4 ms·

Can someone explain to me why expansion of visa programs for skilled workers is so controversial? Hell, Mitt Romney wanted to "staple a green card" to every STE

Can someone explain to me why expansion of visa programs for skilled workers is so controversial? Hell, Mitt Romney wanted to "staple a green card" to every STEM diploma. Why the need for these three dimensional Vulcan chess tactics if that's the goal? My guess is because labor unions and the Democrats (generally) don't want to expand visas for skilled workers without "comprehensive" legalization. But I am definitely biased so I would not at all mind an alternative explanation.

metaphorm 14y ago
I'm not an expert on this issue either but I think you're understanding it correctly. There are interest groups on both the left (protectionist labor unions) and the right (nativists) who are hostile to immigrant workers, in both high-skilled and blue collar positions. The "3 dimensional vulcan chess" approach here is an attempt to get congress to actually vote on the law even though it pisses off some entrenched groups. Its really really hard to get congress to do anything at all, let alone do something that pisses off some of the activists in the party bases.
- spamizbad 14y ago
  Leaving FWD.us has nothing to do with immigration. Zuck's political advocacy group FWD.us also funnels money to http://www.americansforaconservativedirection.com/ http://www.americansforaconservativedirection.com/ -- Which also advocates for the Keystone XL pipeline and more drilling etc. (And also the mostly DOA 'Gang-of-8' Republican plan for Immigration reform) US politics is pretty cynical, but not quite cynical enough to blatantly play both sides like this.
  - metaphorm 14y ago
    I'm speculating here, but I think you're wrong and that this is exactly playing both sides. To me it looks like a quid pro quo arrangement where FWD.us helps a conservative cause (the pipeline) in exchange for cooperation for a immigration reform. Keep an eye on it. I'd expect to see some political grease applied to a liberal cause in the near future too. I think their game plan is to basically buy favors with senators until they've got enough votes to pass a law they actually care about.
auctiontheory 14y ago
Expanding visa programs will be controversial so long as large numbers of Americans are unemployed. This particular group is controversial (also) because they are taking a position on controversial non-immigration issues, such as oil drilling and pipelines. "Controversial" doesn't mean it's right or wrong. It means that many people have strong arguments and emotions both for and against.
- twoodfin 14y ago
  Are you sure? Because at least in the conservative spheres I pay attention to (admittedly of the less populist variety) almost no one opposes skilled visa expansion. All the light and heat is about legalization. I get the impression that if President Obama went on TV tomorrow and said "Comprehensive immigration reform is a bridge too far right now. Let's simplify and expand the process of legal immigration for skilled workers", then he'd have a bill on his desk in a week.
  - yaok 14y ago
    Are you sure the democrats want to seen as the party that, during a time of record unemployment, brought in foreign workers to fill job openings?
- wahsd 14y ago
  That's because "immigration" in this country is actually veiled dilution of the worker pool, externalizing costs, lazy, inflation of limited resources and thereby self-perpetuating wealth creation, deflates source country pressures for improvement, and drains talent from other places. It is a pernicious practice all around and only advantages the wealthy of the destination country, i.e., USA. It's destructive, poisoning, and exploitative all around for everyone else.
  - icebraining 14y ago
    How does it not benefit the immigrants themselves?
  - ajju 14y ago
mynameishere 14y ago
Because Econ 101. Jesus fucking holy Christ. Can someone explain to me why otherwise intelligent people are so deliberately ignorant on this issue? Rich bastards want to screw ordinary people. That's it. That is all you need to know. It's dead simple. It's freshmen economics. More workers=lower wages. This has been going on for centuries.
- icebraining 14y ago
  Because immigrants are not really people, right?
- tnuc 14y ago
  Good thing North Korea is keeping workers out, that's why North Korea is so rich and has such high wages. Where did you study Econ 101?
aspensmonster 14y ago
The devil is in the details. What constitutes a "skilled" worker? The selling point of the H-1B program was that there really were high-paying jobs available that absolutely nobody state side was stepping up to the plate for, so they needed to bring in skilled immigrants who had the chops to take on these high-paying jobs. The imagery was that America's Best Companies were stalling because they couldn't find the "best and brightest." Evidence suggests otherwise (http://www.epi.org/publication/bp356-foreign-students-best-brightest-immigration-policy/ http://www.epi.org/publication/bp356-foreign-students-best-b...). Now, I'm not saying you can't find H-1Bs with high salaries or genius intellects. The study linked simply says it's not a majority of the people coming in. Most of them are decidedly not "best and brightest" and certainly aren't pulling six figures annually. That is, the program isn't being used for its stated purpose. Rather, it certainly seems that the goal is _not_ to find local talent, even if it's there (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCbFEgFajGU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCbFEgFajGU), because one wants to manipulate the meaning of "prevailing wage" and "qualified worker" to suit a lower labour cost margin. As well, there are other economic indicators to consider. If there really is a widespread tech shortage you'd expect wages to rise. And you can see various market niches' wages spike at certain localized times of labor shortage. But you don't find high and increasing wages across the board, sustained for years at a time. That is, one of the key indicators of a crippling shortage, simply isn't there. The low unemployment rate in tech hubs like Silicon Valley is further perplexing in the face of a claim that the talent can't be found. When companies like Facebook whinge about having a hard time finding top talent, I get the feeling they're really just making an observation that finding people at the extreme of a bell curve is hard. Increasing the sample population doesn't make that search appreciably easier. Mixed in with all of these observations, you'll typically find smaller details that make sense, even if they are latched onto bigger ideas that don't. A common objection is that of sending newly graduated foreigners back to their countries of origin rather than letting them stay here. I'd say it's a no-brainer they should be permitted to stay indefinitely. But that doesn't mean it's a no-brainer that we should rubber-stamp every single person with a tech background into an H-1B slot.
- twoodfin 14y ago
  It's interesting to me that EPI is doing research/PR against expanding skilled visas. They're more or less a think tank/advocacy group for organized labor (check out their board of directors). Would they have a different agenda if the tech industry were more unionized? Anyway, who cares if there's a "shortage" or not? If you're going to contribute hundreds of thousands of dollars to GDP, come on in! We'll find something for you to do!
pg 14y ago
The actual answer is much less colorful than the other answers in this thread. Increasing the number of visas for skilled workers is not that controversial. The problem is that it's part of a more general immigration bill, which is controversial.

metaphorm 14y ago

I'm not an expert on this issue either but I think you're understanding it correctly. There are interest groups on both the left (protectionist labor unions) and the right (nativists) who are hostile to immigrant workers, in both high-skilled and blue collar positions. The "3 dimensional vulcan chess" approach here is an attempt to get congress to actually vote on the law even though it pisses off some entrenched groups. Its really really hard to get congress to do anything at all, let alone do something that pisses off some of the activists in the party bases.

spamizbad 14y ago
Leaving FWD.us has nothing to do with immigration. Zuck's political advocacy group FWD.us also funnels money to http://www.americansforaconservativedirection.com/ http://www.americansforaconservativedirection.com/ -- Which also advocates for the Keystone XL pipeline and more drilling etc. (And also the mostly DOA 'Gang-of-8' Republican plan for Immigration reform) US politics is pretty cynical, but not quite cynical enough to blatantly play both sides like this.
- metaphorm 14y ago
  I'm speculating here, but I think you're wrong and that this is exactly playing both sides. To me it looks like a quid pro quo arrangement where FWD.us helps a conservative cause (the pipeline) in exchange for cooperation for a immigration reform. Keep an eye on it. I'd expect to see some political grease applied to a liberal cause in the near future too. I think their game plan is to basically buy favors with senators until they've got enough votes to pass a law they actually care about.

auctiontheory 14y ago

Expanding visa programs will be controversial so long as large numbers of Americans are unemployed. This particular group is controversial (also) because they are taking a position on controversial non-immigration issues, such as oil drilling and pipelines. "Controversial" doesn't mean it's right or wrong. It means that many people have strong arguments and emotions both for and against.

twoodfin 14y ago
Are you sure? Because at least in the conservative spheres I pay attention to (admittedly of the less populist variety) almost no one opposes skilled visa expansion. All the light and heat is about legalization. I get the impression that if President Obama went on TV tomorrow and said "Comprehensive immigration reform is a bridge too far right now. Let's simplify and expand the process of legal immigration for skilled workers", then he'd have a bill on his desk in a week.
- yaok 14y ago
  Are you sure the democrats want to seen as the party that, during a time of record unemployment, brought in foreign workers to fill job openings?
wahsd 14y ago
That's because "immigration" in this country is actually veiled dilution of the worker pool, externalizing costs, lazy, inflation of limited resources and thereby self-perpetuating wealth creation, deflates source country pressures for improvement, and drains talent from other places. It is a pernicious practice all around and only advantages the wealthy of the destination country, i.e., USA. It's destructive, poisoning, and exploitative all around for everyone else.
- icebraining 14y ago
  How does it not benefit the immigrants themselves?
- ajju 14y ago

mynameishere 14y ago

Because Econ 101. Jesus fucking holy Christ. Can someone explain to me why otherwise intelligent people are so deliberately ignorant on this issue? Rich bastards want to screw ordinary people. That's it. That is all you need to know. It's dead simple. It's freshmen economics. More workers=lower wages. This has been going on for centuries.

icebraining 14y ago
Because immigrants are not really people, right?
tnuc 14y ago
Good thing North Korea is keeping workers out, that's why North Korea is so rich and has such high wages. Where did you study Econ 101?

aspensmonster 14y ago

The devil is in the details. What constitutes a "skilled" worker? The selling point of the H-1B program was that there really were high-paying jobs available that absolutely nobody state side was stepping up to the plate for, so they needed to bring in skilled immigrants who had the chops to take on these high-paying jobs. The imagery was that America's Best Companies were stalling because they couldn't find the "best and brightest." Evidence suggests otherwise (http://www.epi.org/publication/bp356-foreign-students-best-brightest-immigration-policy/ http://www.epi.org/publication/bp356-foreign-students-best-b...). Now, I'm not saying you can't find H-1Bs with high salaries or genius intellects. The study linked simply says it's not a majority of the people coming in. Most of them are decidedly not "best and brightest" and certainly aren't pulling six figures annually. That is, the program isn't being used for its stated purpose. Rather, it certainly seems that the goal is _not_ to find local talent, even if it's there (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCbFEgFajGU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCbFEgFajGU), because one wants to manipulate the meaning of "prevailing wage" and "qualified worker" to suit a lower labour cost margin. As well, there are other economic indicators to consider. If there really is a widespread tech shortage you'd expect wages to rise. And you can see various market niches' wages spike at certain localized times of labor shortage. But you don't find high and increasing wages across the board, sustained for years at a time. That is, one of the key indicators of a crippling shortage, simply isn't there. The low unemployment rate in tech hubs like Silicon Valley is further perplexing in the face of a claim that the talent can't be found. When companies like Facebook whinge about having a hard time finding top talent, I get the feeling they're really just making an observation that finding people at the extreme of a bell curve is hard. Increasing the sample population doesn't make that search appreciably easier. Mixed in with all of these observations, you'll typically find smaller details that make sense, even if they are latched onto bigger ideas that don't. A common objection is that of sending newly graduated foreigners back to their countries of origin rather than letting them stay here. I'd say it's a no-brainer they should be permitted to stay indefinitely. But that doesn't mean it's a no-brainer that we should rubber-stamp every single person with a tech background into an H-1B slot.

twoodfin 14y ago
It's interesting to me that EPI is doing research/PR against expanding skilled visas. They're more or less a think tank/advocacy group for organized labor (check out their board of directors). Would they have a different agenda if the tech industry were more unionized? Anyway, who cares if there's a "shortage" or not? If you're going to contribute hundreds of thousands of dollars to GDP, come on in! We'll find something for you to do!

pg 14y ago

The actual answer is much less colorful than the other answers in this thread. Increasing the number of visas for skilled workers is not that controversial. The problem is that it's part of a more general immigration bill, which is controversial.