This is a rebuttal of Paul Graham's essay "Let the 95% in", where PG argues to easing the immigration laws so that tech companies can get more programmers from outside the US. Tough I and also the author sympathesis with the conclusion, PG has got all the arguments wrong.
When I first read PG's essay I liked it and I was "yup, this guy is making sense" and now he doesn't. This tells me that I need to think more carefully about the things I read and thing which forms my opinion. And need to include more opposing sources of information in my reading. Its like when I first read PG many years ago I liked him and then I read a lot of him and I felt everything he writes is so true. Which is almost impossible for anyone? Well why do I think so? Okay, no meta thoughts for now.