding top talent, I get the feeling they're really just making an observation that finding people at the extreme of a bell curve is hard. Increasing the sample population doesn't make that search appreciably easier.
Mixed in with all of these observations, you'll typically find smaller details that make sense, even if they are latched onto bigger ideas that don't. A common objection is that of sending newly graduated foreigners back to their countries of origin rather than letting them stay here. I'd say it's a no-brainer they should be permitted to stay indefinitely. But that doesn't mean it's a no-brainer that we should rubber-stamp every single person with a tech background into an H-1B slot.
Anyway, who cares if there's a "shortage" or not? If you're going to contribute hundreds of thousands of dollars to GDP, come on in! We'll find something for you to do!
Is there something wrong with the methodology of the study? I have a great deal of disdain for libertarian front groups like the Heritage Foundation and CATO Institute, but I don't immediately dismiss any study they come out with by virtue of their Boards. Mistaking the presence of an agenda for deliberate scientific dishonesty seems excessive; that the data may align with or contradict one's bias doesn't invalidate it either way.
B) Heritage is staunchly conservative, NOT libertarian.
Apologies. I often find myself lumping them together. Granted, I see themselves lumping each other together as well when it's convenient, but that's beside the point.
>A) Your argument against H-1B's ... against expanding H-1B's ...
What argument against H-1Bs? I made the observation that the rhetoric of seeking out the "best and brightest" was largely unsubstantiated. I'm not against granting visas to highly skilled workers. I'd prefer we dispensed with the temporary, company-locked permission slips and proceeded directly to green card, or at least a long-term visa that didn't tie them to a sponsor and had a clear default path to citizenship should the bearer pursue it. My observation was that the "devil is in the details." Specifically the nature of what constitutes "skilled," particularly within the context of the rhetoric that drives the H-1B.
> ... but in favor of increasing the amount of low-skill immigrants and/or granting citizenship to illegal immigrants?
I don't have an issue with the presence of low-skill immigrants either and don't have a problem granting them visas. The rules behind work visas for "low-skill" labour are just as out of whack as they are for highly skilled labour. As for amnesty, I don't see much of a point in granting illegal immigrants automatic citizenship, primarily because a majority of illegal immigrants don't really want it. I'm sure they'd prefer not having to live in fear of ICE, but whether they wanted to be a citizen or not is another matter completely.
Though of course, comparing highly skilled labour with low-skill labour isn't an apples to apples comparison. Migrant labour isn't so much an immigration issue as it is an international economics issue. Which leads into what you're really asking me:
> how do you reconcile your seemingly-contradictory stances?
The real question you seem to have for me is far broader than "should we let highly skilled foreigners into our country if we cannot find a suitable native citizen to take the role?" Your question is one of what the role of immigrants are in a country. Under what basis are we to let people in? What does it mean to be a citizen and not just a tourist? Better yet, what is the motivation of someone who wants to immigrate? Why are they uprooting themselves?
US politics is pretty cynical, but not quite cynical enough to blatantly play both sides like this.
Can someone explain to me why otherwise intelligent people are so deliberately ignorant on this issue? Rich bastards want to screw ordinary people. That's it. That is all you need to know. It's dead simple. It's freshmen economics. More workers=lower wages. This has been going on for centuries.
Why the need for these three dimensional Vulcan chess tactics if that's the goal?
My guess is because labor unions and the Democrats (generally) don't want to expand visas for skilled workers without "comprehensive" legalization. But I am definitely biased so I would not at all mind an alternative explanation.