Hacker News Reader

Comment by mc32 | Hacker News Reader

Does SV really rely on undocumented workers for their skilled labor force? As far as I can tell Trump wants to thwart illegal immigration but wants to make hiring skilled foreign workers easier -i.e., if it's apparent we have a skills deficit, the administration would increase quotas to accommodate the demand. Examining demand/need and adjusting accordingly and cracking down on abuse of the system, if it does occur, would seem reasonable.

Of course, that remains to be seen but, at the same time, I don't believe the intention is to cut off all immigration, only illegal unregulated immigration, the way most advanced economies do.

View on HN

>Does SV really rely on undocumented workers for their skilled labor force?

Of course not. The idea that Trump's election would be detrimental to Silicon Valley was a fear mongering tactic promulgated by left-leaning tech luminaries. Say what you will about his other stances, but all signs point to a very pro-business administration.

I'm more worried about business interruptions coming as a result of the holy war that some ultra-liberals have unleashed on anyone that they view as responsible for not getting their way in the election than I am about Trump interfering with any aspect of American business. The Grubhub incident was truly disturbing, and several people have publicly said they would cut Peter Thiel out of deals specifically because of his political beliefs. It seems that Democrats stress tolerance, except when they have to tolerate anyone that disagrees with them.

"The Grubhub incident was truly disturbing"

Are you referring to the CEO e-mail? [1]

"While demeaning, insulting and ridiculing minorities, immigrants and the physically/mentally disabled worked for Mr. Trump, I want to be clear that this behavior - and these views, have no place at Grubhub. Had he worked here, many of his comments would have resulted in his immediate termination."

Sounds like standard HR policy to me.

[1] http://media.grubhub.com/media/press-releases/press-release-...

I'm not going to split hairs with you or any other liberal defender of this type of behavior. Whether you will admit it or not, you, as well as everyone else that read the entire email, understand that he was lashing out at and threatening anyone who voted for Trump. He intentionally tried to create a hostile work environment for half of his employees. Grubhub should (and undoubtedly will) be sued, probably not only by employees but also by shareholders that incurred losses as a result of the fallout from this monumentally stupid action.

This email, and all attempts to defend it, are far worse than anything that Trump has allegedly said or implied. This is an attack on democracy itself.

Wait, I fail to understand how refusing to hire or associate with bigots is an assault on democracy.

It seems to me this is the free market in action. Your labor is worth so much less as a bigot that you are unemployable. Tough shit.

Unless you want to add political beliefs to "protected classes". But it was my understanding that conservatives don't think the government should be involved in mandating voluntary associations.

So the 60,265,858 people that voted for Trump are all bigots and could have had no other reason to vote for him. Got it.

No, while I suspect that many of the people who voted for Trump did so out of bigotry, some I assume are good people.

And the email did not say to resign if you supported Trump, it said to resign if you would engage in bigoted acts. "demeaning, insulting and ridiculing minorities, immigrants and the physically/mentally disabled" is how those acts were specified. And frankly, if that's how you're going to behave, then you have no place in any organization.

Again, I won't split hairs on this. Since you were intelligent enough to turn on your computer and type this response, you know perfectly well what that email was saying. You are arguing because that's what liberals do when they're caught red-handed doing something very, very wrong.

Pertinent parts of the email:

"... I absolutely reject the nationalist, anti-immigrant and hateful politics of Donald Trump and will work to shield our community from this movement as best as I can......If you do not agree with this statement then please reply to this email with your resignation because you have no place here".

> half of his employees.

Probably a lot less than half (which lack of diversity is itself part of the problem).

"If you do not agree with this statement then please reply to this email with your resignation because you have no place here."

So, if you don't agree with what he said about Trump was true, you should leave.

And, yes, that is only one possible interpretation of that sentence. It was not specific enough.

If he's talking about whether people agree that the workplace should not be hostile, that's another thing.

It's too bad he felt the need to inject politics and the threat into this statement. He could have just stated the company policy and ask workers to see HR if they had a problem with it.

There's one issue in Trump's current ideas: That he wants to "punish" countries that don't take back illegal immigrants by limiting visa access to their citizens.

So if the Trump administration at some point considers Liechtenstein to be not in compliance with Trump's ideas of handling illegal immigrants, fully compliant H1-Bs from Liechtenstein might get in trouble the next time they need to renew their paperwork.

""punish" countries that don't take back illegal immigrants by limiting visa access to their citizens."

Astute reasoning.

Is that really an issue? Why would Liechtenstein refuse to take back one of their citizens?

I believe Liechtenstein was chosen for rhetorical purposes.

Yes, fill in whatever country name you want. Most H-1Bs go to India, so use that as an example. Why wouldn't India take back deported citizens?

I'd say that most countries would be happy to not have to take back their nationals that have committed violent felonies.

For a specific example, Vietnam refuses to take back their nationals who entered after 12 July 1995. We recently had a case regarding Viet national in the US illegally who, upon serving that sentence, was released among the US public because he had originally entered the US illegally before that 1995 date, and Vietnam refused to allow him back in.

He went on to commit another homicide this year.

The question is not if India takes back deported citizens, but if they do it according to whatever rules the US sets up:

- The country is too slow in taking back people, which is entirely possible when the plan to deport 3 million people is implemented.

- Especially for "illegal immigrants", it's sometimes hard to pinpoint their actual nationality (and they might not be honest about it for whatever reasons). So they claim to be from India, but the Indian Embassy claims that they're definitely not Indian but given their accent may be from Sri Lanka (and so refuse to take them back). Sri Lanka doesn't want anything to do with that person either. Now what?

Neither of these need to happen, but these are issues completely outside the control of law-abiding visa holders that may soon be hanging over their heads.

This seems like an odd way to "punish" countries. Most countries would probably be quite happy that the US was stopping the brain drain from their country.

If they did care about such things, they'd institute exit visas, if they wanted. So if they care, they don't care enough to do that.

But, since they aren't, and if you are right, I guess Trump will be doing right by most countries, since in your account he'd be deporting their brain drain.

Rely on undocumented workers: probably not, but subcontractors maybe?

What's going to happen to legal immigration: nobody knows. Trump has said a lot of things, and by the time a bill gets through Congress, it may be very different.

Your line of reasoning is one of many plausible scenarios.

But the headline "Newly elected President says he'll enforce the law" isn't nearly as provocative and scary.

This is one of those laws that's kind of like speeding in cars. To actually enforce it 100% of the time would require the sort of enforcement that people would not be very happy with. With immigration, it'd mean living in a "papers, please" kind of country. The best way to deal with immigration is to make it cheap, legal and easy for people who just want to work:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/26/business/economy/if-immigr...

No one would walk miles through the Arizona desert if it were easy to do things legitimately - the only people sneaking around would be actual criminals.

And of course this one is a classic:

http://johnhcochrane.blogspot.com/2014/06/the-optimal-number...

I'd like to live in a Papers, please kind of country if it means competition for my field of work is drastically thinned.

Hell, I'd help the law with tips myself if it meant companies would be forced to increase wages as the market forces shake to accommodate decreased supply.

I'm aghast at what I'm reading. You'd live in a police state if it meant more money for you?

It's like saying that you'd be fine with total surveillance, because you personally have nothing illegal to hide.

This idea would work in a world where both malevolence and all kinds of errors do not exist. Ours is, unfortunately, different.

That might be the most short-sighted perspective I've seen in a HN comment this week.

I don't think so. Other countries don't have a problem enforcing their immigration policies. When someone is found to be overstaying they deport them. Try overstaying in Japan, China, Greece, France, etc. They may not get 100%, but they get a good percentage as companies are required to vet the work status of employees and regular police in many places can inquire about visas, if they have reason to ask.

They have plenty of trouble keeping 0% illegal immigrants. It's not possible in a free society.

Greece, however is a good point: if you make your economy bad enough, no one will want to go there. This worked for the US during the recent recession.

That's the thing, you don't have to enforce any law 100%.

You start enforcing it for the most egregious cases and others get a little more hesitant to break the law. Then you do it again and more back off. At some point, you reach a happy medium where there's "enough" enforcement that egregious cases are rare and punished heavily while the rest aren't worth punishing.

Yes, just like speeding.

The US immigration is incredibly byzantine and opaque, far beyond what most Americans realize. Trump has said that he thinks the H-1B program is being abused, and the fear is that there will be yet another layer of bureaucracy layered on top of what is already there.

It is not uncommon for immigrants to work 20+ years in the US before they can become citizens, always facing the prospect that unemployment or sickness means they have to be out of the country in as little as 10 days.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com