I don't like the logic or lack thereof in this article. There are lots of claims made on the backhand that never get followed up with any sort of quantification or citation.
Maybe this company hires for talent and not costs, but every place I've been hires for both, so to pretend costs aren't factored in seems to be an oversight.
My personal experience is that it is generally true that H-1B is used by companies to get the same level of expertise with reduced cost, and to me the issue still stands that for every immigrant that gets hired, an American is potentially out of job. The worst I saw this was at a genetics lab, and while we would fly people in from all over the country, we had a sizable percentage of H-1B's.
Perhaps there is some other math that I haven't seen that shows a H-1B worker ends up contributing to the local economy by a factor, but the primary offset I see with that is most of the time they are sending large portions of their money to their home country, because they may be able to get their wife here but the rest of the family is still OCONUS.
What it all boils down to is a disruption in the standard accepted economic model in this globalized world. Companies aren't forced to be "patriotic", and will seek to optimize profit (and if that means hiring better talent from elsewhere at a cheaper price, so be it). This outlook though, conflicts with what I understand of the history and purpose of corporations. In the days of the British East India company (on of the first "Company's"), the monarchy retained the right to revoke letters patent or royal charter, because the corporation was designed to profit the country and not just the corporation.
This idea seems to have been lost and we live in an age where neo-tech globalized fuedalism seems to be around the corner because it has been lost.