16 ms·

I do not typically post, but these suggestions seem like genuine improvements to the existing system: "Kerr suggests allocating H-1Bs not by lottery as they ar

I do not typically post, but these suggestions seem like genuine improvements to the existing system: "Kerr suggests allocating H-1Bs not by lottery as they are now, but by salary — the more that a company is willing to pay for a foreign worker, the quicker they can get a visa." "A second change would be to allow H-1B workers to apply for permanent residency green cards on their own, without having to be sponsored by their employers." Both of these would ensure that we can get smart and talented individuals from outside the US and would drastically improve the ability for the US to compete while continuing to provide broad-based wage increases.

rrggrr 8y ago
"Kerr suggests allocating H-1Bs not by lottery as they are now, but by salary — the more that a company is willing to pay for a foreign worker, the quicker they can get a visa." Would need to be artfully worded so that sign-on bonuses and short-term employment is not used to game the system by permitting averaging down over time.
- KirinDave 8y ago
  I think I agree with you (although I bet for different reasons) but, Why? What do you think is actually is the problem if highly compensated employment is used as a fast track to immigration and perhaps even citizenship?
  - michaelt 8y ago
    rrggrr is worried companies will say "1 year contract, $10,000 per day first week, $0 per day subsequent 51 weeks" and jump to the top of the stack as they're paying $10,000 per day.
    - maxxxxx 8y ago
      You can require them to pay an average salary over the whole period of employment.
      - TheSoftwareGuy 8y ago
        Most employment doesn't have a planned end point though
        dwater 8y ago
        Most visas do though, so it could be worked out.
        maxxxxx 8y ago
        Why do you need a planned endpoint?
        Goronmon 8y ago
        Why is a planned end point necessary? An average of say $100k per year isn't impacted whether you pay that person $50k for 6 months or $200k for two years.
        pc86 8y ago
        It's to prevent you hiring an H1B for a one-month, $50,000 contract, then hiring them for a separate 11-month, $50,000 contract after. The company will argue the initial hire is a $600k/yr rate.
        VintageLight 8y ago
        You could argue that they would get a one-month visa and top priority for that first month. The employer would have to go through the visa process again for the second contract.
        pc86 8y ago
        They're already here, renewal is a completely separate process. The biggest hurdle is getting them off the plane, if they're employed, sponsored, and here it's much easier to keep them here.
    - klipt 8y ago
      Presumably the salary they bid would have to be maintained throughout the visa validity (e.g. three years for H1-B). If the salary ever drops the visa is invalidated and becomes available for bidding by other companies.
    - afarrell 8y ago
      In the UK, the immigration agency checks that you are still being paid above the minimum salary for a work visa. I see no reason why they couldn't check on this sort of thing.
dudul 8y ago
As a former H1B, I fully support the second change yes. IIRC, an H1B can be renewed once and last a total of 6 years (apologies if regulations changed in the past 6 years, I haven't followed since I got a GC). 6 years is a long time and should allow application for GC without sponsorship. I'm not sure the first change is a good idea. Wouldn't it give a huge advantage to bigger companies? Haven't really thought this one through.
- merpnderp 8y ago
  I think the first is a great idea. A $450k/year neurosurgeon should get a massive preference over a $45k/year Sharepoint contractor. The highest paid are tautologically in the shortest supply.
  - hocuspocus 8y ago
    Realistically though, a neurosurgeon would probably be able to immigrate on another type of visa. Same goes for most executives, lawyers, partners at VCs or hedge funds... An auction based allocation would favor ad selling companies that can pay juniors 200k to do A/B testing. Then sure, it would partially solve the abuse from cheap IT consultancies, and that's better than nothing. But there would definitely be adverse effects.
- scarface74 8y ago
  How is that different than now? Larger companies can already afford to pay people more and smaller companies have to compete in salary. Outside of the west coast and FAANG companies, salaries aren’t that crazy. I haven’t seen any difference in comp based on company size in most of the US. They all have to compete for the same talent pool.
israrkhan 8y ago
This would result in most H1B allocations on east/west coast, where salaries (and cost of living) are relatively higher. I think this is already the case, but enforcing it by salary will result in a wider gap. Companies operating in low "cost of living" areas, will not be able to get skilled workers on H1Bs.
- ojbyrne 8y ago
  There is already a “prevailing wage” thing you have to meet, that varies by region, so it could be done as percentage above the prevailing wage.
- robotrout 8y ago
  I"m not sure this should be a consideration. If that midwest company cannot compete, it should not exist. That is tghe essence of capitalism. You should not subsidize it by making it not compete fairly for H1B applicants.
  - kasey_junk 8y ago
    It’s a bit of an odd argument to make against a state sanctioned limit to labor that it should be driven by pure capitalism/free market principles.
    - robotrout 8y ago
      The premise of the article was to use a capitalist supply and demand metric (salary) as a way to fairly allow merit based immigration. I think that strategy makes a lot of sense, and was making the point that our hypothetical midwest company should not be allowed to scuttle the non-gameable merit-based proposal in favor of something more political and squishy. Our hypothetical midwest company can either pay enough wage to get the employees it needs, or it can't, and if it can't, capitalism has a solution for that. (creative destruction)
      - DSMan195276 8y ago
bduerst 8y ago
The problem is that pay isn't uniform across skilled labor demand, and the purpose of the H1B program is to fulfill demand in the economy. If you set a quota and give to the highest bidder, you're going to see private sector executives and financial roles being filled in cities with high costs of living and competitive wages. Salary is a function not only of demand but also location and industry. This will discriminate against rural and middle America by depriving them of the skilled labor that they need to survive.
- k_sh 8y ago
  Perhaps this could be offset by using something like the GS Locality Pay[0] index? [0]: https://www.federalpay.org/gs/locality https://www.federalpay.org/gs/locality
- pmalynin 8y ago
  The supply / demand in the economy is specifically determined by the salary. If the demand grows high enough so that salaries go up, then you can obviously compete with other highly paid professionals. There is no reason Tata and Infosys should be hiring 70k contractors to do shitty jobs.
  - bduerst 8y ago
    >The supply / demand in the economy is specifically determined by the salary. Salary is a function of location, industry, and demand. Discriminating against American businesses that need skilled labor and are not in the most competitive industries or locations is not the purpose of the H1B program. >There is no reason Tata and Infosys should be hiring 70k contractors to do shitty jobs. This is a different problem, which is being solved as USCIS is cracking down on consultants who are registered in one region but work in another.
    - pmalynin 8y ago
      Arguably, the salary (and price in general) is measure of marginal utility. Hence if one job pays 140, 000 over 70, 000 we can argue that the one that pays more provides more marginal utility to society. That is, the United States as a whole gains more value from that job.
sametmax 8y ago
That would only make one more thing you can get better with more money.
gumby 8y ago
A nice idea but would make it impossible, for example, for my kid’s foreign-language school to bring in qualified teachers.[+] It’s difficult already as teachers switch jobs over the summer which over the past couple of decades has been when the supply is already used up. [+] English teachers are recruited from the California system. Unfortunately CA schools are so terrible that if the kids go back to their jobs,encountry they are frequently behind in English!
- thrmsforbfast 8y ago
  These sorts of "highest salary wins" rules should typically be crafted in an industry/sector-specific way. So schools have to compete with each other on salary but not with tech/finance/med. And then there are caps by sector. The problem with this approach, of course, is that you need a judge/executive who follows the spirit of the law so that I can't get a bunch of cheap tech workers by saying "oh, job ABC in town XYZ is its own industry/sector and not comparable to SWEs at Google".
  - geebee 8y ago
    I'm not sure I agree with this. I work for a university, and I am stunned with how talented and accomplished many post-docs are considering the level of low pay and career uncertainty they continue to face. The RAND institute, among others, concluded that the reason US citizens have turned away from graduate degrees in the sciences is a rational market response to poor pay and working conditions in favor of fields that offer better salaries and career stability. In short, there is no shortage, just a desire to pay extremely low salaries and establish exploitive working conditions - which you can do when you control someone's right to live and work in the US when these rights are difficult to come by. Not only do I think that there's no reason to prop up a system that suppresses salaries outside tech/finance/med (or within those fields, that happens too, especially in tech), I think there's real harm in the market distortions these schemes produce.
    - klipt 8y ago
      There's always a trade-off. You can have cheap steel, or well paid steel workers. You can have cheap medical care, or well paid doctors. Arguably by making postdocs underpaid, the US as a nation is getting cheap scientific advancement, in exchange for dangling the promise of eventual American citizenship (and the American dream) in front of said postdocs.
duxup 8y ago
I always thought H1B should simply be $100k or $120k+ plus jobs only. I was looking through online records and found folks being brought in for sub 50k jobs that looked like low level ... customer service roles.
- dx87 8y ago
  That's what I thought too, then I saw my company use an H1B to fill a junior web developer job at 70k in the DC/Metro area, which is basically the area's going rate for a 0 experience, straight out of college software developer.
  - duxup 8y ago
    Man, if someone needs an entry level web dev fast... there are so many bootcampers available. Granted the quality varies wildly (I'm a bootcamper myself, I know those people) but they are easily found.
- shade_zzz 8y ago
  That seems fishy, the minimum required salary to apply for h1b was 60k/year till the beginning of the year, and there was a bill that was introduced which proposed raising it to 90k/year.
  - duxup 8y ago
    Straight up it was sub 50k listed in the database... I'll see if I can find it later.
dkhenry 8y ago
you can get the same effect on salary by making it easier for a H1B recipient to leave the company that brought them over. Right now its very hard for a visa recipient to move companies so they can be given sub market rate salaries, if you make it so once they show up they can move to get a market rate salary then the companies who make a pratice of hiring foreign talent and paying them below market rates will end. The companies will incur all the cost of bringing in an H1B and some other company can just pay them more and receive the benefit. This also addresses the concerns about salary differences between different industries and regions.
- dudul 8y ago
  In theory it is not very complicated for a H1B to change employer. It simply requires the employer to file a petition to sponsor the H1B. It doesn't count towards the "seats" available yearly, and it's almost guaranteed to be granted. There is a small cost, maybe a few grands. If you think about it, it's way cheaper than paying recruiter fee fo example. In practice you're right though. Most companies have limited experience with this process and just don't want to get into it.
  - belltaco 8y ago
    Much of the green card process has to be redone though.
    - dudul 8y ago
      Can you elaborate? I'm not very familiar with GC via employment.
  - dkhenry 8y ago
    If you intend on applying for a green card you need to stick with the same employer until your I-140 is approved. Just getting there with a single employer can take years, and if you don't have an approved I-140 when your H1B expires your out of luck. Also up until 2017 even if you had an I-140 you would still lose your spot in line if your employer revoked it.
ransom1538 8y ago
I just wish it was reciprocated. I would like to work in Spain (no really). If I work in Spain, the US should open a spot for someone from Spain to work in the US. You want to hire someone from Turkey? No problem, find someone in the US to move to Turkey. You could allow companies to even grease the wheels, "Work from Turkey and get a 30k / year extra free bonus stipend!! yay!!"
- creaghpatr 8y ago
  Underrated idea
- dev_dull 8y ago
  There’s obvious brain-drain problems. Turkey doesn’t want it’s smartest people moving and working here. Nor is it in the interest of the US for high skilled workers to go abroad.
  - sosborn 8y ago
    I'd argue that it is in our (U.S.) best interest for highly skilled worked to go abroad for a short period of time (2 years?). Being exposed to different ways of living can do wonders for creative thinking.
- avar 8y ago
  This would be the extension of an already bad idea in the US immigration system that almost no other country shares. I can't think of another country that has this notion of per-country quotas. Spain isn't interested in getting an American immigrant just because one of its nationals moved to the US.
- iguy 8y ago
  Not on a 1-for-1 basis, but something like this is the argument for allowing free movement between comparable countries. If the UK, Canada & Australia opened up to each other, there'd be no massive net flow, but many individuals could work for the most suitable company / near their in-laws / in a climate they like. This was I think also what was envisaged when the EU first wrote free movement into law -- general mixing, rather than one-directional floods.
thedaemon 8y ago
So you want only the rich and privileged to be allowed into the USA? I find this highly negative.
- sillyquiet 8y ago
  Having people immigrate who are guaranteed to be able to make their own way is not only NOT negative, it's written into the immigration policies of virtually every nation. This is a separate argument from allowing economic refugees asylum into a country.
  - thedaemon 8y ago
    So you want to hire managers and other upper level people but not skilled technicians or artists? If we are going by the whoever has the highest salary idea, we obviously won't get real skilled workers. Just more managers. I am not talking about economic refugees.
njarboe 8y ago
How about allocating some large number of 6 year work visas by a pure auction? The visa goes with the person, they can work anywhere, and after the visa is up can be a US citizen with minimal hassle. Employers could pay the fee for people to come and work for them, if they like, with a claw-back clause, if necessary. It would be interesting to see what the price would be for such a visa.
- klipt 8y ago
  > The visa goes with the person, they can work anywhere, and after the visa is up can be a US citizen with minimal hassle. You basically described a green card (except it's nominally five years to citizenship, not six).
  - njarboe 8y ago
    Yes. A green card auction would be great. Expand it to some large number and get rid of all the huge variety of visas and paths to citizenship. Maybe half or more of all immigration to the US could go this route. After some years of high demand and high prices, I imagine that the price would drop to some stable level. When that happened, we might have an opportunity to bring some sanity to the illegal immigration problem in the US. In some more sane world, both parties might agree that a person that can prove they have been in the US for some number of years can pay for a green card at the auction rate (gov financing available).
tonmoy 8y ago
While the salary thing would help me gravely, not all industries/states pay in a similar way. It would help software companies in CA/NY a lot, but a biological research center in Midwest would be tough out of luck.
- denebo 8y ago
  They'd definitely need to account for region, rather than just looking at the dollar amount.
CodeMage 8y ago
> Both of these would ensure that we can get smart and talented individuals from outside the US and would drastically improve the ability for the US to compete while continuing to provide broad-based wage increases. As an immigrant, I'm all for better and easier immigration system. As a parent of an 11 year old, I can tell you that what your country really needs is not more smart and talented immigrants, but better education. When I was brought to work here on H-1B visa, I couldn't understand why the US would need so many immigrant software developers. Now that I've had 5 years to see what your schools are teaching kids, this is no longer a mystery to me. Your education is appalling and is the main reason why I'm planing to leave the country eventually.
- ddingus 8y ago
  You are spot on. Used to be, at least in my region of the USA, companies made local investments to build the talent pool needed. Tektronix is a stellar example. https://watch.opb.org/video/oregon-experience-the-spirit-of-tek/ https://watch.opb.org/video/oregon-experience-the-spirit-of-... People literally walked in off the street, got jobs, got education and went on to do great things. It costs more to do that, but the benefits are easily seen. Today, we see much less, and demand for people, largely from places that do continue to invest in people, has grown dramatically.
- jorblumesea 8y ago
  It really depends on the region and city, the US educational system has zero consistency across the nation. It also varies considerably by income, where rich school districts have educational standards above European levels, and where poor districts have standards on par with Latin America or even Africa. It's not that we don't produce educated people, it's we don't consistently produce educated people across the board and your location and income is a huge factor in your future success. Those living in West Virginia have almost no chance, and those living in California have much better opportunities. The US, like many countries, falls prey to sweeping generalizations that are at best partly true. Some state schools in not well known areas of the country are excellent and very affordable (IU, Purdue, Case Western, Carnegie Mellon).
  - 8y ago
HillaryBriss 8y ago
> ...would drastically improve the ability for the US to compete... of course "the US" is not a monolith. it's a collection of competing interests. big corporations, consumers, and the existing stock of US-based workers each claim to be "the US."

rrggrr 8y ago

"Kerr suggests allocating H-1Bs not by lottery as they are now, but by salary — the more that a company is willing to pay for a foreign worker, the quicker they can get a visa." Would need to be artfully worded so that sign-on bonuses and short-term employment is not used to game the system by permitting averaging down over time.

KirinDave 8y ago
I think I agree with you (although I bet for different reasons) but, Why? What do you think is actually is the problem if highly compensated employment is used as a fast track to immigration and perhaps even citizenship?
- michaelt 8y ago
  rrggrr is worried companies will say "1 year contract, $10,000 per day first week, $0 per day subsequent 51 weeks" and jump to the top of the stack as they're paying $10,000 per day.
  - maxxxxx 8y ago
    You can require them to pay an average salary over the whole period of employment.
    - TheSoftwareGuy 8y ago
      Most employment doesn't have a planned end point though
      - dwater 8y ago
        Most visas do though, so it could be worked out.
      - maxxxxx 8y ago
        Why do you need a planned endpoint?
      - Goronmon 8y ago
        Why is a planned end point necessary? An average of say $100k per year isn't impacted whether you pay that person $50k for 6 months or $200k for two years.
        pc86 8y ago
        It's to prevent you hiring an H1B for a one-month, $50,000 contract, then hiring them for a separate 11-month, $50,000 contract after. The company will argue the initial hire is a $600k/yr rate.
        VintageLight 8y ago
        You could argue that they would get a one-month visa and top priority for that first month. The employer would have to go through the visa process again for the second contract.
        pc86 8y ago
        They're already here, renewal is a completely separate process. The biggest hurdle is getting them off the plane, if they're employed, sponsored, and here it's much easier to keep them here.
  - klipt 8y ago
    Presumably the salary they bid would have to be maintained throughout the visa validity (e.g. three years for H1-B). If the salary ever drops the visa is invalidated and becomes available for bidding by other companies.
  - afarrell 8y ago
    In the UK, the immigration agency checks that you are still being paid above the minimum salary for a work visa. I see no reason why they couldn't check on this sort of thing.

dudul 8y ago

As a former H1B, I fully support the second change yes. IIRC, an H1B can be renewed once and last a total of 6 years (apologies if regulations changed in the past 6 years, I haven't followed since I got a GC). 6 years is a long time and should allow application for GC without sponsorship. I'm not sure the first change is a good idea. Wouldn't it give a huge advantage to bigger companies? Haven't really thought this one through.

merpnderp 8y ago
I think the first is a great idea. A $450k/year neurosurgeon should get a massive preference over a $45k/year Sharepoint contractor. The highest paid are tautologically in the shortest supply.
- hocuspocus 8y ago
  Realistically though, a neurosurgeon would probably be able to immigrate on another type of visa. Same goes for most executives, lawyers, partners at VCs or hedge funds... An auction based allocation would favor ad selling companies that can pay juniors 200k to do A/B testing. Then sure, it would partially solve the abuse from cheap IT consultancies, and that's better than nothing. But there would definitely be adverse effects.
scarface74 8y ago
How is that different than now? Larger companies can already afford to pay people more and smaller companies have to compete in salary. Outside of the west coast and FAANG companies, salaries aren’t that crazy. I haven’t seen any difference in comp based on company size in most of the US. They all have to compete for the same talent pool.

israrkhan 8y ago

This would result in most H1B allocations on east/west coast, where salaries (and cost of living) are relatively higher. I think this is already the case, but enforcing it by salary will result in a wider gap. Companies operating in low "cost of living" areas, will not be able to get skilled workers on H1Bs.

ojbyrne 8y ago
There is already a “prevailing wage” thing you have to meet, that varies by region, so it could be done as percentage above the prevailing wage.
robotrout 8y ago
I"m not sure this should be a consideration. If that midwest company cannot compete, it should not exist. That is tghe essence of capitalism. You should not subsidize it by making it not compete fairly for H1B applicants.
- kasey_junk 8y ago
  It’s a bit of an odd argument to make against a state sanctioned limit to labor that it should be driven by pure capitalism/free market principles.
  - robotrout 8y ago
    The premise of the article was to use a capitalist supply and demand metric (salary) as a way to fairly allow merit based immigration. I think that strategy makes a lot of sense, and was making the point that our hypothetical midwest company should not be allowed to scuttle the non-gameable merit-based proposal in favor of something more political and squishy. Our hypothetical midwest company can either pay enough wage to get the employees it needs, or it can't, and if it can't, capitalism has a solution for that. (creative destruction)
    - DSMan195276 8y ago

bduerst 8y ago

The problem is that pay isn't uniform across skilled labor demand, and the purpose of the H1B program is to fulfill demand in the economy. If you set a quota and give to the highest bidder, you're going to see private sector executives and financial roles being filled in cities with high costs of living and competitive wages. Salary is a function not only of demand but also location and industry. This will discriminate against rural and middle America by depriving them of the skilled labor that they need to survive.

k_sh 8y ago
Perhaps this could be offset by using something like the GS Locality Pay[0] index? [0]: https://www.federalpay.org/gs/locality https://www.federalpay.org/gs/locality
pmalynin 8y ago
The supply / demand in the economy is specifically determined by the salary. If the demand grows high enough so that salaries go up, then you can obviously compete with other highly paid professionals. There is no reason Tata and Infosys should be hiring 70k contractors to do shitty jobs.
- bduerst 8y ago
  >The supply / demand in the economy is specifically determined by the salary. Salary is a function of location, industry, and demand. Discriminating against American businesses that need skilled labor and are not in the most competitive industries or locations is not the purpose of the H1B program. >There is no reason Tata and Infosys should be hiring 70k contractors to do shitty jobs. This is a different problem, which is being solved as USCIS is cracking down on consultants who are registered in one region but work in another.
  - pmalynin 8y ago
    Arguably, the salary (and price in general) is measure of marginal utility. Hence if one job pays 140, 000 over 70, 000 we can argue that the one that pays more provides more marginal utility to society. That is, the United States as a whole gains more value from that job.

sametmax 8y ago

That would only make one more thing you can get better with more money.

gumby 8y ago

A nice idea but would make it impossible, for example, for my kid’s foreign-language school to bring in qualified teachers.[+] It’s difficult already as teachers switch jobs over the summer which over the past couple of decades has been when the supply is already used up. [+] English teachers are recruited from the California system. Unfortunately CA schools are so terrible that if the kids go back to their jobs,encountry they are frequently behind in English!

thrmsforbfast 8y ago
These sorts of "highest salary wins" rules should typically be crafted in an industry/sector-specific way. So schools have to compete with each other on salary but not with tech/finance/med. And then there are caps by sector. The problem with this approach, of course, is that you need a judge/executive who follows the spirit of the law so that I can't get a bunch of cheap tech workers by saying "oh, job ABC in town XYZ is its own industry/sector and not comparable to SWEs at Google".
- geebee 8y ago
  I'm not sure I agree with this. I work for a university, and I am stunned with how talented and accomplished many post-docs are considering the level of low pay and career uncertainty they continue to face. The RAND institute, among others, concluded that the reason US citizens have turned away from graduate degrees in the sciences is a rational market response to poor pay and working conditions in favor of fields that offer better salaries and career stability. In short, there is no shortage, just a desire to pay extremely low salaries and establish exploitive working conditions - which you can do when you control someone's right to live and work in the US when these rights are difficult to come by. Not only do I think that there's no reason to prop up a system that suppresses salaries outside tech/finance/med (or within those fields, that happens too, especially in tech), I think there's real harm in the market distortions these schemes produce.
  - klipt 8y ago
    There's always a trade-off. You can have cheap steel, or well paid steel workers. You can have cheap medical care, or well paid doctors. Arguably by making postdocs underpaid, the US as a nation is getting cheap scientific advancement, in exchange for dangling the promise of eventual American citizenship (and the American dream) in front of said postdocs.

duxup 8y ago

I always thought H1B should simply be $100k or $120k+ plus jobs only. I was looking through online records and found folks being brought in for sub 50k jobs that looked like low level ... customer service roles.

dx87 8y ago
That's what I thought too, then I saw my company use an H1B to fill a junior web developer job at 70k in the DC/Metro area, which is basically the area's going rate for a 0 experience, straight out of college software developer.
- duxup 8y ago
  Man, if someone needs an entry level web dev fast... there are so many bootcampers available. Granted the quality varies wildly (I'm a bootcamper myself, I know those people) but they are easily found.
shade_zzz 8y ago
That seems fishy, the minimum required salary to apply for h1b was 60k/year till the beginning of the year, and there was a bill that was introduced which proposed raising it to 90k/year.
- duxup 8y ago
  Straight up it was sub 50k listed in the database... I'll see if I can find it later.

dkhenry 8y ago

you can get the same effect on salary by making it easier for a H1B recipient to leave the company that brought them over. Right now its very hard for a visa recipient to move companies so they can be given sub market rate salaries, if you make it so once they show up they can move to get a market rate salary then the companies who make a pratice of hiring foreign talent and paying them below market rates will end. The companies will incur all the cost of bringing in an H1B and some other company can just pay them more and receive the benefit. This also addresses the concerns about salary differences between different industries and regions.

dudul 8y ago
In theory it is not very complicated for a H1B to change employer. It simply requires the employer to file a petition to sponsor the H1B. It doesn't count towards the "seats" available yearly, and it's almost guaranteed to be granted. There is a small cost, maybe a few grands. If you think about it, it's way cheaper than paying recruiter fee fo example. In practice you're right though. Most companies have limited experience with this process and just don't want to get into it.
- belltaco 8y ago
  Much of the green card process has to be redone though.
  - dudul 8y ago
    Can you elaborate? I'm not very familiar with GC via employment.
- dkhenry 8y ago
  If you intend on applying for a green card you need to stick with the same employer until your I-140 is approved. Just getting there with a single employer can take years, and if you don't have an approved I-140 when your H1B expires your out of luck. Also up until 2017 even if you had an I-140 you would still lose your spot in line if your employer revoked it.

ransom1538 8y ago

I just wish it was reciprocated. I would like to work in Spain (no really). If I work in Spain, the US should open a spot for someone from Spain to work in the US. You want to hire someone from Turkey? No problem, find someone in the US to move to Turkey. You could allow companies to even grease the wheels, "Work from Turkey and get a 30k / year extra free bonus stipend!! yay!!"

creaghpatr 8y ago
Underrated idea
dev_dull 8y ago
There’s obvious brain-drain problems. Turkey doesn’t want it’s smartest people moving and working here. Nor is it in the interest of the US for high skilled workers to go abroad.
- sosborn 8y ago
  I'd argue that it is in our (U.S.) best interest for highly skilled worked to go abroad for a short period of time (2 years?). Being exposed to different ways of living can do wonders for creative thinking.
avar 8y ago
This would be the extension of an already bad idea in the US immigration system that almost no other country shares. I can't think of another country that has this notion of per-country quotas. Spain isn't interested in getting an American immigrant just because one of its nationals moved to the US.
iguy 8y ago
Not on a 1-for-1 basis, but something like this is the argument for allowing free movement between comparable countries. If the UK, Canada & Australia opened up to each other, there'd be no massive net flow, but many individuals could work for the most suitable company / near their in-laws / in a climate they like. This was I think also what was envisaged when the EU first wrote free movement into law -- general mixing, rather than one-directional floods.

thedaemon 8y ago

So you want only the rich and privileged to be allowed into the USA? I find this highly negative.

sillyquiet 8y ago
Having people immigrate who are guaranteed to be able to make their own way is not only NOT negative, it's written into the immigration policies of virtually every nation. This is a separate argument from allowing economic refugees asylum into a country.
- thedaemon 8y ago
  So you want to hire managers and other upper level people but not skilled technicians or artists? If we are going by the whoever has the highest salary idea, we obviously won't get real skilled workers. Just more managers. I am not talking about economic refugees.

njarboe 8y ago

How about allocating some large number of 6 year work visas by a pure auction? The visa goes with the person, they can work anywhere, and after the visa is up can be a US citizen with minimal hassle. Employers could pay the fee for people to come and work for them, if they like, with a claw-back clause, if necessary. It would be interesting to see what the price would be for such a visa.

klipt 8y ago
> The visa goes with the person, they can work anywhere, and after the visa is up can be a US citizen with minimal hassle. You basically described a green card (except it's nominally five years to citizenship, not six).
- njarboe 8y ago
  Yes. A green card auction would be great. Expand it to some large number and get rid of all the huge variety of visas and paths to citizenship. Maybe half or more of all immigration to the US could go this route. After some years of high demand and high prices, I imagine that the price would drop to some stable level. When that happened, we might have an opportunity to bring some sanity to the illegal immigration problem in the US. In some more sane world, both parties might agree that a person that can prove they have been in the US for some number of years can pay for a green card at the auction rate (gov financing available).

tonmoy 8y ago

While the salary thing would help me gravely, not all industries/states pay in a similar way. It would help software companies in CA/NY a lot, but a biological research center in Midwest would be tough out of luck.

denebo 8y ago
They'd definitely need to account for region, rather than just looking at the dollar amount.

CodeMage 8y ago

> Both of these would ensure that we can get smart and talented individuals from outside the US and would drastically improve the ability for the US to compete while continuing to provide broad-based wage increases. As an immigrant, I'm all for better and easier immigration system. As a parent of an 11 year old, I can tell you that what your country really needs is not more smart and talented immigrants, but better education. When I was brought to work here on H-1B visa, I couldn't understand why the US would need so many immigrant software developers. Now that I've had 5 years to see what your schools are teaching kids, this is no longer a mystery to me. Your education is appalling and is the main reason why I'm planing to leave the country eventually.

ddingus 8y ago
You are spot on. Used to be, at least in my region of the USA, companies made local investments to build the talent pool needed. Tektronix is a stellar example. https://watch.opb.org/video/oregon-experience-the-spirit-of-tek/ https://watch.opb.org/video/oregon-experience-the-spirit-of-... People literally walked in off the street, got jobs, got education and went on to do great things. It costs more to do that, but the benefits are easily seen. Today, we see much less, and demand for people, largely from places that do continue to invest in people, has grown dramatically.
jorblumesea 8y ago
It really depends on the region and city, the US educational system has zero consistency across the nation. It also varies considerably by income, where rich school districts have educational standards above European levels, and where poor districts have standards on par with Latin America or even Africa. It's not that we don't produce educated people, it's we don't consistently produce educated people across the board and your location and income is a huge factor in your future success. Those living in West Virginia have almost no chance, and those living in California have much better opportunities. The US, like many countries, falls prey to sweeping generalizations that are at best partly true. Some state schools in not well known areas of the country are excellent and very affordable (IU, Purdue, Case Western, Carnegie Mellon).
- 8y ago

HillaryBriss 8y ago

> ...would drastically improve the ability for the US to compete... of course "the US" is not a monolith. it's a collection of competing interests. big corporations, consumers, and the existing stock of US-based workers each claim to be "the US."