Comment by ajju | Hacker News Reader

Comment by ajju | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Actually I have been on both sides of the table on an H-1B visa, so I am quite certain that I am not underestimating the cost of the H1B visa. The government fees are $2320 for a non-expedited application and $3320 for an expedited application. Lawyers usually charge $1000. Although this, obviously, will vary by firm and seniority of the lawyer in question.

The narrow job description and advertisements are applicable only to the green card where the total cost would probably reach over $8000, but again it is often shared by the employee and the employer. The job description is a few hours of work by an immigration paralegal or lawyer and newspaper ads should not increase the cost by much more.

I don't want the H1B system to be something it is not, the government has already muddled the intent of the system by allowing H1Bs to apply for greencards. In fact it is probably the only practical way of getting a green card as a skilled immigrant, but government chokes the supply of those at will, making it unpredictable. If the sole goal of the H1B is to relieve temporary shortage of labor, H1Bs should not be allowed to apply for green cards.

In the end, I think we have arrived at the same conclusions: that we should increase our immigration quota for skilled immigrants and establish a system independent of the H1B visa for it. I don't know how you intend to test for cultural fit, but I am open to listening to ideas there.

I was dreading putting the bonded labor comparison there, which is why I added the caveat. But a bonded laborer cannot leave their job until their debts are paid off, and an H1B with a greencard application pending cannot leave their job until they get a greencard (or risk losing whatever life/assets the have built up here). I see similarities there, although, obviously the two are not identical.

It is easy to say that immigrants should not expect to build a life and live here permanently, just because they can apply for a green card. However, the current approach to immigration causes uncertainty which hurts both the country (because very skilled immigrants, given a choice, will not accept the uncertainty) and immigrants themselves (for obvious reasons).

I don't know how you intend to test for cultural fit, but I am open to listening to ideas there.

My general feeling is that immigrants should be tolerant, hard working and individualist. The second generation should be integrated into mainstream America, rather than clustered into a ghetto.

These are, IMO, the shared values of the US. A skill/work based system should weed out the lazy. There are basically 2 behaviors I'd like to prevent:

1.) Racism. If someone has a problem with their daughter marrying a black guy, they should stay home. We have enough racists, we don't need to import more.

I'd measure this by intermarriage and cohabitation rates. I.e., if X Americans and X immigrants don't marry people of non-X descent very often, that suggests X's are racist. I'd give people from country X a big penalty on the point system.

2.) Strong family/social obligations. Basically, forcing people (particularly one's children) via social pressure to conform to your own preferences. No clue how to measure this.

My general feeling is that immigrants should be tolerant, hard working and individualist. The second generation should be integrated into mainstream America, rather than clustered into a ghetto.

I am with you 100% here. The good news, if you want to ask an immigrant, is that the U.S. is partly immunized against ghettos. Ghettos are caused by (and often require) two vicious circle type factors: a) An insular culture amongst the immigrants and b) An exclusive (exclusionary?) culture amongst citizens.

The great thing about the U.S. is that from the first day you land here, most people will treat you as an American. In my experience, this is one of the most powerful things America has working for itself. If someone feels like a part of America, the chances that they will harbor ill will for it are negligible and chances that they will want to insulate themselves from it are also low.

I think it is hard to design a racism test, so with the caveat that I don't have a better solution, I have the following problem with your racism test:

There is a high correlation between race and some religions. For example, IMO, the proportion of Muslims who are white is very low, while the proportion of Muslims who are brown is very high. So, in measuring the bias of say people from Pakistan against marrying whites, you might actually be measuring the bias of Muslims against marrying non-Muslims.

Actually, I don't think that is bad. My (potential) children will (and should) be free to marry whoever they choose Muslims, Christians, Zoroastrians, whoever. (Hopefully they wont marry a Scientologist!) Legally, though, discriminating against a religious group for not marrying outside seems like it may fall afoul of some religious freedom rights. Having said that, IANAL.

Regarding (2), it seems that you are using strong family / social obligations as a proxy for testing how much more 'liberal' or open minded compared to the 1st generation, the 2nd generation will be. I think this is such a warped and complex thing though, that it is really impossible to test.

Coming from a background with strong family and social obligations, and luckily from a family with negligible social pressure, I can also tell you it has many positives.

I also think it would be interesting to see how middle and southern United States measure on (2) vs most of the world. I suspect you won't see as much of a difference here as you expect.

Good discussion!

I'm not sure we are immunized against ghettos. Ghettoization has led to violence/ethnic cleansing out on the west coast (Mexicans ethnically cleansing Blacks). In my neck of the woods, there is an Arab ghetto in South Paterson and an Indian ghetto in Edison.

Regarding 2, it's not so much about liberalness/open mindedness as it is about the fact that in the US, you choose your own destiny. Regarding the south, as far as I know they don't tend to try to prevent their daughters from getting educated/working in order to keep them under thumb (for example). I suspect (1) is more an issue for them than (2).

But then again (assuming you aren't from the US), do you really want racist American southerners coming to your country?

Are these ghettos as in "People of the same culture, living together like they did in their native land" or also as in "People of other cultures fear for their safety and are made to feel unwelcome here"? I am concerned about people sticking only to their kind (insularity), but not so concerned about people preferring to stick with the familiar, which is human nature. It's a spectrum, but they are on different ends of it.

I am personally familiar with folks from Edison, and at least in my experience, they are not insular although it could be selection bias. Standard reasons for a newly minted NYU or Columbia grad (or a fresh H1B) from India to live in Edison is easy access to Indian food, cheap rent and staying near friends. It is not staying away from "corrupt Americans". Indeed, most of them would prefer to live in Manhattan if they could afford it, and when they can many do.

I live in Atlanta, where people are very family oriented but I can count on one hand the number of times I have faced racism in the 7 years I have lived here. I suspect the number would be similar or more in any other country. I'd be ok with these people coming to my country.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com