"skilled foreign workers are by far the most unfairly discriminated group of people"
I'm sorry, but I have to call bullshit on this. The State has an economic interest in maintaining high(er) levels of employment among citizens, because employed citizens stimulate the economy, while providing financing for public programs, and while not claiming benefits like unemployment. There's a net economic benefit (not to mention a foundational argument for the role of government) in protecting the employment of a country's own citizenry, so it's not like this is done capriciously.
(Also, fun time to point out: Many other countries have the same exact qualifications that protect jobs from citizens being outsourced to other countries. Including India, fittingly.)
Now, contrast that with the idea that a certain segment of the population is systemically disadvantaged based on race, income bracket, or gender. And for the minority of those disadvantaged who actually achieve qualifications that make them a great fit for a job, they still face discrimination in the form of hiring discrimination and wage discrimination. This is all done not based on merit, or as a matter of economic policy by a government, but rather: whether someone happened to be born a certain color or sex.
Really? There's really even a second of argument to be made about which of these scenarios is more insidious and unfair?
EDIT: Also, SERIOUS dog-whistle warning on use of the word "supposedly" to refer to discrimination against women and other minorities.
Your whole argument hinges on an assumption that national borders are somehow relevant in determining which workers are entitled to jobs. You could recast the same argument in terms of races, and it holds up equally well -- reserving jobs for whites protects the employments of a country's own citizenry, black people don't deserve the rights of citizens, women should stay home and not interfere in business, yadda yadda.
I'm sorry, but I have to call bullshit on this. The State has an economic interest in maintaining high(er) levels of employment among citizens, because employed citizens stimulate the economy, while providing financing for public programs, and while not claiming benefits like unemployment. There's a net economic benefit (not to mention a foundational argument for the role of government) in protecting the employment of a country's own citizenry, so it's not like this is done capriciously.
(Also, fun time to point out: Many other countries have the same exact qualifications that protect jobs from citizens being outsourced to other countries. Including India, fittingly.)
Now, contrast that with the idea that a certain segment of the population is systemically disadvantaged based on race, income bracket, or gender. And for the minority of those disadvantaged who actually achieve qualifications that make them a great fit for a job, they still face discrimination in the form of hiring discrimination and wage discrimination. This is all done not based on merit, or as a matter of economic policy by a government, but rather: whether someone happened to be born a certain color or sex.
Really? There's really even a second of argument to be made about which of these scenarios is more insidious and unfair?
EDIT: Also, SERIOUS dog-whistle warning on use of the word "supposedly" to refer to discrimination against women and other minorities.