So the immigrants end up with the same birth rate and then we have to bring in more immigrants. So there would have to be a constant source of excess people somewhere else for this to be sustainable. So it gets to a point where I wonder if this is really the plan.

I don't know if protectionism is the right word.

>the vehicle for change you seek is the legislature

I never argued the fee was legal for reference. And oop must've forgotten that Congress cared about my concerns, thanks for the tip!

That brings us to

    Americans are too dumb to get these jobs so we still need it: 

    Americans are not too dumb but we need H-1B anyway for reasons:

Oh yes, yeesh, my bad, this is for green cards only, there's some hilariously low bar for H-1B yet it still exists. But let's just go back to my point that H-1B is used to lower wages. You can just search for it unless you think it's a conspiracy theory. For all your frothing hostility, I noticed you didn't try to defend lowered wages. What are you defending here? Corporate profits? Some kind of moral issue? Do you have evidence H-1B was vitally necessary?

> incredibly niche and out-there theories

It's a scientific theory.

> support protectionism

I think that misses the point if you mean trade protectionism. I am saying H-1B (also EB-2 and other degree to green card pipelines) presents a danger of destabilizing society. I already think that's obviously the case.

But for me, a larger concern is elite overproduction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Turchin#Elite_overproduc...). We've basically massively expanded the number of highly credentialed people in the country and this might not be a good idea.

To many people, they believe there is a constant and persistent threat of Nazis and that it is the duty of enlightened government officials to continuously stage interventions to stop them. They think people are the problem so it is good to be totalitarian. It is kind of a type of paranoia it's just widely accepted as fact and it's a part of Western institutional ethos.

These are NGOs not parents. And "child safety" is often a euphemism. The point is it's hard to argue against child safety. For example, if opaque NGOs demand deanonymization to stop CSAM, I am assuming most people would not want to seem like they are in favor of CSAM. So you need an organized effort to argue in favor of privacy and even then anyone who does it can easily be smeared as a CSAM user. So child safety can backdoor something else.

As far as everything else, yes I think this is a global problem, not solely a Chinese problem but I would characterize US-Chinese relations as tense so that tends to amplify finger pointing which I disagree with so yes, we agree.

Another point is there is evidence[1] China has cheated and manipulated their data[2]. I don't like this "who are the good guys" game. Anyone playing this game is just looking to create a narrative about good and bad guys.

[1]: https://www.spglobal.com/energy/en/news-research/latest-news...

[2]: https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-chinas-new-carbon-metri...

The SFFA lawsuit targeted Harvard specifically and made the claim not that Affirmative Action was a problem but that secretive racial policies to help whites at the expense of Asians were. There wasn't any direct evidence of it and it's kind of laughable to think Harvard would do that. The SC didn't evaluate that claim and just struck down using race for admissions. But that doesn't mean you can't ask people to write a diversity essay about their race and grade them on that.

Harvard's present demographics[1]:

    Of students in the class who self-identified their race, 11.5 percent
    identified as African American or Black, 41 percent identified as Asian 
    American, 11 percent identified as Hispanic or Latino, and nearly 2 percent 
    identified as Native American, Native Hawaiian, or Pacific Islander.

[1]: https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2025/10/class-of-2029...

They do. See page 4. (https://electionlab.mit.edu/sites/default/files/2020-12/How-...)

The host could inject malicious JavaScript from the host or change libraries but I feel like this is an avoidable problem because it can be audited much more easily than expecting users to audit JavaScript every time. People could even build known, trusted, web frontends. So I think there are mitigations if not ways to assure the browser is running trusted code.

[1]: https://journals.library.columbia.edu/index.php/stlr/blog/vi...