🧵 The H1B argument contains within it a fundamental dispute that is not apparent yet very important, namely, that the de facto manner in which it is applied violates the compromises made to pass the legislation de jure. This applies to many matters *koff* Motor Voter *koff*
Laws represent the compromises made to pass the law. In the H1B case, the compromise was between those who wanted an easier way to hire foreign workers legally and those who were concerned about the effect on domestic work force.
In the context of H1B, the compromise was the requirement that the employer be required to attest that no US employees were available and that the H1B employee would be paid at least the prevailing wage in the industry.
The compromise was simple: employers would be permitted to hire highly skilled foreign workers so long as those workers were being paid the same (or more) than what US employees were being paid. The point was obvious - H1B was not to be used to undercut wages for US workers.
Well. We have seen how that has worked out. Once again, the perception, based on real life experiences, is that the side that wanted the benefit then turned around and immediately did everything possible to avoid the restrictions on that benefit.
As a result, those who are arguing for the benefit are faced with those who believe, again, with good cause, that those seeking the benefit will not abide by any restrictions to that benefit. The compromise will not be honored.
It is difficult to overstate how caustic this is to public debate and public acceptance of legislation. If you give us X, we will accept restriction Y is the basis of all compromise. When a party gets X on the basis of accepting Y, then immediately undermines Y, the deal is void.
Now, it may not be void de jure, but it absolutely void de facto. Public perception and public trust in that deal is destroyed. It is logical to then not trust any other deal.
Those now advocating X, who may have had nothing to do with the prior violations of Y, are sipping from a poisoned chalice. It is necessary that we have X! Yeah, that's what you said last time and you refused to abide by the agreement for Y, so screw you, liar.
When people believe, based on the bare minimum of human observations, that people will not abide by the terms of the compromise to which they agree, then the very concept of compromise is destroyed.
When that occurs, and that ship sailed and burnt all the bridges it passed decades ago, then the entire legislative process turns into attempts at maximalist gains. Why compromise? Why? It won't be honored.
And thus here we are. What is my solution? Well, since this involves people being peopley, I don't have one.
I do suggest that people stop and realize why it is people no longer think a position is being advanced in good faith. Have a red panda. /fin
I do suggest that people stop and realize why it is people no longer think a position is being advanced in good faith. Have a red panda. /fin
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
