Hacker News Reader

> The stated purpose of the H1-B program is to allow companies to fill vacancies with international applicants if they are unable to find US employees qualified for the roles.

This canard keeps getting repeated in HN threads. This is WRONG. 100% absolutely completely WRONG. The only stated purpose of the H-1B program is to allow foreigners with degrees (or equivalent experience) to perform skilled work in the US. Here are the DOL requirements: https://webapps.dol.gov/elaws/elg/h1b.htm

The only one that affects US workers is to "[p]rovide working conditions for H-1B, H-1B1, or E-3 workers that will not adversely affect the working conditions of workers similarly employed." (There are additional requirements on H-1B dependent companies, but those don't apply to most companies.)

Here's a fact sheet from the DOL specifically about this matter: https://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/FactSheet62/whdfs62O...

What you're talking about is requirements for an EB-2 or EB-3 green card.

"will not adversely affect the working conditions of workers similarly employed"

Seriously. Who in the world would consider being fired and replaced with cheap labor an adverse effect?

Yeah, but I don't think anyone argues that type of behavior isn't blatant abuse of the program.

It's frustrating when people complain about H-1Bs at big companies like Google/MS/Amazon. Apparently we're underpaid, overworked, and stealing a job from an american. Despite the fact that these companies are almost constantly hiring and if the american wants to go try, they could.

If we weren't around, an American could demand a (significantly) higher wage. If the developer wages were higher an American programer would consider not becoming a manager (why code away for peanuts when you can boss others for much more?).

That's in the short term. In the long term more Americans would do CS, and if the supply is tight enough, Apple and the others would open schools to train teenagers to code.

Not saying that the current system isn't better. But the basic forces are what they are.

Btw, you are underpaid and overworked. The game-room is gaming you to stay at work longer hours.

Or BigCorp would open an office in your hometown and hire you there anyway, because it was now impossible to get enough people for their job.

More likely still, significantly more SaaS in easily configurable packages as companies that can't afford massive dev salaries for an IT department turn towards GoogMicroSAP to fulfill their needs

Or the whole operation would move countries.

> If we weren't around, an American could demand a (significantly) higher wage.

This is exactly correct. I'm a US citizen and work at a high paying tech job. Amazon calls me at least once a month to try to convince me to work for them. The problem is that their highest allowed salary is lower than what I'm already making, and I also get gobs of stock bonuses worth at least as much as their stock bonuses. So they really aren't even trying to compete here. If they really wanted people of my caliber who were US citizens, they'd have to improve their compensation.

> The employer, before petitioning for H-1B status for any alien worker pursuant to an H-1B LCA, took good faith steps to recruit U.S. workers for the job for which the alien worker is sought, at wages at least equal to those offered to the H-1B worker. Also, the employer will offer the job to any U.S. worker who applies and is equally or better qualified than the H-1B worker. This attestation does not apply if the H-1B worker is a "priority worker" (see Section 203(b) (1) (A), (B), or (C) of the INA). [0]

While it may not be the sole purposes as outlined in the link [0] you provided, it does mean that the rules state this very fact that precedence is to be given to US workers. So saying it's 100% wrong is... wrong as well.

[0] https://webapps.dol.gov/elaws/elg/h1b.htm#who

That rule only applies to H-1B dependent companies and wilful violators. It is not part of the "stated purpose" of the visa.

The intent of the H-1B provisions is to help employers who cannot otherwise obtain needed business skills and abilities from the U.S. workforce by authorizing the temporary employment of qualified individuals who are not otherwise authorized to work in the United States.

https://www.dol.gov/whd/immigration/h1b.htm

This text is genuinely surprising to me. The only statutes that come close to meeting that goal are the ones that only apply to H-1B dependent employers and wilful violators.

The 1990 legislation creating the H-1B program was pretty specific that it was for getting skills into the country that could not be obtained locally. Considering all the notices that are supposed to be posted. It is abused heavily, but that was the intent.

I like the idea, nearly a throw-away line in the article, that the H-1B visas should be granted to the highest paying jobs rather than by lottery. That would certainly cut down on the abuses.

Bbbbbut, you’re agreeing with Trump when you say that.

Not just that, the alternative is outsourcing to India/another country. The companies that bring in the TCS/Infosys employees are typically looking to cut cost any which way possible. While I hate the gaming by TCS/Infosys and think it needs to be fixed, making H1B unnecessarily hard is not going to help fix that. A H1B employee living in the US, pays the taxes here and spends the money here. An outsourced job is an expenditure written off for tax.

"pays the taxes here"

Not just taxes. They also pay for social security even though they don't get anything from it. If that is not enough, they also have to pay tax for the income they get in their parent country while they are in US. I get paying US taxes, but why pay tax for income that has nothing to do with US?

You are accurately reflecting the status quo, now that impediments to wage-depressing use of H-1B are so thoroughly lawyered into submission. But H1-B requirements say, among several other related things, that employers must consider U.S. candidates in "in good faith."

That's laughable unless you take the legalistic view that, unless it's been litigated not to be in good faith, that's good (faith) enough. Companies like Tata exist only to import cheaper workers. Saying otherwise amounts to claiming you might just want to hold hands with that person from the escort service.

It's also insulting to those who can see the difference between an R&D organization doing a worldwide search for a CTO and a "body shop."

Even established companies not in the obviously-sleazy Tata/Infosys abuse buckets play games here. "Write up job description consisting of specialty skills your H1B candidate already has, but that you don't need in your company in that role, then use them as a generic webdev" type stuff.

I recently saw a job advertisement for a front office role at a major bank that literally included the person's name.

They'd already printed up name placards for Sam Fakename, so it was really important that they could reuse those for the next candidate.

They didn't list the name as a requirement, but they said Firstname will be working on X, Y, and Z.

I assume the person writing the advertisement just forgot that they're technically looking for a local candidate.

I 100% believe you, but just for entertainment value, assuming the posting was public and recent -- any chance you have a link to the posting that you can share with us? I need a good laugh today.

Yeah because wanting someone who has worked in your company for 3-5 years and has an in depth knowledge of the job and the internal Dynamics of the company is obviously the exact equivalent of someone who has experience in the 3-4 specific headline technologies whether they are good or not at that is a terrible idea.

The alternative of an H1B is not an American. It's off shoring the entire project to a team that doesn't live in the US in the first place.

>The alternative of an H1B is not an American. It's off shoring the entire project to a team that doesn't live in the US in the first place.

Nope, the alternative is off shoring the project to places like Ohio and Montana.

Nope, offshorinng to non-US companies is the most preferred alternative in the real world. Just look at the fact. Offshorinng has been existing for a long time. Building dev center in Ohio and Montana is much more difficult and costly.

No. They already offshore as much as they can get away with.

Being unable to import cheap labor from overseas would be a huge loss to these chop shops and allow other local companies to compete with local staff.

This is correct. I've been involved in these sorts of postings, and it was absolutely gamed. But for good reason: we already had the perfect person in the role and wanted to keep him.

Imagine if there was a law that required companies to post job openings for every position in the company, regardless of whether or not that position was already filled. As you can imagine, they would likely make the job requirements exceedingly specific for the roles filled by people they really like.

You don't even need to imagine, just go look at government or non-profit job postings. It's often the case that they similar ridiculous policies for promotions, where they already have a person they want to promote, but they need to open it up to public applicants first.

I don't disagree with this, but I think it indicates that the real problem lives earlier in the pipeline. Maybe we're having the wrong discussions?

>The alternative of an H1B is not an American. It's off shoring the entire project to a team that doesn't live in the US in the first place.

This is fairly obvious, but do Americans not realize this? Or are they consciously saying that its better for high paying jobs to move out of US than for foreigners to work at those jobs in US?

The logical remedy would be to eliminate the lock the employer has on these people so that they can get competitive offers and see their salaries bid up to something better.

Bingo !

There is no lock. Once you have an H-1B, you can transfer as soon as you get another offer. The lock is on the J-1 and O-1 visas very popular at research orgs. That's where the true indentured servitude happens.

J-1 and O-1 have more shackles. H1b indeed restricts mobility.

IMO, a better law would be to give a green card with 3 yr validity to those on H1b. Then you'll see how the equation changes. Employees on H1b have very few choices due to these locks.

Compensation for H1Bs includes potential American citizenship. Depending where you're from, this can be worth a lot. Therefore these employees will still accept much lower pay from the employer for similar work

Since the big chunk of H1Bs are for people from India and China, Citizenship through employment is almost impossible for most of them, especially those born in India. This link explains the why and how very well http://7monthsvs70years.siia.us

People born elsewhere (other than China, India, Philippines) and are here on an H1b, are better off in terms of chances of getting a Green Card and a citizenship in a decent amount of time.

Jesus, I didn't know there was such a huge disparity between India and China

The reason is that U.S. Immigration laws only allocate 14% of annual quota to employment-based (EB) petition. The majority go to family-based (FB) petitions. Indian have a much higher EB/FB ratios, whereas Chinese have many more FB petitioners, e.g. cross-ethnicity marriages. Chinese also have one more eligible category than Indians---green card for asylees.

Ethnicities/nationalities like Mexicans have negligible skilled EB immigrants and have a much higher reliance on FB to immigrate a whole family to the U.S. (oftentimes derisively called out by Republicans as chain immigration), and thus they face longer FB backlog compared with Chinese FBs and Indian FBs. For example, as of today, the backlog for an Unmarried Child of an Mexican immigrant is 21 years, whereas that of Indians and Chinese are 7. (https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/law-and-policy/bul...) The priority date for a skilled Mexican immigrant programmer, who would be filing for either EB2 or EB3, is current (no backlog).

Since the system is heavily family-oriented, EBs often found themselves in very awkward positions as either the scape-goat for America's economic problems or distractions among partisan fights. A lot of things do not make sense. For example, the spouse of an EB petitioner does not count as "family-based" but takes up one more EB slot, and their school-age children, despite not being employed for work, are counted as "employment-based" immigrants. In addition, to offset the number of green cards given out to Chinese nationals after the 1989 Tian'anmen Square Massacre, a number of greencards are deducted from Chinese EB quota. Just making small changes to these two issues can ompletely eliminate Chinese backlog and greatly shorten Indian backlog. However, the politicians couldn't care any less about sensible solutions. While Democrats typically only pay the lip service, Republicans' common tactic is to hide their anti-immigration attempt behind a big banner of pro-skilled immigrants. The Rs either will try to trade the EBs with zeroing out refugee quota or slashing FBs in half, for example. They may have a good point (U.S. admits more refugees than employment-based immigrants annually), but touching that hot-button issue will never get Democratic votes, and it beginning to increasingly look like Republicans' political show vote.

So very true!

A point to be noted, is that the arbitrary per country cap for EB green cards, was added in the last 30 years, to surreptitiously add a subtle anti-Asian bias, to reduce the number of Chinese immigrants entering US. Looks like Indian and Philippine citizens are caught in the cross fire now.

If you speak to high skilled immigrants in US who understand the situation, you'll see them being equally highly frustrated with the Democrats and the Republicans, and their respective supporters. Everything seems to be so focussed on DACA and illegal immigrants, that the legal ones are left in limbo.

Though to paraphrase what you're saying, if we just forget about all other petition types (sounds like they're not interrelated anyway, at least on the supply side), it still means India has ~10x the amount of EB seekers vs China. That's surprising fact stands on its own.

Because I think (not sure) many Chinese grad students are required to go back to China because their govt funded their studies or because they have a tech industry that’s leap frogging in terms of latest tech or have access to EB-5 visa or move to Canada.

Compare that to the number of immigrants from India, most of them use up family’s life savings to study in the US and try to recover from working in US. Unlike students from other countries, who can apply for a green card when they are studying (by getting a willing employer through their connections), can get their work authorization and Green Card itself before their 3 yr OPT expires.

Which means, there’s mostly people from backlogged countries, applying for h1b visas!

That means, there’ll be some %age of applicants who are willing to get treated like slaves by the employer, and these are the employees who have poisoned the basket of apples. And USCIS is looking at the basket very suspiciously.

Very sensible explanation.

You'll never see the tech titans ask for this option, while they are busy portraying themselves as pro-immigrant :)

Well, to be fair, they do cry lots of tears for every other form of immigration except skilled one.

Well, everyone including darling tech giants in California wants to milk the PR opportunities like homelessness, high cost of living, immigrants in limbo status etc.

Sadly, good numbner of people are naive enough to not see past the fracas.

Infosys and TCS together received 7,504 approved H1B visas in 2014-15, which is only 8.8% of the total approved H1B visas, says Nasscom

http://www.livemint.com/Industry/pHkRcTtIoKd8MkTkBNdtSN/Info...

I think "only" is an odd choice of words.

In a country as large as the US, that two consulting companies picked up nearly 10% of the country's visa allotment for a certain category of worker is part of the problem in itself.

So why not simply stop granting any H-1Bs to rampant abusers like Tata and Infosys, while leaving more H-1Bs to go around for the non-abusers? What they're up to is very widely known.

Why bother with a fixed number at all?

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

> Why bother with a fixed number at all?

This is obviously the sensible approach, but most people who comment on Hacker News immigration threads are nativist. They might pretend to be liberal or progressive [1], but at their core they're no different from the Jim Crow segregationists of the '50s. Changing your in-group from being based on the color of your skin to the patch of dirt you were born on doesn't change the basic immorality of your position.

[1] Though it must be said that progressivism and nativism have been very close friends historically, and continue to be so in the form of NIMBYs.

That's an interesting article, but if the proposals for limiting the number of immigrants in that article, like speaking English. paying a bond, asset and income tests, would probably drive progressives apoplectic if proposed as actual legislation.

Although, would be super interesting to see this as a proposal from a "moderate" Democrat.

Also completely ignores traditional criteria for immigration, like oppressed people, security concerns, spouses and family members, and health status.

Also, author jokes about population density of places like the UK, but how long would it take to actually build the infrastructure to accommodate a mass influx of new residents, especially if they tended to congregate in a small number of areas with good jobs or other people of their ethnic or linguistic groups?

They're not so much proposals as things that might be discussed in lieu of a number that is a 'magic number'.

More immigrants could easily participate in building more infrastructure. They did so in the past.

Training your replacements has happened since the dotcom bust. My friend was forced to train his Indian replacements when he worked at Nortel.

That's the ideal use case. The real use case is to get foreign workers to do jobs for a lower wage than Americans are being paid.