5 ms·

Why would you openly admit to committing a crime (visa fraud) on Hacker News?

dzdt 2y ago
I will reply here because I think this is a good question, even if it may have been intended as merely rhetorical. (1) The process was distasteful. I want there to be broader knowledge of the disfunctional way this system works in practice. (2) I don't think anything I did was illegal under the letter of the law. I describe it a bit provocatively with words like "invent" and "fake" but if I was in a court of law I could defend as having solid reasons every candidate we rejected for the fake job search. The corporation had legal council engaged guiding the whole process in ways they advised to meet the corporation's aim of retaining the employee and helping them move from H1B to PERM status. (3) This account is pseudonymous and while I am sure it is possible to get from it back to a real name I don't expect its worth that effort to any legal authorities, based on my description of practices they are well aware of. (4) To me the most distasteful parts of this are the governmemt policy. In cases I've been involved in the employee already in the seat has been a stronger candidate for the role than anyone turned up in the fake search. This matches the corporation's goal of hiring the best candidates to begin with. The awful bit is that immigration policy doesn't allow any other path for a company to support a H1B visa holder moving to PERM status.
- mixdup 2y ago
  in terms of (4) the thing is that the government policy isn't solely concerned with "hiring the best candidate", or at least not necessarily considering cheap labor to be one of the criteria factoring into "best" the government policy is concerned with protecting the jobs of citizens as well. it's a balance. it is meant to be a relief valve for employers when they legitimately can't find employees, it's not meant to be a mechanism for creating a wage ceiling or indenturing your employees so they can't move
  - dzdt 2y ago
    You have it backwards. The existing policy (assessed as it works in practice) lowers wages for high-skilled roles such as I mention and endentures employees so they can't easily move. For the roles I am familiar with the progression is (1) foreigner ineligable to work in US (2) OPT visa (3) H1B visa (4) Permanent resident (5) US citizen. Between each step of the progression are barriers with the effect that employees at a lower level have less negotiation power and must accept lower wages and cannot easily move to another job. The barrier between (1) and (2) is a masters or PhD in a STEM subject area from a US university. From (2) to (3) there is a visa lottery. From (3) to (4) is the PERM process involving the fake job search as I described. While under OPT or H1B visa, you MUST have a job or be deported. Timeframes to find an initial or a new job are very short. This is what gives employers increased power in the relationship, lowering wages and creating the nearly indentured status. To decrease the effect of lowered wages and indentured status requires a reduced number of people in visa states (2) and (3), which would be achieved by raising barriers between (1) and (2) or lowering barriers between (3) and (4). The distasteful PERM process is the barrier between (3) and (4). If the policy goal was to raise wages, it would be designed differently. E.g. if the top 20% by taxable income of H1B holders were offered PERM status each year, it would be a different dynamic.
    - johnnyanmac 2y ago
      > The existing policy (assessed as it works in practice) lowers wages for high-skilled roles Sure, not because of the law, but because of loopholes around the spirit of the law. >For the roles I am familiar with the progression is (1) foreigner ineligable to work in US (2) OPT visa (3) H1B visa (4) Permanent resident (5) US citizen. well yes, that's the point. They don't want international workers to be as easily hired as domestic ones. That's just common policy. Your workaround is just that, a way for the company to get what they want while "complying with law". AKA a loophole that breaks the spirit of the law. Remember, the US isn't necessarily concerned with the best talent in the world. It ultimately wants to make sure the economy circulates from within. >While under OPT or H1B visa, you MUST have a job or be deported. Timeframes to find an initial or a new job are very short. This is what gives employers increased power in the relationship, lowering wages and creating the nearly indentured status. Yes, and I think we can lightly rework this as well. Basically let the H1b "own" the Visa. They find other work in the industry they have a visa in, they are still valid. Breaks all the chains while gaining from their talent.

dzdt 2y ago

I will reply here because I think this is a good question, even if it may have been intended as merely rhetorical. (1) The process was distasteful. I want there to be broader knowledge of the disfunctional way this system works in practice. (2) I don't think anything I did was illegal under the letter of the law. I describe it a bit provocatively with words like "invent" and "fake" but if I was in a court of law I could defend as having solid reasons every candidate we rejected for the fake job search. The corporation had legal council engaged guiding the whole process in ways they advised to meet the corporation's aim of retaining the employee and helping them move from H1B to PERM status. (3) This account is pseudonymous and while I am sure it is possible to get from it back to a real name I don't expect its worth that effort to any legal authorities, based on my description of practices they are well aware of. (4) To me the most distasteful parts of this are the governmemt policy. In cases I've been involved in the employee already in the seat has been a stronger candidate for the role than anyone turned up in the fake search. This matches the corporation's goal of hiring the best candidates to begin with. The awful bit is that immigration policy doesn't allow any other path for a company to support a H1B visa holder moving to PERM status.

mixdup 2y ago
in terms of (4) the thing is that the government policy isn't solely concerned with "hiring the best candidate", or at least not necessarily considering cheap labor to be one of the criteria factoring into "best" the government policy is concerned with protecting the jobs of citizens as well. it's a balance. it is meant to be a relief valve for employers when they legitimately can't find employees, it's not meant to be a mechanism for creating a wage ceiling or indenturing your employees so they can't move
- dzdt 2y ago
  You have it backwards. The existing policy (assessed as it works in practice) lowers wages for high-skilled roles such as I mention and endentures employees so they can't easily move. For the roles I am familiar with the progression is (1) foreigner ineligable to work in US (2) OPT visa (3) H1B visa (4) Permanent resident (5) US citizen. Between each step of the progression are barriers with the effect that employees at a lower level have less negotiation power and must accept lower wages and cannot easily move to another job. The barrier between (1) and (2) is a masters or PhD in a STEM subject area from a US university. From (2) to (3) there is a visa lottery. From (3) to (4) is the PERM process involving the fake job search as I described. While under OPT or H1B visa, you MUST have a job or be deported. Timeframes to find an initial or a new job are very short. This is what gives employers increased power in the relationship, lowering wages and creating the nearly indentured status. To decrease the effect of lowered wages and indentured status requires a reduced number of people in visa states (2) and (3), which would be achieved by raising barriers between (1) and (2) or lowering barriers between (3) and (4). The distasteful PERM process is the barrier between (3) and (4). If the policy goal was to raise wages, it would be designed differently. E.g. if the top 20% by taxable income of H1B holders were offered PERM status each year, it would be a different dynamic.
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    > The existing policy (assessed as it works in practice) lowers wages for high-skilled roles Sure, not because of the law, but because of loopholes around the spirit of the law. >For the roles I am familiar with the progression is (1) foreigner ineligable to work in US (2) OPT visa (3) H1B visa (4) Permanent resident (5) US citizen. well yes, that's the point. They don't want international workers to be as easily hired as domestic ones. That's just common policy. Your workaround is just that, a way for the company to get what they want while "complying with law". AKA a loophole that breaks the spirit of the law. Remember, the US isn't necessarily concerned with the best talent in the world. It ultimately wants to make sure the economy circulates from within. >While under OPT or H1B visa, you MUST have a job or be deported. Timeframes to find an initial or a new job are very short. This is what gives employers increased power in the relationship, lowering wages and creating the nearly indentured status. Yes, and I think we can lightly rework this as well. Basically let the H1b "own" the Visa. They find other work in the industry they have a visa in, they are still valid. Breaks all the chains while gaining from their talent.