2. That is not my claim at all, since you're dropping half of the claim.

I think we're done here.

We are all flawed. I think Steve Jobs was less flawed than most of his critics. Maybe less flawed than myself. The difference is we know everything he did wrong in his entirely life because it's so well documented.

Answer this question: what evidence would you accept to show that major American tech companies are using skilled immigration to drive down their labor costs as the expense of American citizens?

He had the privilege of giving away a fortune, to causes he cares about, largely thanks to Steve Jobs.

He's never worried about money and has millions in the bank and multiple houses, thanks to Steve Jobs.

Some people love their celebrity. I've met more than a few, including Wozniak. He seems to genuinely love it, which doesn't mean it doesn't also get tiring at times.

And yet it's basic human instinct to do what's possible to survive. I admit that I would have done the same and I wouldn't believe most people who would claim otherwise.

The number of opportunities is significantly reduced when companies have the easier and cheaper alternative of hiring non-Americans.

And those poor people that don't have the capability to become skilled workers can at least not be kicked while they're down.

There are more than 60 million college educated Americans. That's 50% more than the entire population of Canada.

It's a very big and well educated country, bud.

That is morally repugnant. He was a pancreatic cancer patient coping with his diagnoses the best he could manage. The fact that he was a "billionaire" has nothing to do with it. He was a human and all sentient life is sacred in my view.

You also do not actually know the facts of the case. He did not spread disinformation to anyone. He was intensely private during this entire period and very little information is known for a fact.

But by all means enjoy your mocking, judging, and condemnation of cancer patients. I'll continue to find it morally repugnant.

My take is that he was scared and acting out of fear. Hoping against hope that his bullshit alternatives would work because he was so terrified of having his body "opened" and "violated" by a major surgery. Maybe that fear sometimes masqueraded as arrogance but that's still just fear.

Like many others, you seem excited to be able to judge Steve Jobs on this point. To judge and laugh at him for his arrogance killing him. When in reality you're judging and laughing at a pancreatic cancer patient for procrastinating on their surgery out of fear.

What are you claiming? That immigrants do not actually remit significant percentage of their income? That all or most remitted money comes back to America? That short-term effects do not matter even if they're highly destructive?

You're claiming that I believe in a fixed pie which could not possibly be further from the truth. But I do believe that some pies are fixed, some of the time, in some places. Are you claiming the opposite? That pies are never fixed?

You're the one who isn't arguing in a rational way.

Is the argument you're making, which is ridiculous.

The success of an industry says nothing about how exploitative or unethical its practices are.

Poor Americans are also the most vulnerable to unskilled immigration making them even poorer than they already are.

It's not that complicated.

2. Those companies that hired 1 million skilled workers could have hired 1 million Americans, giving them much better jobs than they otherwise would get. What's the good argument for giving them to non-Americans instead?

Of course America is a land of immigrants. And of course immigration can be positive-sum.

That doesn't prove that it's always positive-sum.

It's easy to see many situations that are not positive sum. Huge amounts of unskilled immigration is, at least in the short-term, going to be extremely zero-sum because they will consume far more public resources than they pay for, depriving the existing users. This has played out many times.

In other words:

Too much skilled immigration takes good middle class jobs away from citizens that need them.

Too much unskilled immigration takes public resources and jobs away from citizens that need them.

Given those facts, the argument should be about how much is too much of any particular kind of immigration for any particular time and place.

Open borders might be net-positive but would very predictably devastate the lives of poor people in America. Not that most people who advocate it know anything about being poor.

Seems like I'm making the sound economic argument and you're just casting aspersions.

Their favorite trick (which you've adopted here) is to accuse people of being "racist" and "right wing" for objecting.

For the record, you would have to search long and hard to find someone more opposed to Trump and his minions than myself. Bernie Sanders has the same basic viewpoint I've expressed.

I have absolutely no hatred for anyone based on their origin or race.

I am completely in favor of allowing as many people into this country as we can sustainably absorb, and even a little more. At the same time, I strongly object to prioritizing the desire of major corporations to exploit cheaper labor at the expense of American citizens.

You're just hand-waiving away reality, which is a very non-programmer thing to do.

And neither will most people from any other country agree about their own country's success.