This reeks of "blame the foreigner", so let's bypass that one and consider another dynamic at play in IT right now - on-premise (e.g. maintaining Exchange Server on-site) vs. cloud (e.g. Office 365) and it comes down to the same thing - your skills are either needed at the price your charge for them or they are not because they can be provided cheaper another way.

As a former IBM, as in very recent, it's not blaming the foreigner, it's blaming the company. I got a job with IBM during the recession because IBM was leveraging the recession to give into American demands that jobs not be outsourced overseas (the jobs are actually in countries like India and Brazil, at the IBM location there). The thought was, "if you want one of these jobs so badly, you have to compete in pay for what we're paying overseas", and ended up relocating positions in big US cities to the midwest, and paying half of what they were before. So a $60,000 job was now paying $30,000 at IBM doing enterprise server administration, which takes skill and often certification.

Note that the position moved from the original location to the new location, not the original employee that was making the original salary. They were given a choice to relocate with their job, and take the lower pay, or willfully leave their job. So they had to quit, as opposed to being fired or laid off, which would come with benefits or at least put the responsibility on the company. This makes it entirely the employee's decision not to move themselves and/or their family across the country on short notice, resume their job with half the pay, and hope for the best. In a way, that makes me, the midwestern guy who got the job, the asshole. It wasn't the foreigners' fault, they were just the other choice. We had to compete with their low salary, which we were desperate for when no one had jobs.

Here's the deal with these midwest locations: IBM got free room and board in their building, which was renovated for them, and plenty of local fanfare to hype up their presence, for essentially free, as long as they hired so many locals, because they'd benefit the local economy. They hired upwards of 1,300 people, and as soon as the economy improved, all the skilled workers jumped off the life raft to better paying jobs. Once the exodus started, IBM opened up another midwest location with a similar deal. For some reason, they renewed their contract with the city I was in, but they went from 1,300 employees to about 600 after massive layoffs of any remaining workers. Because now that the economy is "better" and people are talking about unemployment, the jobs got shipped overseas anyways.

You are right that no one owes you a job. Employers are not beholden to employee certain people over others. However, there is a clear an undeniable exploitation of the H1B visa program, as well as leveraging overseas workforces to either eliminate American jobs, or force salaries to competitively lower levels "or else" the job will get shipped off. American workers are forced to give up their jobs, benefits, and any legal recourse because they make a "choice" not to move with their job to somewhere else where it will pay much less, and other American workers who take those jobs are cut loose shortly after anyway. This isn't an argument of entitlement or fairness, but it is pointing out absolute corruption in the corporate ecosystem that only hurts the American workforce, and to deny its effects is to accept it as normal and allowing it to continue.