8 ms·

In my opinion, the real fix is to make the H-1B 'lottery' into an auction. Instead of accepting 65,000 H-1Bs at random--accept the 65,000 H-1Bs with the highest

In my opinion, the real fix is to make the H-1B 'lottery' into an auction. Instead of accepting 65,000 H-1Bs at random--accept the 65,000 H-1Bs with the highest wages. That way we are getting the immigrants with the highest valued skills and stopping companies like Cognizant and Infosys that game the immigration system by applying for the cheapest H-1Bs possible.

davidw 11y ago
What is special about the number 65,000? Absolutely nothing. It's central planning for something that doesn't require it: http://johnhcochrane.blogspot.com/2014/06/the-optimal-number-of-immigrants.html http://johnhcochrane.blogspot.com/2014/06/the-optimal-number...
- rayiner 11y ago
  That's a pretty ignorant article. The limiting factor for immigration is how quickly you can Americanize immigrants, not land area. As for why it's imperative to Americanize immigrants. Look at how much trouble the U.S. has had cultivating democracy in places like Iraq. Most people acknowledge that the Iraqi people aren't ready for Democracy. Do you think they would be any more ready for democracy if you moved them en masse to Minnesota?
  - davidw 11y ago
    > how quickly you can Americanize immigrants, not land area. Well that's an easily defined metric, isn't it... There's nothing that says you must let immigrants become citizens right away, or give them all the same privileges citizens are entitled to. For instance, it wouldn't be at all unfair to kick people out for certain classes of crime.
    - rayiner 11y ago
      I'm not talking about privileges. I'm talking about getting immigrants to buy into the attitudes and values that make America worth living in. I'm talking about integrating immigrants into American society as neighbors so they're not living in their own neighborhoods where they can insulate themselves from the prevailing culture. There is a limit on how quickly you can do this.
      - davidw 11y ago
        > the attitudes and values that make America worth living in. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that codifying exactly what those are and if someone is going to be able to accept them in X months/years is not going to be an easy task.
        rayiner 11y ago
        Just because delineating something isn't easy doesn't mean the line has no distinction. Here's an example. I'm an immigrant from the subcontinent. Even among educated people there, coming out as gay can be downright dangerous.[1] I'll go out on a limb and say that we should not allow people to immigrate here any more quickly than we can expect to disabuse them of these sorts of beliefs. [1] I'm cognizant of the fact that it can be dangerous in some Americam communities too. Alas, we're stuck with that. But there is no need to make the task of progress and civilization harder than it already is.
        davidw 11y ago
        I see your point, but realistically, you have to put something down into laws, and I have no idea how you would do that. There are plenty of people in the US who loathe gay people and would deny them a variety of rights. Look at what this guy has to say: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas#Scalia.27s_dissent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas#Scalia.27s_d... Perhaps the problem is that he is the son of an immigrant? Historically, "people not like us" has been used for far more bad than it has for good.
        rayiner 11y ago
        You can't ignore the fact that, statistically, those outside the U.S. and certain other countries have many attitudes and values we don't want to encourage in the U.S., at a higher rate than the prevalence of those attitudes within the country. Of course you can't impose ideological tests to get into the U.S. Which is all the more reason to limit immigration to what you can comfortably assimilate. As an immigrant myself I'm really thankful for our melting pot policies. Life will be better for my daughter growing up surrounded by American attitudes. Had our family immigranted en masse with a million other Bangladeshi families, she might very well have been deprived of that.
    - rubikscube 11y ago
      > There's nothing that says you must let immigrants become citizens right away [...] There's nothing that says you must let immigrants come. Fixed that for you.
      - davidw 11y ago
        Actually, there is: economics. You can't have a successful country and exclude everyone who wasn't smart enough to be born there. In a world of N billion people, a lot of talented people are going to be born abroad. Keep them out, and they'll concentrate in other places. Do you realize how much of the tech world was built be people from all over? HTTP, Linux, Google, Java, C++ and so on.
        rubikscube 11y ago
        Restricted immigration that allows the top talent of various countries is not the same as mass immigration that replaces the host population and culture. Your dream of an open-borders utopia is incompatible with a successful country. Israel has had a strict immigration policy, far more restrictive than the post-1965 US policy. They don't seem perturbed by your claimed economic requirement of not "exclud[ing] everyone who wasn't smart enough to be born there" (while you've already shown you really mean open borders). The US prospered with very restricted immigration for decades. > Keep them out, and they'll concentrate in other places. Let them concentrate, especially those from the Third World, so their countries have a chance to benefit from their talent and develop. I don't understand why you are against their home countries prospering. Xenophobia-at-a-distance has no place in modern civilization.
        davidw 11y ago
        Israel has seen a lot of immigration: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/foreign-born-population-percentage-total-population http://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/fore...
        rubikscube 11y ago
    - serge2k 11y ago
      > There's nothing that says you must let immigrants become citizens right away, or give them all the same privileges citizens are entitled to. You already have a process of green card + a bunch of time leading to eligibility. Isn't that good enough? > For instance, it wouldn't be at all unfair to kick people out for certain classes of crime. you mean prior to them getting citizenship right?
  - chimeracoder 11y ago
    > Most people acknowledge that the Iraqi people aren't ready for Democracy. This is a really contentious statement that you just drop in both as fact and as the basis of your entire argument. No, I would not say that 'the Iraqi people aren't ready for Democracy' is a true statement. I also wouldn't say that what 'most people [in the US]' think about the Iraqi people's readiness for democracy [in Iraq] is really relevant to the question of whether they are ready for democracy [in Iraq]. I also wouldn't say that the question of whether they (as a group) are 'ready' for democracy in Iraq is relevant to answering the question of whether individual Iraqi people are 'ready' for democracy in Minnesota (whatever that means). > Look at how much trouble the U.S. has had cultivating democracy in places like Iraq. It also doesn't help that we have a long history of doing the exact opposite of 'cultivating democracy' in the Middle East (ie, going in and deposing democratically-elected leaders so that we can install dictators that are friendly to the US). The US has had trouble cultivating democratically elected regimes that are friendly towards us in countries like Iraq. In the US, we tend to conflate 'democratic government' with 'government that shares our objectives and goals'.
    - rayiner 11y ago
      It's an idea that was invoked by the American left to explain Bush's failure in Iraq, and eventually conceded by key figures on the right as well: http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-rumsfeld-admits-that-expecting-a-democracy-in-iraq-was-unrealistic-2015-6 http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-rumsfeld-admits-that-e.... So I'm not sure it's all that controversial. And we're not talking about whether individual Iraqis in Minnesota are ready for democracy. We are talking about the link posted earlier in the thread, which suggested that the optimal number of immigrants in the U.S. would be two billion. That's not encouraging immigration of selected individuals, it's endorsing wholesale migration of huge populations.
      - davidw 11y ago
        > which suggested that the optimal number of immigrants in the U.S. would be two billion. It suggested no such thing. Please reread it: "What is the optimal number of imported tomatoes? Soviet central planners tried to figure things out this way. Americans shouldn’t. We should decide on the optimal terms on which tomatoes can be imported, and then let the market decide the number."
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - jlebar 11y ago
    I am deeply saddened that this borderline racism passes for civil discourse these days. :(
    - rubikscube 11y ago
      I am amused that you think your feelings about perceived "racism" have any place in this civil discourse.
- bsder 11y ago
  If you upgrade the H1-B's to green card after 12 months, that "65,000" number is irrelevant. Once you remove the "indentured" part from H1-B's, we'll never hit the cap again.
- taurath 11y ago
  Funnily enough, his argument is that it doesn't mean much for the whole economy for there to be more immigrants. It sure as hell means a lot for individual communities! He seems to approach the economy as a race to the bottom / free market fiasco that has ended up concentrating all the profit in those who already own the land and capital. It is good for a laborer when there is more available work than there is labor - they can command better rates and generally have a better quality of life (see: almost everyone in the tech industry right now). It is good for someone with lots of capital to have as much excess labor as possible (assuming there's still people that can afford to buy that person's products). When a person with capital can make cheaper products because the labor is cheap, it doesn't necessarily mean that all products become cheaper. You end up with the walmart economy where you have the people who own and manage in their mansions and everyone else unable to generate any meaningful wealth.
fra 11y ago
Whether 65,000 is the right number or not isn't the important bit. While it may seem unpalatable on its face, granting the visa to the candidates with the highest paying offer is the simplest, least prone to abuse way I can think of to bring about the stated purpose of the H1B visa.
- davidw 11y ago
  Without a number, there is no scarcity, and if there's no scarcity, there's no bidding. So with a bidding system, you absolutely do need someone in power to pick a magical number.
  - kyllo 11y ago
    Conversely, without a magic number, you don't need a bidding system. So what do you need?
- lazaroclapp 11y ago
  Except this leaves out any organization that pays below market rate for exceptional talent. That might sound like a good thing in the face of it, but consider such organizations include: national labs, early stage startups, software foundations, etc. Also, unless you cap it in a per industry basis (which makes the whole thing very inflexible to changes in the economy) you just created an insurmountable problem for those firms that want to hire, say, a Catalan interpreter. Required skill uncommon in the U.S.? Check. Easy to get a foreign worker with that skill? Check. But now you need to pay them a software engineer salary or higher. As a matter of fact, given how small the cap is, you could conceive that the only software engineering jobs that would be hiring internationally would be in high frequency trading and other such areas of the industry that pay higher salaries. Or, software engineering, but just in the bay area (other places pay less because of adjusting for the cost of living). No matter the rest of the considerations associated with why someone chooses a particular job.
  - hocuspocus 11y ago
    Academia, publicly funded research labs, non-profits... are already cap-exempt. Other than that, you're absolutely right. This would mostly benefit software companies in the Bay or NYC, and the ones that pay way above average at that. I'd argue it'd be better than current situation though. Indian employees are effectively tied to their employer due to the Green Card backlog. It's significantly less true for the H-1B holders hired by Facebook, Google, Amazon and the like.
danieltillett 11y ago
Quite a clever idea. It might be more honest of the true intent of the visa to make it a reverse auction and accept the lowest wage bids.
calvinbhai 11y ago
Its super easy to game even your suggestion. Pay $100K, get $40k back in cash. your suggestion may end up making it worse for legit H1b employers, especially startups, that'll get suffocated with such high costs. Ability to switch jobs at will, can bring up the paid salary and it puts the onus on employer to ensure employee is treat equal to other other employees in US. If employee is not treated/paid well enough, employee can move to another company in US.
HarryHirsch 11y ago
Just why should the companies be able to bid on the labour? If there is a labour shortage in an industry, surely one can come up with a number of slots and then hand our green cards to the immigrants who can pick the employer that offers the best conditions.
- prostoalex 11y ago
  Idea of curating immigration is practical in other countries (Canada, Australia), but somehow is not politically feasible in the US. American electorate is somehow more placated by having a random number generator yield winners in a green card lottery.
makecheck 11y ago
As someone who went through the process, I can tell you that the mere existence of a maximum annual number was insulting. If I get a job, and my company NEEDS me, and I'm GOOD at what I'm doing, I should get IN; period. There should be no crap involved. How the hell is it good for a company to be told that it can't grow because it happened to petition the 65,001st person out of 65,000 that year? How the hell is it good for the prospective employee to have to try again later? And in extremely-fast-moving industries such as tech, even the arbitrary time frame of "one year" is an insanely long time. The only limit that kind of makes sense is a thorough investigation of the type of person you're bringing in (e.g. university degrees or other background, some indication of what they're bringing to the country as a whole). It may make sense to force companies to prove that no U.S. citizen can do the job but this system has been gamed for years, as companies produce vague job descriptions just like they post vague patent descriptions.
- diogenescynic 11y ago
  >Limits of any kind make no sense at all. They are trying to protect US citizens from losing their jobs (or getting wages cut) due to a sudden availability of cheap labor. A government is rightfully concerned with making sure its own citizens are gainfully employed. Citizens vote, foreigners don't. Every person within those borders who does not have a job puts a drain on the rest of the country. Someone without a job outside of those borders does not. So bringing someone across those borders while an unemployed person is within them is a net economic negative. Look at the biggest H-1B recipients: http://www.myvisajobs.com/Reports/2015-H1B-Visa-Sponsor.aspx http://www.myvisajobs.com/Reports/2015-H1B-Visa-Sponsor.aspx It's all low quality outsourcing shops like Infosys and Cognizant. These laws/protections are intended to prevent a race to the bottom. If the public subsidizes the operation of a company through security, education, and infrastructure, the community that makes that investment is entitled to ensure that the fruits of that investment go to other members of the community.
  - makecheck 11y ago
    The thing is, "protection of US citizens" assumes a lot about what actually happens to companies, and it assumes a lot about what the citizens themselves are doing. First, are you willing to pay $500 more for every product, and $10 more for every meal? Companies have to compete, and they are responding to what is necessary to survive. If a company employs 5,000 U.S. citizens and can't compete, it may stumble and lay off 1,000 U.S. citizens, or fail entirely and shed 5,000 U.S. jobs, all because it wasn't allowed to bring in a few immigrants to grow a little. Entire companies (and successful companies, like Google) have been started by immigrants, creating potentially thousands of jobs for U.S. citizens. There is no reason to automatically fear immigrants; many of them are brilliant people. A lack of a paid job does not make you a "drain" on society, either! What about children? What about volunteer work in communities? For that matter, I have met some astoundingly lax and irresponsible people over the years that have paying jobs, to the point where I almost thought of them as a net negative to the company.

davidw 11y ago

What is special about the number 65,000? Absolutely nothing. It's central planning for something that doesn't require it: http://johnhcochrane.blogspot.com/2014/06/the-optimal-number-of-immigrants.html http://johnhcochrane.blogspot.com/2014/06/the-optimal-number...

rayiner 11y ago
That's a pretty ignorant article. The limiting factor for immigration is how quickly you can Americanize immigrants, not land area. As for why it's imperative to Americanize immigrants. Look at how much trouble the U.S. has had cultivating democracy in places like Iraq. Most people acknowledge that the Iraqi people aren't ready for Democracy. Do you think they would be any more ready for democracy if you moved them en masse to Minnesota?
- davidw 11y ago
  > how quickly you can Americanize immigrants, not land area. Well that's an easily defined metric, isn't it... There's nothing that says you must let immigrants become citizens right away, or give them all the same privileges citizens are entitled to. For instance, it wouldn't be at all unfair to kick people out for certain classes of crime.
  - rayiner 11y ago
    I'm not talking about privileges. I'm talking about getting immigrants to buy into the attitudes and values that make America worth living in. I'm talking about integrating immigrants into American society as neighbors so they're not living in their own neighborhoods where they can insulate themselves from the prevailing culture. There is a limit on how quickly you can do this.
    - davidw 11y ago
      > the attitudes and values that make America worth living in. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that codifying exactly what those are and if someone is going to be able to accept them in X months/years is not going to be an easy task.
      - rayiner 11y ago
        Just because delineating something isn't easy doesn't mean the line has no distinction. Here's an example. I'm an immigrant from the subcontinent. Even among educated people there, coming out as gay can be downright dangerous.[1] I'll go out on a limb and say that we should not allow people to immigrate here any more quickly than we can expect to disabuse them of these sorts of beliefs. [1] I'm cognizant of the fact that it can be dangerous in some Americam communities too. Alas, we're stuck with that. But there is no need to make the task of progress and civilization harder than it already is.
        davidw 11y ago
        I see your point, but realistically, you have to put something down into laws, and I have no idea how you would do that. There are plenty of people in the US who loathe gay people and would deny them a variety of rights. Look at what this guy has to say: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas#Scalia.27s_dissent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas#Scalia.27s_d... Perhaps the problem is that he is the son of an immigrant? Historically, "people not like us" has been used for far more bad than it has for good.
        rayiner 11y ago
        You can't ignore the fact that, statistically, those outside the U.S. and certain other countries have many attitudes and values we don't want to encourage in the U.S., at a higher rate than the prevalence of those attitudes within the country. Of course you can't impose ideological tests to get into the U.S. Which is all the more reason to limit immigration to what you can comfortably assimilate. As an immigrant myself I'm really thankful for our melting pot policies. Life will be better for my daughter growing up surrounded by American attitudes. Had our family immigranted en masse with a million other Bangladeshi families, she might very well have been deprived of that.
  - rubikscube 11y ago
    > There's nothing that says you must let immigrants become citizens right away [...] There's nothing that says you must let immigrants come. Fixed that for you.
    - davidw 11y ago
      Actually, there is: economics. You can't have a successful country and exclude everyone who wasn't smart enough to be born there. In a world of N billion people, a lot of talented people are going to be born abroad. Keep them out, and they'll concentrate in other places. Do you realize how much of the tech world was built be people from all over? HTTP, Linux, Google, Java, C++ and so on.
      - rubikscube 11y ago
        Restricted immigration that allows the top talent of various countries is not the same as mass immigration that replaces the host population and culture. Your dream of an open-borders utopia is incompatible with a successful country. Israel has had a strict immigration policy, far more restrictive than the post-1965 US policy. They don't seem perturbed by your claimed economic requirement of not "exclud[ing] everyone who wasn't smart enough to be born there" (while you've already shown you really mean open borders). The US prospered with very restricted immigration for decades. > Keep them out, and they'll concentrate in other places. Let them concentrate, especially those from the Third World, so their countries have a chance to benefit from their talent and develop. I don't understand why you are against their home countries prospering. Xenophobia-at-a-distance has no place in modern civilization.
        davidw 11y ago
        Israel has seen a lot of immigration: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/foreign-born-population-percentage-total-population http://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/fore...
        rubikscube 11y ago
  - serge2k 11y ago
    > There's nothing that says you must let immigrants become citizens right away, or give them all the same privileges citizens are entitled to. You already have a process of green card + a bunch of time leading to eligibility. Isn't that good enough? > For instance, it wouldn't be at all unfair to kick people out for certain classes of crime. you mean prior to them getting citizenship right?
- chimeracoder 11y ago
  > Most people acknowledge that the Iraqi people aren't ready for Democracy. This is a really contentious statement that you just drop in both as fact and as the basis of your entire argument. No, I would not say that 'the Iraqi people aren't ready for Democracy' is a true statement. I also wouldn't say that what 'most people [in the US]' think about the Iraqi people's readiness for democracy [in Iraq] is really relevant to the question of whether they are ready for democracy [in Iraq]. I also wouldn't say that the question of whether they (as a group) are 'ready' for democracy in Iraq is relevant to answering the question of whether individual Iraqi people are 'ready' for democracy in Minnesota (whatever that means). > Look at how much trouble the U.S. has had cultivating democracy in places like Iraq. It also doesn't help that we have a long history of doing the exact opposite of 'cultivating democracy' in the Middle East (ie, going in and deposing democratically-elected leaders so that we can install dictators that are friendly to the US). The US has had trouble cultivating democratically elected regimes that are friendly towards us in countries like Iraq. In the US, we tend to conflate 'democratic government' with 'government that shares our objectives and goals'.
  - rayiner 11y ago
    It's an idea that was invoked by the American left to explain Bush's failure in Iraq, and eventually conceded by key figures on the right as well: http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-rumsfeld-admits-that-expecting-a-democracy-in-iraq-was-unrealistic-2015-6 http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-rumsfeld-admits-that-e.... So I'm not sure it's all that controversial. And we're not talking about whether individual Iraqis in Minnesota are ready for democracy. We are talking about the link posted earlier in the thread, which suggested that the optimal number of immigrants in the U.S. would be two billion. That's not encouraging immigration of selected individuals, it's endorsing wholesale migration of huge populations.
    - davidw 11y ago
      > which suggested that the optimal number of immigrants in the U.S. would be two billion. It suggested no such thing. Please reread it: "What is the optimal number of imported tomatoes? Soviet central planners tried to figure things out this way. Americans shouldn’t. We should decide on the optimal terms on which tomatoes can be imported, and then let the market decide the number."
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- jlebar 11y ago
  I am deeply saddened that this borderline racism passes for civil discourse these days. :(
  - rubikscube 11y ago
    I am amused that you think your feelings about perceived "racism" have any place in this civil discourse.
bsder 11y ago
If you upgrade the H1-B's to green card after 12 months, that "65,000" number is irrelevant. Once you remove the "indentured" part from H1-B's, we'll never hit the cap again.
taurath 11y ago
Funnily enough, his argument is that it doesn't mean much for the whole economy for there to be more immigrants. It sure as hell means a lot for individual communities! He seems to approach the economy as a race to the bottom / free market fiasco that has ended up concentrating all the profit in those who already own the land and capital. It is good for a laborer when there is more available work than there is labor - they can command better rates and generally have a better quality of life (see: almost everyone in the tech industry right now). It is good for someone with lots of capital to have as much excess labor as possible (assuming there's still people that can afford to buy that person's products). When a person with capital can make cheaper products because the labor is cheap, it doesn't necessarily mean that all products become cheaper. You end up with the walmart economy where you have the people who own and manage in their mansions and everyone else unable to generate any meaningful wealth.

fra 11y ago

Whether 65,000 is the right number or not isn't the important bit. While it may seem unpalatable on its face, granting the visa to the candidates with the highest paying offer is the simplest, least prone to abuse way I can think of to bring about the stated purpose of the H1B visa.

davidw 11y ago
Without a number, there is no scarcity, and if there's no scarcity, there's no bidding. So with a bidding system, you absolutely do need someone in power to pick a magical number.
- kyllo 11y ago
  Conversely, without a magic number, you don't need a bidding system. So what do you need?
lazaroclapp 11y ago
Except this leaves out any organization that pays below market rate for exceptional talent. That might sound like a good thing in the face of it, but consider such organizations include: national labs, early stage startups, software foundations, etc. Also, unless you cap it in a per industry basis (which makes the whole thing very inflexible to changes in the economy) you just created an insurmountable problem for those firms that want to hire, say, a Catalan interpreter. Required skill uncommon in the U.S.? Check. Easy to get a foreign worker with that skill? Check. But now you need to pay them a software engineer salary or higher. As a matter of fact, given how small the cap is, you could conceive that the only software engineering jobs that would be hiring internationally would be in high frequency trading and other such areas of the industry that pay higher salaries. Or, software engineering, but just in the bay area (other places pay less because of adjusting for the cost of living). No matter the rest of the considerations associated with why someone chooses a particular job.
- hocuspocus 11y ago
  Academia, publicly funded research labs, non-profits... are already cap-exempt. Other than that, you're absolutely right. This would mostly benefit software companies in the Bay or NYC, and the ones that pay way above average at that. I'd argue it'd be better than current situation though. Indian employees are effectively tied to their employer due to the Green Card backlog. It's significantly less true for the H-1B holders hired by Facebook, Google, Amazon and the like.

danieltillett 11y ago

Quite a clever idea. It might be more honest of the true intent of the visa to make it a reverse auction and accept the lowest wage bids.

calvinbhai 11y ago

Its super easy to game even your suggestion. Pay $100K, get $40k back in cash. your suggestion may end up making it worse for legit H1b employers, especially startups, that'll get suffocated with such high costs. Ability to switch jobs at will, can bring up the paid salary and it puts the onus on employer to ensure employee is treat equal to other other employees in US. If employee is not treated/paid well enough, employee can move to another company in US.

HarryHirsch 11y ago

Just why should the companies be able to bid on the labour? If there is a labour shortage in an industry, surely one can come up with a number of slots and then hand our green cards to the immigrants who can pick the employer that offers the best conditions.

prostoalex 11y ago
Idea of curating immigration is practical in other countries (Canada, Australia), but somehow is not politically feasible in the US. American electorate is somehow more placated by having a random number generator yield winners in a green card lottery.

makecheck 11y ago

As someone who went through the process, I can tell you that the mere existence of a maximum annual number was insulting. If I get a job, and my company NEEDS me, and I'm GOOD at what I'm doing, I should get IN; period. There should be no crap involved. How the hell is it good for a company to be told that it can't grow because it happened to petition the 65,001st person out of 65,000 that year? How the hell is it good for the prospective employee to have to try again later? And in extremely-fast-moving industries such as tech, even the arbitrary time frame of "one year" is an insanely long time. The only limit that kind of makes sense is a thorough investigation of the type of person you're bringing in (e.g. university degrees or other background, some indication of what they're bringing to the country as a whole). It may make sense to force companies to prove that no U.S. citizen can do the job but this system has been gamed for years, as companies produce vague job descriptions just like they post vague patent descriptions.

diogenescynic 11y ago
>Limits of any kind make no sense at all. They are trying to protect US citizens from losing their jobs (or getting wages cut) due to a sudden availability of cheap labor. A government is rightfully concerned with making sure its own citizens are gainfully employed. Citizens vote, foreigners don't. Every person within those borders who does not have a job puts a drain on the rest of the country. Someone without a job outside of those borders does not. So bringing someone across those borders while an unemployed person is within them is a net economic negative. Look at the biggest H-1B recipients: http://www.myvisajobs.com/Reports/2015-H1B-Visa-Sponsor.aspx http://www.myvisajobs.com/Reports/2015-H1B-Visa-Sponsor.aspx It's all low quality outsourcing shops like Infosys and Cognizant. These laws/protections are intended to prevent a race to the bottom. If the public subsidizes the operation of a company through security, education, and infrastructure, the community that makes that investment is entitled to ensure that the fruits of that investment go to other members of the community.
- makecheck 11y ago
  The thing is, "protection of US citizens" assumes a lot about what actually happens to companies, and it assumes a lot about what the citizens themselves are doing. First, are you willing to pay $500 more for every product, and $10 more for every meal? Companies have to compete, and they are responding to what is necessary to survive. If a company employs 5,000 U.S. citizens and can't compete, it may stumble and lay off 1,000 U.S. citizens, or fail entirely and shed 5,000 U.S. jobs, all because it wasn't allowed to bring in a few immigrants to grow a little. Entire companies (and successful companies, like Google) have been started by immigrants, creating potentially thousands of jobs for U.S. citizens. There is no reason to automatically fear immigrants; many of them are brilliant people. A lack of a paid job does not make you a "drain" on society, either! What about children? What about volunteer work in communities? For that matter, I have met some astoundingly lax and irresponsible people over the years that have paying jobs, to the point where I almost thought of them as a net negative to the company.