7 ms·

The US skills based immigration system is based on bringing in indentured labor to enrich corporations. L-1 visa holders _cannot_ change jobs. H-1B visa holder

The US skills based immigration system is based on bringing in indentured labor to enrich corporations. L-1 visa holders _cannot_ change jobs. H-1B visa holders have to go through an expensive and cumbersome process to change jobs which effectively restricts their job mobility. Obviously, outside super-hot job markets like silicon valley, US workers have a hard time competing with indentured labor. This visa would have created brand new class of "entrepreneur" indentured to deep-pocketed VC firms. They would actually be worse off than H-1B and L-1 workers because - not only would they be beholden to the VC firms for funding (thereby their jobs) in the United States - but they would have to part with their ideas. No nativist here - just saying how things are working on the ground once you shave off the corporate propaganda.

FilterSweep 9y ago
I would agree, considering the horrifying Disney story where employees were given an option to train their cheaper replacements in their severance[0] However, this current repeal, related to "The International Entrepreneur Rule"[1] is only tangentially related to H1-B. H1-B could have gotten minimized but this is a bit worse, IMO. I have a major criticism of this article and it's not clarifying. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/04/us/last-task-after-layoff-at-disney-train-foreign-replacements.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/04/us/last-task-after-layoff...
projectramo 9y ago
I think you need to explain why you think an entrepreneur is "indentured" to a VC. The entrepreneur has a lot more leeway in making decisions than an employee, and has more freedom in how to spend the company's money. Do you think that a VC would choose a foreign entrepreneur just because they are foreign? Don't you think other factors (product, team, strategy etc) would play a larger role?
- trendia 9y ago
  You're missing their point. Suppose you are an engineer in India making $10k / year. You have the same skills and ability as American citizens in San Francisco. So, a startup comes to you and offers you a $60k / year job. You take it, because you can make 6 times as much as you did in India! However, when you get to the US, you realize that American citizens make $80k - $100k / year for the same job. What do you do? You can't switch jobs, because the H1B program makes it very difficult to do so. You can't threaten to quit, because then your visa only gives you a few months before you have to go back to India -- and back to the $10k / year job. You have no choice -- if you want the $60k / year job, you have to to stick with the company who hired you. So you stay. The result? The salary for software engineers is driven down. The employer gets extra profits while getting the same work. The software engineers are now making less than they would be if either 1) the H1B program didn't exist, or 2) the H1B program were reformed so that switching jobs is easier. (Trump did #1. However, #2, reforming H1B, is far better for all employees in the long run. Not surprisingly, #2 is not hugely supported by all companies).
  - projectramo 9y ago
    You're missing my point: this is not the H1B. This is an entrepreneur visa which is (presumably) less abusive. The example he gave seems to indicate that the power dynamic you just mentioned carries over to entrepreneurs who have equity in the firm, who are empowered to make decisions and so on.
    - brudgers 9y ago
      I'm not inclined to presume that it would be less abusive (or more abusive) or abused than any other visa program which creates financial incentives for domestic capital.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - hildaman 9y ago
      You are kidding right? When the "entrepreneurs" very status in the US is dependent on being in the good-graces of anyone else - especially vultures like VC firms - these "entrepreneurs" are no better than indentured servants. Think of it this way - any dispute with the "sponsoring" VC firm could snowball into a complaint to DHS which could result in the "entrepreneur" having to leave the country (and leave behind the carcass of a company the VC's will then proceed to digest). Entrepreneurs might not understand or appreciate this yet, but they are better off going to Canada or somewhere else as landed immigrants with rights - instead of living in the US as indentured servants of some entity. The junking of this rule has potentially saved so many startups from being absorbed by entrenched players (Hello Google Ventures). The resultant dispersion of wealth/ideas and the increase in competition will benefit all of us.
      - projectramo 9y ago
        "Think of it this way - any dispute with the "sponsoring" VC firm could snowball into a complaint to DHS which could result in the "entrepreneur" having to leave the country" I don't know if you believe this to be true. How would this work? VC: We have a complaint! DHS: Yes? VC: The entrepreneur wants to grant more options to their main people. DHS: okay... so? VC: Please dissolve the company, make my equity worth zero, and return this person to their country? DHS: What? VC: Good point, just make them turn their equity into MY equity and then kick them out I just don't know what you imagine this rule to be. How do you think this works? On an H1b you can just fire the employee and they have to leave. I understand the mechanics of the power. For a VC and an entrepreneur, the VC has shares in a company that is run by the entrepreneur. The entrepreneur ALSO has shares in the company and always will even if they leave the country.
- cbhl 9y ago
  The rule, as proposed, required foreign entrepreneurs to receive "significant investment of capital (at least $250,000) from [investors]" or "significant awards or grants (at least $100,000) from [the government]" to demonstrate "potential to have accelerated growth" and job creation. The entire visa is based on the idea that startups have "significant public benefit". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_entrepreneur_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_entrepreneur_rul... At the two year mark, you need to show further investment, to extend the visa three more years. Failure to hit these numbers means your visa gets taken away.
cookiecaper 9y ago
Great post. So many things that are touted as evidence of our open-mindedness and generosity are actually motivated by the financial incentives they create for corporate owners at the expense of non-owners everywhere, including domestic workers, consumers, and the slave labor used to circumvent first-world labor and environmental standards (whether imported under restrictive visas, exploited due to their undocumented status, or employed in their native "lower-cost" nations). While the plight of illegal immigrants and the stories of the lonely technical geniuses sorrowing as they fail to gain entry to the U.S. may be heartwrenching, make no mistake that the true interest of the powerful is keeping a labor force that is cheap and easily exploited. If you take away dubious immigration status, their employers lose that much authority over them. I see correcting such conditions as Trump's primary interest. He is the epitome of "Don't hate the player, hate the game", and as a businessman who has tried many different things, he knows that there is a lowest common denominator effect in business. If your competitor is going to China and getting stuff made for a few cents, you are putting yourself at a major disadvantage by not doing so. You can't effectively compete if your manufacturing costs are significantly higher. Consumers assume that legal structures prevent unfair competition and exploitation by default, but this been slowly degraded under false political doctrines pushed by MegaCorps and wrapped neatly in the bow of egalitarianism. Trump ran and won so that he could level the playing field. Trump's position, IMO, is "Make the rules bar exploitation of consumers and workers without breaking competition and entrepreneurship". This is a credible counter to the "trickle-down economics" theory of "Give owners as much money as possible and you'll get a share somewhere along the line", and that's the primary reason that the Republican power players hate him. Trump is offering a more fair route not by proposing government seizure/control, regimentation, or handouts (which are easy arguments to discredit), but simply by restoring the baseline rules of the marketplace that consumers take for granted.
- droopyEyelids 9y ago
  Wait... I think you're confusing Trump's branding (leveling the playing field) with his actions. Mostly we've seen more of the same Wall St appointments and corporate boosterism from him that we've seen from our last 4 or 5 presidents.
davidw 9y ago
You're competing with those people in any event unless the code you write is impossible to move around over TCP/IP. The answer is to make it so H1-B people are not so tied to one employer, so their wages are bid up to local levels in short order.
- ihsw2 9y ago
  That's specious reasoning -- there is something to be said for Silicon Valley's capacity to support a self-sustaining tech industry. This critical mass is difficult to achieve and your implication that it can be replicated elsewhere is just deceptive equivocating. The rationale behind this legislation is that employers have been driving wages down via a self-sustaining lower class of tech workers, where low-cost temporary foreign workers constantly trickle in. This will close that spigot in favor of either the local talent pool or a foreign talent pool where immigrants find an employer to sponsor their application for permanent citizenship.
  - davidw 9y ago
    > capacity to support a self-sustaining tech industry. You mean the industry that includes tons of companies founded by immigrants or their children? I'm not saying SV can be replicated elsewhere. But the code you're writing can be, if the price differential is big enough. Outsourcing is a PITA, so if the price differential is not big, why bother. But... if it's big enough, innovative people will find a way to make it work. > This will close that spigot in favor of either the local talent pool or a foreign talent pool where immigrants find an employer to sponsor their application for permanent citizenship. Or a foreign office without all the bureaucratic, nativist BS.
JoeAltmaier 9y ago
'Indentured'? I call hyperbole. Quit, go home. That's something a true indentured servant couldn't do. Its 'something like' indentured servitude, except it isn't. It isn't slavery either. Nor torture or any number of other emotionally laden words we could come up with. Its an employment deal. Its an immigration option. Others exist. Don't choose it if you don't like it.
- xenihn 9y ago
  >'Indentured'? I call hyperbole. Quit, go home. That's something a true indentured servant couldn't do. What if they have debts to pay off at home, and it's the only realistic option available? Going home means not being able to pay those debts off.
  - JoeAltmaier 9y ago
    I get it; we all have to work. But piling up debts then having to work (somewhere) to pay them off - that isn't 'indentured servitude' either.
- 0xbear 9y ago
  Educate us, which "others" exist? Also H1-B is a non-immigrant visa. You can petition for a green card after a few years, but there's no guarantee you'll get it. I agree with the op, btw. To make things better for local workers, h1b workers should be offered greater mobility so as to create competition which properly values their skills. Earlier suggestion by the Trump administration that instead of a lottery only the highest paid h1b workers will be admitted sounds quite sane, too. Disclosure: naturalized citizen, former H1B.
- eeZah7Ux 9y ago
  Look up the definitions of servitude and slavery on a dictionary: they fit.
djsumdog 9y ago
When I think about entrepreneur visas, I think about people needing a ton of money (several hundred thousand USD, EUROs, GBPs, etc.) to come in and attempt to start a business. In a lot of ways it's simply buying your way into a country as a resident. I didn't think about the aspect of people seeing VC funding; not self funded people. Also, when I first read this article, I wondered what industry stood to gain from this move. Presidents are members of the 1% and their policies are dictated by the top income earners, not the opinions of most voters[0]. Although companies might publicly be against this, they must be secretly benefiting. Maybe big tech players don't want disruptive startups coming in and taking their markets? [0]: http://fightthefuture.org/videos/does-voting-make-a-difference/ http://fightthefuture.org/videos/does-voting-make-a-differen...
dang 9y ago
You picked just about the most inflammatory word you could ("indenture") and repeated it several times. That is exactly the wrong way to comment on a divisive topic here. It leads to shallow discussion and flamewars. So please don't do that. We're hoping for thoughtful, substantive discussion, not rhetorical escalation. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html
- hildaman 9y ago
  When the system brings people in who cannot change jobs or have a hard time changing jobs - what other term would you suggest I use? Is "bonded labor" better?
  - dang 9y ago
    The phrase 'have a hard time changing jobs' seems fine. You could even, if you wanted to, make an argument that this has some things in common with what was historically called indentured labor. But to use a charged phrase as a rhetorical weapon in an ideological battle, which you clearly are doing, is the wrong kind of comment for HN. The same goes for swipes like "you are kidding right?" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14745448 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14745448). Using escalating rhetoric on divisive topics causes internet discussion to erupt in flames. Mostly it's negligence rather than arson but the result is the same. If you're going to comment here, please don't do these things. The guiding value of HN is intellectual curiosity (please see https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html). We're hoping for thoughtful conversation, and using the site primarily for political or ideological battle is destructive of that, so we ban such accounts. In particular, it's not ok to create an account here just to do that.
    - hildaman 9y ago
      Ok - that "you are kidding" was an unwarranted swipe. I won't do it again. Regarding "indentured servant" - that is the factually correct term to describe the situation. Even H-1B visa holders themselves use this term. Here is a video of an H-1B visa holder using the exact term "indentured servant" with Congressman Darrell Issa at some policy event about the H-1B visa in Washington DC: https://youtu.be/2Tgc9m1IwNc?t=35m47s https://youtu.be/2Tgc9m1IwNc?t=35m47s The term "indentured servant" is exactly the right term to describe the employer-employee relationship between Guest Worker visa holders and their employer's. As demonstrated in the video, even the H-1B workers themselves are saying that they feel like indentured servants. I personally feel that politically correctness is somehow having the effect of normalizing this very abnormal employee-employer relationship (at-least here in America). As the guest worker in the video says, if he loses his job - he has to take his kids out of school, sell his car, sell his house and leave. This is not in any way a normal employee-employer relationship. I would like to think the points I am raising are thoughtful. well researched and articulate. Apart the "swipes" - which I will tone down on - I don't think I am guilty of any other transgressions.
conanbatt 9y ago
I dont think corporations profit from the H1B in an economic sense. Some can, but only very few: that is, copmanies whose H1B situation allows them to have a higher range of profits than other companies in the same space that wouldnt have access to the same visa. If immigration where free, or almost free, then these companies would hire even more people, and all others would also do it. The amount of immigration the tech sector would have if people could go to the us, stay 6 months to acclimate, learn and pick jobs, would skyrocket and would increase the talent pool for companies. The great supporter of such restrictions are the people that think their own wage would be reduced if more competition were brought up. And they would be right to fear that in the short term. In the longer term, lower wages would also mean higher profits, thus higher capital which would eventually rise wages again. Any immigration policy is more often than not a problem of bias and misunderstanding from the public, and a matter of voters for the politicians.

FilterSweep 9y ago

I would agree, considering the horrifying Disney story where employees were given an option to train their cheaper replacements in their severance[0] However, this current repeal, related to "The International Entrepreneur Rule"[1] is only tangentially related to H1-B. H1-B could have gotten minimized but this is a bit worse, IMO. I have a major criticism of this article and it's not clarifying. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/04/us/last-task-after-layoff-at-disney-train-foreign-replacements.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/04/us/last-task-after-layoff...

projectramo 9y ago

I think you need to explain why you think an entrepreneur is "indentured" to a VC. The entrepreneur has a lot more leeway in making decisions than an employee, and has more freedom in how to spend the company's money. Do you think that a VC would choose a foreign entrepreneur just because they are foreign? Don't you think other factors (product, team, strategy etc) would play a larger role?

trendia 9y ago
You're missing their point. Suppose you are an engineer in India making $10k / year. You have the same skills and ability as American citizens in San Francisco. So, a startup comes to you and offers you a $60k / year job. You take it, because you can make 6 times as much as you did in India! However, when you get to the US, you realize that American citizens make $80k - $100k / year for the same job. What do you do? You can't switch jobs, because the H1B program makes it very difficult to do so. You can't threaten to quit, because then your visa only gives you a few months before you have to go back to India -- and back to the $10k / year job. You have no choice -- if you want the $60k / year job, you have to to stick with the company who hired you. So you stay. The result? The salary for software engineers is driven down. The employer gets extra profits while getting the same work. The software engineers are now making less than they would be if either 1) the H1B program didn't exist, or 2) the H1B program were reformed so that switching jobs is easier. (Trump did #1. However, #2, reforming H1B, is far better for all employees in the long run. Not surprisingly, #2 is not hugely supported by all companies).
- projectramo 9y ago
  You're missing my point: this is not the H1B. This is an entrepreneur visa which is (presumably) less abusive. The example he gave seems to indicate that the power dynamic you just mentioned carries over to entrepreneurs who have equity in the firm, who are empowered to make decisions and so on.
  - brudgers 9y ago
    I'm not inclined to presume that it would be less abusive (or more abusive) or abused than any other visa program which creates financial incentives for domestic capital.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - hildaman 9y ago
    You are kidding right? When the "entrepreneurs" very status in the US is dependent on being in the good-graces of anyone else - especially vultures like VC firms - these "entrepreneurs" are no better than indentured servants. Think of it this way - any dispute with the "sponsoring" VC firm could snowball into a complaint to DHS which could result in the "entrepreneur" having to leave the country (and leave behind the carcass of a company the VC's will then proceed to digest). Entrepreneurs might not understand or appreciate this yet, but they are better off going to Canada or somewhere else as landed immigrants with rights - instead of living in the US as indentured servants of some entity. The junking of this rule has potentially saved so many startups from being absorbed by entrenched players (Hello Google Ventures). The resultant dispersion of wealth/ideas and the increase in competition will benefit all of us.
    - projectramo 9y ago
      "Think of it this way - any dispute with the "sponsoring" VC firm could snowball into a complaint to DHS which could result in the "entrepreneur" having to leave the country" I don't know if you believe this to be true. How would this work? VC: We have a complaint! DHS: Yes? VC: The entrepreneur wants to grant more options to their main people. DHS: okay... so? VC: Please dissolve the company, make my equity worth zero, and return this person to their country? DHS: What? VC: Good point, just make them turn their equity into MY equity and then kick them out I just don't know what you imagine this rule to be. How do you think this works? On an H1b you can just fire the employee and they have to leave. I understand the mechanics of the power. For a VC and an entrepreneur, the VC has shares in a company that is run by the entrepreneur. The entrepreneur ALSO has shares in the company and always will even if they leave the country.
cbhl 9y ago
The rule, as proposed, required foreign entrepreneurs to receive "significant investment of capital (at least $250,000) from [investors]" or "significant awards or grants (at least $100,000) from [the government]" to demonstrate "potential to have accelerated growth" and job creation. The entire visa is based on the idea that startups have "significant public benefit". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_entrepreneur_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_entrepreneur_rul... At the two year mark, you need to show further investment, to extend the visa three more years. Failure to hit these numbers means your visa gets taken away.

cookiecaper 9y ago

Great post. So many things that are touted as evidence of our open-mindedness and generosity are actually motivated by the financial incentives they create for corporate owners at the expense of non-owners everywhere, including domestic workers, consumers, and the slave labor used to circumvent first-world labor and environmental standards (whether imported under restrictive visas, exploited due to their undocumented status, or employed in their native "lower-cost" nations). While the plight of illegal immigrants and the stories of the lonely technical geniuses sorrowing as they fail to gain entry to the U.S. may be heartwrenching, make no mistake that the true interest of the powerful is keeping a labor force that is cheap and easily exploited. If you take away dubious immigration status, their employers lose that much authority over them. I see correcting such conditions as Trump's primary interest. He is the epitome of "Don't hate the player, hate the game", and as a businessman who has tried many different things, he knows that there is a lowest common denominator effect in business. If your competitor is going to China and getting stuff made for a few cents, you are putting yourself at a major disadvantage by not doing so. You can't effectively compete if your manufacturing costs are significantly higher. Consumers assume that legal structures prevent unfair competition and exploitation by default, but this been slowly degraded under false political doctrines pushed by MegaCorps and wrapped neatly in the bow of egalitarianism. Trump ran and won so that he could level the playing field. Trump's position, IMO, is "Make the rules bar exploitation of consumers and workers without breaking competition and entrepreneurship". This is a credible counter to the "trickle-down economics" theory of "Give owners as much money as possible and you'll get a share somewhere along the line", and that's the primary reason that the Republican power players hate him. Trump is offering a more fair route not by proposing government seizure/control, regimentation, or handouts (which are easy arguments to discredit), but simply by restoring the baseline rules of the marketplace that consumers take for granted.

droopyEyelids 9y ago
Wait... I think you're confusing Trump's branding (leveling the playing field) with his actions. Mostly we've seen more of the same Wall St appointments and corporate boosterism from him that we've seen from our last 4 or 5 presidents.

davidw 9y ago

You're competing with those people in any event unless the code you write is impossible to move around over TCP/IP. The answer is to make it so H1-B people are not so tied to one employer, so their wages are bid up to local levels in short order.

ihsw2 9y ago
That's specious reasoning -- there is something to be said for Silicon Valley's capacity to support a self-sustaining tech industry. This critical mass is difficult to achieve and your implication that it can be replicated elsewhere is just deceptive equivocating. The rationale behind this legislation is that employers have been driving wages down via a self-sustaining lower class of tech workers, where low-cost temporary foreign workers constantly trickle in. This will close that spigot in favor of either the local talent pool or a foreign talent pool where immigrants find an employer to sponsor their application for permanent citizenship.
- davidw 9y ago
  > capacity to support a self-sustaining tech industry. You mean the industry that includes tons of companies founded by immigrants or their children? I'm not saying SV can be replicated elsewhere. But the code you're writing can be, if the price differential is big enough. Outsourcing is a PITA, so if the price differential is not big, why bother. But... if it's big enough, innovative people will find a way to make it work. > This will close that spigot in favor of either the local talent pool or a foreign talent pool where immigrants find an employer to sponsor their application for permanent citizenship. Or a foreign office without all the bureaucratic, nativist BS.

JoeAltmaier 9y ago

'Indentured'? I call hyperbole. Quit, go home. That's something a true indentured servant couldn't do. Its 'something like' indentured servitude, except it isn't. It isn't slavery either. Nor torture or any number of other emotionally laden words we could come up with. Its an employment deal. Its an immigration option. Others exist. Don't choose it if you don't like it.

xenihn 9y ago
>'Indentured'? I call hyperbole. Quit, go home. That's something a true indentured servant couldn't do. What if they have debts to pay off at home, and it's the only realistic option available? Going home means not being able to pay those debts off.
- JoeAltmaier 9y ago
  I get it; we all have to work. But piling up debts then having to work (somewhere) to pay them off - that isn't 'indentured servitude' either.
0xbear 9y ago
Educate us, which "others" exist? Also H1-B is a non-immigrant visa. You can petition for a green card after a few years, but there's no guarantee you'll get it. I agree with the op, btw. To make things better for local workers, h1b workers should be offered greater mobility so as to create competition which properly values their skills. Earlier suggestion by the Trump administration that instead of a lottery only the highest paid h1b workers will be admitted sounds quite sane, too. Disclosure: naturalized citizen, former H1B.
eeZah7Ux 9y ago
Look up the definitions of servitude and slavery on a dictionary: they fit.

djsumdog 9y ago

When I think about entrepreneur visas, I think about people needing a ton of money (several hundred thousand USD, EUROs, GBPs, etc.) to come in and attempt to start a business. In a lot of ways it's simply buying your way into a country as a resident. I didn't think about the aspect of people seeing VC funding; not self funded people. Also, when I first read this article, I wondered what industry stood to gain from this move. Presidents are members of the 1% and their policies are dictated by the top income earners, not the opinions of most voters[0]. Although companies might publicly be against this, they must be secretly benefiting. Maybe big tech players don't want disruptive startups coming in and taking their markets? [0]: http://fightthefuture.org/videos/does-voting-make-a-difference/ http://fightthefuture.org/videos/does-voting-make-a-differen...

dang 9y ago

You picked just about the most inflammatory word you could ("indenture") and repeated it several times. That is exactly the wrong way to comment on a divisive topic here. It leads to shallow discussion and flamewars. So please don't do that. We're hoping for thoughtful, substantive discussion, not rhetorical escalation. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html

hildaman 9y ago
When the system brings people in who cannot change jobs or have a hard time changing jobs - what other term would you suggest I use? Is "bonded labor" better?
- dang 9y ago
  The phrase 'have a hard time changing jobs' seems fine. You could even, if you wanted to, make an argument that this has some things in common with what was historically called indentured labor. But to use a charged phrase as a rhetorical weapon in an ideological battle, which you clearly are doing, is the wrong kind of comment for HN. The same goes for swipes like "you are kidding right?" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14745448 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14745448). Using escalating rhetoric on divisive topics causes internet discussion to erupt in flames. Mostly it's negligence rather than arson but the result is the same. If you're going to comment here, please don't do these things. The guiding value of HN is intellectual curiosity (please see https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html). We're hoping for thoughtful conversation, and using the site primarily for political or ideological battle is destructive of that, so we ban such accounts. In particular, it's not ok to create an account here just to do that.
  - hildaman 9y ago
    Ok - that "you are kidding" was an unwarranted swipe. I won't do it again. Regarding "indentured servant" - that is the factually correct term to describe the situation. Even H-1B visa holders themselves use this term. Here is a video of an H-1B visa holder using the exact term "indentured servant" with Congressman Darrell Issa at some policy event about the H-1B visa in Washington DC: https://youtu.be/2Tgc9m1IwNc?t=35m47s https://youtu.be/2Tgc9m1IwNc?t=35m47s The term "indentured servant" is exactly the right term to describe the employer-employee relationship between Guest Worker visa holders and their employer's. As demonstrated in the video, even the H-1B workers themselves are saying that they feel like indentured servants. I personally feel that politically correctness is somehow having the effect of normalizing this very abnormal employee-employer relationship (at-least here in America). As the guest worker in the video says, if he loses his job - he has to take his kids out of school, sell his car, sell his house and leave. This is not in any way a normal employee-employer relationship. I would like to think the points I am raising are thoughtful. well researched and articulate. Apart the "swipes" - which I will tone down on - I don't think I am guilty of any other transgressions.

conanbatt 9y ago

I dont think corporations profit from the H1B in an economic sense. Some can, but only very few: that is, copmanies whose H1B situation allows them to have a higher range of profits than other companies in the same space that wouldnt have access to the same visa. If immigration where free, or almost free, then these companies would hire even more people, and all others would also do it. The amount of immigration the tech sector would have if people could go to the us, stay 6 months to acclimate, learn and pick jobs, would skyrocket and would increase the talent pool for companies. The great supporter of such restrictions are the people that think their own wage would be reduced if more competition were brought up. And they would be right to fear that in the short term. In the longer term, lower wages would also mean higher profits, thus higher capital which would eventually rise wages again. Any immigration policy is more often than not a problem of bias and misunderstanding from the public, and a matter of voters for the politicians.