>If your concern is that the company is taking advantage of the paralegal environment to exploit these workers, you should be as against these ridiculous laws as me.
I am opposed to all immigration laws as a matter of principle. Immigration laws violate a fundamental democratic principle, which is that laws should affect those who have a say in making them. Laws made by insiders that only affect outsiders _and_ govern that exact same insider/outsider status have no democratic legitimacy whatsoever.
Immigration laws are also a severe distortion of markets. They are the worst form of protectionism because they protect the (relatively) rich against having to compete against the poor.
However, for me, markets are tools and just as every other tool they are imperfect. They don't replace goals or values, they are not equivalent to freedom, they represent but one particular freedom of many. Markets simply don't cover everything it means to be human.
If markets fail to achieve one of my goals, then I will look for other tools to fix that. One of my fundamental values is that poverty is wrong in a world that is capable of providing food, shelter, education and healthcare for everyone.
Markets don't fix that on their own, but in this particular case, more market would have helped those indian workers to protect themselves against a company that used immigration laws to exploit them.
(Another one of my convictions is that downvoting is a ridiculous way of having a debate)
