Earlier quoted context omitted.
Dude, just … no. It's not about signaling or positive sentiments. All human beings are equal. Being born in one place doesn't make you special or entitles you to a job. US citizen or whatever-country citizen, all that matters is what you can do. Meritocracy, you know. If someone else can do the job better than you or me, they should be hired. Being born in the US or gender or anything else you can think about shouldn…
Only raw performance should matter, because anything else is discriminatory. There go the disabled, English learners, and all others with an initial disadvantage. Go Team Darwin!
However, I dispute that premise. You are jumping to conclusions. The "disabled and English learners" I have met offer tremendous value, in different axes.
Someone who is blind is used to processing audio at several time the speed a non blind person can. So if I need someone to summarize and extra data from audio, I want someone who's blind. Because they will be more efficient than you or I.
I don't know about you, but I assume you are not blind. If you want to sell me your services, I'll pay you a fraction of what I'll pay a blind contractor because they will be more efficient than you.
Someone for which English is not their first language often uses a lower number of words, and makes simpler sentences. This is a godsent for technical documentation.
I fear you inner bias make you consider that as "intial disadvantage". It is extremely short sighted.
Feel free to call me prejudiced when I prefer blind and ESL hires.