Judge sends two to prison for 7 years for H-1B fraud

I just learned that a bunch of acquaintances lost out on their H1B lotteries and will be shipped out of the country to international offices once their OPT terms end in 1-2 months. Since they were employed by strong companies, their salaries likely would have been high enough to qualify them for H1B visas under a system you propose.

The H1B is explicitly not supposed to bring in cheaper labor.

If we had an auction style system then at least small companies would have the opportunity to pay more and get access to foreign labor. In the current system, this is not even an option so companies like mine are disadvantaged with no recourse. Startups could always hire native workers or hire foreign workers offshore.

Why not just auction off the visas?

The supposed point is to make sure American companies can compete. The idea of only allowing the very highest paid foreign workers in, and them all being software developers, has literally nothing to do with that goal.

Just because there is a problem that doesn't justify moving to a solution that destroys it. It's better strengthen enforcement so that fines can be used to make it expensive for abusers (like what happened in the article), rather than price out talent that isn't just in finance or high paying fields.

The lottery evenly distributes amongst the positions based on demand. By switching to wealth, you're creating a system that only the highest-paying job categories will prevail.

The fundamental problem is that US simply doesn't have a well-designed skilled worker immigration track, the way e.g. Canada or Australia do. H1B fills that niche in practice, but it was clearly not designed for it, and so there are all these warts.

Sorry, but if you want to fix the problems created by the program, then you have to scrap it and call the new thing something else. But, as long as it is tethered to filling specialty needs of certain companies as the core justification for holders being in-country, then you have sponsorship. And, with sponsorship comes the problems many decry.

I'm not sure why any of this is controversial. The program itself may be controversial, but simply stating what it is ought not to be.

But, in this context, let's just say that immigration is not the primary intent, and the secondary intent is conditioned upon the primary.

More specifically, the "lawful status" that prefaces immigration is conditioned upon sponsorship.

All else held constant, increased labor supply means lower wages for all. So, the prevailing wage goes down for everyone. Sure, companies have to pay everyone equally, so everyone just gets paid less.

It's simple supply and demand. I think some are taking these simple statements of fact as some sort of anti-immigrant rant or advocacy of the current H1-B policy. It's not. But, if you want to fix it, you first have to understand it.

It may be a reference to the fact that many public colleges have tuition breaks for residents.

The other side of that coin is availability. That practice gives those schools a financial incentive to grant full-retail foreign students admission priority over residents. That's certainly the case in California.

> This idea that the most talented people can only be found from outside the US needs to just die. If the US were so bereft of talent none of these companies that these H1B visa folks want to work for would exist. Ditto for the US universities they attend.

There is definitely a dearth in the STEM students who are US citizens and have an under-grad/grad degree from top schools. All the ones who are already places. My company hires from the top 30 schools in US and when my team went for Intern hiring, they couldn't find enough US citizens with masters degree. It's a supply demand problem.

You can be the tech center of the world. You can be an isolationist. You can't be both.

They absolutely do. Consider that at many schools (particularly UCs) in-state tuition is not enough to cover costs. International students paying high tuition are absolutely helping to subsidize such situations.

Even at top private universities, international students can be a major subsidy. Domestic students typically have their full financial need met, but international students don't. International students thus subsidize the aid for domestic students.

Absurd? Perhaps. However, it is reality and happening in the University of California system. [1] The tuition for CA residents (regardless how they choose to finance this -- which is what you are referring to) is currently only maintained by the large number of out of state (and international) admissions. The problem has gotten so bad that a bill was passed in the state legislature to limit the out of state student enrollment. [2]

>> Attending university in the US is a privilege and that does not mean you should be guaranteed a job in the United States upon graduation.

A privilege that is only accessible to the most privileged foreigners (because they are wealthy in their home countries) or most talented (who receive financial assistance from private organizations, or in some cases their home country).

>> You seem to have a real sense of entitlement that because you went to school in the US the US owes you a job. Wow.

I certainly did not make the case that any graduate of a US university is entitled to any job. I agree with you.

Taking the perspective of a business, how would you incentive your business not to hire the best available candidates who are already in the country (regardless of whether or not they are foreign-born)?

>> This idea that the most talented people can only be found from outside the US needs to just die. If the US were so bereft of talent none of these companies that these H1B visa folks want to work for would exist. Ditto for the US universities they attend.

This is not what I said. I was referring to US-born and foreign-born students attending the same universities for the same duration. I did not advocate for bringing people into the country.

Note that those international students having attended US institutions of higher education can already start working for any employer under the post graduation Optional Practical Training (OPT) for a few years.

>> This idea of relocating people to London for year is just gaming the system.

Agreed. I am not advocating for this. Just describing that this is happening.

[1]: http://www.mercurynews.com/education/ci_29954758/california-...

[2]: http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert...

The GP is correct, domestic students rarely, if ever, pay the true cost of attendance at colleges and universities (hereafter, called 'schools') [1]. The are taxpayer subsidies such as tax breaks (both the publics and privates benefit) to the schools from local and state governments, as well as annual appropriations for operating costs of public schools. This is especially evident in areas where the cost of attendance is so low to in-state residents, such as the California State school system.

Private schools also subsidise students through merit scholarships, which lower the cost of attendance for foreign and domestic alike, to the tune of anywhere between a few hundred dollars and a free ride.

[1] https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/06/12/study-us-high...

They surely would not accept longer working hours or less pay.

I didn't say these graduates aren't competing, merely that in the case above nobody is being replaced (in a literal sense) as these were new positions to be filled. Also, they were not filled under the H-1B program, but the F-1 OPT program.

F-1 OPT (post graduation training) hiring is virtually unrestricted (except for its duration).

Of course workers who reside abroad and are brought to the US on H-1B directly are an entirely different class of foreign workers. I cannot speak to this group.