Why is it that journalism has lost touch with the who, what, where, why, and when?
I ask that question in all seriousness because a H-1B and a H-4 visa is a non-immigrant visa guest worker visa.
Yet the Washington Post calls them immigrant visas as it actively works to destroy the future of our citizens in America.
All of these mainstream media reporters NEVER start the question where it needs to start which is, do we have enough jobs for our citizens when our companies are (a) sending jobs to other countries and (b) importing non-immigrant guest workers to take the remaining jobs.
Before we can start any conversation about immigration or non-immigrant guest worker visas, we must know the answers to those questions.
As you can see, we are barely above the high point we hit in 2007 before this recession even though the population has increased substantially during the ten years since 2007.
There has been a little increase in the number of employed, so who is getting those jobs.
Is it the Foreign Born Guest Workers?
They have gone from a high of around 23 million in 2007 to approximately 26 million in employment, so they have seen a gain of about 3 million jobs.
How did our American citizens fare?
At the high point in 2007 they were near 124 million employed, and they are currently at 126 million employed, so in ten years we saw the American citizen gain 2 million jobs.
That is less than 200,000 jobs per month for the last ten years which does not even keep up with our high school kids graduating and entering the workforce.
Yet the folks at the Washington Post who call themselves journalists do not tell you this news.
Do they not consider themselves American Citizens?
Do they not believe that they should have the back of the American Citizens?
All of this is reviewed in an article in yesterday’s Washington Post (or, as a reporter recently joked to me, the Amazon Post, alluding to the paper’s owner, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos), reporting that the ball is now in President Trump’s court: Trump could, for example, decline to defend against the suit, presumably giving the plaintiffs victory by default. (I say “presumably,” because I can envision the judge overturning the result).
Though the Post article is biased, there is some merit to the headline, “Obama gave these legal immigrants permission to work. Trump may take it away.” In terms of public perception of fairness, there is indeed something bully-like in revoking a privilege; many would have considered it fair if Obama had decided not to grant the H-1Bs work privileges, but revoking it would be considered unfair.
My position on the H-4 work issue has been that they should have the right to work, but they should be counted in the H-1B cap. Congressional intent in the H-1B statute was to limit the number of foreign workers in “specialty occupations” (basically those that normally require a bachelor’s degree or more), and since many of the H-4s are in STEM or other specialty occupations as is the woman profiled in the Post article, it makes sense to count them in the cap. (And, as usual, I must add that the H-4s, like their spouses, are mainly young, so the age discrimination issue that is core to H-1B applies here too.)
Again with a view of post facto fairness, the Trump administration could grandfather current H-4s.
On another point, while the Post is free to slant its news in whatever political direction it desires, and SHOULD do so, this passage is absolutely outrageous:
Miano is a fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies, a think tank which the Southern Poverty Law Center recently condemned as a “hate group” for churning out a “constant stream of fear-mongering misinformation” about immigrants.
SPLC began is an organization aiming to improve conditions for impoverished African-Americans in the South. But apparently at some point they noticed that they could increase their funding by branching out to promoting immigration. Fine, but it’s not fine for the Post to promote fake news. I’ve known the people at CIS for years, and they are certainly not a hate group in any sense. The Post, if it had any sense of ethical journalism, would check this out once and for all, and assuming they found the SPLC charge baseless, would stop writing about it.