The next US president won’t be great for H-1B visas(qz.com)
qz.com
The next US president won’t be great for H-1B visas
https://qz.com/india/1914167/us-election-2020-donald-trump-joe-bidens-h-1b-visa-plans
92 comments
I have a startup, 4 in US, 10 in India - top tier engineers.
I just hired my first H1B - while we pay well - bidding and salary escrow will just favor the big 5 - they are starving startups of talent in bay area any way.
Investors want me to get traction with $2M, our needed engineers are at $600-$800k comp (300 base) how do I make it work?
Regulation has unintended consequences. As an example trying to save retails investors from fraud means IPOs are fewer and large investors get all the growth.
Not to make this political, but highly educated and highly paid “employees” voting for “career politicians” and “bureaucrats” seriously overestimate their understanding of issues and competence. They are missing data points and should lean to minimum regulation.
Recent changes asking H1 to be paid >40th percentile of salary instead of 17th percentile seems sensible and enough.
Regulation has unintended consequences. As an example trying to save retails investors from fraud means IPOs are fewer and large investors get all the growth.
Not to make this political, but highly educated and highly paid “employees” voting for “career politicians” and “bureaucrats” seriously overestimate their understanding of issues and competence. They are missing data points and should lean to minimum regulation.
Recent changes asking H1 to be paid >40th percentile of salary instead of 17th percentile seems sensible and enough.
> Investors want me to get traction with $2M, our needed engineers are at $600-$800k comp (300 base) how do I make it work?
Are you admitting that you want to hire H1B in order to find cheaper people?
If you can't find any local people to employ, then either you put your hand in your pocket to afford international or you can't afford to do business and your business model is broken.
Are you admitting that you want to hire H1B in order to find cheaper people?
If you can't find any local people to employ, then either you put your hand in your pocket to afford international or you can't afford to do business and your business model is broken.
No, I’m saying that the parent comment suggesting bidding is not a good idea.
I’m hiring an H1B since that person has the right skills, and I’m hiring Americans as well (who might take lower salary and stock options initially). Putting something like auction for H1B means another competitive advantage to big tech over me.
>> Business model is broken
For startups, yes you’re working with constraints that seem impossible - you should encourage people to do hard things and build businesses, not give up - this is still US.
And yes I hired 10 engineers in India, and they’re paying taxes there. I’d rather hire them here and have them pay taxes here. In next few years, the founding engineers will start their own startups in India and not here, I want them to do startups here.
We’re screwing up by reducing supply of engineers, reducing supply of housing in US, and starving startup ecosystem.
I’m hiring an H1B since that person has the right skills, and I’m hiring Americans as well (who might take lower salary and stock options initially). Putting something like auction for H1B means another competitive advantage to big tech over me.
>> Business model is broken
For startups, yes you’re working with constraints that seem impossible - you should encourage people to do hard things and build businesses, not give up - this is still US.
And yes I hired 10 engineers in India, and they’re paying taxes there. I’d rather hire them here and have them pay taxes here. In next few years, the founding engineers will start their own startups in India and not here, I want them to do startups here.
We’re screwing up by reducing supply of engineers, reducing supply of housing in US, and starving startup ecosystem.
Aren't all startup business models "broken" (unprofitable) in the early stages? That's why they require so much investor money to grow to the point of profit.
If you can't run your business legally then you shouldn't run it.
We could make the same arguments to argue for startups not having to follow health and safety law because it makes it harder to be profitable.
We could make the same arguments to argue for startups not having to follow health and safety law because it makes it harder to be profitable.
Have you run a business before?
I don't know what point this question is trying to make?
Are you asking me if I know how hard it is to run a business while following the law? I'm sure it is. Do you think that absolves you from following it?
Are you asking me if I know how hard it is to run a business while following the law? I'm sure it is. Do you think that absolves you from following it?
You’re talking as if laws were sent by god, we made laws to serve us, not the other way around. We should change them to be sensible.
Also, if all businesses were required to be profitable from day 1, you’d have none. You spend on R&D to build a product, then sell it, then make money.
You know nothing jon snow
Also, if all businesses were required to be profitable from day 1, you’d have none. You spend on R&D to build a product, then sell it, then make money.
You know nothing jon snow
> We should change them to be sensible.
You’re not asking to change it - you’re asking to completely misappropriate it to undermine local labour prices, when its intention as created by the people is to bring in specialists that can’t be found in the US.
You’re not asking to change it - you’re asking to completely misappropriate it to undermine local labour prices, when its intention as created by the people is to bring in specialists that can’t be found in the US.
There's nothing wrong with tapping in on a cheaper labor, and that has nothing to do with "business model being broken". Ambitious ideas need a lot of money, you take investment, depending on your finances, you contract some work abroad. A lot of startups made it work, eventually they brought people on H1B, but don't mix up their initial stage with later stage.
Business model doesn't have to work initially. Facebook didn't have one for a long time.
Business model doesn't have to work initially. Facebook didn't have one for a long time.
I like some of your points, and H1B desperately needs a revamp. However, a direct unadjusted salary based auction is a non-starter for the following reasons:
- Non tech professions also hire people on H1Bs and don't pay as well as FAANG-likes do.
- Wages are generally lower in non bay area locations. Employers in low COL areas might lose out to those in high COL areas.
> Employees who voluntarily quit or are terminated are free to take any other job paying at least what the sponsor's job paid, provided they do so within 3 months.
3 months is generally not enough time to find a new job, finish immigration transfer formalities. This small duration to find a new job also leads to a lot of scams to maintain status.
- Non tech professions also hire people on H1Bs and don't pay as well as FAANG-likes do.
- Wages are generally lower in non bay area locations. Employers in low COL areas might lose out to those in high COL areas.
> Employees who voluntarily quit or are terminated are free to take any other job paying at least what the sponsor's job paid, provided they do so within 3 months.
3 months is generally not enough time to find a new job, finish immigration transfer formalities. This small duration to find a new job also leads to a lot of scams to maintain status.
> Wages are generally lower in non bay area locations. Employers in low COL areas might lose out to those in high COL areas.
Maybe it's time to start valuing employees on the value they add instead of some arbitrary rent price! The talent is global after all.
Maybe it's time to start valuing employees on the value they add instead of some arbitrary rent price! The talent is global after all.
That would increase the cost of business because it encourages people to move away from big cities and big companies no longer get to have a concentrated fishbowl of talents. They need to open more offices, or use more remote workers.
I personally like that world; but I doubt the companies would. They’d rather just pay more salary to balance out the high rents, so people keep swarming to its location.
I personally like that world; but I doubt the companies would. They’d rather just pay more salary to balance out the high rents, so people keep swarming to its location.
> I like some of your points, and H1B desperately needs a revamp. However, a direct unadjusted salary based auction is a non-starter for the following reasons: <snip>
In both cases, the obvious response is that they need to pony up, lose out, or find a way forward that's not an H1B. This strikes me as an intended result of this approach, not some accidental side-effect.
In both cases, the obvious response is that they need to pony up, lose out, or find a way forward that's not an H1B. This strikes me as an intended result of this approach, not some accidental side-effect.
> Wages are generally lower in non bay area locations. Employers in low COL areas might lose out to those in high COL areas.
Well what is the goal of immigration? Having more immigrants in high COL areas would maximize taxes paid by immigrants, which seems like one reasonable goal.
Well what is the goal of immigration? Having more immigrants in high COL areas would maximize taxes paid by immigrants, which seems like one reasonable goal.
There's a lot of this that I like, but wouldn't the auction just create a single market rate for H1-B employees that's independent of the market rate for the position they're filling? The clause where the employer has to pay the govt the remaining salary if the employee leaves early sounds like it's designed to encourage employers to pay more to discourage that, but I'm not sure what incentive other employers would have to pay more than the H1-B market rate to hire H1-B visa holders who are already here when they could pay the market rate to hire a new visa holder.
So only visa for FAANG and finance? Who is going to work outside of New York and Silicon Valley? Who is going to work at the universities?
If you have an auction based distribution all that will happen is faang and other big cos will get all their h1b offers filled (something like 2/3rds are denied now bc they lose the lottery). This won’t affect the salaries at all bc they already pay much more than everyone else there. Nurses, university staff and yes some bodyshops will be shit outta luck. American new grads will find it even harder to land a job at faang and will have to settle for startups and smaller shops instead. Not sure if that’s really what we want...
So perhaps I own a factory or two in the Republic of Elsewhere. I think it prudent to get one of my kids over to the USA. I call up a tech company in the US and make the following offer: you hire my kid, I'll pay the salary and enough over that to hire somebody to do that job, and a generous sweetener above that.
In practice, I suppose somebody with that kind of money has other options. Still the proposal seems open to abuse.
In practice, I suppose somebody with that kind of money has other options. Still the proposal seems open to abuse.
I really like this plan. Perhaps the salary could go into escrow up front, to make the hook set harder on employers?
Having to provide even a single year of salary up-front (or the 36 month commitment that the parent comment suggested) would be prohibitive to all but the large companies.
This is brilliant.
> Auction, auction, auction
This is how labor was brought in from Africa not too long ago. I agree a market solution is probably the least unfair one. But, as a country, America should not make the same past, historical mistakes.
This is how labor was brought in from Africa not too long ago. I agree a market solution is probably the least unfair one. But, as a country, America should not make the same past, historical mistakes.
A someone who benefited from the H1-B program I’m 100% behind the idea of adding higher wages requirements.
I went to Carnegie Mellon and met some of the smartest people there and it crushed my heart seeing some super talented people lose on the lottery several times and be forced to go back home when they already had an employer in the US paying them 100k+ and willing to go great lengths to keep them.
I was lucky enough to get a visa in my first lottery draw, but that was the only reason I got to do what others couldn’t. Luck.
They lost against those consulting companies that exploited the program with impunity for years.
So the QZ article author here is wrong. Whoever is the next US president, this is the best thing that could have happened to the H1-B program.
I went to Carnegie Mellon and met some of the smartest people there and it crushed my heart seeing some super talented people lose on the lottery several times and be forced to go back home when they already had an employer in the US paying them 100k+ and willing to go great lengths to keep them.
I was lucky enough to get a visa in my first lottery draw, but that was the only reason I got to do what others couldn’t. Luck.
They lost against those consulting companies that exploited the program with impunity for years.
So the QZ article author here is wrong. Whoever is the next US president, this is the best thing that could have happened to the H1-B program.
I’ve never understood why H1-B applications weren’t sorted by compensation (salary): higher salaries go first. Seems like a trivial way to prevent visa farming.
H1-B applications are not only for tech jobs, and not only for the bay area. There are many other professions which are subject to the same cap, and also have to look outside of the US to fill roles. Nurses are one that come to mind. If all H1-Bs are just sorted by comp, you'll end up with FAANG getting 80k H1-Bs per year.
You may want to argue that "well then other companies don't deserve them if they can't compete with FAANG", or "then companies should pay SF wages everywhere" (which I sorta-agree with), or "then other industries should pay more!".
They may be valid points, but it is unreasonable to expect that another industry can compete salary-wise against FAANG at the moment, and it doesn't make their inability to find candidates locally any less true.
Regarding preventing visa farming, an easier solution (in my opinion) is to improve the flexibility for an H1B worker; allow them to work for any employer for the term of their status.
If an employer used an H1B in order to hire a foreign worker and then under pay them, the worker would just get another job that pays market rate, without the work status concern. Without the artificial control over the employee, H1B harvesting wouldn't be worth it.
You may want to argue that "well then other companies don't deserve them if they can't compete with FAANG", or "then companies should pay SF wages everywhere" (which I sorta-agree with), or "then other industries should pay more!".
They may be valid points, but it is unreasonable to expect that another industry can compete salary-wise against FAANG at the moment, and it doesn't make their inability to find candidates locally any less true.
Regarding preventing visa farming, an easier solution (in my opinion) is to improve the flexibility for an H1B worker; allow them to work for any employer for the term of their status.
If an employer used an H1B in order to hire a foreign worker and then under pay them, the worker would just get another job that pays market rate, without the work status concern. Without the artificial control over the employee, H1B harvesting wouldn't be worth it.
> They may be valid points, but it is unreasonable to expect that another industry can compete salary-wise against FAANG at the moment, and it doesn't make their inability to find candidates locally any less true.
Even if they stopped doing stock buy-backs?
Even if they stopped doing stock buy-backs?
Which industries (non-tech) do you think are doing so many stock buy-backs that if they stopped, they would be paying FAANG level salaries to other H1-B qualifying professions?
And if they stopped doing buybacks, what makes anyone think that money would go to employee expenses rather than other forms of shareholder returns?
> I’ve never understood why H1-B applications weren’t sorted by compensation (salary)
Because further narrowing the firms that benefit would have the effect of narrowing political support for the industrial subsidy represented by the H-1B, so the longer-term interests of those who would have a short-term benefit by such a narrowing are served by sacrificing that benefit to shore up support for the benefit they derive even with the visas less concentrated in their hands.
Because further narrowing the firms that benefit would have the effect of narrowing political support for the industrial subsidy represented by the H-1B, so the longer-term interests of those who would have a short-term benefit by such a narrowing are served by sacrificing that benefit to shore up support for the benefit they derive even with the visas less concentrated in their hands.
Won't that unfairly benefit big companies?
Nothing unfair about that; salary is a very direct measure of demand for specific skills
> salary is a very direct measure of demand for specific skills
Only economic demand. Not demand in the more common meaning as need.
See the other comment about H-1Bs being for nurses too.
They aren't going to be offered FAANG salaries but that doesn't mean the country doesn't need nurses.
It means there isn't enough money in the part of the system that pays for nurses to compete with FAANG salaries to get them (and all the consequences of that, such as having to pay all other nurses FAANG salaries as well).
If you followed the chain I guess you could argue that the economic demand for advertising is higher than economic demand for healthcare, like it or not. But that would be a really screwed up way of assessing the best way to assign H-1B visas for the benefit of the country.
Only economic demand. Not demand in the more common meaning as need.
See the other comment about H-1Bs being for nurses too.
They aren't going to be offered FAANG salaries but that doesn't mean the country doesn't need nurses.
It means there isn't enough money in the part of the system that pays for nurses to compete with FAANG salaries to get them (and all the consequences of that, such as having to pay all other nurses FAANG salaries as well).
If you followed the chain I guess you could argue that the economic demand for advertising is higher than economic demand for healthcare, like it or not. But that would be a really screwed up way of assessing the best way to assign H-1B visas for the benefit of the country.
Somehow the government doesn't want to fund landowners in California. You'd bet that take-home pay for the same work after taxes and rent is higher in Dallas than in San Jose. I think Facebook is demonstrating this like now.
> You'd bet that take-home pay for the same work after taxes and rent is higher in Dallas than in San Jose. I think Facebook is demonstrating this like now.
It's not, though. Median rent in Mountain View (significantly pricier than San Jose) is now $2390/month [1]. L4 total comp at Google, or E4 salaries at Facebook, is about $260K/year [2]. Average rent for a 1BR in Dallas is $1250/month [3]. Average total comp for a software engineer in Dallas is $110K/year. [4]
After taxes and rent, the Facebook/Google L4 is making $260K * (1 - 0.37 [5]) - 2390 * 12 = $135920/year. The Dallas SWE is making $110K * (1 - 0.16 [6]) - 1250 * 12 = $68939/year. Even with the $4K/month rents from 2019, the Facebook engineer is still putting away $116K/year, more than the total gross of the Dallas engineer.
People tend to underestimate the effect of the top-line on finances and savings. Eric Schmidt had a saying: "More revenue solves all known problems". It applies as much to households as to giant companies.
[1] https://www.zumper.com/rent-research/mountain-view-ca
[2] https://www.levels.fyi/#
[3] https://www.zumper.com/rent-research/dallas-tx
[4] https://www.indeed.com/career/software-engineer/salaries/Dal...
[5] https://smartasset.com/taxes/california-tax-calculator#vyY8q...
[6] https://smartasset.com/taxes/texas-tax-calculator#s0LEbwxtAs
It's not, though. Median rent in Mountain View (significantly pricier than San Jose) is now $2390/month [1]. L4 total comp at Google, or E4 salaries at Facebook, is about $260K/year [2]. Average rent for a 1BR in Dallas is $1250/month [3]. Average total comp for a software engineer in Dallas is $110K/year. [4]
After taxes and rent, the Facebook/Google L4 is making $260K * (1 - 0.37 [5]) - 2390 * 12 = $135920/year. The Dallas SWE is making $110K * (1 - 0.16 [6]) - 1250 * 12 = $68939/year. Even with the $4K/month rents from 2019, the Facebook engineer is still putting away $116K/year, more than the total gross of the Dallas engineer.
People tend to underestimate the effect of the top-line on finances and savings. Eric Schmidt had a saying: "More revenue solves all known problems". It applies as much to households as to giant companies.
[1] https://www.zumper.com/rent-research/mountain-view-ca
[2] https://www.levels.fyi/#
[3] https://www.zumper.com/rent-research/dallas-tx
[4] https://www.indeed.com/career/software-engineer/salaries/Dal...
[5] https://smartasset.com/taxes/california-tax-calculator#vyY8q...
[6] https://smartasset.com/taxes/texas-tax-calculator#s0LEbwxtAs
>> L4 total comp at Google, or E4 salaries at Facebook, is about $260K/year ... Average total comp for a software engineer in Dallas is $110K/year
You're using average (median I hope) salary for Dallas vs. high end salaries for San Jose.
You used indeed.com for the Dallas salaries, if you use them for San Jose you get an average of 150K. Too lazy to run the numbers but obviously that would change the calculation quite a bit.
You're using average (median I hope) salary for Dallas vs. high end salaries for San Jose.
You used indeed.com for the Dallas salaries, if you use them for San Jose you get an average of 150K. Too lazy to run the numbers but obviously that would change the calculation quite a bit.
The comment I'm replying to specifically mentioned Facebook, hence I'm using (low-end) Facebook salaries.
The comment mentioned Facebook but that doesn't mean you should compare Facebook salaries in San Jose to non-Facebook salaries in Dallas.
Compare Facebook salaries in San Jose to Facebook salaries in Dallas, that would be a fair comparison. Compare median salaries in San Jose to median salaries in Dallas, that would be a fair comparison.
Compare Facebook salaries in San Jose to median salaries in Dallas, that is not a fair comparison and you know that, you are wasting my time by making me type it out for you, you know full well that that is not a fair comparison.
Compare Facebook salaries in San Jose to Facebook salaries in Dallas, that would be a fair comparison. Compare median salaries in San Jose to median salaries in Dallas, that would be a fair comparison.
Compare Facebook salaries in San Jose to median salaries in Dallas, that is not a fair comparison and you know that, you are wasting my time by making me type it out for you, you know full well that that is not a fair comparison.
$260k is a low end salary
According to the resource that was used for Dallas salaries, 150K is the average San Jose salary.
This is a good summary of one of my biggest issues with location adjusted salaries. It often seems to be adjusted as if you will be living in that location (and retiring) in that location, which is rarely the case. Yes, in your example both engineers _may_ end up being equally-prepared for retirement, and be in a similar financial situation presuming that 1, all life costs scale proportionally (which is not true, college tuition for children is a great example, regular vacations are another), and 2, they will live in that location always. This is rarely the case, and just leaves the Bay area engineer _miles_ ahead when they relocate 10 years down the line.
Why is the answer higher wage requirements and not just removing artificial restrictions that prevent employers from hiring qualified employees from abroad? If you want standards, set them and remove quotas.
The visa is meant to give highly talented people an opportunity to fulfill their potential by participating in the US economy, while also benefiting America.
Sadly it has been aggressively abused by some companies to bring cheap labor into the US, actually undermining the local skilled labor system (eg why bother training Americans).
H1-B does indeed need reform, and that does mean an end to the 'good old days' (good for who, though).
All IMHO - I'm not even American, or Indian.
Sadly it has been aggressively abused by some companies to bring cheap labor into the US, actually undermining the local skilled labor system (eg why bother training Americans).
H1-B does indeed need reform, and that does mean an end to the 'good old days' (good for who, though).
All IMHO - I'm not even American, or Indian.
You can take all kinds of policy positions on a campaign, but any president cannot really do much to the H1B system without passing laws. Passing a new immigration bill is very hard since there are so many competing interests benefiting from the status quo and there is very little to gain electorally.
The current administration tried using executive action and regulatory approaches to fulfil their agenda and both keep getting struck down in courts. The new upward revision in wage levels are also expected to have the same fate. There is simply very little regulatory leeway on H1B visas since they are encoded in law.
It is highly unlikely for a democratic administration to spend political capital changing H1B when they have bigger priorities (healthcare).
At the end of the day, Indians are the only affected population on H1B due to backlogs and aren't a strategic voting bloc for democrats. Everyone else gets a green card in a couple of years anyways. They are more focused on undocumented and family based immigration.
A broken immigration system and the H1B status quo is expected to last for a while unless there are external factors (collapse in international student numbers, US emigration, US companies moving jobs out of the country) forcing action.
The current administration tried using executive action and regulatory approaches to fulfil their agenda and both keep getting struck down in courts. The new upward revision in wage levels are also expected to have the same fate. There is simply very little regulatory leeway on H1B visas since they are encoded in law.
It is highly unlikely for a democratic administration to spend political capital changing H1B when they have bigger priorities (healthcare).
At the end of the day, Indians are the only affected population on H1B due to backlogs and aren't a strategic voting bloc for democrats. Everyone else gets a green card in a couple of years anyways. They are more focused on undocumented and family based immigration.
A broken immigration system and the H1B status quo is expected to last for a while unless there are external factors (collapse in international student numbers, US emigration, US companies moving jobs out of the country) forcing action.
> The current administration tried using executive action and regulatory approaches to fulfil their agenda and both keep getting struck down in courts. The new upward revision in wage levels are also expected to have the same fate. There is simply very little regulatory leeway on H1B visas since they are encoded in law.
That’s not accurate. The original law in the 1960s was designed to be very different, and one of the basic bargains was that it wouldn’t increase net immigration. That ended up being false because Presidents ended up using executive action and regulations to depart from the original design. For example, Clinton narrowing the public charge exclusion to refer to only cash welfare. Indeed, the H1-B system was never intended to be a vehicle for permanent immigration. That was created by administrative fiat too. Trump’s administrative changes were to make the system more consistent with what the law actually says.
That’s not accurate. The original law in the 1960s was designed to be very different, and one of the basic bargains was that it wouldn’t increase net immigration. That ended up being false because Presidents ended up using executive action and regulations to depart from the original design. For example, Clinton narrowing the public charge exclusion to refer to only cash welfare. Indeed, the H1-B system was never intended to be a vehicle for permanent immigration. That was created by administrative fiat too. Trump’s administrative changes were to make the system more consistent with what the law actually says.
>That ended up being false because Presidents ended up using executive action and regulations to depart from the original design...Indeed, the H1-B system was never intended to be a vehicle for permanent immigration
What? That was an act of Congress.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1990#Non-im...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1990#Job-ba...
What? That was an act of Congress.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1990#Non-im...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1990#Job-ba...
Immigration laws were passed and signed even after 1960s. Since I only focused on H1B in my original comment I will only seek to address that point.
H1B changes were not implemented by administrative fiat. The AC21 act was passed to provide unlimited H1B extensions with an approved employment-based immigration application.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-1B_visa
H1B changes were not implemented by administrative fiat. The AC21 act was passed to provide unlimited H1B extensions with an approved employment-based immigration application.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-1B_visa
Kind of. H-1B is still supposed to be a guest worker visa. INS didn’t enforce that requirement prior to 1990, but state department did: https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/the-convoluted-path-from-h.... Which led to H-1B’s being unable to leave the country until receiving permanent residency status because state department often wouldn’t issue return visas for people who obviously intended to immigrate permanently. The dual-intent EB system was created in 1990 to alleviate the pain from that, but there still wasn’t real agreement on a permanent immigration visa. That’s an example of how executive action has been used to force Congress to make changes to avoid negative consequences to immigrants who are already here but stuck in limbo. (DACA is another example of that. The President can’t grant legal status to undocumented childhood arrivals, but can trigger a situation by executive action that forces Congress to choose between effectively allowing more permanent immigration and imposing negative consequences on sympathetic people.)
Under the 1990 dual intent system, you basically say “for now I want to just work temporarily, but if a spot opens up I might be interested in staying.” In theory, the government should be able to say: “okay, well, no green cards for the foreseeable future” and H1-Bs would say “okay, I’ll wait for a spot to open up” or “okay, I’ll go home.”
But of course that’s not what happens: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/21/us/politics/coronavirus-t.... People flip out because they (for obvious reasons) view the H1-B as the first step to a more or less guaranteed path to permanent residency and citizenship.
The current immigration system is a complete clusterf—-ck. It’s not fair to voters, who have the right to have an immigration policy that actually reflects what Congress enacted. It’s also not fair to “guest workers” who get stuck in a precarious limbo.
Under the 1990 dual intent system, you basically say “for now I want to just work temporarily, but if a spot opens up I might be interested in staying.” In theory, the government should be able to say: “okay, well, no green cards for the foreseeable future” and H1-Bs would say “okay, I’ll wait for a spot to open up” or “okay, I’ll go home.”
But of course that’s not what happens: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/21/us/politics/coronavirus-t.... People flip out because they (for obvious reasons) view the H1-B as the first step to a more or less guaranteed path to permanent residency and citizenship.
The current immigration system is a complete clusterf—-ck. It’s not fair to voters, who have the right to have an immigration policy that actually reflects what Congress enacted. It’s also not fair to “guest workers” who get stuck in a precarious limbo.
How is wage-based visa allocation denying entry-level applicant visas a bad thing? If there are entry level roles to be filled they should be filled locally since they're low skill/experience by definition.
If you're going to develop talent you should develop local talent. The deal is that you give foreigners the opportunity because they offer valuable skills.
If you're going to develop talent you should develop local talent. The deal is that you give foreigners the opportunity because they offer valuable skills.
It is not just entry level roles. H1B also fills universities, nurses, doctors, young startups. They are not going to compete with $400k salaries at FAANG
Clearly wage discriminants needs to be within job types otherwise they're meaningless. I'm sure any honest implementation would be on that basis.
I don’t understand why USCIS and other tech forums spend so much time and energy on H-1B rules.
How is it possible that 85K non immigrants with no rights are blamed for decimation of entire tech sectors.
For comparison , the US allows one million immigrants (green card holders ) every year into the United States . Most of these immigrants come over in the family based immigration category. They are free to take any job, start any business and do any legal activity as US citizens.
Yet it is the H-1B visa holders that are blamed for lowering of wages in the tech and engineering sectors and we spend a lot of political energy to make life difficult for them.
Also whenever articles related to H-1B are posted, the most upvoted comments are usually comments that point to gross changes to the H-1B program. Those are just pipe dreams. There has been no meaningful legislation changes to H-1B program in over two decades and I don’t think that there is political capital to make those changes .
How is it possible that 85K non immigrants with no rights are blamed for decimation of entire tech sectors.
For comparison , the US allows one million immigrants (green card holders ) every year into the United States . Most of these immigrants come over in the family based immigration category. They are free to take any job, start any business and do any legal activity as US citizens.
Yet it is the H-1B visa holders that are blamed for lowering of wages in the tech and engineering sectors and we spend a lot of political energy to make life difficult for them.
Also whenever articles related to H-1B are posted, the most upvoted comments are usually comments that point to gross changes to the H-1B program. Those are just pipe dreams. There has been no meaningful legislation changes to H-1B program in over two decades and I don’t think that there is political capital to make those changes .
To me this is all political. With the election coming up, its in Trump's interest to look tough on immigrants. H1Bs are easy targets, they don't have any political rights, and a large number of them will likely never have those rights.
You can't target family based immigrants because their families might already have been naturalized and have voting powers. The family GC recipients would also eventually get naturalized, and you don't want to upset potential voter base (however, tiny it might be).
> There has been no meaningful legislation changes to H-1B program in over two decades and I don’t think that there is political capital to make those changes .
This makes it even better. You get to throw punches which makes you look tough, but also doesn't really hurt the other side. Sort of win-win. Although I do think the other side in this is the H1B sponsoring employers and not the folks actually on H1B.
You can't target family based immigrants because their families might already have been naturalized and have voting powers. The family GC recipients would also eventually get naturalized, and you don't want to upset potential voter base (however, tiny it might be).
> There has been no meaningful legislation changes to H-1B program in over two decades and I don’t think that there is political capital to make those changes .
This makes it even better. You get to throw punches which makes you look tough, but also doesn't really hurt the other side. Sort of win-win. Although I do think the other side in this is the H1B sponsoring employers and not the folks actually on H1B.
Every time H1b comes on HN, I see people making the same arguments over and over again.
It’s a topic that never fails to provoke. I also wonder if it’s a different set of commenters each time..
It’s a topic that never fails to provoke. I also wonder if it’s a different set of commenters each time..
Just talk to someone who has been on H1-B. Your ears will ring for days after. He will tell you what he put up with, and then he will tell you what colleagues and friends of his put up with. It's safe to assume that you are poorly informed, just go talk to some people on H1-B.
No doubt. Many H1-B employees are essentially indentured slaves, and those who work with them then have to compete to that level.
I was on h1b and know a dozen or more people who were/are on one. Your comment is pure fud
“I am hearing from many constituents, who have been waiting over ten years, for a green card“ -
Constituent - “ any of the voters who elect a person to represent them.”
H1B are not US citizens, and politicians considering them their “constituents” are misrepresenting their true constituents interests.
Constituent - “ any of the voters who elect a person to represent them.”
H1B are not US citizens, and politicians considering them their “constituents” are misrepresenting their true constituents interests.
So in your view, because a minor can not vote, he's not a constituent? It's not fair for an elected representative to stand up for him? How about a 17 year old? How about a person who's in prison, and therefore can't vote (in some states)?
For certain policy aspects, such as national security and defense, it absolutely makes sense to actively exclude and ignore the concerns of non-citizens. They are really not 'true constituents'. But for most other things, the person who's considered a constituent is a law-abiding, tax-paying person, not a persona non-grata (that would be the illegal immigrants aka 'undocumented immigrants' whose cause is taken up with gusto by both political parties); it is absolutely the responsibility of the elected representative to pay attention to his concerns.
For certain policy aspects, such as national security and defense, it absolutely makes sense to actively exclude and ignore the concerns of non-citizens. They are really not 'true constituents'. But for most other things, the person who's considered a constituent is a law-abiding, tax-paying person, not a persona non-grata (that would be the illegal immigrants aka 'undocumented immigrants' whose cause is taken up with gusto by both political parties); it is absolutely the responsibility of the elected representative to pay attention to his concerns.
I feel like limiting voting to citizen (and therefor not granting voting rights to some residents) is one of these things we will look back at as a historic thorn before universal suffrage.
I agree, it's felt like a fundamentally wrong sort of thing for a long time to me.
Same with prisoners being not allowed to vote.
How can you have a representative democracy where only some of the people are represented, and laws are made that determine who goes to prison for political reasons (such as using cannabis for example)?
The Brexit vote in the UK is a great example of this injustice. It is often cited as 52% voted for Brexit.
But the people most affected are the residents from EU countries other than the UK. They are of all ages, and have been told, some their entire lives, that they have the same effective status as UK citizens in virtually every way.
Unlike most systems, the EU-UK system did not require visas, documentation, or place restrictions on people. They were allowed to do virtually everything any citizen can do, and advised in effect that converting to actual UK citizenship is a pointless formality, which even the UK state would not encourage. In effect they were "virtual citizens" already. Many are part of multi-generation families in the UK by now.
And then a decision which affects them most of all is passed without their input.
There are millions of them. About 5.5% of the entire UK population. If they had been asked, there is no doubt from the numbers that the result would have gone decisively the other way.
A prime example of "taxation without representation" and all the other things like that.
On top of that, another group very much affected: UK citizens living in the EU. Some of those retired are now in difficult circumstances, as they lose rights where they are settled, and can't really come back to the UK either. Those living there long-term were not allowed to vote on the issue even though it severely affects them; that number is about 1% of the UK population.
A prime example of "screwed without representation".
Same with prisoners being not allowed to vote.
How can you have a representative democracy where only some of the people are represented, and laws are made that determine who goes to prison for political reasons (such as using cannabis for example)?
The Brexit vote in the UK is a great example of this injustice. It is often cited as 52% voted for Brexit.
But the people most affected are the residents from EU countries other than the UK. They are of all ages, and have been told, some their entire lives, that they have the same effective status as UK citizens in virtually every way.
Unlike most systems, the EU-UK system did not require visas, documentation, or place restrictions on people. They were allowed to do virtually everything any citizen can do, and advised in effect that converting to actual UK citizenship is a pointless formality, which even the UK state would not encourage. In effect they were "virtual citizens" already. Many are part of multi-generation families in the UK by now.
And then a decision which affects them most of all is passed without their input.
There are millions of them. About 5.5% of the entire UK population. If they had been asked, there is no doubt from the numbers that the result would have gone decisively the other way.
A prime example of "taxation without representation" and all the other things like that.
On top of that, another group very much affected: UK citizens living in the EU. Some of those retired are now in difficult circumstances, as they lose rights where they are settled, and can't really come back to the UK either. Those living there long-term were not allowed to vote on the issue even though it severely affects them; that number is about 1% of the UK population.
A prime example of "screwed without representation".
I feel like looking back at H1Bs will show that it has driven down historically underrepresented ethnicities ability to pull themselves out of the poverty cycle.
My dictionary offers "A resident of an area represented by an elected official".
This is actually acutely important to both the history of the United States of America and to a grasp of how a representative democracy (if the US is to remain one) works
So, let's go back to the mid-18th century. America is a colony. The colonists are unhappy because they feel unrepresented, but in Westminster, London, the Members of Parliament are content that indeed those colonists are represented - by them - even though the colonists don't get a vote. This concept is named "virtual representation" and we'll return to it. The colonists oppose it, "No taxation without representation" they cry.
It is worth taking a moment here to consider that those Members were not elected by the majority of the people in the districts they were elected to. Only wealthy men in England could vote at that time, a tiny fraction of the population who'd be affected by the Parliament's decisions. This is also prior to Great Reform, so the districts represented do not closely resemble one another in population (though next century things would get much worse before they got better)
So, the Americans revolt, and having won their independence they set up for themselves a new system of government. In many ways this system is reminiscent of the one they've just got rid of, except that (no surprises) the rich old white men who didn't like the old system are instead placed in charge of the new one. In particular, the United States of America does not in fact enfranchise all its citizens, it actually only gives the vote to wealthy men, almost exactly the same as England had done. Still, they now feel represented (and indeed have become important political figures in their new country) and so for them it seems mission accomplished.
The US Congress offers exactly the same weak rationale as the English parliament, virtual representation. Sure, women, the poor, slaves, children and so on are not allowed to vote but we promise your Congress people are representing you anyway.
And so that's the status quo. Either you aren't really a representative democracy, with your millions who are disenfranchised for various reasons†, or you accept that representation is necessarily distinct from enfranchisement - the right to vote.
† In both England and the US the franchise was greatly expanded, to include more men, and eventually women, but although such expansions are almost invariably described as "universal" by their proponents in both countries many people can't vote, and neither is close to even achieving the more reasonable standard of allowing everybody who can meaningfully express an opinion (which would rule out newborns for example) the vote. Not least both prevent people from voting if they are in prison, as if somehow prison reform wouldn't be a very significant issue those people might now have more insight into than other voters...
This is actually acutely important to both the history of the United States of America and to a grasp of how a representative democracy (if the US is to remain one) works
So, let's go back to the mid-18th century. America is a colony. The colonists are unhappy because they feel unrepresented, but in Westminster, London, the Members of Parliament are content that indeed those colonists are represented - by them - even though the colonists don't get a vote. This concept is named "virtual representation" and we'll return to it. The colonists oppose it, "No taxation without representation" they cry.
It is worth taking a moment here to consider that those Members were not elected by the majority of the people in the districts they were elected to. Only wealthy men in England could vote at that time, a tiny fraction of the population who'd be affected by the Parliament's decisions. This is also prior to Great Reform, so the districts represented do not closely resemble one another in population (though next century things would get much worse before they got better)
So, the Americans revolt, and having won their independence they set up for themselves a new system of government. In many ways this system is reminiscent of the one they've just got rid of, except that (no surprises) the rich old white men who didn't like the old system are instead placed in charge of the new one. In particular, the United States of America does not in fact enfranchise all its citizens, it actually only gives the vote to wealthy men, almost exactly the same as England had done. Still, they now feel represented (and indeed have become important political figures in their new country) and so for them it seems mission accomplished.
The US Congress offers exactly the same weak rationale as the English parliament, virtual representation. Sure, women, the poor, slaves, children and so on are not allowed to vote but we promise your Congress people are representing you anyway.
And so that's the status quo. Either you aren't really a representative democracy, with your millions who are disenfranchised for various reasons†, or you accept that representation is necessarily distinct from enfranchisement - the right to vote.
† In both England and the US the franchise was greatly expanded, to include more men, and eventually women, but although such expansions are almost invariably described as "universal" by their proponents in both countries many people can't vote, and neither is close to even achieving the more reasonable standard of allowing everybody who can meaningfully express an opinion (which would rule out newborns for example) the vote. Not least both prevent people from voting if they are in prison, as if somehow prison reform wouldn't be a very significant issue those people might now have more insight into than other voters...
A tax paying non citizen is a constituent
How can a non citizen pay taxes?
Sigh. This came up before recently.
So many people believe non-citizens don't pay taxes. So many people believe non-citizens are undocumented, not allowed to work legally, etc.
The vast majority of non-citizens who work pay taxes the same as citizens, everywhere in the world as far as I know.
They often pay the state more than citizens (because of various substantial fees, every year in some countries), while receiving less for it.
It breaks my heart, to think anti-immigrant sentiments may be helped along by such misguided beliefs.
So many people believe non-citizens don't pay taxes. So many people believe non-citizens are undocumented, not allowed to work legally, etc.
The vast majority of non-citizens who work pay taxes the same as citizens, everywhere in the world as far as I know.
They often pay the state more than citizens (because of various substantial fees, every year in some countries), while receiving less for it.
It breaks my heart, to think anti-immigrant sentiments may be helped along by such misguided beliefs.
Why would a non-citizen not pay taxes ? If you're settled somewhere legally and earn money, you're going to pay taxes. It's pretty much universal (aside from certain tax heavens and countries too weak to even collect taxes)
> How can a non citizen pay taxes?
How does not having citizenship make it harder to pay taxes?
How does not having citizenship make it harder to pay taxes?
Is this a joke?
The US is EXTREMELY happy to collect taxes from people around the world and to call them resident aliens for tax purposes if they stay in the country for more than half a year or a given combination of days in the preceding 4-5 years.
The US is EXTREMELY happy to collect taxes from people around the world and to call them resident aliens for tax purposes if they stay in the country for more than half a year or a given combination of days in the preceding 4-5 years.
Why aren't they kicked out? Why do people need green cards if they can stay?
People with green cards, by definition, are not citizens.
I am not a citizen, but pay taxes(not US). In most cases it's not the citizenship that matters for taxes, but person's fiscal residency and normally it's where you live more than 6 months in a year.
Of course, being a US citizen it's a little bit different, you have to declare and sometimes pay the taxes in different countries.
Of course, being a US citizen it's a little bit different, you have to declare and sometimes pay the taxes in different countries.
Thank God. H1-B is a dishonest, abusive program that preys on both foreign and native workers. Some of the arguments in this article arguing against a higher wage floor for visa holders are extremely weak.
I'm in favor of a much fairer immigration program (starting with not tying a visa-holder to an employer), and H1-Bs in their current form are not it.
I'm in favor of a much fairer immigration program (starting with not tying a visa-holder to an employer), and H1-Bs in their current form are not it.
If there is a path to easy green card for international students with a master’s or PhDs, I don’t see why the rest of H1B cannot be wage allocated
The H1 reform is a great move. The current H1B program made no sense at all.
If I wanted to hire: A smart graduate from EPFL, Polytechnique or ETH Zurich who interned at CERN and has contributed to the Linux kernel for a software engineering job at a unicorn startup or
A grad from a second tier "technical college" in India with a visa refusal rate of ~90% for a job doing manual UI testing and QA for a body shop
my only path forward is H1. They'll both be listed as "computer related occupations" and apply for the same visa in the same quota. Does that makes any sense to anyone?
A grad from a second tier "technical college" in India with a visa refusal rate of ~90% for a job doing manual UI testing and QA for a body shop
my only path forward is H1. They'll both be listed as "computer related occupations" and apply for the same visa in the same quota. Does that makes any sense to anyone?
Do you feel the need to repost the exact same argument word-for-word?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24702805
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24702805
[deleted]
Artificial geographical lines segregating people artificially. Remove our set of welfare programs and let anyone that can make it here, live here.
The problem is the second suggestion is politically popular but the first is not, and if you only do the second one, it obviously goes badly.
I encourage all US voters to have a good look at all the available candidates.
Besides clear political positions, there are differences in diversity, including a woman on the ticket.
Cast your vote!
Besides clear political positions, there are differences in diversity, including a woman on the ticket.
Cast your vote!
3/4 of all H1Bs are going to Indians. Having some level of diversity from other countries doesn’t sound like a bad idea. On top of it, most of those H1bs are from Indian body shops gaming the system which is how they get so many H1Bs in the first place. So I’m okay with these changes.
Having some level of diversity from other countries doesn’t sound like a bad idea.
No. H1B is a skills based visa and not diversity/family based. The only thing that should matter are the skills and not the country they come from. Steps should absolutely be taken to ensure the system can't be gamed and that only well qualified applicants get selected.
No. H1B is a skills based visa and not diversity/family based. The only thing that should matter are the skills and not the country they come from. Steps should absolutely be taken to ensure the system can't be gamed and that only well qualified applicants get selected.
Enforcing diversity is a way to prevent gaming. If the only thing that should matter is skills, it wouldn't make sense in any realistic scenario that 75% of H1Bs are coming from a country with 15% of the population.
Except the whole world isn't really competing for those Visas. The appeal of the H1B is the difference in quality of life between the home country and the US. It's not like the everyone in the world has a burning desire to pay California rent.
> If the only thing that should matter is skills, it wouldn't make sense in any realistic scenario that 75% of H1Bs are coming from a country with 15% of the population.
That's not really true. Skills the same, you would still see more people from SEA, Africa immigrating to the US than say people from EU, Australia, Canada. Most qualified people in developed countries can get the same or better standard of living staying in their home countries than people from countries like India.
That's not really true. Skills the same, you would still see more people from SEA, Africa immigrating to the US than say people from EU, Australia, Canada. Most qualified people in developed countries can get the same or better standard of living staying in their home countries than people from countries like India.
> If the only thing that should matter is skills, it wouldn't make sense in any realistic scenario that 75% of H1Bs are coming from a country with 15% of the population.
It would if that's where most of the people with both skills and the view that the US is a better place to sell them than where they currently live are.
Skills being the only thing that matter on the US side doesn't stop other factors from mattering on the other side.
It would if that's where most of the people with both skills and the view that the US is a better place to sell them than where they currently live are.
Skills being the only thing that matter on the US side doesn't stop other factors from mattering on the other side.
Set a cap on number of entrants, and then "auction" the slots. Adjust the cap on entrants annually. No showing of specific market need required, or educational background of the applicant. Just criminal background and health checks on the applicant.
The bid is the (gross) pay of the role with a minimum commit of 36 months. Winning bids are paid to the employee (i.e. as regular income) over the first 36 months or until their employment with the sponsor ends, whichever comes first. (The fee paid is de minimis, just what's required for processing.)
Employees who voluntarily quit or are terminated are free to take any other job paying at least what the sponsor's job paid, provided they do so within 3 months. The new employer does not need to bid or sponsor them. If the employee can't find a new role, they have to leave. In any case sponsor then pays the remaining bid/salary to the government over the remainder of the 36 month term.
After 5 years keeping your nose clean and remaining employed making more than the starting pay at entry, get a green card and eligibility to apply for naturalization.
At a stroke this would eliminate the abuses of H1-B - lowball salaries, exploitative conditions - and open a legitimate market for global talent. The sponsor has a strong incentive to vet the applicant and not abuse them, as they are on the hook for 3 years of comp whether or not they retain them.