7 ms·

"Let's compare the number of H-1B recipients with the 1.1 million green cards that are issued every year. Why are we quibbling over 65,000 people that corporati

"Let's compare the number of H-1B recipients with the 1.1 million green cards that are issued every year. Why are we quibbling over 65,000 people that corporations are trying to recruit? And the government is trying to micromanage this? It makes no sense." https://www.hpe.com/us/en/insights/articles/the-incredible-shrinking-h-1b-visa-what-it-means-for-tech-companies-1706.html https://www.hpe.com/us/en/insights/articles/the-incredible-s...

bdcravens 9y ago
Different concerns.
Mountain_Skies 9y ago
I wonder how many people who say "Oh God yes, please run Trump, please run" because they thought he'd lose badly now regret that attitude. Telling people to stop looking at the tech visa issue because the number of green cards dwarf it just invites a push towards a return to pre 1960s immigration policies.
- Consultant32452 9y ago
  What were the pre 1960 immigration policies? That was means-tested immigration right? That would align us with most of Europe as far as I can tell.
  - blackbagboys 9y ago
    It was a system of quotas based on national origin, explicitly designed to maintain the "ethnic character" of the country, and either de jure or de facto banned Asian and African immigration.
    - barry-cotter 9y ago
      Unless I am very much mistaken no one thought about immigration from Africa at the time because there was a trivial amount. Same reason as there were almost no restrictions on migration within the Western Hemisphere, it didn’t happen much.
    - letitgo12345 9y ago
      There is still a quota based on national origin which leads to wait times of up to 70 years for people from India for employment based GCs and up to 130 years in the family based category for people from Mexico. The immigration system is a joke.
    - patrickg_zill 9y ago
      This is an accurate statement. The reason why it is still brought up is because Teddy Kennedy and others assured the public that the 1965 Hart-Cellar Act (the real name of the immigration act) would not change the ethnic makeup of the country. Clearly something in the law did change something...
      - blackbagboys 9y ago
        Yes, there are still white supremacists who are angry about non-white people being allowed to live in the country and treated as equal citizens, that is also accurate.
  - mynameishere 9y ago
    Those policies reflected the desires of the population, unlike the current policies which reflect the desires of globalists and corporations.
    - IIAOPSW 9y ago
      sigh Don't pretend you have "the will of the people" behind you when you lost the popular vote.
      - refurb 9y ago
        sigh Enough will of the people? Don't tell me a simple majority of the popular vote, which in the end means nothing selecting a president, means you can ignore the will of the people that put Trump in power.
        IIAOPSW 9y ago
        Well if minority rule is cool with you then why don't you just give up and submit to the "globalists" desires. I mean why not? Majorities don't matter when selecting a president right? May as well ignore them.
        Nrsolis 9y ago
        Something that might take a little explaining: The US system is set up such that each state has a say in how we elect a President. The whole thing is specified by the Constitution. If you subtract out the votes of the people who live in ONLY the major cities like San Francisco and New York, the idea that a majority of people in the US wanted Trump to lose falls away. Another way to look at this is that the people in this country who were being left behind by policies that favored urban areas turned their back on HRC. And then you have the fact that African-Americans in large part didn't come out and vote to support HRC. When you voluntarily enter a race set up according to rules that have existed for a couple of hundred years and lose, you don't get to complain that the rules are unfair.
- mc32 9y ago
  If I understand it correctly the Trump admin wants to institute something more akin to the AU and CA visa systems --preferring people who fill skills voids in the US. It's not a return to pre-60's policies. I think this aligns with most other modern economies out there. If anything, we're the outlier allowing randoms to come in without regard to skills or means.
  - aianus 9y ago
    Why is this controversial? Why would Americans prefer immigrants chosen at random through a lottery vs. those who are skilled and vetted? Or worse, giving illegal immigrants immunity?
    - mc32 9y ago
      I don't think it's controversial. Any country I've been to that can control ingress does control ingress and will promptly deport people who didn't enter the proper way. Japan, S Korea, China, Singapore, etc., would be extremely hard for anyone to work off the books without having to resort to the underworld. Otherwise you may last a month or two, but most people will get kicked out without a visa. What's more regular police have the authority and responsibility to make sure anyone without a visa gets expelled.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - rjsw 9y ago
        Does that work even if the visa-less person can't remember which country they came from ?
        mc32 9y ago
        This would be so rare that it'd be of little impact. That said, they would likely investigate who this person was, who originally employed them, and use those records along with any other trails left at points of entry and use that info to return the overstayer.

bdcravens 9y ago

Different concerns.

Mountain_Skies 9y ago

I wonder how many people who say "Oh God yes, please run Trump, please run" because they thought he'd lose badly now regret that attitude. Telling people to stop looking at the tech visa issue because the number of green cards dwarf it just invites a push towards a return to pre 1960s immigration policies.

Consultant32452 9y ago
What were the pre 1960 immigration policies? That was means-tested immigration right? That would align us with most of Europe as far as I can tell.
- blackbagboys 9y ago
  It was a system of quotas based on national origin, explicitly designed to maintain the "ethnic character" of the country, and either de jure or de facto banned Asian and African immigration.
  - barry-cotter 9y ago
    Unless I am very much mistaken no one thought about immigration from Africa at the time because there was a trivial amount. Same reason as there were almost no restrictions on migration within the Western Hemisphere, it didn’t happen much.
  - letitgo12345 9y ago
    There is still a quota based on national origin which leads to wait times of up to 70 years for people from India for employment based GCs and up to 130 years in the family based category for people from Mexico. The immigration system is a joke.
  - patrickg_zill 9y ago
    This is an accurate statement. The reason why it is still brought up is because Teddy Kennedy and others assured the public that the 1965 Hart-Cellar Act (the real name of the immigration act) would not change the ethnic makeup of the country. Clearly something in the law did change something...
    - blackbagboys 9y ago
      Yes, there are still white supremacists who are angry about non-white people being allowed to live in the country and treated as equal citizens, that is also accurate.
- mynameishere 9y ago
  Those policies reflected the desires of the population, unlike the current policies which reflect the desires of globalists and corporations.
  - IIAOPSW 9y ago
    sigh Don't pretend you have "the will of the people" behind you when you lost the popular vote.
    - refurb 9y ago
      sigh Enough will of the people? Don't tell me a simple majority of the popular vote, which in the end means nothing selecting a president, means you can ignore the will of the people that put Trump in power.
      - IIAOPSW 9y ago
        Well if minority rule is cool with you then why don't you just give up and submit to the "globalists" desires. I mean why not? Majorities don't matter when selecting a president right? May as well ignore them.
        Nrsolis 9y ago
        Something that might take a little explaining: The US system is set up such that each state has a say in how we elect a President. The whole thing is specified by the Constitution. If you subtract out the votes of the people who live in ONLY the major cities like San Francisco and New York, the idea that a majority of people in the US wanted Trump to lose falls away. Another way to look at this is that the people in this country who were being left behind by policies that favored urban areas turned their back on HRC. And then you have the fact that African-Americans in large part didn't come out and vote to support HRC. When you voluntarily enter a race set up according to rules that have existed for a couple of hundred years and lose, you don't get to complain that the rules are unfair.
mc32 9y ago
If I understand it correctly the Trump admin wants to institute something more akin to the AU and CA visa systems --preferring people who fill skills voids in the US. It's not a return to pre-60's policies. I think this aligns with most other modern economies out there. If anything, we're the outlier allowing randoms to come in without regard to skills or means.
- aianus 9y ago
  Why is this controversial? Why would Americans prefer immigrants chosen at random through a lottery vs. those who are skilled and vetted? Or worse, giving illegal immigrants immunity?
  - mc32 9y ago
    I don't think it's controversial. Any country I've been to that can control ingress does control ingress and will promptly deport people who didn't enter the proper way. Japan, S Korea, China, Singapore, etc., would be extremely hard for anyone to work off the books without having to resort to the underworld. Otherwise you may last a month or two, but most people will get kicked out without a visa. What's more regular police have the authority and responsibility to make sure anyone without a visa gets expelled.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - rjsw 9y ago
      Does that work even if the visa-less person can't remember which country they came from ?
      - mc32 9y ago
        This would be so rare that it'd be of little impact. That said, they would likely investigate who this person was, who originally employed them, and use those records along with any other trails left at points of entry and use that info to return the overstayer.