No, by itself it is not. One has to complete the sentence: intervention into what?
Actually, form economic perspective, it is the citizenship that constitutes barrier to mobility of labor. The visa program lowers that barrier.
Now, don't read to much into the preceding statement: it is merely a statement of fact and not of my position on this. The citizenship is a barrier for a reason, and should stay that way in principle; exceptions are handled by programs such as H1-B.
Intervention into the supply and demand ratio and therefore the market conditions surrounding the pay scale of certain professions.
Actually, form economic perspective, it is the citizenship that constitutes barrier to mobility of labor. The visa program lowers that barrier.
Citizenship has never been a barrier to mobility of labor. A company is always free to move it's operations to another country and hire whatever labor is desired. It is absolutely ludicrous to say that a company is forced to stay in this country and be bounded by the existing labor pool. If there is a shortage and the workers exist in another country - I say move your operations out of the US. Why does our government need to change this countries immigration laws to satisfy corporations X's labor issues.
Actually, form economic perspective, it is the citizenship that constitutes barrier to mobility of labor. The visa program lowers that barrier.
You are technically correct - citizenship is a barrier to mobility of labor. My response was addressing the underlying issue that this barrier raises. In my opinion this is a good barrier. If a corporation does not like the labor pool in this country or the labor pool does not meet it's needs then that company is free to move. Why should our government have to change it's immigration policies to satisfy corporation x's labor barriers. Labor barriers that are self induced due to the lack of desire to move out of the USA.