6 ms·

This is just a driveby legal shakedown. The requirement for PERM/greencard application is to prove there was sufficient effort to hire an US citizen first. The

by zyang 3y ago

This is just a driveby legal shakedown. The requirement for PERM/greencard application is to prove there was sufficient effort to hire an US citizen first. The standard practice is post a ad matching the applicants qualification on local papers first. I went through the process twice at two different companies since I left the first one before PERM was completed. Apple just happened to be a juice target here. The real culprit is the backward immigration system designed to pacify voters.

Obergruppen 3y ago
> system designed to pacify voters sounds like you might be happier back in China?
next_xibalba 3y ago
> The real culprit is the backward immigration system designed to pacify voters. Shouldn’t any immigration system actualize the will of the voters?
- Spooky23 3y ago
  The voters are pandered to, no sane policy can survive the senate. The reality is that without immigration, this work will just shift to India, full stop. Visa sponsorship is a plum that benefits the outsourcer in their recruitment. The current system very much benefits the US. Work visa holders pay taxes, support the local economy, and navigate a difficult journey to a green card and citizenship. When you let populists rile up “the voters”, you get what’s happened in agriculture. Long standing seasonal migration get harder, and the farming moves to Mexico. We let the packinghouse unions get busted, and now there’s an environmental disaster in feed lots and rural facilities.
  - 4death4 3y ago
    > The current system very much benefits the US. Work visa holders pay taxes, support the local economy, and navigate a difficult journey to a green card and citizenship. And they take jobs from locals, and increase the labor supply which can decrease wages. More people also exacerbates an undersupplied housing market. There are pros and cons to immigration. But yes, let’s just dismiss the concerns of those rubes and force them to do what you want.
    - kelipso 3y ago
      It's an open question whether they take jobs from the locals. If they can't work in the US, then the same person can just work outside the US. Considering the percentage of immigrants/foreigners in Silicon Valley, it can be easily argued that its success was entirely due to the ease of foreign workers being able to work in the same location. If it was somewhere else that was more attractive, then who knows, Hong Kong could have been the alternate world Silicon Valley.
      - jakderrida 3y ago
        >It's an open question whether they take jobs from the locals. If they can't work in the US, then the same person can just work outside the US. Such an underrated point. The workers aren't independent farmowners. They're low-paid employees of massive corporate farms that own that land. We utilize an incredibly small fraction of our land capable of growing crops and we use excess as a diplomatic tool for US hegemony. I just don't understand this distaste for immigrants. Let them in and we're all better off. They even pay into SS and never pull out a dime and all they get is pseudopatriots at the wall cosplaying and directing hate towards them, despite allowing them in being a net benefit to all of us.
  - HamSession 3y ago
    You would get tit for tat and US would tax any offshore development products.
  - rayiner 3y ago
    Doesn’t that just mean we need high tariffs on foreign Internet services? The US invented the Internet at a time when the foreign-born share population of the US was at a century-long low. The US can clearly provide its own software services with domestic workers. Indeed, it’s not clear to me how these foreign workers are benefitting local economies. Profits from tech companies seem to be accruing to the elites. If you take a middle class California family from 1980, are they and their kids better off due to the immigration-fueled rise of Silicon Valley? Or did all the profits go to the elites and tech salaries just force the kids to move away from their family to Tennessee or Texas?
    - selimthegrim 3y ago
      Something had to replace the defense and aerospace industry
    - bubblethink 3y ago
      >If you take a middle class California family from 1980, are they and their kids better off due to the immigration-fueled rise of Silicon Valley? Their million dollar houses would suggest so. They can cash out and move to Tennessee or Texas as you point out.
    - theuppermiddle 3y ago
      > Profits from tech companies seem to be accruing to the elites. Is this not the problem that needs to be addressed. Looks like the rich and media have successfully made a scapegoat out of immigrants when the actual problem is the money accuring to the elites and government inefficieny in improving housing supply.
      - rayiner 3y ago
        Immigration exacerbates that problem structurally, by introducing a large population of foreigners who have less social capital and political leverage than native born people. More power to elites seems like a natural consequence of immigration.
        3y ago
- random6754478 3y ago
  [dead]
thatfrenchguy 3y ago
The perm process is absurdly stupid, people you put those « ads » for are already working there on a H1B/L1, no company would decide to hire anyone else for their position.
rayiner 3y ago
> The real culprit is the backward immigration system designed to pacify voters. Shouldn’t the immigration system—and every system—be designed to pacify voters?
- dctoedt 3y ago
  > Shouldn’t the immigration system—and every system—be designed to pacify voters? To an extent, yes — but like all humans, voters can sometimes focus too narrowly on the short term, and/or on their own desires and fears; sometimes a broader perspective is needed. (That's why some elected officials used to say, in effect, "My voters elected me to exercise my judgment.")
- jonp888 3y ago
  "Pacify" implies doing something, anything, to keep something calm and under control, not necessarily solving the actual problem or doing what would be best long term. A good government should explain to the electorate the consequences of restricting immigration, because in reality people who don't want immigration probably wouldn't actually like living in a country with no immigration. However, it's a lot easier to appear to be doing something, without really doing much. The ultimate example would be the Brexit vote in the UK. The population were promised that it would solve all their problems, enormous amounts of anger which could only be quelled by an exit were successfully generated and in 2016, 52% of the population voted for to leave. Fast forward to 2023, and only 33% of the population thinks it was a good decision.
  - rayiner 3y ago
    The problem is assuming that you know better (1) what voters “really want”; and (2) what effects particular policies will lead to. Elites of both parties have encouraged mass immigration since the 1965 INA. But society seems to have gotten much worse during that time, in particular social and political cohesion. Meanwhile, the benefits of both low-skill (e.g. farm workers) and high-skill (e.g. Silicon Valley workers) seem to have gone to a relatively small slice of the population in wealthy coastal cities, while reducing the opportunities available in the rest of the country. In my home state of Virginia, we saw massive immigration since we immigrated there in 1989. It’s made northern Virginia richer, sure, but that hasn’t “trickled down” to the rest of the state. And all those immigrants helped northern Virginia take over control of the whole state politically. What would happen if you gave folks in Virginia in 1989 a picture of Virginia today, and then asked them to vote on whether to accept all that immigration?
strangesmells06 3y ago
[flagged]
smrtinsert 3y ago
They admit culpability, they didn't even post the jobs, and required applicants to physically mail applications in. Something something pacify voters, huh?

by zyang 3y ago

Obergruppen 3y ago

> system designed to pacify voters sounds like you might be happier back in China?

next_xibalba 3y ago

> The real culprit is the backward immigration system designed to pacify voters. Shouldn’t any immigration system actualize the will of the voters?

Spooky23 3y ago
The voters are pandered to, no sane policy can survive the senate. The reality is that without immigration, this work will just shift to India, full stop. Visa sponsorship is a plum that benefits the outsourcer in their recruitment. The current system very much benefits the US. Work visa holders pay taxes, support the local economy, and navigate a difficult journey to a green card and citizenship. When you let populists rile up “the voters”, you get what’s happened in agriculture. Long standing seasonal migration get harder, and the farming moves to Mexico. We let the packinghouse unions get busted, and now there’s an environmental disaster in feed lots and rural facilities.
- 4death4 3y ago
  > The current system very much benefits the US. Work visa holders pay taxes, support the local economy, and navigate a difficult journey to a green card and citizenship. And they take jobs from locals, and increase the labor supply which can decrease wages. More people also exacerbates an undersupplied housing market. There are pros and cons to immigration. But yes, let’s just dismiss the concerns of those rubes and force them to do what you want.
  - kelipso 3y ago
    It's an open question whether they take jobs from the locals. If they can't work in the US, then the same person can just work outside the US. Considering the percentage of immigrants/foreigners in Silicon Valley, it can be easily argued that its success was entirely due to the ease of foreign workers being able to work in the same location. If it was somewhere else that was more attractive, then who knows, Hong Kong could have been the alternate world Silicon Valley.
    - jakderrida 3y ago
      >It's an open question whether they take jobs from the locals. If they can't work in the US, then the same person can just work outside the US. Such an underrated point. The workers aren't independent farmowners. They're low-paid employees of massive corporate farms that own that land. We utilize an incredibly small fraction of our land capable of growing crops and we use excess as a diplomatic tool for US hegemony. I just don't understand this distaste for immigrants. Let them in and we're all better off. They even pay into SS and never pull out a dime and all they get is pseudopatriots at the wall cosplaying and directing hate towards them, despite allowing them in being a net benefit to all of us.
- HamSession 3y ago
  You would get tit for tat and US would tax any offshore development products.
- rayiner 3y ago
  Doesn’t that just mean we need high tariffs on foreign Internet services? The US invented the Internet at a time when the foreign-born share population of the US was at a century-long low. The US can clearly provide its own software services with domestic workers. Indeed, it’s not clear to me how these foreign workers are benefitting local economies. Profits from tech companies seem to be accruing to the elites. If you take a middle class California family from 1980, are they and their kids better off due to the immigration-fueled rise of Silicon Valley? Or did all the profits go to the elites and tech salaries just force the kids to move away from their family to Tennessee or Texas?
  - selimthegrim 3y ago
    Something had to replace the defense and aerospace industry
  - bubblethink 3y ago
    >If you take a middle class California family from 1980, are they and their kids better off due to the immigration-fueled rise of Silicon Valley? Their million dollar houses would suggest so. They can cash out and move to Tennessee or Texas as you point out.
  - theuppermiddle 3y ago
    > Profits from tech companies seem to be accruing to the elites. Is this not the problem that needs to be addressed. Looks like the rich and media have successfully made a scapegoat out of immigrants when the actual problem is the money accuring to the elites and government inefficieny in improving housing supply.
    - rayiner 3y ago
      Immigration exacerbates that problem structurally, by introducing a large population of foreigners who have less social capital and political leverage than native born people. More power to elites seems like a natural consequence of immigration.
      - 3y ago
random6754478 3y ago
[dead]

thatfrenchguy 3y ago

The perm process is absurdly stupid, people you put those « ads » for are already working there on a H1B/L1, no company would decide to hire anyone else for their position.

rayiner 3y ago

> The real culprit is the backward immigration system designed to pacify voters. Shouldn’t the immigration system—and every system—be designed to pacify voters?

dctoedt 3y ago
> Shouldn’t the immigration system—and every system—be designed to pacify voters? To an extent, yes — but like all humans, voters can sometimes focus too narrowly on the short term, and/or on their own desires and fears; sometimes a broader perspective is needed. (That's why some elected officials used to say, in effect, "My voters elected me to exercise my judgment.")
jonp888 3y ago
"Pacify" implies doing something, anything, to keep something calm and under control, not necessarily solving the actual problem or doing what would be best long term. A good government should explain to the electorate the consequences of restricting immigration, because in reality people who don't want immigration probably wouldn't actually like living in a country with no immigration. However, it's a lot easier to appear to be doing something, without really doing much. The ultimate example would be the Brexit vote in the UK. The population were promised that it would solve all their problems, enormous amounts of anger which could only be quelled by an exit were successfully generated and in 2016, 52% of the population voted for to leave. Fast forward to 2023, and only 33% of the population thinks it was a good decision.
- rayiner 3y ago
  The problem is assuming that you know better (1) what voters “really want”; and (2) what effects particular policies will lead to. Elites of both parties have encouraged mass immigration since the 1965 INA. But society seems to have gotten much worse during that time, in particular social and political cohesion. Meanwhile, the benefits of both low-skill (e.g. farm workers) and high-skill (e.g. Silicon Valley workers) seem to have gone to a relatively small slice of the population in wealthy coastal cities, while reducing the opportunities available in the rest of the country. In my home state of Virginia, we saw massive immigration since we immigrated there in 1989. It’s made northern Virginia richer, sure, but that hasn’t “trickled down” to the rest of the state. And all those immigrants helped northern Virginia take over control of the whole state politically. What would happen if you gave folks in Virginia in 1989 a picture of Virginia today, and then asked them to vote on whether to accept all that immigration?

strangesmells06 3y ago

[flagged]

smrtinsert 3y ago

They admit culpability, they didn't even post the jobs, and required applicants to physically mail applications in. Something something pacify voters, huh?