What you and a lot of other people don't understand is that for many of us, H1B visas are the only viable path to a green card. US immigration policy is rather ridiculous in that respect in that it doesn't have a properly designed, dedicated skilled immigration track, the way e.g. Canada, Australia or New Zealand do. So in practice that role is subsumed by the "dual-intent" H1B, where you come into the country on that as a "temp worker", and then get your employer to sponsor you for a green card.

Thus, H1B has two kinds of people lumped together into it: the true temp workers, usually paid low wages, and kicked out as soon as their visa expires; and people who are trying to actually immigrate and using it as a stepping stone. In most other countries, the two pools are separated much earlier on.

As an H1-B from Russia, let me give you the answer:

Because I get paid waaaay more in US (even accounting for cost of living and cost of property). Because this is a more stable and prospering society with crime levels several times less. Because I can actually get into politics here on any level from local to national without risking my neck.

Basically, because the grass is greener on this side of the fence.

It doesn't. It assumes that there is a sufficient number of great programmers who don't want to live where they currently live, and for whom a country like US that is easy for them to move into and that would offer great career opportunities would be very attractive. That is certainly true for pretty much anyone from a third world shithole somewhere in Africa or Asia, and even for many from relatively well off middle class families in Eastern Europe or Latin America.

Now it's true that US is not the only one offering this deal. The main players in the market today are US, Canada and Australia. Of these, US is the hardest to immigrate to and has the most associated red tape and the least clarity; Canada is arguably the easiest. OTOH, US generally offers the best career prospects, and the highest quality of life in terms of how much to earn vs cost of living, so it's still the #1 destination for skilled immigration.

Why don't you let them decide where they want to stay and what they want to improve? They're not slaves, you know.

They can, and do. But when that happens, people start complaining about how those programmers working in India (and hence being paid proportionally to the cost of living there) undercut them. And they also pay their taxes in India, and spend that money there, thereby subsidizing Indian economy. So from your perspective, it's better that those same people are employed in US - where they have to contend with the cost of living here (and demand the appropriate wage), pay income and property taxes here, and spend their earned money here.

Unless, that is, you're one of the people who are complaining about the "curry stench".

Maybe Paul Graham should go and live (and capitalize) the part of the world with the 95% of the awesomest programmers and leave this (apparent) intellectual backwater he calls home. I mean, what's he doing slumming here if 15-20% of the great worldwide programmers are bouncing around China and another 15-20% are making magic in India. If he wants to leverage brainpower, he should go where the brains are.

Oh, and I hope he doesn't let the door hit him in the ass on the way out.

As for the "VARIANT PARAGRAPH COMMENT", apparently you were given several selections to choose from, including the following:

One can make an appeal to justice for persecuted cable companies:

Or maybe this is your style:

If you get SWATed by mistake, you won't even get a chance to "be calm" - the first thing you'll know is your door being broken in and a flashbang flying in. Go ahead, stay calm.

Don't forget that states themselves can initiate an amendment (through convention). Then you basically just need 3/4 of the states - first to submit the amendment, and then to ratify it.

Here's a fun fact: because of the disparity in state size and population, it's actually possible for the Constitution to be amended with less than 50% of electorate in favor, so long as they are all in smaller states (if you take the list of states and sort by population, you'll see that the top 1/4 adds up to more than 50%).

Exactly.

And any law enacted that restricts citizens' speech (whether it is directed against government, or other citizens, or something else entirely), is enacted by the government. By Congress, specifically.

And the Constitution specifically prohibits the government to enact such laws.

Seriously, you're arguing against the literal meaning of the amendment. Even ignoring the centuries of precedence on the subject (which convincingly say that you're wrong - have a look at Brandenburg v. Ohio), even just the text itself makes it blatantly clear: Congress shall make no law. Don't embarrass yourself.

In the fact that it happened in every other communist country to date that has underwent a similar process.

No, but I trust their government to be pragmatic. It's easier to rule over fed people than it is to rule over hungry people. And when there's a fresh new revenue stream, and not even crumbs from it get to the people, the latter get restless, and restlessness leads to riots. Any smart and successful dictator knows that. Judging by how long the Castros have been going, they're not deficient on both counts. So yes, they will share. Not much, perhaps, but even a little helps.

And it did help, of course. If everyone would embargo Cuba, it would be as much of a shithole as DPRK is. But it's not.

Even if 1% of that money gets to the people (and, pragmatically speaking, more of it will for sure), then they are going to be better off.

More importantly, if it prompts economic reforms along the lines of what most other communist countries did - the closest example here probably being Vietnam - the people are going to be vastly better off even if the authoritarian political system remains in place.

Either way, while we can only guess what will happen without sanctions, we know full well what happens with the sanctions: absolutely nothing. So what exactly is their purpose then?

Blame them for feeling that way, no (well, it depends on who they were before Castro; if it's one of Batista's cronies, or the members of the top ruling elite supporting him, I'd say they can suck it and go cry in a corner; I have no sympathy for people robbing others under gunpoint when they get robbed themselves in a similar fashion). But I will blame them for letting that emotion guide their political decisions, and especially for pushing the same onto others.

Oh, as for my comfy chair. I was born in a communist country. Don't try that "you rich American asshole can't understand" on me.