3 ms·

This is a highly uneven article. "It’s happening: Lou Dobbs’ dream come true and Silicon Valley’s worst nightmare." ok, lets start the article by sprinkling s

This is a highly uneven article. "It’s happening: Lou Dobbs’ dream come true and Silicon Valley’s worst nightmare." ok, lets start the article by sprinkling some politics on it. "We’re already seeing the reverse brain drain as smart immigrants take their US educations and experience building companies and creating technology back to their home countries." ok, maybe this is happening. Any numbers on that? Any success figures on people who were in the U.S. and went back to their home country to successfully found a startup and create jobs? "But now, xenophobia and the lack of any sensible H-1B visa policy is keeping the world’s brightest minds from coming to the U.S. in the first place." Really? Sure, the visa programs are tight. The sentence starts with "But now" as if something happened. Maybe something did happen. The economy is certain way down. China is way up. India is doing pretty well too. But did I miss something? Have visa policies been changed in the last 18 months? That's just the first 3 sentences. This article has a lot of spirit but not much substance.

bbgm 17y ago
It was much easier to get a green card when I applied (pre 9/11) than it is today. I know some people with amazing qualifications, successful track records, who've been in the green card process for years. Plus the "are you a permanent resident" question is far more of a blocker now than it used to be. Combine that with opportunities back home and in other countries and you have a problem. I don't have numbers, but there is enough anecdotal evidence out there. It's not necessarily a bad thing for the home country, but not having options is frustrating.
- jhancock 17y ago
  Should the "are you a permanent resident" question continue to be a roadblock? Its my understanding the visa programs are meant to help out the U.S. long term by bringing in immigrants that makes the U.S. their home (my favorite reason) and short term to fill immediate skill shortage. If you do not intend to stay by being a permanent resident, why should the government lend a hand? This is a serious question? Any answers on this? Maybe a better question is what are reasons that people do not want to become a permanent resident?
  - bbgm 17y ago
    The "are you a permanent resident" question comes into play when the company thinks it will need to spend money on helping you becoming one, or in changing jobs. Many don't want to do that, so if you aren't one, you're out of the running.
    - jhancock 17y ago
      hmmm...so how do we fix that? Redefine residency (interim residency) as something that can be more easily attained prior to the Green Card status? Decouple it from the employer? I'm trying to get to the heart of some of these problems as I hear too much high level rhetoric around things like "just increase the number of H1-Bs". I'm suspicious that these arguments hold well for employers but not so well for the immigrant.
      - agmiklas 17y ago
        I think the easiest way to fix the problem is to do exactly what you suggest -- decouple a person's immigration status from their employer. I'd do this by scrapping the H1B program and instead simply offer a green card to every person that has a letter of employment from a US company. The government could continue to apply various filters (total quotas, country-specific quotas, educational or experience requirements, language competency, etc). [1] However, at soon as a person is admitted to the US, their immigration status should have absolutely nothing to do with their employer. Under this system, a company can't pay an immigrant less than their worth, since the person is free to work at any business that is willing to pay more. It also fixes a whole bunch of other subtle problems that come up with an employment-based immigration system. For example, right now once a H1B holder applies for a GC, they can neither changes companies nor change their job title (e.x. be promoted) without abandoning their GC application. Since this process can take years and thousands of dollars, immigrants are not only shackled to their sponsoring company, but to a particular job (and often pay-level) within that business. I should point out here that I'm Canadian that may one day be working in the US... so perhaps I have a bit of a pro-immigrant bias here. [1] Personally, I'd get rid of most of these too, but that is the subject of a different rant.

bbgm 17y ago

It was much easier to get a green card when I applied (pre 9/11) than it is today. I know some people with amazing qualifications, successful track records, who've been in the green card process for years. Plus the "are you a permanent resident" question is far more of a blocker now than it used to be. Combine that with opportunities back home and in other countries and you have a problem. I don't have numbers, but there is enough anecdotal evidence out there. It's not necessarily a bad thing for the home country, but not having options is frustrating.

jhancock 17y ago
Should the "are you a permanent resident" question continue to be a roadblock? Its my understanding the visa programs are meant to help out the U.S. long term by bringing in immigrants that makes the U.S. their home (my favorite reason) and short term to fill immediate skill shortage. If you do not intend to stay by being a permanent resident, why should the government lend a hand? This is a serious question? Any answers on this? Maybe a better question is what are reasons that people do not want to become a permanent resident?
- bbgm 17y ago
  The "are you a permanent resident" question comes into play when the company thinks it will need to spend money on helping you becoming one, or in changing jobs. Many don't want to do that, so if you aren't one, you're out of the running.
  - jhancock 17y ago
    hmmm...so how do we fix that? Redefine residency (interim residency) as something that can be more easily attained prior to the Green Card status? Decouple it from the employer? I'm trying to get to the heart of some of these problems as I hear too much high level rhetoric around things like "just increase the number of H1-Bs". I'm suspicious that these arguments hold well for employers but not so well for the immigrant.
    - agmiklas 17y ago
      I think the easiest way to fix the problem is to do exactly what you suggest -- decouple a person's immigration status from their employer. I'd do this by scrapping the H1B program and instead simply offer a green card to every person that has a letter of employment from a US company. The government could continue to apply various filters (total quotas, country-specific quotas, educational or experience requirements, language competency, etc). [1] However, at soon as a person is admitted to the US, their immigration status should have absolutely nothing to do with their employer. Under this system, a company can't pay an immigrant less than their worth, since the person is free to work at any business that is willing to pay more. It also fixes a whole bunch of other subtle problems that come up with an employment-based immigration system. For example, right now once a H1B holder applies for a GC, they can neither changes companies nor change their job title (e.x. be promoted) without abandoning their GC application. Since this process can take years and thousands of dollars, immigrants are not only shackled to their sponsoring company, but to a particular job (and often pay-level) within that business. I should point out here that I'm Canadian that may one day be working in the US... so perhaps I have a bit of a pro-immigrant bias here. [1] Personally, I'd get rid of most of these too, but that is the subject of a different rant.