5 ms·

>Such temporary visa holders often have limited job mobility and thus are likely to remain with their company until they can adjust status, which for some can b

>Such temporary visa holders often have limited job mobility and thus are likely to remain with their company until they can adjust status, which for some can be decades. They need to fix that and address the root issue rather than force tens of thousands of companies to fire ppl who were working for several years and have a lot of institutional knowlege.

whimsicalism 6y ago
> They need to fix that and address the root issue What does it mean to "address the root issue"? This is a platitude because any "address"-ing will have pretty clear winners & losers.
- Ericson2314 6y ago
  It's possible to have American and foreign workers be the winners, and the employers be the looses.
- jedberg 6y ago
  A couple of easy fixes -- one, don't make H1B dependent on the employer. Once you've worked for say, one year, convert it to a general work visa. Two, automatic green-card for anyone who completes a four year degree at an accredited US institution.
  - nrmitchi 6y ago
    1. Definitely agree with that. Even if you keep the same H1-B term (7 years), you now have an EAD (Employment Authorization Document) for those 7 years. 2. I strongly disagree with this one. The end result will be accredited US institutions effectively selling green cards. If you thought tuition was high before this, think about what will happen after these schools can effectively sell permanent residency to the highest bidders (for prices under the EB-5 investment visa cut-offs of course)
    - jedberg 6y ago
      Is number two really that bad though? Right now, rich people can find ways to "buy" citizenship already. Now at least some of the money and gatekeeping would flow through colleges. Especially public colleges, who love foreign students, because they pay full tuition.
      - nrmitchi 6y ago
        Yes, selling green cards is bad. The EB-5 program is the "government sponsored" way of doing it. I also think that is bad, and abused, but I digress. If your argument for it being good is "the money goes to public colleges, which is basically the government!" then the government should just be transparently selling permanent residency without the smoke-and-mirror charade of a "school". Are you then going to exclude private schools? I would guess that a degree from Harvard is more worthy of a green card, but then why should Harvard get a bunch of "free money" for selling a green card? US Colleges will still only have a certain amount of capacity. If all of a sudden it comes with a free green card, either 1) less US students can afford to go there, because tuition has risen so much due to "supply and demand", or 2) US students still go there, and end up with even more debt than they currently have. > Now at least some of the money and gatekeeping would flow through colleges. Especially public colleges, who love foreign students, because they pay full tuition. With the EB-5 programs (the way to "buy" a green card), you have to invest within Qualified Opportunity Zones which are (in theory) designed to assist lower-income areas, or create a certain number of new jobs (I'm sure there are other investments that qualify too; I'm not an expert on this program). Having funds go towards these endeavors is arguably "better" than going into the pockets of an already administratively-overloaded university system.
      - fakedang 6y ago
        You won't get the brightest students, but rather the richest.
  - bluecalm 6y ago
    I think degrees already have too much weight. You don't want gatekeepers to control even more areas of life. Just make it: "if you worked for at least n years and paid at least n in taxes you get a green card".
    - jedberg 6y ago
      That's also not a bad idea.
- pitaj 6y ago
  Addressing the root issue means reforming immigration laws to be far more permissive in all aspects. Which is a win for immigrants because they no longer can be threatened with losing their job and deportation, meaning they won't work for far lower wages than citizens. That's also a win for citizens, as now their aren't competing with an underclass forced into worse working arrangements. And it's also a win for companies, as they don't have to try to find local talent before hiring an immigrant.
  - rayiner 6y ago
    Why more permissive? Is there really any documented need for more skilled workers in a country of 300 million people?
    - bluecalm 6y ago
      It's obvious if you ever were anywhere close to a process of hiring a programmer. It's hard to find competent people. There is a lot of competition. A lot of positions companies could profitably hire at decent salaries won't ever be filled because salaries of people qualified to do those jobs start above profitability threshold. Besides, it's not rocket science that having more talented productive people in your country is a good idea.
      - sidlls 6y ago
        Have you considered the difficulty in hiring is partly due to artificially complex and high standards? That maybe, to some degree, these standards are promoted in part to contribute to a feedback loop?
      - whimsicalism 6y ago
        > decent salaries won't ever be filled because salaries of people qualified to do those jobs start above profitability threshold. Wait, so will this move lower engineers salaries or raise it because they won't have to compete "with an underclass." The reasoning isn't self-consistent because obviously it will mean lower wages for engineers.
      - 6y ago
- triceratops 6y ago
  Fix the green card backlog for people born in India, China, Mexico, and the Philippines so they aren't stuck on an H-1B for decades and they have more negotiating power. Everyone else can already get an employment-based green card within a couple of years of arriving in the US.
rayiner 6y ago
If the system sounds crazy it’s because it’s being used for a job it was never designed to do. The H1B system was marketed to the public as a temporary skilled worker visa. Mostly by executive fiat, it was turned into a de-facto permanent immigration mechanism. The whole system makes much more sense if you look at it in terms of the original purpose: to allow temporary workers to work in fields where there is a shortage, but who will mostly go home at the end of the 3- or 6-year period.
- chungus_khan 6y ago
  What a really funny coincidence that it just happened to degrade in a manner that massively benefits corporate interests too. My other favorite coincidence is when I put a coin in a vending machine and a can comes out the bottom.
sidlls 6y ago
"The root issue" is quite complicated, though. I think it's great someone who comes from an area where US$5k/month makes them extravagantly wealthy can get a job paying $10k/month. More power to them, and good for them for having that opportunity! Then I think about it in another context. One that considers the huge subsidies (direct payments, defense) the US provides these countries, and in the context of the market wage in the absence of these visa programs. That is, the context in which a US (permanent resident or citizen) worker's already tiny salary negotiation leverage is diminished by the existence of this labor pool. That's not such a great thing, in my opinion.

whimsicalism 6y ago

> They need to fix that and address the root issue What does it mean to "address the root issue"? This is a platitude because any "address"-ing will have pretty clear winners & losers.

Ericson2314 6y ago
It's possible to have American and foreign workers be the winners, and the employers be the looses.
jedberg 6y ago
A couple of easy fixes -- one, don't make H1B dependent on the employer. Once you've worked for say, one year, convert it to a general work visa. Two, automatic green-card for anyone who completes a four year degree at an accredited US institution.
- nrmitchi 6y ago
  1. Definitely agree with that. Even if you keep the same H1-B term (7 years), you now have an EAD (Employment Authorization Document) for those 7 years. 2. I strongly disagree with this one. The end result will be accredited US institutions effectively selling green cards. If you thought tuition was high before this, think about what will happen after these schools can effectively sell permanent residency to the highest bidders (for prices under the EB-5 investment visa cut-offs of course)
  - jedberg 6y ago
    Is number two really that bad though? Right now, rich people can find ways to "buy" citizenship already. Now at least some of the money and gatekeeping would flow through colleges. Especially public colleges, who love foreign students, because they pay full tuition.
    - nrmitchi 6y ago
      Yes, selling green cards is bad. The EB-5 program is the "government sponsored" way of doing it. I also think that is bad, and abused, but I digress. If your argument for it being good is "the money goes to public colleges, which is basically the government!" then the government should just be transparently selling permanent residency without the smoke-and-mirror charade of a "school". Are you then going to exclude private schools? I would guess that a degree from Harvard is more worthy of a green card, but then why should Harvard get a bunch of "free money" for selling a green card? US Colleges will still only have a certain amount of capacity. If all of a sudden it comes with a free green card, either 1) less US students can afford to go there, because tuition has risen so much due to "supply and demand", or 2) US students still go there, and end up with even more debt than they currently have. > Now at least some of the money and gatekeeping would flow through colleges. Especially public colleges, who love foreign students, because they pay full tuition. With the EB-5 programs (the way to "buy" a green card), you have to invest within Qualified Opportunity Zones which are (in theory) designed to assist lower-income areas, or create a certain number of new jobs (I'm sure there are other investments that qualify too; I'm not an expert on this program). Having funds go towards these endeavors is arguably "better" than going into the pockets of an already administratively-overloaded university system.
    - fakedang 6y ago
      You won't get the brightest students, but rather the richest.
- bluecalm 6y ago
  I think degrees already have too much weight. You don't want gatekeepers to control even more areas of life. Just make it: "if you worked for at least n years and paid at least n in taxes you get a green card".
  - jedberg 6y ago
    That's also not a bad idea.
pitaj 6y ago
Addressing the root issue means reforming immigration laws to be far more permissive in all aspects. Which is a win for immigrants because they no longer can be threatened with losing their job and deportation, meaning they won't work for far lower wages than citizens. That's also a win for citizens, as now their aren't competing with an underclass forced into worse working arrangements. And it's also a win for companies, as they don't have to try to find local talent before hiring an immigrant.
- rayiner 6y ago
  Why more permissive? Is there really any documented need for more skilled workers in a country of 300 million people?
  - bluecalm 6y ago
    It's obvious if you ever were anywhere close to a process of hiring a programmer. It's hard to find competent people. There is a lot of competition. A lot of positions companies could profitably hire at decent salaries won't ever be filled because salaries of people qualified to do those jobs start above profitability threshold. Besides, it's not rocket science that having more talented productive people in your country is a good idea.
    - sidlls 6y ago
      Have you considered the difficulty in hiring is partly due to artificially complex and high standards? That maybe, to some degree, these standards are promoted in part to contribute to a feedback loop?
    - whimsicalism 6y ago
      > decent salaries won't ever be filled because salaries of people qualified to do those jobs start above profitability threshold. Wait, so will this move lower engineers salaries or raise it because they won't have to compete "with an underclass." The reasoning isn't self-consistent because obviously it will mean lower wages for engineers.
    - 6y ago
triceratops 6y ago
Fix the green card backlog for people born in India, China, Mexico, and the Philippines so they aren't stuck on an H-1B for decades and they have more negotiating power. Everyone else can already get an employment-based green card within a couple of years of arriving in the US.

rayiner 6y ago

If the system sounds crazy it’s because it’s being used for a job it was never designed to do. The H1B system was marketed to the public as a temporary skilled worker visa. Mostly by executive fiat, it was turned into a de-facto permanent immigration mechanism. The whole system makes much more sense if you look at it in terms of the original purpose: to allow temporary workers to work in fields where there is a shortage, but who will mostly go home at the end of the 3- or 6-year period.

chungus_khan 6y ago
What a really funny coincidence that it just happened to degrade in a manner that massively benefits corporate interests too. My other favorite coincidence is when I put a coin in a vending machine and a can comes out the bottom.

sidlls 6y ago

"The root issue" is quite complicated, though. I think it's great someone who comes from an area where US$5k/month makes them extravagantly wealthy can get a job paying $10k/month. More power to them, and good for them for having that opportunity! Then I think about it in another context. One that considers the huge subsidies (direct payments, defense) the US provides these countries, and in the context of the market wage in the absence of these visa programs. That is, the context in which a US (permanent resident or citizen) worker's already tiny salary negotiation leverage is diminished by the existence of this labor pool. That's not such a great thing, in my opinion.