USCIS is challenging an unusually large number of H-1B applications(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
USCIS is challenging an unusually large number of H-1B applications
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-06/trump-s-h-1b-reform-is-to-make-life-hell-for-immigrants-and-companies
187 comments
This is all theater in 99.999% of the cases. I mean, the legal requirement is to prove you can't hire anybody with these exact specs in the US. It's usually complete bullshit - of course you could find an SQL programmer or a Javascript developer in the US, those are not extinct yet, and of course, you do not need any special unique knowledge to fill up a junior position, or at least not one any competent developer can't gain in a month. What happens is that you already know that particular person, maybe hired him as a freelancer, maybe did some contract work, maybe did it as a student, or maybe just like that person for that position. Or maybe it's just a bit cheaper.
So what you do is your write a tailored job description, which apparently requires exactly the same skill set the person you want to hire has, up to specific versions of the database system, you "publish" it, go through the motions (without really making an effort to hire anybody - it's usually not very hard for a knowledgeable HR person to do) and in a while you can get your H1B.
Pretty much everybody knows it's a game - the pretense that the only reason foreign people are hired is because there is absolutely not a single matching candidate anywhere in the US is false, but it is impossible to prove. But the game continues because the industry does need the influx of foreign talent, and the only politically viable excuse is the one we have. So we have this game.
So what you do is your write a tailored job description, which apparently requires exactly the same skill set the person you want to hire has, up to specific versions of the database system, you "publish" it, go through the motions (without really making an effort to hire anybody - it's usually not very hard for a knowledgeable HR person to do) and in a while you can get your H1B.
Pretty much everybody knows it's a game - the pretense that the only reason foreign people are hired is because there is absolutely not a single matching candidate anywhere in the US is false, but it is impossible to prove. But the game continues because the industry does need the influx of foreign talent, and the only politically viable excuse is the one we have. So we have this game.
Yup cant stand journalism today. Straight up mouthpiece for the rich.
Why did they not ask the company what the wage for that position is. How many people in Chicago did they interview. Did they interview anyone over 50 who has that exact experience? Did they approach anyone currently working in similar jobs and offer them raises and other benefits to entice them over?
Truth is the Company did none of those things so the good loyal journalist won't ask those questions.
Why did they not ask the company what the wage for that position is. How many people in Chicago did they interview. Did they interview anyone over 50 who has that exact experience? Did they approach anyone currently working in similar jobs and offer them raises and other benefits to entice them over?
Truth is the Company did none of those things so the good loyal journalist won't ask those questions.
The problem is that you think they went out and investigated this topic then wrote about the results of their investigation. In reality, they had a narrative and agenda they wanted to pitch and then went out to find confirmatory evidence, while largely discarding contradictory evidence.
You're talking as if there are only two parties here: owners (rich) and tech workers (not rich). But tech workers are well above the average US income. The unspoken group in your argument is the consumer, who on average is poorer than the tech workers. Lowering tech wages with H1B visas helps the consumers as well as the owners, because it makes the marginal tech product less likely to fail.
You might still think that the workers have the strongest claim. But as with most protectionism, there's more to consider.
You might still think that the workers have the strongest claim. But as with most protectionism, there's more to consider.
You seem to be assuming that lowering tech wages will lead to more participation by labor overall, but I think that it will instead just lead to companies lining their coffers with the savings realized by replacing an equal number of positions with lower-paid H1-B workers.
I feel there's an apples-to-bytes comparison in there, given that the marginal cost for another instance of the same software is negligible.
This is especially true when you're talking about the non-institutional "poor consumer", as opposed to a company having customized or proprietary software made just for them.
This is especially true when you're talking about the non-institutional "poor consumer", as opposed to a company having customized or proprietary software made just for them.
> Did they interview anyone over 50 who has that exact experience
probably not. Why would they interview that person for what sounds like an entry level position?
probably not. Why would they interview that person for what sounds like an entry level position?
It doesn't even sound particularly fluffed up. Most new grads that took a database course would probably fit that description. There are plenty of people qualified around.
The way I read it, stuff like "knows multiple programming languages" is intended to sound impressive to readers who don't know any.
I'm just assuming that somebody in the chain that produced this article deliberately sought to make the job sound more selective and prestigious than it really is.
I'm just assuming that somebody in the chain that produced this article deliberately sought to make the job sound more selective and prestigious than it really is.
You're right. "Multiple programming languages" and RDBMS skills aren't exactly rare. Those are very poor reasons to hire someone.
Here are the real reasons they probably wanted to hire him: He's smart enough to do well on his SATs/GREs and go to a good university. He's hard working and conscientious enough to get a good GPA while in University. He's got great recommendations from his classmates, former employers and/or professors. He knows his stuff well enough to get through an interview pipeline that most others fail to get through.
There's one problem though. None of the above are considered valid reasons to hire someone on a H1B. The Stanford grad who knows Java inside and out, has a 4.0 GPA, a perfect SAT score, and amazing side-projects and recommendations... according to the law, he's just a cog, perfectly interchangeable with any CS graduate who manages to graduate with a C+ average.
Hence why companies have to come up with other ridiculous reasons for wanting to hire this guy. Because the real metrics that any rational person would take into consideration, are all considered inadmissible. If you start fighting with a guy who has one hand tied behind his back, don't be surprised if he doesn't follow proper boxing decorum.
Here are the real reasons they probably wanted to hire him: He's smart enough to do well on his SATs/GREs and go to a good university. He's hard working and conscientious enough to get a good GPA while in University. He's got great recommendations from his classmates, former employers and/or professors. He knows his stuff well enough to get through an interview pipeline that most others fail to get through.
There's one problem though. None of the above are considered valid reasons to hire someone on a H1B. The Stanford grad who knows Java inside and out, has a 4.0 GPA, a perfect SAT score, and amazing side-projects and recommendations... according to the law, he's just a cog, perfectly interchangeable with any CS graduate who manages to graduate with a C+ average.
Hence why companies have to come up with other ridiculous reasons for wanting to hire this guy. Because the real metrics that any rational person would take into consideration, are all considered inadmissible. If you start fighting with a guy who has one hand tied behind his back, don't be surprised if he doesn't follow proper boxing decorum.
That's a nice appeal, but on reflection that case isn't actually virtuous.
What you have described is not an employer who is just violating letter of the law in some harmless defiance of red tape... No, that employer is deliberately breaking the spirit of the law too.
The H1-B exemption is intended to allow for immigrant workers when domestic supply doesn't exist. Not "when you really really like a dude."
What you have described is not an employer who is just violating letter of the law in some harmless defiance of red tape... No, that employer is deliberately breaking the spirit of the law too.
The H1-B exemption is intended to allow for immigrant workers when domestic supply doesn't exist. Not "when you really really like a dude."
We can think of numerous instances where the law is sufficiently dysfunctional, that citizens take it upon themselves to work around it. On the trivial side, most Americans knowingly drive over the speed limit, and consume alcohol when they are underage. On the more serious side, today's sanctuary cities and slavery-era underground-railroads are both intended to subvert federal laws in support of deportation/slavery. Do you think that it's immoral to disobey the law under any circumstances? If not, how do you go about deciding when it's ok to disobey the law?
I like how the heading of the article already tells me what I am supposed to be thinking. No time for subtlety or convincing - just start with the hammer blow, "make life hell". And then don't bother with convincing arguments - you already know new regulations are "living hell", what else do you need?
And from what I get in the article - which is not very rich on details - the "living hell" is that the government occasionally asks for proof of what is supposed to be already proven in the visa app - that there's no possibility of hiring the same talent in the US - and which everybody who dealt with it knows is kind of sham and not how it actually works.
And from what I get in the article - which is not very rich on details - the "living hell" is that the government occasionally asks for proof of what is supposed to be already proven in the visa app - that there's no possibility of hiring the same talent in the US - and which everybody who dealt with it knows is kind of sham and not how it actually works.
Two points:
1) Given that the numbers did indeed end up proving that wage arbitrageurs like Accenture were dominating the H1B lottery [https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/11/06/us/outsourcin...], reform would seem to be necessary.
2) Trump has repeatedly called for a Canadian or Australian style skills-based immigration system to replace chain and quota-based immigration. One would think HN would generally support this?
1) Given that the numbers did indeed end up proving that wage arbitrageurs like Accenture were dominating the H1B lottery [https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/11/06/us/outsourcin...], reform would seem to be necessary.
2) Trump has repeatedly called for a Canadian or Australian style skills-based immigration system to replace chain and quota-based immigration. One would think HN would generally support this?
I would also assume that few here would take issue with merit-based immigration policies. The problem is arguably whether you trust Trump to actually do what he says, especially when he uses immigration policy as a dog whistle when preaching to his core vote.
> The problem is arguably whether you trust Trump to actually do what he says
Is Trump even the one doing it? I thought this was the job of congress?... this seems well out of the scope of an executive order.
Hopefully they do end up copying Canada/Australia directly because they've both performed really well and there is plenty of data there to support it. Instead of the usual series of minor bandaids on top of the old broken system, ala the US healthcare system.
Is Trump even the one doing it? I thought this was the job of congress?... this seems well out of the scope of an executive order.
Hopefully they do end up copying Canada/Australia directly because they've both performed really well and there is plenty of data there to support it. Instead of the usual series of minor bandaids on top of the old broken system, ala the US healthcare system.
Given final say on any bill rests with Trump himself (signature/veto when it reaches his desk etc), I'm not sure this distinction matters all that much.
At any rate, the president is entirely free to propose a bill, and assuming he can find a congress person to back it (I'm guessing he knows a guy who knows a guy...), can have introduced in Congress. Even if Trump's team doesn't draft a new bill, the lobbying power of the Whitehouse alone on legislation in congress is huge - the threat of a veto alone is a compelling stick.
I think its absurd to think Trump/the executive wouldn't influence the shape of any proposed legislation in this area, when its been such a public part of his campaign.
At any rate, the president is entirely free to propose a bill, and assuming he can find a congress person to back it (I'm guessing he knows a guy who knows a guy...), can have introduced in Congress. Even if Trump's team doesn't draft a new bill, the lobbying power of the Whitehouse alone on legislation in congress is huge - the threat of a veto alone is a compelling stick.
I think its absurd to think Trump/the executive wouldn't influence the shape of any proposed legislation in this area, when its been such a public part of his campaign.
It still has to first pass the hundreds of eyes in congress, that's the primary challenge of any bill. Vetoing is relatively rare and I doubt he would veto an immigration bill coming from a republican-majority congress...
That said, I never said he had zero influence, but having influence on a congressional bill is a far cry from implying he wrote and proposed it himself.
That said, I never said he had zero influence, but having influence on a congressional bill is a far cry from implying he wrote and proposed it himself.
If you honestly believe the Executive in the US has this little influence on policy agenda, I'm not sure what else to say!
I think most people are capable of understanding that when we talk about "Trump" performing a legislative act, we almost never mean he literally picks up pen and paper and writes the bill himself, or even directly proposes it.
I think most people are capable of understanding that when we talk about "Trump" performing a legislative act, we almost never mean he literally picks up pen and paper and writes the bill himself, or even directly proposes it.
> If you honestly believe the Executive in the US has this little influence on policy agenda,
Again, I never said that, or that he writes it directly himself. This is why I don't debate politics on the internet.
My point is the bill is primarily a congressional matter, and is not at the whims of just the president the way an executive order would be, as was suggested above.
Again, I never said that, or that he writes it directly himself. This is why I don't debate politics on the internet.
My point is the bill is primarily a congressional matter, and is not at the whims of just the president the way an executive order would be, as was suggested above.
> Trump has repeatedly called for a Canadian or Australian style skills-based immigration system to replace chain and quota-based immigration
coupled with slashing immigration in general.
coupled with slashing immigration in general.
That's because 64% of people currently coming into the US get in because they are relatives or family of another person who was given a green card. Only 15% of people come in due to skill or a job.
The bill would change the system to be more about skill/merit rather than the fact you are related by blood to someone who has skill.
The reduction in numbers is a side effect of the current ratios of the existing system. So ideally they will boost the maximum number on the other end to increase the total number of skilled visas, instead of just cutting the relatives portion (as the bill proposed in August). To me that's the best of both worlds. It's possible it will may be tweaked as it goes through congress or it may have to wait for a future bill, but at least the basic framework is being laid out for a better system similar to Canada/Australia.
The bill would change the system to be more about skill/merit rather than the fact you are related by blood to someone who has skill.
The reduction in numbers is a side effect of the current ratios of the existing system. So ideally they will boost the maximum number on the other end to increase the total number of skilled visas, instead of just cutting the relatives portion (as the bill proposed in August). To me that's the best of both worlds. It's possible it will may be tweaked as it goes through congress or it may have to wait for a future bill, but at least the basic framework is being laid out for a better system similar to Canada/Australia.
Cutting legal immigration in hopes of a later bill that increases it is a fool's errand. This proposal already gives the lie to the Republican marketing on immigration - that they have nothing against legal immigration, and only want to cut the illegal kind. Who knows what they'll ask for next.
The bill he endorsed switches to merit based immigration and cuts the number of green cards given out in half.
That's why I said it's the ideal best of both worlds. Shifting the framework from a primarily relative-based one to skills-based, ala Canada/Australia, is a still a better system regardless.
Plenty of republicans and democrats criticized the "50% reduction by 2028" projection when the original bill was announced a few months ago, so it's not entirely wishful thinking it may change in the future for the better.
Plenty of republicans and democrats criticized the "50% reduction by 2028" projection when the original bill was announced a few months ago, so it's not entirely wishful thinking it may change in the future for the better.
> Aegis applied for a half-dozen visas this spring, and only one of them made it through the lottery. The year before, Aegis secured a visa for someone filing a type of job he’s filled with H-1B workers in the past. So Narayanan set up a client project for the prospective new employee, a woman who was living in Dehli, India, at the time.
Sounds like they are exactly the type of consulting firm the administration is attempting to crack down on.
> USCIS challenged the application in August, which irked Narayanan because he had provided everything the agency had asked for. Narayanan was doubly annoyed because, without someone else to handle the new contract, it fell to him directly. For the last month, Narayanan has been spending four or five hours each morning doing the work himself, forgoing his own primary responsibility, which is to bring in new clients. “We might not make the profit we were expecting because of these issues,” he said. “We are afraid of on-boarding new H-1B employees, because of the unknown world.”
My heart weeps for him. If he could do the work himself, is it really so specialized he required H1B for it? Or was it more he just didn't want to pay the local rates?
That said, having hired through the H1B program I sure hope it remains viable. Reforms based on salary instead of lottery seem like a good compromise, reducing outsourcing and low salaries endemic with H1B mills. I'd much prefer a floating high salary floor (say top 25%) and uncapping H1B entirely.
Sounds like they are exactly the type of consulting firm the administration is attempting to crack down on.
> USCIS challenged the application in August, which irked Narayanan because he had provided everything the agency had asked for. Narayanan was doubly annoyed because, without someone else to handle the new contract, it fell to him directly. For the last month, Narayanan has been spending four or five hours each morning doing the work himself, forgoing his own primary responsibility, which is to bring in new clients. “We might not make the profit we were expecting because of these issues,” he said. “We are afraid of on-boarding new H-1B employees, because of the unknown world.”
My heart weeps for him. If he could do the work himself, is it really so specialized he required H1B for it? Or was it more he just didn't want to pay the local rates?
That said, having hired through the H1B program I sure hope it remains viable. Reforms based on salary instead of lottery seem like a good compromise, reducing outsourcing and low salaries endemic with H1B mills. I'd much prefer a floating high salary floor (say top 25%) and uncapping H1B entirely.
I always wondered why not make the H1B salary minimum the same as someone exemplary in that field ( H1B salary 1.5x the average for the position ). If someone is truly extraordinary then a company wouldn't mind paying a little extra but it would influence the average price up and not down for the field.
It already is. H1B visa holders are required to be paid more than the prevailing wage for citizens working the same SOC job classification in the same region.
I wish that was the case, but it is not.
You can verify this yourself as H1B salary data are publicly available http://h1bdata.info.
Take a look for example at Wayfair in Boston. Majority of their H1B Developers make around $50k-$70k. This is significantly less than the prevailing wages around Boston, so it is quite clear that they are using H1Bs as cheap labor source.
Take a look for example at Wayfair in Boston. Majority of their H1B Developers make around $50k-$70k. This is significantly less than the prevailing wages around Boston, so it is quite clear that they are using H1Bs as cheap labor source.
Why don't you just link the query results?
http://h1bdata.info/index.php?em=Wayfair+Llc&job=Software+En...
Any while we're at it, why don't we pull the prevailing wage data?
http://www.flcdatacenter.com/OesQuickResults.aspx?area=71654...
Level 1 Software Engineers are paid on average $67k in that area, so by paying them $68k, Wayfair is still paying more than the average wage for U.S. citizens working the same position.
Wayfair is not driving down wages.
http://h1bdata.info/index.php?em=Wayfair+Llc&job=Software+En...
Any while we're at it, why don't we pull the prevailing wage data?
http://www.flcdatacenter.com/OesQuickResults.aspx?area=71654...
Level 1 Software Engineers are paid on average $67k in that area, so by paying them $68k, Wayfair is still paying more than the average wage for U.S. citizens working the same position.
Wayfair is not driving down wages.
interesting. That is close to the salary I was starting with more than 10yrs ago...Either the wages have stagnated around Boston or that number seems low. Glassdoor reports ~$80k which is closer to what my current employer has been hiring at, thats why the Wayfair numbers seems low to me.
https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/boston-entry-level-softwa...
My guess is your experience is anecdotal and open to bias. Same with glassdoor, since it's self-submitted. The BLS's Occupational Employment Statistic's prevailing wage data is fairly exhaustive.
Wow - Juniper Networks got approved with $63,960 for "Software Engineer" in Sunnyvale just this year while LinkedIn is paying ~$125k for the same title.
That's probably because the website is only showing "base" pay. Juniper does performance packages that go well into six figures, which Linkedin might not do.
In theory performance performance packages can be $0?
makes no sense to approve h1b based on performance packages.
Also, LinkedIn does give out performance bonuses.
Also, LinkedIn does give out performance bonuses.
You can lookup the Juniper bonus packages on OFLC if you want (it's what this website data is, but more info). I just checked for sunnyvale engineers making 68k and their bonuses go up to 250k.
Thats besides the point. It doesn't matter what the actual bonuses are , point I was trying to make is that it doesn't make sense to approve H1B based on something uncertain like bonuses.
Are you suggesting uscis " can lookup the Juniper bonus packages on OFLC " before approving h1b ?
Are you suggesting uscis " can lookup the Juniper bonus packages on OFLC " before approving h1b ?
Where is that info? Glassdoor has 61 reports of Software Engineer for Juniper with an average of $16k performance bonus on an average base salary of $123k. New H1B hires at ~$65k would end up with lower than that average wouldn't they?
>prevailing wage
This is a joke as it is currently implemented.
This is a joke as it is currently implemented.
Is there something wrong with OES or SCA? How exactly?
Its gamed in many ways. Here is one example, bodyshops are based out of some small town in michigan and they use local prevailing wage for h1b application but employee is sent out to work at newyork .
Actually, it is tough to operate such body shops: USCIS has hired contractors to do audits/random checks on these consulting companies and their employees. So, outright fraud is very hard these days. That's also another reason why USCIS is going after the employers, who are not typical body shops operating out of some office in Edison, NJ., Kalamazoo, MI., etc.
The H1B-violator consultancies have been cracked down on by USCIS in the past year. This has become much less of an issue.
> If someone is truly extraordinary
That's not the bar for the visa and never has been.
That's not the bar for the visa and never has been.
> Centro had applied for visas for three young employees
> He’d received a letter from USCIS saying it would reject his application unless Centro proved the position required someone with specialized skills
> The position — which consisted of writing algorithms and required knowledge of multiple programming languages as well as a solid understanding of relational data storage systems — wasn’t a borderline case.
I'm going to disagree here. It sounds to me like a textbook example of a company hiring a young, inexperienced worker because they're cheaper than experienced ones.
To those getting old in the valley, it seems this type of action is good news.
> He’d received a letter from USCIS saying it would reject his application unless Centro proved the position required someone with specialized skills
> The position — which consisted of writing algorithms and required knowledge of multiple programming languages as well as a solid understanding of relational data storage systems — wasn’t a borderline case.
I'm going to disagree here. It sounds to me like a textbook example of a company hiring a young, inexperienced worker because they're cheaper than experienced ones.
To those getting old in the valley, it seems this type of action is good news.
Why shouldn't they do that?
If I have a bunch of people to keep them on track then hiring the cheapest workers who can do the job sounds like good business.
If I have a bunch of people to keep them on track then hiring the cheapest workers who can do the job sounds like good business.
Because we would like our country to prefer our own citizens for such jobs, when possible.
"Because we would like our race to prefer its own members for such jobs, when possible."
This is trolling. Don't do this here, and please comment civilly and substantively instead.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
How is that at all equivalent to what I said?
Changing your in-group from being based on race to being based on citizenship doesn't change the basic immorality of your position.
There is no immorality around my position. We exist as a country to promote the welfare of our own people. I should expect any country to place its own citizens' interests above those of foreign nations.
Moreover, countries are generally defined by their geographic locations. The actions of the people within them directly affect those around them. Local economies are affected by influxes of labor and depression of wages.
A person's race is simply an attribute they possess; attempting to compare this to a nationality makes little sense in this case. Someone's race does not intrinsically affect the economy around them, whereas the wage they are paid will.
Moreover, countries are generally defined by their geographic locations. The actions of the people within them directly affect those around them. Local economies are affected by influxes of labor and depression of wages.
A person's race is simply an attribute they possess; attempting to compare this to a nationality makes little sense in this case. Someone's race does not intrinsically affect the economy around them, whereas the wage they are paid will.
"We must secure the existence of our people and a future for [our] children."
There, fixed that for you.
> A person's race is simply an attribute they possess; attempting to compare this to a nationality makes little sense in this case.
Sounds great! Allow anyone who wants to be American to be American.
There, fixed that for you.
> A person's race is simply an attribute they possess; attempting to compare this to a nationality makes little sense in this case.
Sounds great! Allow anyone who wants to be American to be American.
What are you on about? Are you able to have a discussion about this, or are you simply looking to discount any counter-arguments with feeble attempts at dog whistling?
Fine, here's my position: Immigration restrictions are a version of "separate but equal" segregation that is somehow acceptable to talk about. Anyone who wants to do a job, can do it, and is willing to move to where the job is should be able to do it, regardless of where they were born or what papers they have.
That they can't because a bunch of people have collectively decided to pull the ladder up behind them is unjust, unfair and immoral.
That they can't because a bunch of people have collectively decided to pull the ladder up behind them is unjust, unfair and immoral.
What about the people who want to do the job, can do it, are willing to move to the job location, are American citizens, and are denied because they are being replaced by cheaper H1-B workers?
These H1-B workers are not entitled to jobs in America. It is something we offer to benefit both them and our country as a whole. It becomes detrimental when these visas are extended at the expense of the American citizen who is being displaced.
These H1-B workers are not entitled to jobs in America. It is something we offer to benefit both them and our country as a whole. It becomes detrimental when these visas are extended at the expense of the American citizen who is being displaced.
It's great for the foreign worker!
Privileging citizens of your own country is no different from privileging members of your own race.
Privileging citizens of your own country is no different from privileging members of your own race.
Okay, hire 23 year old americans instead of 40 year old americans.
Still not seeing why it's wrong.
Still not seeing why it's wrong.
H1-B visas are for technical expertise that's not available in the United States. Each slot used for something other than that purpose makes it harder for a high-skill foreign worker to come to our country and contribute to our economy.
So now they’re just doing what was supposed to have been happening the entire time? I’m having difficulty sympathizing with these companies and lawyers when all they have to do is apparently file more paperwork.
It's not like that. Most top companies do detailed paperwork. This causes other side effects and stress.
For example, you could be working at Google / Facebook earning top $$$$ every year and you paperwork could be spotless. But the stress of having to go through an uncertain renewal process every 3 years prevents you from investing in big things like buying a house or having kids. You are always worried about being able to return back to your stuff when you leave for a trip overseas.
Even though most top companies immediately apply for Green CArds, the "country of birth" based green limits ensure that you have to remain in H1-B status for 15 - 20 years (if you happen to be born in India).
TL;DR: It's not the increased vetting that we fear, its the uncertainty and complicated appeal procedures that can affect genuine H1-B cases.
For example, you could be working at Google / Facebook earning top $$$$ every year and you paperwork could be spotless. But the stress of having to go through an uncertain renewal process every 3 years prevents you from investing in big things like buying a house or having kids. You are always worried about being able to return back to your stuff when you leave for a trip overseas.
Even though most top companies immediately apply for Green CArds, the "country of birth" based green limits ensure that you have to remain in H1-B status for 15 - 20 years (if you happen to be born in India).
TL;DR: It's not the increased vetting that we fear, its the uncertainty and complicated appeal procedures that can affect genuine H1-B cases.
This was me. Working at big tech firm, $190+ salary, 6 years. Green card applied and approved in 2014.
But Indians have to wait at least 5years for a green card(EB-2). And this was before the current admin.
I’m now in Canada. Permanent Resident (took 8 months), $180k+ salary, big tech company. Going to buy a house in the summer.
But Indians have to wait at least 5years for a green card(EB-2). And this was before the current admin.
I’m now in Canada. Permanent Resident (took 8 months), $180k+ salary, big tech company. Going to buy a house in the summer.
This is my comment. Addressing some of the questions
1. I took a pay cut. I went from 190K+ USD (~250k+ CAD) to 180k CAD (this includes my bonus. My base is lower, say around ~150k CAD). Numbers are fuzzed but close enough to reality.
This is a significant drop, but of course it's still a very good salary for Canada. I'm satisfied with my decision.
2. I'm in Marketing, reasonably senior. Couple levels down from the CMO.
3. Same company. Essentially got transferred with a pay cut. This made it easy for the company as well. It helped that I've been here for a longish time and have built relationships within the company. They were very supportive.
1. I took a pay cut. I went from 190K+ USD (~250k+ CAD) to 180k CAD (this includes my bonus. My base is lower, say around ~150k CAD). Numbers are fuzzed but close enough to reality.
This is a significant drop, but of course it's still a very good salary for Canada. I'm satisfied with my decision.
2. I'm in Marketing, reasonably senior. Couple levels down from the CMO.
3. Same company. Essentially got transferred with a pay cut. This made it easy for the company as well. It helped that I've been here for a longish time and have built relationships within the company. They were very supportive.
Actually it's currently looking more like 15 years. People with priority dates in 2009 are just getting in. So if you account for the number (plus consider the fact the people in EB-3 become eligible for EB-2 after a few years), it looking more like 15.
The silly thing is, there is bipartisan bill in congress and Senate to fix it (HR 392). But it is stuck is legislative limbo.
The silly thing is, there is bipartisan bill in congress and Senate to fix it (HR 392). But it is stuck is legislative limbo.
Yes, this was also a major reason for leaving.
Super happy for you man :-)
Same big tech company or other?
Same big tech company or other?
the "country of birth" based green limits ensure that you have to remain in H1-B status for 15 - 20 years (if you happen to be born in India)
You don't wait in H1B status, you get advanced parole which means you can stay and work until you green card has been processed.
You don't wait in H1B status, you get advanced parole which means you can stay and work until you green card has been processed.
Yes, but if you lose your job for any reason, you have to leave the country in a matter of days (I think you have 30 days, it might be a little more).
So, sell your house, all your belongings, take the kids out of school, move all investments... uproot your whole life in 2 months, maybe 1 month. That's not an easy thing to do, especially with children. It's not fair to my family - the kids would hate moving from the US back to India. Canada is much closer, culturally, and it's easier to adjust.
We decided to move as a family, and planned everything for more than a year.
This is personal, of course. Everyone has to make their own decision.
So, sell your house, all your belongings, take the kids out of school, move all investments... uproot your whole life in 2 months, maybe 1 month. That's not an easy thing to do, especially with children. It's not fair to my family - the kids would hate moving from the US back to India. Canada is much closer, culturally, and it's easier to adjust.
We decided to move as a family, and planned everything for more than a year.
This is personal, of course. Everyone has to make their own decision.
Sorry if I'm being overly detailed, but if you lose your job when in the later stages of a green card there is portability to a new employer, so there are options.
However, I do agree the uncertainty can be stressful. I went through a layoff when on H1B and it's not fun!
However, I do agree the uncertainty can be stressful. I went through a layoff when on H1B and it's not fun!
Yes, although there is some portability, you still have to apply, interview and get a job within 30 days. That's not feasible, and doesn't give you enough room to find a good job and negotiate salary from a point of strength.
I deeply understand the need for H-1B's for bringing in highly talented individuals. However, I can't stand how the argument seems to completely ignore the Americans who are displaced because of abuse of the H-1B system.
It seems a bit deceitful to paint this story solely through the lens of "immigrants" while lots of Americans are being directly replaced by H-1B workers.
I do not expect to go to another country and displace local workers. I do not expect to be granted a work visa in a place that I do not belong. If I go to another country to work, I expect to be providing a skill or talent that is not present in the local economy. Further more, I expect that I'd be teaching that skill to others. Or at the very least, be in the position to lead the growth and development of a team until a local worker can do my role.
Why should we expect any different from the H-1B's that the US grants?
It seems a bit deceitful to paint this story solely through the lens of "immigrants" while lots of Americans are being directly replaced by H-1B workers.
I do not expect to go to another country and displace local workers. I do not expect to be granted a work visa in a place that I do not belong. If I go to another country to work, I expect to be providing a skill or talent that is not present in the local economy. Further more, I expect that I'd be teaching that skill to others. Or at the very least, be in the position to lead the growth and development of a team until a local worker can do my role.
Why should we expect any different from the H-1B's that the US grants?
Which is the class of poor Americans being displaced by H1B workers earning in excess of 100k at companies like Microsoft,Amazon,Google,etc which are constantly hiring anyways?
White males. Laugh, disregard it - but it's true. If you're a poor white male, you don't really get a lot of assistance. I don't get special grants for being white, I don't get a padded SAT score, I don't get preferential treatment - in fact, it's the opposite. Not all white males are born with a silver spoon, and they're certainly not all given an 'equal opportunity' when a "diverse" person of lesser intellect can get financial and logistic support and lauded for being born a different race.
Frankly, over time the average white American family is going to find it more and more difficult to afford higher education, as if by design, to push them out of the middle class. Meanwhile, poor non-whites will be granted scholarships based on non-whiteness.
Frankly, over time the average white American family is going to find it more and more difficult to afford higher education, as if by design, to push them out of the middle class. Meanwhile, poor non-whites will be granted scholarships based on non-whiteness.
> Frankly, over time the average white American family is going to find it more and more difficult to afford higher education, as if by design, to push them out of the middle class. Meanwhile, poor non-whites will be granted scholarships based on non-whiteness.
No they wont. White females are still eligible for many of the same (gender based) diversity advantages. The majority of college students in the US are female.
Besides that, most of the wealth in this country is controlled by white families. Which makes your assertion truly pointless: unless there is some major cataclysm, white families will continue to pass on their advantages to their offspring for generations to come.
No they wont. White females are still eligible for many of the same (gender based) diversity advantages. The majority of college students in the US are female.
Besides that, most of the wealth in this country is controlled by white families. Which makes your assertion truly pointless: unless there is some major cataclysm, white families will continue to pass on their advantages to their offspring for generations to come.
I feel like you're getting something backwards there.
Most of the wealth is controlled by white families. This does not imply that all white families control wealth. Those white families that do control the wealth aren't exactly sharing it around with all their 8th cousins. They sure do share it with their direct descendants, and pass on advantages that way, but if any non-rich white person is advantaged, it is likely only because the rich white people are observably racist when delegating their authority and managing their assets. Imagine for a moment someone so racist that their toilets may only be cleaned by a white person, and realize that people like that do exist. So yes, I guess that white loo-scrubber is advantaged, by not having to compete quite as much, in a very minor way.
There are plenty of white families out there who know that no-one is on their side, who believe that the illusion of equality is being pursued by cutting them down rather than raising everyone else up. And they believe that immigration is diluting their family's voice, rather than augmenting it. And many of them are "checking out". They turn to a bullet or a syringe, or blindly follow any person that tells the lies they most want to hear.
The rich and powerful are free at any time to erase the echo of privilege enjoyed by middle class white people simply by not hiring them preferentially over darker people. Which is what is happening. And while that is happening, the reactive measures to prior institutionalized racism remain in place. The problem is not with affirmative action or feminism or egalitarian movements, but that the old money is far too powerful politically, and that the rich kids are not as disgustingly racist as their parents. So there will likely be a generation at some point where middle class white families have zero advantages, non-white families will have some preferences stemming from ongoing racial equality movements from the 1960s to the present, and the data that show they are no longer needed have not yet been collected and published.
And that generation is going to have a lot of neo-Nazis and white supremacists in it, because people will still be telling them about white privilege when they remember growing up in a manufactured home, eating cold Spaghetti-Os and Spam, watching other people get things that they were never offered. I don't quite know if it is already here, or if it is still coming and will be even worse than what we have already seen. But I do know that part of the problem is attributing the source of privilege to any color other than green.
Most of the wealth is controlled by white families. This does not imply that all white families control wealth. Those white families that do control the wealth aren't exactly sharing it around with all their 8th cousins. They sure do share it with their direct descendants, and pass on advantages that way, but if any non-rich white person is advantaged, it is likely only because the rich white people are observably racist when delegating their authority and managing their assets. Imagine for a moment someone so racist that their toilets may only be cleaned by a white person, and realize that people like that do exist. So yes, I guess that white loo-scrubber is advantaged, by not having to compete quite as much, in a very minor way.
There are plenty of white families out there who know that no-one is on their side, who believe that the illusion of equality is being pursued by cutting them down rather than raising everyone else up. And they believe that immigration is diluting their family's voice, rather than augmenting it. And many of them are "checking out". They turn to a bullet or a syringe, or blindly follow any person that tells the lies they most want to hear.
The rich and powerful are free at any time to erase the echo of privilege enjoyed by middle class white people simply by not hiring them preferentially over darker people. Which is what is happening. And while that is happening, the reactive measures to prior institutionalized racism remain in place. The problem is not with affirmative action or feminism or egalitarian movements, but that the old money is far too powerful politically, and that the rich kids are not as disgustingly racist as their parents. So there will likely be a generation at some point where middle class white families have zero advantages, non-white families will have some preferences stemming from ongoing racial equality movements from the 1960s to the present, and the data that show they are no longer needed have not yet been collected and published.
And that generation is going to have a lot of neo-Nazis and white supremacists in it, because people will still be telling them about white privilege when they remember growing up in a manufactured home, eating cold Spaghetti-Os and Spam, watching other people get things that they were never offered. I don't quite know if it is already here, or if it is still coming and will be even worse than what we have already seen. But I do know that part of the problem is attributing the source of privilege to any color other than green.
> White females are still eligible
Ok, great, just not white males. Half of the white population. Also, this shows contempt and disregard for the concept of a stay-at-home mother. Women in the workplace are great - but this entire scheme/system destroys values the West was built upon.
> most of the wealth in this country is controlled by white families
I doubt this is true anymore, and even if there are wealthy white families, your sentiment is utter disregard for those who are merely average or low-income. An average-income white father earning a modest living will have a hell of a time raising a family - meanwhile low-income blacks are paid to reproduce and get shoved into the finest institutions at tax payer expense at comparative advantage with padded SAT scores. Do you not see the hypocrisy? That isn't equal opportunity, it's an attempt at forcing an equal outcome.
Ok, great, just not white males. Half of the white population. Also, this shows contempt and disregard for the concept of a stay-at-home mother. Women in the workplace are great - but this entire scheme/system destroys values the West was built upon.
> most of the wealth in this country is controlled by white families
I doubt this is true anymore, and even if there are wealthy white families, your sentiment is utter disregard for those who are merely average or low-income. An average-income white father earning a modest living will have a hell of a time raising a family - meanwhile low-income blacks are paid to reproduce and get shoved into the finest institutions at tax payer expense at comparative advantage with padded SAT scores. Do you not see the hypocrisy? That isn't equal opportunity, it's an attempt at forcing an equal outcome.
Even though Silicon Valley sees the H-1B program as one of
its top political priorities, this campaign of reform by
red tape has avoided the frantic political fights
surrounding other aspects of immigration, like the proposed
travel ban or the cancellation of DACA, a program for those
who came to the country as undocumented children.
Given the H1-B is a "Dual Intent" visa, it is absolutely still about immigration, the H1-B doesn't just allow for temporary workers. It provides a well worn path to a green card and permanent residency in the US too, and in my experience virtually everyone I've known to use the H1-B has done so.
The H1-B cap is surely a far more pressing concern for most technology firms than the GC backlog. The H1-B cap and delays are making it significantly harder to hire foreign workers. I don't think the big tech firms care nearly as much about GC backlogs - if anything they probably like this, as it arguably aids in staff retention if your workforce is less able to easily switch job.
The H1-B cap is surely a far more pressing concern for most technology firms than the GC backlog. The H1-B cap and delays are making it significantly harder to hire foreign workers. I don't think the big tech firms care nearly as much about GC backlogs - if anything they probably like this, as it arguably aids in staff retention if your workforce is less able to easily switch job.
I think the parent poster's point is that the H1B process is far from the bottleneck there, for shops intending to bring along their foreign workers rather than churn through cheap employees, which matches my experience.
I'd disagree - the H1B process can absolutely be argued to be the main bottleneck for hiring skilled foreign tech workers right now, especially as the cap has been exceeded by such an enormous number for several years.
Indeed.
Also, the GC backlogs are more relevant to SV than the two other issues mentioned - travel ban and DACA. Yet SV leadership is way more vocal on travel ban and DACA than they are about GC backlogs.
Also, the GC backlogs are more relevant to SV than the two other issues mentioned - travel ban and DACA. Yet SV leadership is way more vocal on travel ban and DACA than they are about GC backlogs.
>The (skilled) immigration issue which concerns most of SV is green card backlogs. That has not gotten any attention from SV leadership.
Of course not. If workers were not held hostage by one company, and were free to go to any company they wanted without worrying about their immigration status, the companies would have to pay higher wages to keep their workers.
Of course not. If workers were not held hostage by one company, and were free to go to any company they wanted without worrying about their immigration status, the companies would have to pay higher wages to keep their workers.
Not to mention, many would be able to work for or create startups, small businesses, or heck, just bum around or retire if they had saved enough over the years.
Companies hate employees having this kind of flexibility. Just on some other thread on HN, there was talk of how foreign grad students were not treated well compared to citizens, since the foreigners were tied to a visa.
Companies hate employees having this kind of flexibility. Just on some other thread on HN, there was talk of how foreign grad students were not treated well compared to citizens, since the foreigners were tied to a visa.
> H-1B is about temporary guest workers.
The H-1B is not about guest workers, which are an altogther separate set of programs/visas. The H-1B is a dual-intent visa, so it supports both people who intend to obtain a green card or citizenship eventually as well as people who only intend to work in the US for a period of time before returning home. (Even in the latter case, this doesn't qualify it as a guest worker program, which is a third category altogether).
An easy heuristic you can use to remember why the H-1B visa isn't a guest worker program is that many people who obtain H-1B visas enter the country without any plan for the date that they will return home. (Whether or not they ultimately stay and immigrate is a separate matter, but guest workers by definition know their expected departure date when they enter, because the terms of their employment and entry are inherently temporary.)
Some critics of the H-1B visa refer to it as a guest worker program, in an attempt to conflate it pejoratively with the latter (which are generally for low-skilled labor, and therefore viewed less favorably than specialty visas like the H-1B).
The H-1B is not about guest workers, which are an altogther separate set of programs/visas. The H-1B is a dual-intent visa, so it supports both people who intend to obtain a green card or citizenship eventually as well as people who only intend to work in the US for a period of time before returning home. (Even in the latter case, this doesn't qualify it as a guest worker program, which is a third category altogether).
An easy heuristic you can use to remember why the H-1B visa isn't a guest worker program is that many people who obtain H-1B visas enter the country without any plan for the date that they will return home. (Whether or not they ultimately stay and immigrate is a separate matter, but guest workers by definition know their expected departure date when they enter, because the terms of their employment and entry are inherently temporary.)
Some critics of the H-1B visa refer to it as a guest worker program, in an attempt to conflate it pejoratively with the latter (which are generally for low-skilled labor, and therefore viewed less favorably than specialty visas like the H-1B).
This is not only happening to H1-B Visas. I am on L1 Visa and got an RFE as well. Lawyers said that they have seen a large increase in such requests.
I am in charge of production systems which, if they go down for any significant amount of time, can represent hundreds of millions of dollars in lost revenue. This is a very niche system(networking-related), not your usual run of the mill web app. My salary is in the 6 digit range (and I have got multiple raises since then). I have got awards from my company for work I have and am doing.
Still got an RFE. Now, I'll have to dig into payslips from my home country, get letters from former managers overseas, justify one more time all the skills (which I already did multiple times), provide org charts(from the current and previous position), and so on. I believe I have a pretty strong case, but it's a very stressful process. All this to be allowed to continue doing the stuff that was previously approved. And, unless I apply for a green card, I can stay for 5 years max. So why make it even harder? There's already an expiration date.
And I can't drive while this is going on (DMV wants the approved extension). Fun times.
The US is a great country; I feel that some "natives" have no idea how great it is, despite all its quirks. And, for engineers, the allure of Silicon Valley is too great – everything of notice is happening here. I have chosen to come here, and I knew that I need to jump through some hoops and prove my worth, to both the country and the company. But at some point, you start questioning if it is worth it.
Can an American do my job? Absolutely – if you can find one with the right skillset that's willing to join. This position was open for MONTHS before the company even considered hiring from outside the country. They tried increasing the offers too, no takers, at least not qualified ones. The problem is that at some point all the companies can do is to poach from one another.
Can you improve things with education? Yes. Do you want to avoid immigration altogether? Why would you, when you can hire the best brains from anywhere in the planet?
The problem is that there are companies heavily abusing the system. But they are a handful, and they should get the hammer. That's from a rational perspective though, not a politically motivated one.
I am in charge of production systems which, if they go down for any significant amount of time, can represent hundreds of millions of dollars in lost revenue. This is a very niche system(networking-related), not your usual run of the mill web app. My salary is in the 6 digit range (and I have got multiple raises since then). I have got awards from my company for work I have and am doing.
Still got an RFE. Now, I'll have to dig into payslips from my home country, get letters from former managers overseas, justify one more time all the skills (which I already did multiple times), provide org charts(from the current and previous position), and so on. I believe I have a pretty strong case, but it's a very stressful process. All this to be allowed to continue doing the stuff that was previously approved. And, unless I apply for a green card, I can stay for 5 years max. So why make it even harder? There's already an expiration date.
And I can't drive while this is going on (DMV wants the approved extension). Fun times.
The US is a great country; I feel that some "natives" have no idea how great it is, despite all its quirks. And, for engineers, the allure of Silicon Valley is too great – everything of notice is happening here. I have chosen to come here, and I knew that I need to jump through some hoops and prove my worth, to both the country and the company. But at some point, you start questioning if it is worth it.
Can an American do my job? Absolutely – if you can find one with the right skillset that's willing to join. This position was open for MONTHS before the company even considered hiring from outside the country. They tried increasing the offers too, no takers, at least not qualified ones. The problem is that at some point all the companies can do is to poach from one another.
Can you improve things with education? Yes. Do you want to avoid immigration altogether? Why would you, when you can hire the best brains from anywhere in the planet?
The problem is that there are companies heavily abusing the system. But they are a handful, and they should get the hammer. That's from a rational perspective though, not a politically motivated one.
I'm rooting for you (and more usefully, donating time and money to political candidates who can help you). My research group currently has a scientist who took a year to recruit stuck in immigration. I wouldn't be surprised if he gives up. It makes me furious what the alliance of nativism and greed is doing to this country.
Thank you.
Ultimately though, my predicament does not matter. What matters is, if they are doing an immigration reform, that it is done for the right reasons, in a humane way, and with measures supported by actual data. Bonus points for a sane process.
Ultimately though, my predicament does not matter. What matters is, if they are doing an immigration reform, that it is done for the right reasons, in a humane way, and with measures supported by actual data. Bonus points for a sane process.
As an aspiring immigrant, I feel this is great. Instead of a situation where immigration to US sort of works, sort of doesnt, is a hassle, but not really a bad one, a lot of companies were still keeping major offices in US.
Now that Americans have made up their mind that they dont want immigrants, companies will spend more money on opening engineering centers in immigration friendly countries (Canada\west Europe\Australia(maybe),etc) which from a personal perspective are great countries for me to immigrate to. And this time I might would be able to catch the first wave of immigrants (who get to convert to citizens) if there is a genuine boom in jobs in such countries (unlike US where its near impossible for an EB2 immigrant to get citizenship if moving today)
Now that Americans have made up their mind that they dont want immigrants, companies will spend more money on opening engineering centers in immigration friendly countries (Canada\west Europe\Australia(maybe),etc) which from a personal perspective are great countries for me to immigrate to. And this time I might would be able to catch the first wave of immigrants (who get to convert to citizens) if there is a genuine boom in jobs in such countries (unlike US where its near impossible for an EB2 immigrant to get citizenship if moving today)
That's already happening in Canada. All the major US IT companies started establishing large offices here. All the announcements happened after Trump got elected.
If the wages weren't complete shit I'd move back tomorrow.
If the wages weren't complete shit they wouldn't set up offices in Canada(well and the tax breaks help too).
I may be an exception and my experience may be anecdotal, but as someone on an H1-B I think I'm seeing this as a good change. My immigrant peers working at consultancies are seeing more RFEs, and those I know to be working as direct employees are not (as often compared to consultant employees). But there's been a net increase in site visits and verifications along with RFEs to even legit applicants.
For those who dont know the process here's how and when one can get an RFE:
1) Missed a key point in the application or Immigration attorney goofed up (this happens way often)
2) Position doesn't look like it needs a high skilled engineer with skills mentioned in application
3) Grossly underpaying the H1b employee
Getting an RFE by itself is not the nightmare scenario. Its a problem if the employer is doing things using shady loopholes.
What needs to be seen is by what %age RFEs have increased at companies like Apple, Facebook, Intel, Google etc. The bigger companies use boutique immigration law firms and its rare but not impossible for them to mess up on the immigration application process.
I'm not sure what has Trump's administration done to reform the H1b system, its still as crappy as it has been. If anything certain employers were abusing the loopholes. Now its going to get tougher to abuse the loopholes.
For those who dont know the process here's how and when one can get an RFE:
1) Missed a key point in the application or Immigration attorney goofed up (this happens way often)
2) Position doesn't look like it needs a high skilled engineer with skills mentioned in application
3) Grossly underpaying the H1b employee
Getting an RFE by itself is not the nightmare scenario. Its a problem if the employer is doing things using shady loopholes.
What needs to be seen is by what %age RFEs have increased at companies like Apple, Facebook, Intel, Google etc. The bigger companies use boutique immigration law firms and its rare but not impossible for them to mess up on the immigration application process.
I'm not sure what has Trump's administration done to reform the H1b system, its still as crappy as it has been. If anything certain employers were abusing the loopholes. Now its going to get tougher to abuse the loopholes.
Instead of a lottery, we should have an H1-B auction. There are a limited number of H1-B slots, and the companies that offer the highest salaries get them.
In addition, whistle-blower protection with automatic Green cards for anyone who reports employer abuse, with prison sentences for the entire company C-suite if a company abuses this process.
In addition, whistle-blower protection with automatic Green cards for anyone who reports employer abuse, with prison sentences for the entire company C-suite if a company abuses this process.
We’ve discussed the auction before here. My sentiment is that it would cause all of the H1Bs to be concentrated in the Bay Area at a handful of companies.
In which case H1-B would be used only for high-end R&D talent not obtainable in the US and would have little or no wage-depressing effect. What a terrible problem.
I agree, that's one side effects to watch out for.
However, it can be curbed with some rough (80/20) cost-of-living adjustments to the applications before they're all put together for ranking.
Even without that adjustment, I think the "bidding" system would probably represent a significant improvement over what we have now.
However, it can be curbed with some rough (80/20) cost-of-living adjustments to the applications before they're all put together for ranking.
Even without that adjustment, I think the "bidding" system would probably represent a significant improvement over what we have now.
This is a great idea. The challenge is that it goes against the reason companies use h1b, to lower wages paid. This would actually drive up the prices of h1b visas and lead to more skilled workforce.
Agreed on the auction, but not on auto green cards. That would flood the system with false or minor reports.
It's great that these RFE's are happening, and Trump should have closed things up even earlier. There are plenty of people with skills out there who may not know every feature of Vue.js 2.5.3, or who are 30 years old and thus "not a culture fit". Companies will start having to look for these people instead. Enough is enough. There's not even an argument, it's whether the programmer gets to make a salary in an industry where you're chucked overboard at 40, or whether billionaire heirs get that money added to their pile of riches. It's no contest. As far as Indians, they can work in India, or Europe, or apply for a green card.
> or apply for a green card.
Which they do when they arrive here on the H-1B. It takes decades and they now have to go through even more stress about it because of this.
Which they do when they arrive here on the H-1B. It takes decades and they now have to go through even more stress about it because of this.
I just wish now that the US government would kill the H1-B and all other immigrant visa and send us all home. I have spent 13 years here, I earn well over 200K, have a kid. But every 3 years, I have to renew my visa and pray and tell that there is no bullshit like RFE when visa is sent for renewal. And then the DMV drama begins as your DL expires, but your application is still not approved. When I came here, I had hope that the US government would make improvements to the immigrant system in good faith, considering all I heard from abroad was that this country is a "nation of immigrants". But it seems like the fancy thing to do these days is to blame every ill on immigrants.
Couldn't this be positive if it stops all the body shop h1b companies that just want cheap, basic programmers? This will then allow for visas for true skills where there are gaps.
I've worked with hundreds of h1b visa, 90% of them were just java programmers with a low bill rate. But there were also a few with really rare skills. I'd like to see more of the latter and less of the former. Especially since the number of h1b visa is capped.
I've worked with hundreds of h1b visa, 90% of them were just java programmers with a low bill rate. But there were also a few with really rare skills. I'd like to see more of the latter and less of the former. Especially since the number of h1b visa is capped.
"It would reject his application unless Centro proved the position required someone with specialized skills. Clark was surprised. She’d been helping people apply for visas for four years, and this was the first time she’d ever seen such a letter."
Four years, and this is the first time she's seen the government even try to see if the law should be enforced. Really says it all.
Four years, and this is the first time she's seen the government even try to see if the law should be enforced. Really says it all.
Centro shouldn't need to import people, what they do can be easily found in Chicago, but they would rather not pay good wage it seems.
This is really the central issue.
The H-1B program hasn't ever been a way to get solid talent from other countries to come to the United States because equivalent talent can't be found here. It's ALWAYS been a way to expand the pool of cheap technology labor so that companies dependent on expensive skills can grow faster.
Economics is economics. Companies have an incentive to fight wage inflation when they experience it due to a reliance on high-skill individuals.
I remember going to the offices of a well-known bank and finding nearly the entire development staff comprised of foreign workers on H-1B. Most of them were from India.
That can't be an accident and it's certainly not an indicator that talent is in short supply. What's in short supply is CHEAP TALENT. H-1B workers are cheap and don't have any ability to complain about their working conditions because they can't move to another company as easily as a permanent resident can. That alone is worth the legal hassle a company assumes when bringing in these workers.
SO, word to the wise....make sure you stay one step ahead of the skill levels of the Indian outsourcing companies or your days are numbered.
In the meantime, support candidates that are willing to rein in this amazing abuse of our immigration policy.
The H-1B program hasn't ever been a way to get solid talent from other countries to come to the United States because equivalent talent can't be found here. It's ALWAYS been a way to expand the pool of cheap technology labor so that companies dependent on expensive skills can grow faster.
Economics is economics. Companies have an incentive to fight wage inflation when they experience it due to a reliance on high-skill individuals.
I remember going to the offices of a well-known bank and finding nearly the entire development staff comprised of foreign workers on H-1B. Most of them were from India.
That can't be an accident and it's certainly not an indicator that talent is in short supply. What's in short supply is CHEAP TALENT. H-1B workers are cheap and don't have any ability to complain about their working conditions because they can't move to another company as easily as a permanent resident can. That alone is worth the legal hassle a company assumes when bringing in these workers.
SO, word to the wise....make sure you stay one step ahead of the skill levels of the Indian outsourcing companies or your days are numbered.
In the meantime, support candidates that are willing to rein in this amazing abuse of our immigration policy.
If only borders were as porous for workers as they are for capital.
Young french software engineer here. I was an intern with a J1 for a year in a company in san diego. I'm working remotely since last february.
My H1B got picked in the lotery but I received an RFE early august. I had to write a ton of technical doc about my job and the system I work on. The documents were submitted mid-october. I received my approval last week.
I guess if your application is legit you don't have much to fear about getting an RFE.
My H1B got picked in the lotery but I received an RFE early august. I had to write a ton of technical doc about my job and the system I work on. The documents were submitted mid-october. I received my approval last week.
I guess if your application is legit you don't have much to fear about getting an RFE.
Cracking down on Indian outsourcers is one thing, but if this is true
> The skeptical eye the government is taking to applications has extended to all types of employers, according to immigration lawyers. Many are rethinking their own use of H-1B as a result.
This is absolutely disastrous. I personally know families on H1B from well-known American companies are afraid to leave the country because of this.
> The skeptical eye the government is taking to applications has extended to all types of employers, according to immigration lawyers. Many are rethinking their own use of H-1B as a result.
This is absolutely disastrous. I personally know families on H1B from well-known American companies are afraid to leave the country because of this.
You know what, as an H1B receiver, I am fine with more scrutiny towards H1B. Over the past few years, I have seen competent international coworkers not able to get H1B visa because:
1. it's a lottery system, regardless of background and academic accomplishment.
2. it's been abused by outsourcing companies. Practices such as multiple-filing for one person are so shady that it baffles me how loose the inspection towards H1B application is.
I totally agree that American citizens should be prioritized when it comes to hiring and my country would do the same for its citizens. I also know that immigration service is a booming business for many American law firms and they have their own agenda to go against any further regulations towards H1B. However, in a long run, if done properly, a more merit-based/restricted H1B visa could actually be beneficial to outstanding individuals who follow the rules.
As someone that love American culture but also have pride in his academic/career accomplishment, I stay in the US because I like this place, not that I have to, and I am more than happy to go back to my homeland or somewhere welcoming if I am not welcomed here anymore. H1B has never been the last straw of my life and it's true for many folks I know. I am all for making H1B more accessible for accomplished individuals and more restrictive towards those who cheat the game, but do it properly so that America doesn't give an image of Xenophobia to the world.
1. it's a lottery system, regardless of background and academic accomplishment.
2. it's been abused by outsourcing companies. Practices such as multiple-filing for one person are so shady that it baffles me how loose the inspection towards H1B application is.
I totally agree that American citizens should be prioritized when it comes to hiring and my country would do the same for its citizens. I also know that immigration service is a booming business for many American law firms and they have their own agenda to go against any further regulations towards H1B. However, in a long run, if done properly, a more merit-based/restricted H1B visa could actually be beneficial to outstanding individuals who follow the rules.
As someone that love American culture but also have pride in his academic/career accomplishment, I stay in the US because I like this place, not that I have to, and I am more than happy to go back to my homeland or somewhere welcoming if I am not welcomed here anymore. H1B has never been the last straw of my life and it's true for many folks I know. I am all for making H1B more accessible for accomplished individuals and more restrictive towards those who cheat the game, but do it properly so that America doesn't give an image of Xenophobia to the world.
ex H1B here. I left US because of this broken system. There are many bad apples than good ones utilizing the H1B system. Indian bodyshops, one room consultancies all over New Jersey. Even companies like Sprint,Walmart,TR,Garmin,BOFA,Chase,Visa,AMEX, they all game the system and exploit H1B employees because of their situation. There are a lot of fake payroll running firms too which keeps the fake H1B employee's status valid. There are firms which apply for "future greencards" while the beneficiary is not even physically present in the US.
Even many non CS graduates faking their resumes as CS ones and applying for "specialized" positions in IT. I had enough of this and left US and immigrated to Canada for good because I am pretty sure that my future will be affected by these bad apples gaming the system. I do not like Trump personally, but he is right about the H1B immigration system.
If H1B system is a lottery, then why is it called a "skilled visa" ? H1B should be merit based so as to weed out the bad apples and body shops gaming the system.
Probably I should write a book on "How to game the H1B system and get away with it". The book will be an eye opener for this broken skilled visa system and its loopholes.
Even many non CS graduates faking their resumes as CS ones and applying for "specialized" positions in IT. I had enough of this and left US and immigrated to Canada for good because I am pretty sure that my future will be affected by these bad apples gaming the system. I do not like Trump personally, but he is right about the H1B immigration system.
If H1B system is a lottery, then why is it called a "skilled visa" ? H1B should be merit based so as to weed out the bad apples and body shops gaming the system.
Probably I should write a book on "How to game the H1B system and get away with it". The book will be an eye opener for this broken skilled visa system and its loopholes.
This program was abused badly by US and Indian companies and put a number of engineers in subservient position. I will not shed a tear for those companies.
For people, we should have one clear policy and apply it, if they can't come, so be it, but tell them clearly what they can get and what they cannot. And allow some transparency of the income and rates so that it can't be abused as much.
For people, we should have one clear policy and apply it, if they can't come, so be it, but tell them clearly what they can get and what they cannot. And allow some transparency of the income and rates so that it can't be abused as much.
This is absolutely correct. I don't understand this mess of an immigration system, where first you have to lie to visa officers saying that you are using the F1 visa only to study, and you will definitely go back to your home country, then get a dual intent H1B, with a near infinite green card wait.
Set clear standards and expectations. I know that for a lot of people stuck in green card queues, Canada is looking mighty attractive right now. Instant PR.
Set clear standards and expectations. I know that for a lot of people stuck in green card queues, Canada is looking mighty attractive right now. Instant PR.
I don't think the point of this article is that the companies are the only ones crying.
For people, we should have one clear policy and apply it,
if they can't come, so be it, but tell them clearly what
they can get and what they cannot.
And let them travel and know the path to Green Card if they decide to stay. Otherwise then they get milked by lawyers.
Serious question here: Why not get rid of the closed number and charge a 100% immigration tax to the employer?
Cheap labor would be priced out unless American really cant substitute the imported labor. Employers would encourage employees to get a green card (as opposed to doing everything in their power to keep them chained to the H1B)
What are the negatives (except for the obvious problems of taxes, of course)
Cheap labor would be priced out unless American really cant substitute the imported labor. Employers would encourage employees to get a green card (as opposed to doing everything in their power to keep them chained to the H1B)
What are the negatives (except for the obvious problems of taxes, of course)
This will basically kill all immigration. Employers have to go through a LOT to hire an immigrant, and I almost feel sorry to ask an employer to file an H1 transfer. They have to hire an army of lawyers and pay steep fees to file all the paperwork and go through a process when it comes to green card. If you ask them to pay a lot, they will just hire somewhere else.
[deleted]
Yet Trump's own Mar-a-Lago is abusing H-2B to obtain 70 foreign workers:
From the article: "It’s unclear whether the Trump Organization had made an extra effort to try to fill the jobs.
In July, the club placed an ad on Page C8 of the Palm Beach Post: “3 mos recent & verifiable exp in fine dining/country club,” the ad said. “No tips,” Fahrenthold reported.
The ad, which ran twice, gave no email address, mailing address or phone number and instructed applicants to “Apply by fax.”"
Hypocrites.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/11/05/...
From the article: "It’s unclear whether the Trump Organization had made an extra effort to try to fill the jobs.
In July, the club placed an ad on Page C8 of the Palm Beach Post: “3 mos recent & verifiable exp in fine dining/country club,” the ad said. “No tips,” Fahrenthold reported.
The ad, which ran twice, gave no email address, mailing address or phone number and instructed applicants to “Apply by fax.”"
Hypocrites.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/11/05/...
The Palm Beach Post posted on their blog about three ads for Mar-a-Lago. The three ads were published on July 27th and all have an address at the end with a job number to reference. The server ad at the bottom seems to be the one they are referring to.
http://realtime.blog.palmbeachpost.com/2017/08/07/want-a-sea...
http://realtime.blog.palmbeachpost.com/2017/08/07/want-a-sea...
It seems like the pretense of these changes is to affect the "infosys" style of visas. Does anyone have any insight on how this will affect getting visas for higher end jobs?
Young, European, High-skilled worker here, who've been working on core Kubernetes products for three years. Got several job offers for key infra positions in various companies @ 200-250k+. Trump administration came in, decided to RFE+NOIR my H-1B with a bullshit reason, had to go back to my country, which is not my really home anymore whatsoever (wife/friends here). So yeah, that just happened. It's not only about abuses and 'Indians'.
I don't like pieces like this who mostly make people who are in a true need of an H-1B more anxious.
For instance, statements like this one below are suppose to make the reader think something is deeply wrong:
> She said in past years she's counted on 90 percent of her petitions being approved by Oct. 1 in years past. This year, only 20 percent of the applications have been processed.
But, this year Premium processing was disabled for most of the year so that would explain this, wouldn't it? For those unaware, Premium processing is where the petitioner can pay an extra $1225 on top of all the existing fees, to have its case processed in at most 14 days. Without premium processing it can take months & months instead. Also, without the fees for premium processing, I wouldn't be surprised if USCIS have less employees able to work the cases. It was disabled specifically because the Regular processing cases backlog was getting too big. So if last year 90% of her cases used Premium Processing, the quote isn't shocking at all.
The same lawyer maintains her personal blog, where she isn't as dramatic, and gives more useful facts: http://immigrationgirl.com/
Premium processing is now back[1], it'd be interesting to see if the statement still holds true.
[1] http://immigrationgirl.com/premium-processing-is-back-for-al...
For instance, statements like this one below are suppose to make the reader think something is deeply wrong:
> She said in past years she's counted on 90 percent of her petitions being approved by Oct. 1 in years past. This year, only 20 percent of the applications have been processed.
But, this year Premium processing was disabled for most of the year so that would explain this, wouldn't it? For those unaware, Premium processing is where the petitioner can pay an extra $1225 on top of all the existing fees, to have its case processed in at most 14 days. Without premium processing it can take months & months instead. Also, without the fees for premium processing, I wouldn't be surprised if USCIS have less employees able to work the cases. It was disabled specifically because the Regular processing cases backlog was getting too big. So if last year 90% of her cases used Premium Processing, the quote isn't shocking at all.
The same lawyer maintains her personal blog, where she isn't as dramatic, and gives more useful facts: http://immigrationgirl.com/
Premium processing is now back[1], it'd be interesting to see if the statement still holds true.
[1] http://immigrationgirl.com/premium-processing-is-back-for-al...
The solution is simple: rank the H1B applicants by descending order of wages, and take the top 65K. Period. Done. End of story. No more abuse.
Spot on. The only catch is that there may be industries who genuinely need H1Bs but cannot match the pay grade; a corner case may be added for them.
Wages aren't fixed though. But H1b visas are fixed to the employer.
What about professions that just pay lower? If 100k is well above market for a profession it's still not particularly high for a software dev.
I don't understand why companies are still trying to bring people in the US to work for them. What's the point for the employer? How about investing overseas and training people here to handle remote offices? That's where we failed in the past... because it was too hard to manage and would require spending extra money to fix the mess. So we all decided to bring everyone in-house which is obviously a much bigger issue. I think we should invest more time in building infrastructures in other countries in order to create top of the line working places outside of the US. This would probably end up costing less and would help hiring way more people.
Again, create new positions in the US like a "Remote Office Manager" and build kick ass campuses in India, China, Europe, etc.
The whole immigration thing would be totally obsolete... I mean, we will be able to travel to Mars soon... why can't we even manage remote employees in 2017?
Again, create new positions in the US like a "Remote Office Manager" and build kick ass campuses in India, China, Europe, etc.
The whole immigration thing would be totally obsolete... I mean, we will be able to travel to Mars soon... why can't we even manage remote employees in 2017?
I'm having a hard time finding sympathy for an industry that has systematically abused this system, with the direct intent of artificially lowering wages.
I also find it hilarious that the same people who are always going on about the "evil rich" and the wage gap are the most likely to be against culling one of the biggest loopholes out there.
I also find it hilarious that the same people who are always going on about the "evil rich" and the wage gap are the most likely to be against culling one of the biggest loopholes out there.
One of the strangest things with visas is that the agency that authorizes a person to work (DHS/USCIS) is different and has different objectives from the agency that issues the actual visas (DoS). With a valid USCIS work authorization a person already in the US can continue working legally, but the moment they step out of the country they need to apply for a visa with a US consulate (DHS). Applying for a visa with the DHS can take less than a week or more than 6 weeks (despite having all the correct documents). With the people I've spoken to, this causes a great deal of anxiety when travelling internationally.
TL;DR: A work authorization document issued by one agency allows a person to maintain legal presence in the US. This is different from a visa -- a visa allows one to enter the country and is issued by another agency. The visa doesn't clearly specify what one can and cannot do while in the country.
TL;DR: A work authorization document issued by one agency allows a person to maintain legal presence in the US. This is different from a visa -- a visa allows one to enter the country and is issued by another agency. The visa doesn't clearly specify what one can and cannot do while in the country.
The self-fulfilling prophecy of "there's no Americans to do these jobs" is coming to an end. In a nation of 330 million people it's been an incredulous argument and it's ruined at least 2 generations from entering STEM. People talk about women in STEM, we have a bigger issue, no one is in STEM. Conservatives like to say you get more of what you subsidize, and they've been subsidizing the rest of the world for a very long time. I hope this is a shift in the tide and not a temporary blip.
Here is my take on H1B, which after checking some facts, is the last thing to worry for an average US tech worker, who don't like H1B.
) 65k Visas + 20k (for US educated MS degree holders) = 85k total every year. Lets say each one gets a 130k salary (Senator Chuck Grassley's recommendation) = ~$12 billion
) $12 billion Income. Lets say all these H1Bs send 25% back to their home countries = $3 billion gone out of USA, $9 billion spent in USA
) India's Software exports to USA in 2016 - (61+24.4+22.4 = $107.8 billion) source : https://www.statista.com/statistics/320753/indian-it-softwar...
) Majority of these exports are to US. If we assume, the cost of getting software work done in India/China is probably 1/3rd of its cost in US, means, India, which exported ~$100+ billion worth of software, would have equalled $300 billion if the work was done in USA (thus creating jobs in USA).
*) India, through its software exports sucked $300 billion out of USA and hence took away jobs in USA.
Bottom line is, the rise of India's, China's software industries will suck the money out of USA. So, these numbers mean : H1B don't take jobs, Software engineers in India, China and rest of the world are taking them at an order of magnitude faster !
) 65k Visas + 20k (for US educated MS degree holders) = 85k total every year. Lets say each one gets a 130k salary (Senator Chuck Grassley's recommendation) = ~$12 billion
) $12 billion Income. Lets say all these H1Bs send 25% back to their home countries = $3 billion gone out of USA, $9 billion spent in USA
) India's Software exports to USA in 2016 - (61+24.4+22.4 = $107.8 billion) source : https://www.statista.com/statistics/320753/indian-it-softwar...
) Majority of these exports are to US. If we assume, the cost of getting software work done in India/China is probably 1/3rd of its cost in US, means, India, which exported ~$100+ billion worth of software, would have equalled $300 billion if the work was done in USA (thus creating jobs in USA).
*) India, through its software exports sucked $300 billion out of USA and hence took away jobs in USA.
Bottom line is, the rise of India's, China's software industries will suck the money out of USA. So, these numbers mean : H1B don't take jobs, Software engineers in India, China and rest of the world are taking them at an order of magnitude faster !
Disclaimer: I am from India, living in USA and i am reporting what i see, which is nothing but the typical effects/consequences of Globalization. Eg. Everything i buy in Target/Walmart, including US designed marvels, like "iphone" is made in China, which means, workers at that skill level in USA would get impacted. Consider the software equivalent use case, which is India. Software that comes out of India will have impact on workers at that skill level.
this math is flawed in so many ways, I dont know where to start...
Please correct me.
Another field report:
Our town has a state university and a modest tech employment market. Every H-1B holder I've met a) went to the local university, b) works at a hospital or law office, c) writes CRUD apps in Java or C#.
They're good dudes, but hard to imagine that any of them are the kind of alpha-double-plus-good talent that couldn't be locally sourced.
Our town has a state university and a modest tech employment market. Every H-1B holder I've met a) went to the local university, b) works at a hospital or law office, c) writes CRUD apps in Java or C#.
They're good dudes, but hard to imagine that any of them are the kind of alpha-double-plus-good talent that couldn't be locally sourced.
I wrote about this a while back and think it's still valid:
https://journal.dedasys.com/2014/12/29/people-places-and-job...
https://journal.dedasys.com/2014/12/29/people-places-and-job...
i'd probably be voted down (even deservedly so). But i cannot resist : what unique sort of modelling work could an american not fullfil that the first lady was given H1B?
Will this increase the number of remote positions (work from anywhere) for software developers?
I am really interested in seeing whether the tech companies eventually bend the knee.
you know its bad when all your neighbors speak hindi, or when at work when you've been there for years, and you don't know any of your co-workers because none of them speak english (at fortune 500 companies in the US)
Ah yes, gotta love H-1B threads. The latent nativism among the Hacker News crowd is laid bare.
Here's a radical proposal: give anyone with a clean criminal record and a job offer a green card. No limits, no $100k minimum wage, no protectionism. If you, with all the advantages that natives get (networks, language, NETWORKS), can be beat by an immigrant with zero social connections, you probably are worth less than you think you are. Time to compete, pal.
Anything less is opportunity hoarding based on the patch of dirt you were born on.
Here's a radical proposal: give anyone with a clean criminal record and a job offer a green card. No limits, no $100k minimum wage, no protectionism. If you, with all the advantages that natives get (networks, language, NETWORKS), can be beat by an immigrant with zero social connections, you probably are worth less than you think you are. Time to compete, pal.
Anything less is opportunity hoarding based on the patch of dirt you were born on.
> The latent nativism among the Hacker News crowd is laid bare.
+1. that and sheer ignorance mixed with some American-grade entitlement. being anti-h1b is just socially acceptable (among 'liberals') way of being xenophobic.
+1. that and sheer ignorance mixed with some American-grade entitlement. being anti-h1b is just socially acceptable (among 'liberals') way of being xenophobic.
I feel the real issue is that Americans are comfy with their quality of life, and spend a lot of money on luxury educationm ending up with loans. People in India for instance are used to a massively lower level of material comforts during education. As a result education is much cheaper (so we dont graduate with massive debts in India) and we are used to a lower quality of live (so 2 people living in a 2 bedroom apartment is still an upgrade).
Americans will end up losing on money in such a system, cause they will want to maintain their quality of life, say living in independent studios with central climate control even in high CoL areas, and they need to pay back education loans which are much lower for people from India
Americans will end up losing on money in such a system, cause they will want to maintain their quality of life, say living in independent studios with central climate control even in high CoL areas, and they need to pay back education loans which are much lower for people from India
What exactly is the point of a having a country at all, if not to accrue unfair advantages to its citizens? And I assume you have a problem with all other countries unfairly "opportunity hoarding" for their own people too, not just the US?
> What exactly is the point of a having a country at all, if not to accrue unfair advantages to its citizens?
"What exactly is the point of having the white race at all, if not to accrue unfair advantages to its members?"
Countries should effectively be large organizations competing for people based on tax rates, laws, efficiency, and productivity.
> And I assume you have a problem with all other countries unfairly "opportunity hoarding" for their own people too, not just the US?
Obviously. But this is not a Nash equilibrium. Even unilaterally opening up your borders will result in better Pareto outcomes.
"What exactly is the point of having the white race at all, if not to accrue unfair advantages to its members?"
Countries should effectively be large organizations competing for people based on tax rates, laws, efficiency, and productivity.
> And I assume you have a problem with all other countries unfairly "opportunity hoarding" for their own people too, not just the US?
Obviously. But this is not a Nash equilibrium. Even unilaterally opening up your borders will result in better Pareto outcomes.
Hey, I worked really hard to be born where I was ;-)
I just don't like to see people made into indentured servants. Here's my radical proposal: let H1B's change jobs once a year, as long as they're employed somewhere in the industry they're here for and their visa hasn't expired, they can stay. "Sponsoring" companies should not be allowed to keep slaves.
I don't think your radical proposal makes much sense. What's the benefit to a country to basically throw its borders wide open?
I don't think your radical proposal makes much sense. What's the benefit to a country to basically throw its borders wide open?
> What's the benefit to a country to basically throw its borders wide open?
More people means a bigger economy. Immigrants -- at least the ones that choose to immigrate -- are by definition risk-takers. Risk-taking is core to entrepreneurship. I hope I don't have to defend the value of entrepreneurship on this site.
We've known for thousands of years that free trade is a net positive for everyone involved. Why would free immigration be any different?
The US had open borders for centuries. It became the most powerful country in the world because of open borders.
Here's an economist far more literate than me making the case: http://johnhcochrane.blogspot.com/2014/06/the-optimal-number...
(We should also welcome all the refugees we can get, of course.)
More people means a bigger economy. Immigrants -- at least the ones that choose to immigrate -- are by definition risk-takers. Risk-taking is core to entrepreneurship. I hope I don't have to defend the value of entrepreneurship on this site.
We've known for thousands of years that free trade is a net positive for everyone involved. Why would free immigration be any different?
The US had open borders for centuries. It became the most powerful country in the world because of open borders.
Here's an economist far more literate than me making the case: http://johnhcochrane.blogspot.com/2014/06/the-optimal-number...
(We should also welcome all the refugees we can get, of course.)
Nah. You're just making emotional arguments because not all risk-taking immigrants are entrepreneurs. We're not running a charity, why would you talk as if we are?
> (We should also welcome all the refugees we can get, of course.)
What trolling nonsense. We must control who comes and who gets turned away, it's the only fair and equitable option for the citizens and resident aliens who already live here. Because priorities.
> (We should also welcome all the refugees we can get, of course.)
What trolling nonsense. We must control who comes and who gets turned away, it's the only fair and equitable option for the citizens and resident aliens who already live here. Because priorities.
Applying for existing h1b transfer is already fairly trivial (or at least it was before Trump) if your company has a lawyer firm on retainer. Most h1bs I know switched jobs at least once.
All of the h1b's I've known that transferred just switched from one slaver to the next. I'm talking about being part of the job market and being able to switch, perhaps within fixed time windows, but for the most part, at one's own will. You know, having freedom?
Of course, that will never happen, because the point of the system is to get people here, have a sword of deportation hanging over their heads, and thus keep 'em quiet and get 'em cheap.
Of course, that will never happen, because the point of the system is to get people here, have a sword of deportation hanging over their heads, and thus keep 'em quiet and get 'em cheap.
Your proposal is a feel-good hurrah, but oversimplifies a few complex issues. No protections = Exploitation of workers. Instant green card = Increased competition for Housing/public services.
So unless you think that lowly-paid immigrants with limited access to social services is the best path forward, I'd advocate for some protections. I agree with no limits. If a company can provide for the workers, then go for it. Otherwise, the US barely has enough financial support/ safety net for the existing population. Opening the doors wide open would put stress on that already poor situation.
So unless you think that lowly-paid immigrants with limited access to social services is the best path forward, I'd advocate for some protections. I agree with no limits. If a company can provide for the workers, then go for it. Otherwise, the US barely has enough financial support/ safety net for the existing population. Opening the doors wide open would put stress on that already poor situation.
> No protections = Exploitation of workers.
I said no protectionism (in the form of visa caps), not no protections.
> Instant green card = Increased competition for Housing/public services.
Sounds like a great opportunity for entrepreneurs to provide those services and make lots of money.
I wonder why the otherwise enterprising Hacker News crowd is blind to the incredible market opportunities open borders would provide. I truly, deeply wonder why.
I said no protectionism (in the form of visa caps), not no protections.
> Instant green card = Increased competition for Housing/public services.
Sounds like a great opportunity for entrepreneurs to provide those services and make lots of money.
I wonder why the otherwise enterprising Hacker News crowd is blind to the incredible market opportunities open borders would provide. I truly, deeply wonder why.
You said 'No $100k minimum wage' which IS a protection in favor of the immigrants.
> Sounds like a great opportunity for entrepreneurs to provide those services and make lots of money.
I believe these were called slums and the entrepreneurs slumlords.
I believe these were called slums and the entrepreneurs slumlords.
Thankfully, with the power of legislation (TM) we can ensure that new buildings are up to modern standards.
I'll be excited about solutions when the quality and price of education changes for Americans. There is no 'affirmative action' for the average white male to ensure access to affordable higher education.
So go to community college for 2 years and then transfer to a state school.
I went to a pretty meh public university. Didn't hold me back.
I went to a pretty meh public university. Didn't hold me back.
I feel like a lot of the arguments around immigration - including H1-Bs - boil down to two pretty straightforward opposing views of immigration:
1) "We" have built something great and unique, and we want others to be able to partake of and contribute to it, but the greatness and uniqueness of it is special and we want to preserve that. This is the more conservative view.
2) "We" have an environment where great things can happen, and so we want to bring people into it and add their greatness to it to make it even greater. There is nothing special about what we have, nothing that warrants preserving, and in fact change - constant, disruptive change - is naturally good. This is the more liberal view.
It bothers me that (1) is often conflated with racism, admittedly (the bothering part) because it's something I happen to agree with despite being mostly liberal on other issues. I DO think we here in America have a culture worth preserving, and while I want to open it up as much as possible to the world, I won't support doing so to the detriment and/or dissolution of what we have. I don't think constant disruption is naturally good; I didn't when I was younger and I don't think it is now.
But anything even approaching a whiff of something like "preservation" is immediately labeled racist dog-whistling (which seems insane to me). Any kind of "hey, maybe non-Americans are trying to exploit this and that's not good" is racism. Saying that perhaps as much diversity as possible even if just for diversity's sake in all things is maybe not the best thing - again, racism.
We need to recognize that there are real, non-racist and completely rational and informed reasons why people are uncomfortable with things like H1-B abuse, and that we don't all agree on what immigration should be or accomplish.
1) "We" have built something great and unique, and we want others to be able to partake of and contribute to it, but the greatness and uniqueness of it is special and we want to preserve that. This is the more conservative view.
2) "We" have an environment where great things can happen, and so we want to bring people into it and add their greatness to it to make it even greater. There is nothing special about what we have, nothing that warrants preserving, and in fact change - constant, disruptive change - is naturally good. This is the more liberal view.
It bothers me that (1) is often conflated with racism, admittedly (the bothering part) because it's something I happen to agree with despite being mostly liberal on other issues. I DO think we here in America have a culture worth preserving, and while I want to open it up as much as possible to the world, I won't support doing so to the detriment and/or dissolution of what we have. I don't think constant disruption is naturally good; I didn't when I was younger and I don't think it is now.
But anything even approaching a whiff of something like "preservation" is immediately labeled racist dog-whistling (which seems insane to me). Any kind of "hey, maybe non-Americans are trying to exploit this and that's not good" is racism. Saying that perhaps as much diversity as possible even if just for diversity's sake in all things is maybe not the best thing - again, racism.
We need to recognize that there are real, non-racist and completely rational and informed reasons why people are uncomfortable with things like H1-B abuse, and that we don't all agree on what immigration should be or accomplish.
I don't understand this view of the world. I'd like to ask some questions to better understand. Not debate, understand. I spent a lot of time picking apart the various parts.
I largely see immigration issues as capitalist vs. socialist spectrum. The capitalist wants little control over the flow of resources for a more efficient distribution of resources. The socialist wants to control the flow allocation of resources for a fair distribution of resources.
So when you state the conservative position, I see that you want to control the flow of labor. What threats do you see from the flow of labor posing to the greatness and uniqueness of the US? Currently I see it as the opposite of imposing socialist tendencies impairing US companies from being able to compete with other countries that don't have the similar controls. Maybe we disagree on what makes the US culture unique.
With the liberal point of view stated, I can understand the parts about disruption and change as the capitalist point of view except for the claim about "there is nothing special about what we have, nothing that warrants preserving". I don't see how immigration jeopardizes 'specialness' nor how it harms the preservation of things. We already have a wide dirth of cultural diversity dating back over many centuries, my guess is there is something in particular you value.
I could look at things like Cinco de Mayo or St Patrick's day as examples of immigration both preserving special things as well as harming these through dilution and cultural appropriation.
Maybe what your trying to say in many words is liberals are pro-change and conservatives are anti-change? Which is kind of the dictionary definition of the words, but I digress...
I have more thoughts on how quick people are to throw 'racist' around, but that'll have to wait for another time. All I can say is that we're probably trying to preserve different things we consider great about our country.
I largely see immigration issues as capitalist vs. socialist spectrum. The capitalist wants little control over the flow of resources for a more efficient distribution of resources. The socialist wants to control the flow allocation of resources for a fair distribution of resources.
So when you state the conservative position, I see that you want to control the flow of labor. What threats do you see from the flow of labor posing to the greatness and uniqueness of the US? Currently I see it as the opposite of imposing socialist tendencies impairing US companies from being able to compete with other countries that don't have the similar controls. Maybe we disagree on what makes the US culture unique.
With the liberal point of view stated, I can understand the parts about disruption and change as the capitalist point of view except for the claim about "there is nothing special about what we have, nothing that warrants preserving". I don't see how immigration jeopardizes 'specialness' nor how it harms the preservation of things. We already have a wide dirth of cultural diversity dating back over many centuries, my guess is there is something in particular you value.
I could look at things like Cinco de Mayo or St Patrick's day as examples of immigration both preserving special things as well as harming these through dilution and cultural appropriation.
Maybe what your trying to say in many words is liberals are pro-change and conservatives are anti-change? Which is kind of the dictionary definition of the words, but I digress...
I have more thoughts on how quick people are to throw 'racist' around, but that'll have to wait for another time. All I can say is that we're probably trying to preserve different things we consider great about our country.
Time for companies to hire Americans and train Americans rather than attempting to suppress wages.
Do you believe that this will actually force corporations to not suppress wages? Even if the H-1 program is disbanded, corporations have many options to cut workforce expenses, including offshoring.
Not to mention that healthcare cost rises are one of the key factors that are limiting wage growth: http://www.epi.org/publication/ib218/
Neither the Republicans or Democrats are addressing the systematic issues with wage growth in America.
Neither the Republicans or Democrats are addressing the systematic issues with wage growth in America.
Specifically, stop simultaneously saying there’s a tech worker shortage while discriminating against workers over the age of 40.
How many high priceed senior staff are needed?
http://h1bdata.info/index.php?em=aegis+company&job=&city=&ye...
The Aegis Company listed in the article is paying devs 55k a year in the seattle area.
I'm wondering if this is targeted at the places that seem to pay well under market rate.
The Aegis Company listed in the article is paying devs 55k a year in the seattle area.
I'm wondering if this is targeted at the places that seem to pay well under market rate.
According to OFLC, the entry-level prevailing wage for developers in the Bellevue area (where these developers work) is $39k. Paying $55k for a level 1 or 2 isn't unreasonable because it's more than the average pay of citizens in the area working the same job.
http://www.flcdatacenter.com/OesQuickResults.aspx?area=53000...
http://www.flcdatacenter.com/OesQuickResults.aspx?area=53000...
> immigration should be merit-based
and cut in half. and a visa which requires in demand skills needs to be curbed.
and cut in half. and a visa which requires in demand skills needs to be curbed.
If your business can't survive without indentured labor - that's on you. Simple as that.
The H1B situation could be fixed overnight by declaring the minimum wage to be... one million dollars. Then we'll see it genuinely only used for rare talent.
The H1B situation could be fixed overnight by declaring the minimum wage to be... one million dollars. Then we'll see it genuinely only used for rare talent.
> only used for rare talent.
Not the purpose of the visa.
Not the purpose of the visa.
> For Centro, a company in Chicago that makes technology for ad agencies [...] applied for visas for three young employees who already had the legal right to work for a limited time after graduating from college.
> To Clark's eyes, the position — which consisted of writing algorithms and required knowledge of multiple programming languages as well as a solid understanding of relational data storage systems — wasn’t a borderline case.
I dunno, that sounds a hell of a lot like a fluffed-up description of an entry-level junior web-dev.
A server-side language + JavaScript + SQL queries. Not exactly the skill set that requires you to go head-hunting overseas.