5 ms·

>The out going administration had sold us (and indirectly hurting American workers) with the "Indentured servitude rules" to benefit the Tech companies and immi

by deyan 10y ago

>The out going administration had sold us (and indirectly hurting American workers) with the "Indentured servitude rules" to benefit the Tech companies and immigration attorneys. The part that says "the outgoing administration" is demonstrably false. The facts are that the immigration policy of the US has not changed much under Obama (with a few notable exceptions like Cuba but that is not really related to the tech industry). Please stop spreading FUD. The immigration policy is nonsensical, but Obama has little to do with it. Perhaps the only legitimate criticism you can make is that he was not able to reform it properly.

suryacom 10y ago
>The part that says "the outgoing administration" is demonstrably false. That is not correct. The G. W. Bush administration, just before leaving the office, gave all the legal immigrants "Job Mobility" (i.e., their H1B visa was not anymore tied to the employer). It is minor and easy step President could take under his executive power.
- foldr 10y ago
  >gave all the legal immigrants "Job Mobility" (i.e., their H1B visa was not anymore tied to the employer) Reference for this? I see that Bush proposed something like this in 2004, but I can't find any reference for it ever having been implemented.
  - suryacom 10y ago
    I did a quick google search but could not find any reference. Media barely covers any of our issues (no NYT no WashingPost, no noone). But, I personally know more than few of family friends were benefited. Bush Administration made the "priority date current" for a short window; this allowed legal immigrants waiting in the line for Permanent Residency to file and obtain 485-EAD.
    - foldr 10y ago
      You're saying there was a major change to the H1B rules, and that Obama then reversed this change, and that there is no reference to this anywhere?
      - suryacom 10y ago
        They were allowed to move out of H1B visa to EAD status (non-visa legal status). The same legal status DACA recipients got from Obama administration. So, technically nothing was changed to the H1B rule.
        foldr 10y ago
        Broadly speaking, this is allowed now, no? There is a route to an EAD for H1B holders (and various advantages and disadvantages to each). https://www.murthy.com/2012/10/26/using-the-ead-as-an-option-for-employment/ https://www.murthy.com/2012/10/26/using-the-ead-as-an-option...
        suryacom 10y ago
        80% of the H1B holders today are from India. And they cannot reach that step; because the wait time to reach there (485-EAD) is 70+ years.
      - suryacom 10y ago
        mavelikara's comment blow has the references to Bush's changes: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13402891 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13402891
        foldr 10y ago
        Yeah, I saw that. But the way you initially described them was very inaccurate.
        suryacom 10y ago
- doingmyting 10y ago
  I was on H1B from 2004-2012 and still have a lot of friends still on H1B. Even now a lot of my friends from India that got to US in 2001 are still waiting for their priority date to become current. We have never heard or benefited from this. I am going to assume this is "fake news".
ams6110 10y ago
Accepting what you say, he didn't change it in 8 years, so now he has very much to do with it, IMHO.
- untog 10y ago
  The President is not a dictator (fortunately). Almost any attempt at immigration reform in the last eight years has been shot down by the House, Senate or usually both. There is only so much he was able to do without them on-side.
  - pm90 10y ago
    The problem with this reasoning is that "Immigration reform" is tied directly to some way of providing relief to millions of undocumented ("illegal") immigrants in the US. It seems like the legal immigrants facing the brunt of the current arcane immigration policy (mostly legal immigrants from India/China) are neither politically active nor have the required numbers to influence the Legislature/White House to reform these policies. It is this conflation that hurts the legal immigrants the most. I believe if a bill was introduced to reform the legal immigration process to permit more highly skilled workers to immigrate more easily, neither of the houses (nor the public) would have a problem with it.
    - untog 10y ago
      > I believe if a bill was introduced to reform the legal immigration process to permit more highly skilled workers to immigrate more easily, neither of the houses (nor the public) would have a problem with it. I disagree. I think that a lot of politicians would refuse to sign any legislation with the words "permit" and "immigrant" in them. The public at large as misinformed enough that they're probably right to do so, too, if they want to be re-elected.
    - JumpCrisscross 10y ago
      > if a bill was introduced to reform the legal immigration process to permit more highly skilled workers to immigrate more easily, neither of the houses (nor the public) would have a problem with it When the Democrat leadership argues for "comprehensive immigration reform" they are shooting down separating skilled from low-skilled immigration. "Senate lawmakers who are most involved with immigration legislation--the so-called Gang of Eight--would prefer to see a comprehensive deal. That's also the position President Obama has taken. The trick lies in corralling enough Republicans to support a total-package process, as opposed to striking a set of smaller agreements. Carving out skilled immigration might lead to an easy bipartisan win, but it would give ammunition to piecemealers and risk fracturing the Gang of Eight." http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/03/democrats-face-dilemma-on-high-skilled-immigration-reform/430182/ http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/03/democrat...
jgalt212 10y ago
> facts are that the immigration policy of the US has not changed much under Obama This is true for many, many things under Obama. For those of us who elected him as a "change agent" we are largely disappointed.

by deyan 10y ago

suryacom 10y ago

>The part that says "the outgoing administration" is demonstrably false. That is not correct. The G. W. Bush administration, just before leaving the office, gave all the legal immigrants "Job Mobility" (i.e., their H1B visa was not anymore tied to the employer). It is minor and easy step President could take under his executive power.

foldr 10y ago
>gave all the legal immigrants "Job Mobility" (i.e., their H1B visa was not anymore tied to the employer) Reference for this? I see that Bush proposed something like this in 2004, but I can't find any reference for it ever having been implemented.
- suryacom 10y ago
  I did a quick google search but could not find any reference. Media barely covers any of our issues (no NYT no WashingPost, no noone). But, I personally know more than few of family friends were benefited. Bush Administration made the "priority date current" for a short window; this allowed legal immigrants waiting in the line for Permanent Residency to file and obtain 485-EAD.
  - foldr 10y ago
    You're saying there was a major change to the H1B rules, and that Obama then reversed this change, and that there is no reference to this anywhere?
    - suryacom 10y ago
      They were allowed to move out of H1B visa to EAD status (non-visa legal status). The same legal status DACA recipients got from Obama administration. So, technically nothing was changed to the H1B rule.
      - foldr 10y ago
        Broadly speaking, this is allowed now, no? There is a route to an EAD for H1B holders (and various advantages and disadvantages to each). https://www.murthy.com/2012/10/26/using-the-ead-as-an-option-for-employment/ https://www.murthy.com/2012/10/26/using-the-ead-as-an-option...
        suryacom 10y ago
        80% of the H1B holders today are from India. And they cannot reach that step; because the wait time to reach there (485-EAD) is 70+ years.
    - suryacom 10y ago
      mavelikara's comment blow has the references to Bush's changes: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13402891 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13402891
      - foldr 10y ago
        Yeah, I saw that. But the way you initially described them was very inaccurate.
        suryacom 10y ago
doingmyting 10y ago
I was on H1B from 2004-2012 and still have a lot of friends still on H1B. Even now a lot of my friends from India that got to US in 2001 are still waiting for their priority date to become current. We have never heard or benefited from this. I am going to assume this is "fake news".

ams6110 10y ago

Accepting what you say, he didn't change it in 8 years, so now he has very much to do with it, IMHO.

untog 10y ago
The President is not a dictator (fortunately). Almost any attempt at immigration reform in the last eight years has been shot down by the House, Senate or usually both. There is only so much he was able to do without them on-side.
- pm90 10y ago
  The problem with this reasoning is that "Immigration reform" is tied directly to some way of providing relief to millions of undocumented ("illegal") immigrants in the US. It seems like the legal immigrants facing the brunt of the current arcane immigration policy (mostly legal immigrants from India/China) are neither politically active nor have the required numbers to influence the Legislature/White House to reform these policies. It is this conflation that hurts the legal immigrants the most. I believe if a bill was introduced to reform the legal immigration process to permit more highly skilled workers to immigrate more easily, neither of the houses (nor the public) would have a problem with it.
  - untog 10y ago
    > I believe if a bill was introduced to reform the legal immigration process to permit more highly skilled workers to immigrate more easily, neither of the houses (nor the public) would have a problem with it. I disagree. I think that a lot of politicians would refuse to sign any legislation with the words "permit" and "immigrant" in them. The public at large as misinformed enough that they're probably right to do so, too, if they want to be re-elected.
  - JumpCrisscross 10y ago
    > if a bill was introduced to reform the legal immigration process to permit more highly skilled workers to immigrate more easily, neither of the houses (nor the public) would have a problem with it When the Democrat leadership argues for "comprehensive immigration reform" they are shooting down separating skilled from low-skilled immigration. "Senate lawmakers who are most involved with immigration legislation--the so-called Gang of Eight--would prefer to see a comprehensive deal. That's also the position President Obama has taken. The trick lies in corralling enough Republicans to support a total-package process, as opposed to striking a set of smaller agreements. Carving out skilled immigration might lead to an easy bipartisan win, but it would give ammunition to piecemealers and risk fracturing the Gang of Eight." http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/03/democrats-face-dilemma-on-high-skilled-immigration-reform/430182/ http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/03/democrat...

jgalt212 10y ago

> facts are that the immigration policy of the US has not changed much under Obama This is true for many, many things under Obama. For those of us who elected him as a "change agent" we are largely disappointed.