If you think business should be prohibited by law from hiring "furriners", however, you are wrong.
This is -- or was -- a free country, one where free exchanges -- labor or goods -- are not within the purview of federal authorities.
The federal government has no business either promoting or restricting certain transactions, regardless as to their alleged benefit to the economy or detriment to "national security."
You like the rest of the free traders want it both ways. It's ok for the government to help corporations find cheap labor but when it comes American citizens they need to butt out. This is no longer the GOP of Lincoln, McKinley and Coolidge, who saw unrestricted free trade for what it was.
I take it that you are opposed to government-provided inexpensive overseas "risk" insurance, for example.
The problem is, there seems to be no serious efforts to end the influence of "furriners" (your word) in Washington.
I remember Bill Gertz on KSFO (San Francisco, Lee Rodgers and Melanie Morgan) stating that China requires some American corporations to fund lobbying staffs in Washington to do the bidding of China's "free trade" goals.
Another example, US India Political Action Committee (USINPAC) urges the 143 members of the Congressional Caucus on India and Indian Americans to be concerned with such things as state governments banning IT outsourcing to offshore companies in India and help promote India's role on the global stage.
Ostensibly USINPAC and the Congressional Caucus on India and Indian American are concerned with "Indian-Americans" -- I wonder and have no answer how sending jobs to India and upping the number of H1B visas help "Indian-Americans."
The point: What brought on your ridicule (i.e., the word "furriners")? We have good reasons for being concerned. It's not just about "cheap labor" for many of us. It's also about sovereignty IMO.