Rupert Murdoch doing the unthinkable: Promoting the Democratic Agenda

[angus]

Friedman argues that the H visa amounts to a subsidy, more or less, for businesses.  He makes a fairly convincing argument, although I disagree with many of his conclusions.  

This stuff crosses party lines.  Historically, the Left always objected to immigration, although in the last 20 years or so the Right has come to the point of being more vocal about it.  I'm not sure why, exactly.

Whatever assignment the categorizers want to give it, historically there has been an argument against the H visas.  I suppose that the job "creators" want the incentive of low-cost job "creation" and that may be why the right has recently begun to object.  

Murdoch's initial point, if you read the article, is mainly a vetch.  He seems to have fallen in love with Eric Cantor, and conflates Cantor's defeat with something broader.  We have had a number of threads regarding Cantor, and it is far from evident that the members of this forum collectively lament his loss.  Nevertheless, Murdoch's op-ed piece starts to evolve away from a shedding tears over Cantor and toward immigration reform in general.  He points out that Rand Paul is a supporter, which is striking, precisely because the mythological Tea Party--in whose existence so many forum members still believe--is purported to be responsible for both Cantor's demise and Paul's ascendancy.  

Mainly, Murdoch wants to remind the public of something we already knew but may have forgotten, which is that the public should get its head out of its collective ass.  We are a nation of immigrants and of entrepreneurs.  The current cap on H visas is arbitrary and inhibits rich Americans from getting richer white-collar, working-class foreigners from contributing to the aggregate GDP.  He makes a valid point, but it's not a point that no one has made before.  Many Republicans, and even a few Democrats, have been making this same point for years.  See, for example, the many David Brooks articles, both political and pragmatic.  Here, for example, is a recent example.  Putting aside his apparent belief in the magical mystery vehicle knows as the Tea Party, we must conclude that Brooks makes good points, just as Murdoch does.  Whether this is a "game changer" is anyone's guess.

[angus]

Surely you know that H-1Bs already don't have a cap... for academics.

I know that the US Immigration Services offices reports specific caps for H1B visas, although there are several thousand exceptions allowed for certain applicants.  "Advanced degree" is one of them.

Tell us more about the left opposing immigration...

The AFL and CIO both expressed opposition, both before and after their mergers.  Sometime, starting in the 80s they became more friendly.  Several unions in fact started courting immigrants because they knew it was an easy way to make membership grow.  Nevertheless, a number of writers on the left still make those same arguments.  See T.A. Frank of the New Republic, for example, or NYT journalist Bill Keller, who describes himself as a "flaming liberal."

Nowadays, the main argument from the left against immigration is that high levels of low-skill immigration are good for wealthy Americans and bad for poor Americans.  They claim that this is especially true for immigration of the illegal variety because it lowers wages and undermines union standards, but they make the argument that it is also true for skilled, semi-skilled, and unskilled legitimate immigrants as well.  The main argument from the right against immigration is similar, but it focus on the drain on resources and the social tensions.  

Among the well-educated cultural elites (both on the left and the right), I don't think there's much opposition to immigration.  After all, the illegal variety is a huge benefit in terms of childcare, household help, dinners out, and other staples of upper- and upper middle-class living.  And immigration of the legitimate variety provides ethnic diversity.  I enjoy having Indian and East Asian neighbors, and the public schools like the padding to their mean achievement test scores. 

They all make relevant points, but I still tend to think that a blanket amnesty is useful.  It clears the air and turns shadows into people.  It might end up costing the rich more for domestic help, but in the long-run, they become taxpaying, law-abiding residents if they're allowed to do so.  As for legit immigration, I haven't thought as much about caps, mostly because as jfern mentioned, the caps aren't as meaningful in the white-collar fields because of the exemptions.

Anyway, I voted perhaps.  I think there's enough opposition on the left and on the right and that I'm in a minority.  Whether Murdoch can change that is something I won't try to predict.