I get the impression that this new bill is like putting lipstick on a pig which is the current system. I was hoping the amendments to the H1-B bill would be one of the silver linings of a Trump presidency, but I guess not anymore.
---
I'm on an H-1B, and the thing that infuriates me about the dialogue on this is that they are effectively trying to ban skilled immigration, and exclude people like me from coming.
If you don't qualify for the family-based or refugee route, employment-based immigration is the only viable pathway. The amount of hate I see piled on people trying to come here via the employment-based immigration seems insane to me. These people make it seem like employment-based immigration is not as respectable or legitimate, compared to refugee/asylum and family-based immigration.
The problem with requiring higher wagers is that for people like me, who were students in US -- it's very hard to get an ultra-high salary for the first job out of college. (I did my undergrad here, and I don't have a Master's.) I was a student (on an F-1 visa), and my first job out of college offered me $60,000/year. On my first job on my H-1B visa (in NYC), I was offered $85,000 a year (got slightly over $100,000 with bonuses). Then, just about a year and half later, I was paid (incl. lucky cash bonuses) slightly over $200,000 in a single year. (My base salary is $130,000 now.)
If you raised wage requirements, you'd basically be not allowing people like me to continue to stay and work in the US (after graduation from college), and would instead only allow people from outside who have lots of experience (and skill) and can command a much higher salary upfront.
---
It's very disappointing to see the level of vitriol directed towards people who are just trying to build a better life in this country, especially here on HN.
I studied here, but never really had to deal with the immigration aspect because I'm here to be with my American wife. However, I vaguely remember that F1 students could work for a very limited amount of time with the F1 visa and work even longer if they studied a STEM field. I guess that's something. But having to hustle like nuts to get above some magical salary boundary is crazy. Especially since that likely would include changing employers since that seems to be the best way to get a raise.
I can communicate over mail, if that helps.
That said, I think a permissive immigration policy is in our intrests, but H-1B is a poor basis for such a policy.
F1 students are not American citizens and are not entitled to an immigration pathway through employment.
They are on a student visa with the right to study at an American university.
I can only convey that the current system is shady and is rife with abuse. Reform is necessary, preferably nonpartisan.
American citizens would be entitled to an immigration pathway?
Likely there should be some path for immigrant students to stay, but H-1B shouldn't be that path.
It's already incredibly difficult, time-consuming, and expensive to secure an employment-based immigration path. The process takes between 1 to 2 years. In addition, the employer is required to attest (via labor certification) that there are no minimally qualified U.S. workers who can do the same job. The quotas create just decades-long backlogs, and make things even worse for immigrants.
The regulatory red tape for EB immigrant visas is incredible. I've read comments on HN and other forums saying that companies typically spent circa $40,000 to get an EB-2/EB-3 visa. In fact, Congress intentionally made it easier to get H-1B visas for precisely this reason: https://www.cato.org/blog/why-congress-rejected-h-1b-recruit...
You mean EB-2 and EB-3 (Employment Based green cards)?
E-3 is a US work visa for Australian citizens only, almost identical to H1-B but with a separate cap. It was a thank you to Australia from the Bush Administration for helping in the Iraq war.
Perhaps they should create an exception that allows immigrant student to work for entry-level market wages for a few years after they graduate.
I mean, immigrants students will need some kind of visa that lets them work to stay here after school. It could be the H-1B, or something else.
But the only way they can stay is if that visa requires only paying what new graduates normally make.
PS: I suspect if there where a direct path from student to staying in the US then people would just game that process. Which would reduce the number of 'real' students and cause a political backlash.
If someone manages to get accepted at a genuine accredited U.S. high-education institution, and completes their studies, and graduates, why not let them stay? I understand there will be a lot more demand to study in the U.S. if such a pathway existed; so you would want to make sure that there are no diploma mills, and that only people graduating from accredited colleges are allowed to stay. Perhaps capping the number of international students at a college to something like 20% would go further in mitigating your concern. The flow of student immigrants would then be naturally regulated by the admissions process, and by the number of available seats for international students in U.S. universities and institutions.
It really doesn't make much practical sense to attract students, educate them, and have them leave. But having the flow of student immigrants be naturally regulated by the admissions process, as you propose, seems to be putting the cart before the horse policy wise. From the gov't perspective, the interests and education goals of the (potential) immigrants are irrelevant but the flow of skilled immigrant labor matters a lot - what would be a practical solution is to make a decision about what amount and kind of post-college immigrants staying would be best for the interests of current USA citizens (which might reasonably be close to 0 in some areas of study), and then set the limits and conditions for student visas/admissions to match that goal.
They have something like this, it's called Optional Practical Training (OPT).
The changes aimed at fixing the abuse of the system by consultant "super companies" are going to affect ppl who finish their studies and get paid a market-level salary at their first gig which in most cases still won't come close to 130K.
These are typically well adjusted folks with drivers licenses, their own apartments/houses/families even (so they need to make more than 5 TCS consultants cramped in a studio apartment) etc. One would think they'd be in the batch of prime candidates for the long-term or even permanent immigration.
This line along with the rest of the comment is completely written out of context. I have no idea how your reply is relevant.
That being said, as someone in a similar boat (graduated from a US college, lived in the US for more than half of my life), I strongly believe that there is a need for a reform in US immigration laws. Even though I spent more than half my life in the States, I don't qualify for any programs/paths to pursue permanent residency in the US except for the H1B route.
Note that during the F-1 visa application, you needed to prove that you had no intent to stay. This is a current requirement for the F-1 visa.
While there are problems with the proposed legislation, at a minimum, it does allow for dual-intent for F-1 visas, and allows for a bridge from F-1 status to legal permanent resident. This means that an F-1 visa petitioner doesn't have to lie on their application, and there is no incentive to use the H1-B program in a way it wasn't intended.
This small piece, seems like a attempt at solving this student-to-resident pathway issues.
Suggesting that the existing H-1B system is broken and in need of reform isn't necessarily a call for less skilled immigration. My two biggest complaints about it are actually both pro-immigration.
First, I think what was meant as a way to integrate skilled immigrants into the economy has been transformed into a way to marginalize many visa-holders into non-standard consulting work.
Second, I think the H-1B system has created a distorted market which hurts both visa holders and domestic workers by creating a labor pool which is basically unable to bargain. Tying someone's immigration status to the actions of a single employer makes even basic negotiations like "this work environment is terrible" or "I'm underpaid for the work I'm doing" untentable, since the employer has an irrefutable lever over the employee. That's terrible for visa-holders working at inappropriate wages or under unpleasant or unsafe conditions. It's also bad news for domestic workers, who rightly complain that they're not just competing against international labor but handicapped-by-law labor. In an industry which has already seen one major wage-fixing conspiracy, I think it's understandable that there's some nervousness about employers using the law to create an artificial boundary on labor prices.
I'd like to see skilled immigration massively expanded, and I think part of that process is reforming the H-1B system. Many companies use the system quite reasonably, but others are specifically using it to avoid treating American or international workers fairly.
That's true, there are a lot of consulting firms like Tata/Infosys/Wipro that use up a large chunk of the available H-1B visas. They only pay their workers like $80,000 on average, and almost never sponsor a green card. The other thing is that a big chunk (like >50%) of the people at these firms are on visas. I'd like to see a solution that limits that sort of use, and instead provides visas to more legitimate companies, without making it impossible for immigrant students to stay in the country.
One possible solution might be to require higher wages if more than 20% of the employees are on visas. At most of the companies I worked, at least 80% of my coworkers were Americans. But at the same time, I've heard that a high percentage of developers Facebook and Google are on visas. Simply requiring that companies higher wages if more than like 20% of their workforce are on visas, would end the use by consulting firms that are heavily staffed by H-1B workers. It also would not completely shut the door on immigrant students looking for a job after they graduate.
> Tying someone's immigration status to the actions of a single employer makes even basic negotiations like "this work environment is terrible"
This is a misconception. I can change jobs to any employer that is willing to do an H-1B visa transfer. Of course, it reduces the set of companies I can work for, but in tech, most companies will transfer your visa. Another fact is that, before January 17, 2017, you couldn't have gaps in employment, and had to find a new job while working. But this has been fixed, and now H-1B visa holders can quit freely, and have 60 days to find a new H-1B employer. I've pointed it out here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13452381
In addition, I have been in the exact situation you described -- i.e. "this work environment is terrible". This was before the 60-day rule came into effect, and I actually quit my job anyways. I lost my legal status in the country as a result, but it really wasn't that big of a deal. I just had to do find a new job, fly out of the country, and re-enter, to regain my legal status (and start my new job). I've explained what I did in detail, here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13361827
> to require higher wages if more than 20% of the employees are on visa
This is the sort of change I'd like to see. H-1B should be a stepping-stone to offering citizenship to skilled workers who want it. (Regardless of original intent - it's both practical and moral for the US to do this.) The possibility of creating a perpetual pool of visa contractors is one of my main complaints, and I'd like to see more visa slots opened to companies willing to pay well and sponsor for green cards.
> This is a misconception.
Interesting context, thank you. I knew about the change of employer (I think that's common knowledge?) but I'd heard horror stories of people being told, basically, "shut up or we'll fire you right now and you'll have an employment gap". Or just being fired outright, to show other visa employees how little bargaining power they had.
I didn't know about the 2017 allowance for employment gaps. That's awesome news, and that change specifically is one I've wanted to see for a while.
As for your experience, I'm glad it worked out, but I do consider it a horrible problem with the visa system. Forcing people to leave the country during their application process is stupid (and harmful to anyone short on money), it worsens problems like the recent re-entry ban Trump enacted, and it's a bit delicate with actual legal status; losing legal status here can have consequences almost immediately if someone cares to enforce them.
More broadly, I hate how much of the US visa system involves getting lucky with paperwork, or having an administrator look the other way. I'm glad to know about the 60 day improvement, and I'd love to see further extensions to allow easier green card access or student-to-work rollovers.
> These people make it seem like employment-based immigration is not as respectable or legitimate, compared to refugee/asylum and family-based immigration.
I hate to break it to you, but those are the exact kind of people that H-1B visas are SUPPOSED to be used for. Not fresh out of college people. Your employer abused the visa program.
yeah, we know. that's kind of the point.
Clearly the rate of family-based immigration is insane. And the lack of requirements for any kind of skills that would benefit America for relatives is costing America. Outside spouses and minor children, family has no special right to follow immigrants into the USA and privileging unskilled family migrants reduces the chance for a community to assimilate.
That reunification migration program should be regulated and limited severely.
But there is no right for employment based immigration either. There does not need to be a pathway for every single person on Earth to come to America. America is already crowded.
If there's no viable visa category to come to the USA, there are 200 other countries for a person to migrate to. And staying put is a fine option for most migrants as well, though there are exceptions.
The idea that the USA and only the USA is the acceptable destiny for every person is ludicrous and has to stop. We have the highest proportion of foreign born people in hour history already and it's time for a long immigration moratorium to help us absorb the immigrants we have.
America isn't crowded. America is mostly pretty empty. http://www2.census.gov/geo/pdfs/maps-data/maps/thematic/us_p...
Also, family sponsored visas don't come out of the same quota pool as other visas so your statements are functionally irrelevant to this topic.
I've never heard about this. Where did you get it from?
This is, I think, the fundamental problem of our immigration system and ultimately tied to the source of the illegal immigration.problem that arises whenever the economic and social climate is relatively good (right now, we've got negative net rate of illegal immigration, because the economic and social climate sucks), and also much of our border security problem.
Our immigration policy seeks to do three main things:
(1) prevent people we absolutely don't want in this country (usually, for safety/security reasons) from coming in for any reason at any time.
(2) Allow people we specifically do want in the country to come in, and
(3) Manage the costs incurred as a result of the total level of immigration.
#1 is pretty straightforward: we prohibit certain people from entry, period, based on certain rules.
#2 and #3 together are served by a complex set of visa categories, with quotas in each category (both global and per country, in each category.) And we treat anyone that doesn't get a slot in the quota.or doesn't fit a preference category exactly like the prohibited individuals in #1.
A better way to address #3 (and to replace some existing categories, like the H-1B) would be to allow either entry- or annual- (possibly both as options) fee-based immigration or annual residency with work status for immigrants above the caps. The fee structure might be different for people eligible for dofferent existing preference categories but "skipping the line", and higher than any of those for non-prohibited immigrants in no preference category. Third parties could sponsor such supernumerary visas, but would have no special status for doing so (other than contract rights, but even then law could limit contract enforcement to recovery of the cost of sponsorship according to the rules applicable to general debts.)
I have seen H-1Bs get paid less than their American counterparts, for doing the exact same work.
Raising the salary floor on H-1Bs would be good for all employees in the sector, both Americans and those on H-1Bs. (There might be a small drop in the number of jobs, but the quality of life in those jobs will be much better.)
Thankfully it has zero chance of passing.