5 ms·

Do you have references to back this up ? Or did you just make it up ?

• 2OEH8eoCRo0 7y ago
  No raises because many cannot afford to quit and lose the visa and be extradited. Can't refuse to work late or they can be fired and lose the visa and be extradited.
  • dmode 7y ago
    Why would anyone be extradited ? Did they violate some international law ?
    • Frost1x 7y ago
      OP likely meant deported due to lapse of valid citizenship status, not extradited. The spirit of what was stated is correct. H-1B workers have very low employment mobility and employers know and leverage this as much as they can.
      • dmode 7y ago
        Completely incorrect. H1 employees in SV have a lot of mobility as there are hundreds of thousands of jobs available that sponsor your visa. And your visa can be transferred under 15 days. You don’t even have to quit your previous employer before your approval in place. SV companies have 20-40% attrition rate and a large portion of that is H1 employees moving around
• paulgb 7y ago
  It's made up. I've had multiple visas including (currently) H-1B and it's just not true.
  • greglindahl 7y ago
    So your personal experience is the experience of every H-1B? Including the ones who are vehemently disagreeing with you?
    • paulgb 7y ago
      Of course not. But my experience is a counterexample to the claim "People on visas cannot get raises", which is worded so absolutely as to imply that it is not allowed under the visa program to give someone a raise.
      • greglindahl 7y ago
        I see. Well, thanks for the single data point!
        • vinay427 7y ago
          That's all that is needed to disprove OP's statement. Maybe it isn't as common to get a raise on a visa, but that doesn't justify an incorrect statement (or at best a crucial oversimplification).
          • greglindahl 7y ago
            The HN guidelines encourage everyone to not take the worst interpretation, but ok, go for it.
            • vinay427 7y ago
              It's difficult to have an interpretation of a claim as straightforward and direct as the one I was referring to which flatly uses the word "cannot." The statement is just wrong whichever way you look at it given even a single counterexample. Meanwhile, you seem to have taken the worst interpretation of the comment providing their anecdotal experience, inferring for some reason that they meant it as a general statement that applies to everyone, even after they clarified otherwise in a followup reply. Your interpretation seemed so obscene to me that I felt the need to reply in the first place.