“we” require exploitation/ segmentation to cover the burden of sizable migrations from poor countries to rich. 1/

but employment-based visas, which H-1B proponents characterize their program as being, bringing in necessary talent, are not controversial even without an exploitation surplus… 2/

because it’s pretty credible that this upscale population imposes little fiscal burden and places little downward pressure on native labor markets. 3/

H-1B is an unpersuasive mashup of upscale employment-based visa and downscale exploitation based visa. it’s sold as the former, but has effects like the latter, but without segmentation. 4/

it’s certainly conceivable that the public will come to demand we extract more of a surplus from employment-based visa holders, that upscale immigration will become unpopular on the theory good employment is scarce here and they compete. 5/

if that’s the case, we’ll have to have a conversation about how we want to extract a surplus from EB visa holders, perhaps some tax native workers don’t pay that funds popular benefits, for example. so far, though, H-1B is understandably a lower-hanging target for immigration restrictionists. /fin