5 ms·

I like the early Google employee example - of course, let's cherry pick the best-of-the-best, and just assume everyone in the sample is of that caliber. I am f

by lmg643 12y ago

I like the early Google employee example - of course, let's cherry pick the best-of-the-best, and just assume everyone in the sample is of that caliber. I am fine with citizenship or automatic green cards for accepted Harvard students. That's a pretty prestigious designation and very hard to obtain. Harvard does not give out slots lightly. However, there are a lot of degree granting institutions in the US with lower standards, such that I don't think all universities should have that privilege. I have worked with dozens of H1B employees. It's really stupid to ask - since they are here working - but it occasionally is discussed whether they would consider going home. I think the answer is usually - maybe - when I'm ready to retire. The opportunities here are still "on average" better - and it's not just "the economy" - infrastructure, rule of law, space-to-people ratio, etc.

shas3 12y ago
Your accusation of cherry-picking is disingenuous. It is just this: in the current system, there is no way of rewarding merit. That NY Times example is one data point. A second one is this, from Newsweek: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:88OoGNMeneUJ:www.newsweek.com/story-one-mans-immigration-ordeal-66537+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:88OoGN... . The USCIS has decided that one measure of the 'worthiness' or 'best-of-the-best'ness is workers who are valuable enough for a company to be applying for the green-card on their behalf. The best-of-the-best, the talented workers (whether they are from Harvard or No-name Indian Engineering Institute- is immaterial) are put in the same pile as the 'mass-H1Bs'. This is a problem that is inherent to complex irrational bureaucracies like the American immigration system. I don't see how you can classify people based on which university they go to. A person may be talented in spite of the university they go to, and this is a question that a company or a VC has to answer. So what if H1B workers intend on staying in the US? It is the individual's choice. If you want to go deeper into the question of 'who deserves H1Bs', you need to answer question scuh as, what is the purpose of nationality? Why is an American citizen more eligible to work in the US, than say, a Chinese or an Indian citizen? Is there something superior about 'American'ness? Is it because the domicile's parents and grandparents paid taxes? But what makes the domicile entitled to the fruits of the labors of their parents and grandparents? And so on.
- lmg643 12y ago
  It's quite appropriate that this is a discussion at the bottom of the page. I appreciate gems like "why are Americans more eligible to work in their own country," and "what makes the domicile entitled to the fruits of the labors of their parents". Funny thing is, to the average person these days, I sound like the extremist. To use your example, would be an interesting example to contrast China and India attitudes towards parents/children to the way you think Americans should act and think.
- immigrantsonge 12y ago
  I believe the US should have a much simpler immigration system: - allow for employer-sponsored visas like the H-1B, but beyond sponsoring make the whole deal strictly about the US government and the individual. - after 4 years of full-time employment history, the person should be eligible for a green card, irrespectively of their origin, occupation etc.
- jquery 12y ago
  > Why is an American citizen more eligible to work in the US, than say, a Chinese or an Indian citizen? Because the American government exists to serve Americans. It's not fair and it's not supposed to be. How easily we forget this in our pampered American existence. Ask yourself if the Indian or Chinese government is asking what's best for American citizens.
  - shas3 12y ago
    > Because the American government exists to serve Americans. It's not fair and it's not supposed to be. You miss the point that the definition of 'American' is quite arbitrary. It is 'fair' in the sense that it is a sort of 'Nash equilibrium'. Since around WW2, 'citizenship' has been based on a set of arbitrary norms [1]. You can become an American by just being born here, when your Indian or Chinese parents were visiting New York City for vacation. You can become an American by working here for 20 years, getting a green card, and then becoming naturalized. You could also become an American citizen in other ways. Further, America has a higher bar than Canada, and Switzerland has a higher bar for citizenship than America. There is nothing innately patriotic or 'American' about it. Until 1952, Asians and Asian Indians were barred from citizenship. Until civil rights laws of 1965, immigration was based on quotas[2]. [1] Steven Pinker, 'The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined,' Viking Books, 2011 [2] http://www.umass.edu/complit/aclanet/USMigrat.html http://www.umass.edu/complit/aclanet/USMigrat.html

by lmg643 12y ago

shas3 12y ago

Your accusation of cherry-picking is disingenuous. It is just this: in the current system, there is no way of rewarding merit. That NY Times example is one data point. A second one is this, from Newsweek: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:88OoGNMeneUJ:www.newsweek.com/story-one-mans-immigration-ordeal-66537+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:88OoGN... . The USCIS has decided that one measure of the 'worthiness' or 'best-of-the-best'ness is workers who are valuable enough for a company to be applying for the green-card on their behalf. The best-of-the-best, the talented workers (whether they are from Harvard or No-name Indian Engineering Institute- is immaterial) are put in the same pile as the 'mass-H1Bs'. This is a problem that is inherent to complex irrational bureaucracies like the American immigration system. I don't see how you can classify people based on which university they go to. A person may be talented in spite of the university they go to, and this is a question that a company or a VC has to answer. So what if H1B workers intend on staying in the US? It is the individual's choice. If you want to go deeper into the question of 'who deserves H1Bs', you need to answer question scuh as, what is the purpose of nationality? Why is an American citizen more eligible to work in the US, than say, a Chinese or an Indian citizen? Is there something superior about 'American'ness? Is it because the domicile's parents and grandparents paid taxes? But what makes the domicile entitled to the fruits of the labors of their parents and grandparents? And so on.

lmg643 12y ago
It's quite appropriate that this is a discussion at the bottom of the page. I appreciate gems like "why are Americans more eligible to work in their own country," and "what makes the domicile entitled to the fruits of the labors of their parents". Funny thing is, to the average person these days, I sound like the extremist. To use your example, would be an interesting example to contrast China and India attitudes towards parents/children to the way you think Americans should act and think.
immigrantsonge 12y ago
I believe the US should have a much simpler immigration system: - allow for employer-sponsored visas like the H-1B, but beyond sponsoring make the whole deal strictly about the US government and the individual. - after 4 years of full-time employment history, the person should be eligible for a green card, irrespectively of their origin, occupation etc.
jquery 12y ago
> Why is an American citizen more eligible to work in the US, than say, a Chinese or an Indian citizen? Because the American government exists to serve Americans. It's not fair and it's not supposed to be. How easily we forget this in our pampered American existence. Ask yourself if the Indian or Chinese government is asking what's best for American citizens.
- shas3 12y ago
  > Because the American government exists to serve Americans. It's not fair and it's not supposed to be. You miss the point that the definition of 'American' is quite arbitrary. It is 'fair' in the sense that it is a sort of 'Nash equilibrium'. Since around WW2, 'citizenship' has been based on a set of arbitrary norms [1]. You can become an American by just being born here, when your Indian or Chinese parents were visiting New York City for vacation. You can become an American by working here for 20 years, getting a green card, and then becoming naturalized. You could also become an American citizen in other ways. Further, America has a higher bar than Canada, and Switzerland has a higher bar for citizenship than America. There is nothing innately patriotic or 'American' about it. Until 1952, Asians and Asian Indians were barred from citizenship. Until civil rights laws of 1965, immigration was based on quotas[2]. [1] Steven Pinker, 'The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined,' Viking Books, 2011 [2] http://www.umass.edu/complit/aclanet/USMigrat.html http://www.umass.edu/complit/aclanet/USMigrat.html