A country may vet entrants according to any criteria it chooses, just like I may enforce any limits I wish unto who may enter my house. If the criteria are too egregious for the gain the applicants might get by being in that country, the talented immigrants who have options may go elsewhere and the country may need relax the criteria to recapture the market for bright minds.
> A country may vet entrants according to any criteria it chooses…
Sure. But said country may have set rules for itself, like the First Amendment, that limit what's permissible beyond what international law and sovereignty alone permit.
(To extend the house analogy, you may not actually be able to "enforce any limits I wish unto who may enter my house". It is, for example, generally unlawful for you to evict your minor child. If you rent out a room, that tenant has rights you can't violate, too. You can't keep out a cop with a valid warrant, either.)
I don't think anyone would argue with that - the problem here is that the requirements are being changed thru a process that involves no public or congressional input.
The other issue is that the vetting will likely not just look for terroristic or other 'illegal' social media content - it will look for whatever the administration decides to look for - again without oversight.
Meaningless. You are implying that unless someone is elected with 100% of votes, they do not represent the People?
> policies being put in place were not what was promised.
Again meaningless. Did Trump make promises specifically to not increase stringency of immigration law? He was elected to make decisions on behalf of the electorate.
> Which Americans do you mean specifically? And which abuse? That's not specific enough.
The Americans who elected the current President. Abuse by by companies and individuals defrauding American workers and taxpayers, while the government does nothing to combat it. The abuse by the government allowing millions of immigrants per year to the detriment of Americans (speaking of "not what was promised", the 1965 INA).
My point is that the majority of the country is against what Trump and his racist collaborators are doing. Personally, I think racism is bad.
> Abuse by by companies and individuals defrauding American workers and taxpayers, while the government does nothing to combat it
I don't think this is quite correct, but I do agree companies should not by able to abuse immigration law to abuse immigrants for cheap and/or pliant labor. Workers rights should be upheld universally and our country should invest in narrowing our insane wealth gap.
This is a silly comment. The legality isn't really in question. It's whether or not it's a good idea. And citizens of a country will debate whether it's a good idea or not. If we citizens decide it's a bad idea, we'll vote out the government currently in power.
Countries have that right, and people have the right to criticize them for their policies and agitate to change them. This is a concept known as “politics”.
If companies were looking for talent, 80% of H1B’s wouldn’t be from India, but from a much more diverse set of countries.
The fact is that India culture is much more so subservient, willing to work more for less pay, won’t unionize, don’t follow major US/Euro holidays, don’t care about work/life balance..etc. Like it or not, it’s nothing more than exploitation as cattle to increase bottom line and sold as increased output.
India is also very nepotistic and it might well be Indian managers already present in the US pushing for entry of their relatives, schoolmates and friends.
No no, your observation is that a large amount of (per your assessment) low-quality people are already being brought in.
This is completely unrelated to the question of whether the highest quality people are being brought in.
By analogy: "New York City doesn't have a lot of the greatest restaurants in the country because 90% of the restaurants in New York City are not that great."
It's just logically invalid.
And divorced from reality. There's a reason the top students in the world overwhelmingly come to study in the US (at least up until recently). The US's dominance on this and its downstream effects is absolutely unambiguous and it's frankly silly to suggest otherwise.
"We also have a lot of underqualified Indian H1Bs" is completely irrelevant.
