H1-B Administrators Are Challenging an Unusually Large Number of Applications | Hacker News Reader

H1-B Administrators Are Challenging an Unusually Large Number of Applications

rss.slashdot.org

53 pointsJJLongusa36 comments

Isn't the H1-B program ripe with abuse? I've read dozens if not hundreds of comments here and reports from all over where teams were laid off in favor of H1-B counterparts.

If that's really the case, challenging the applications is the first deterrent to this sort of behavior. I doubt anything will eliminate 100% of the abuse but if we can cut it significantly, I'd call that a win.

ive heard of this rumor but ive never actually seen it in action. having hired h1bs before, i’m skeptical that anyone but a massive corporation could do something like this.

the expenses, rules, process would prohibit most teams from accomplishing and maintaining this. and a corporation large enough to pull it off likely wouldn’t derive enough benefit to actually make it worth it given the risk of exposure from either internal or external whistle blowers.

i have no doubt there’s fraud in the immigration system, (america is pretty cool after all), i feel like the fraud problem takes shape in different forms than, “mass layoffs in favor of h1b labor.” honestly, i’m more worried about he use of

It’s not a “rumor”. Disney layed off over 100 IT staff and had them train their Indian replacements [1]. Southern California Edison layed off 400 and had them train their Indian replacements. [2]

[1] https://www.computerworld.com/article/2915904/it-outsourcing...

[2] https://www.computerworld.com/article/2879083/it-outsourcing...

The jobs aren't getting transferred to H1Bs, they're getting contracted out to TCS and Infosys who are known for abusing the program by "lending" out their employees as contractors.

They're akin to the predatory hiring agencies that provide workers to Amazon's warehouses. Good for Amazon's bottom line and the agency, not so much for the employees or the community.

imho, increasing base salary requirement and mandating that employees either work on-site only or are free to jump ship to any company (visa is not associated with the employer) would fix majority of the issues.

Isn't this a side effect of adding more regulations onto full-time workers? Seems like if the overhead for a full time employee keeps going up and the regulations keep getting more strict, we'll see more that risk and cost outsourced more and more to companies that specialize in circumventing things and keeping the extra expenses as low as possible.

The intent behind these regulations, whether healthcare or immigration control, is really beside the point. I'm wondering if these things are really enforceable in the long run.

On top of everything else, as has already been mentioned, the rules seem to provide competitive advantages to large companies (or at least those willing to outsource to them) over small ones. This probably decreases the level of innovation, dynamism, and entrepreneurship in the economy.

You could reasonably classify the H1Bs issued by companies like Tata, Infosys, and Wipro as abuse.

They are quite often used to displace existing workers. That's not the purpose of the H1B program. They are, of course, clever about how they structure these deals, but do get exposed often enough.

http://www.epi.org/blog/new-data-infosys-tata-abuse-h-1b-pro...

The question is whether those being rejected are these ones or not, which I don't know if we have enough information to tell.

Companies should hire whomever they want.

there's a difference between hiring a team offshore, that stays offshore, and hiring h1b developers to move here. The first is global economy, the second can be detrimental to keeping jobs within america, especially when we actually do have many perfectly fine and able engineers losing their jobs simply because others are willing to work for half of their pay.

The H1-B abuse the OP is talking about has nothing to do with hiring better people from other countries, I don't think many people argue that - the problem is just trying to replace perfectly fine engineering teams which live here with cheaper engineering teams. And we're not talking the difference between $150k developer who is from the US and a $130k one that is brought in from elsewhere, we're talking about being able to pay WAY under market, perhaps even half market rates - that's the issue.

>If that's really the case, challenging the applications is the first deterrent to this sort of behavior. I doubt anything will eliminate 100% of the abuse but if we can cut it significantly, I'd call that a win.

The problem is that is not really what is happening. USCIS is challenging nearly every single application with challenges that do not match the requirements for an H1B and then dragging those challenges with red tape.

They are probably aware that in the end almost all of these challenges will be won by the applicants. So the (likely intentional) result of this is that many people who won the H1B lottery are now in an awkward situation where their previous work visa has expired but their H1B hasn't started yet because of all of these challenges. So many of those people cannot legally work since there is now a gap in work authorization and are being fired or relocated back to their home country, despite the fact that they would likely have gotten their H1B in the end.

This kind of explain a friend who is on H1B leaving their job preemptively for a new one. This person is really good but they can't take a risk because their current employer is not on solid footing.

Young, European, High-skilled worker here, who've been working on core Kubernetes products for three years. Got several job offers for key infra positions in various companies @ 200-250k+. Trump administration came in, decided to RFE+NOIR my H-1B with a bullshit reason, had to go back to my country, which is not my really home anymore whatsoever (wife/friends here). So yeah, that just happened. It's not only about abuses and 'Indians'.

Am in same boat as you. Its effecting individuals more than the companies they are aiming for.

Would love to hear more details about this too (same comment as the one I left in the parent message).

Heart breaking story, really (from a heavy Kubernetes user btw).

Would you mind giving more details about what happened exactly? Why did you have to go back? What was the reason why they didn't renew your visa (I'm assuming it's a renewal problem since you mentioned 3 years)? And is there something that is being done by your company or yourself to get your US life back, or you just "gave up"?

I mean why the hell would a person with a 250k+ offer be kicked out, assuming you didn't commit any crime? Isn't the offer itself a proof that you're desperately wanted here and it should invalidate any RFE?

Sure! It is not about renewal, it hit at a different time.

TD;LR (if I remember the details correctly among all the overall bs):

- Changed work location,

- Company notified immigration and joined a check to the amendment,

- Immigration returned the notice because they claimed they did not need such check,

- Company re-submitted the amendment right after, and proved by the way government indeed required a check at the time of submission but might have changed conditions,

- Immigration submitted both a RFE and a NOIR within two days intervals (pretty unfair already imho) claiming H1B petition was violated because government figured (tax filing and flight records) I moved and company failed to tell immigration in due time,

- Company argued that they did indeed notify immigration promptly but that they discarded the initial amendment due to the check,

- Immigration decided to ignore completely and revoke H-1B regardless.

Documented personal achievements and publicized projects should have been way enough to convince any legit immigration officer that my contribution to the country was strictly positive. My personal thoughts? They only care about sending these filthy foreigners back to where they come from (as opposed to 'home'), and they take any covert opportunities to do so.

Company did fill a new petition, but attorneys highly doubt that I am still counted towards the cap. We will have an answer in a few days. Otherwise, we would have to wait a year for the next lottery, at best.

Truly sad and rather stressful event for my wife and I anyways. And she is currently 'stuck' in her PhD (few years to go). Also, because it's been a few years I have not been to the country where I hold nationality, I am treated as a non-resident expat and several rights (such as health insurance, bringing my foreigner wife on a VISA, etc), at least for now. To regain access to these, I would need to stay here for a while, rent a place and find a job.

And finally, the cherry on the 'deportation' cake: company did not tell me about any of these (back and forth took a few months..) until I found out myself just two weeks before immigration took final decision of kicking me out. Might have been a blessing in disguise though.

Thanks for your detailed explanation. It’s so horrible. I wonder how long it will take for the US system to realize what a big mistake mistreating highly trained stem workers is.

Best of luck.

Finally, a nice uncontroversial subject amenable to logic and data.

You either believe:

1. That a person is good for the country because they work, earn, spend and contribute to productivity.

2. They are taking a job that would have otherwise gone to an American, and are transferring money from laborers to the corporation.

It seems to be a matter for economic theory. What do studies show? Does a worker produce as many high paying jobs as they displace?

It seems odd that we aren't pulling out references, debating over statistics and methodology and so on. There is an actual answer to the question: does immigration add to productivity or reduce consumption. (Both you say? Great, show me a study!)

> It seems to be a matter for economic theory

No, it's mostly a matter of disagreement on fundamental values, not about whether the factual effects of the policy are in line with or opposed to an agreed set of values.

That’s just false. That would be true only if the “factual effects” were agreed upon.

Let me give you an example: Pro immigration advocates claim immigration will increase US jobs. So do anti immigration activists.

> That would be true only if the “factual effects” were agreed upon.

No, he fact that there is a conflict of values which includes a fundamental disagreement on which facts are relevant and how the same facts would weigh in desirability is true independent of whether there is agreement on the facts of the economic effects of immigration (there isn't, but the fact remains that the dispute on policy is largely not about facts, but goals.)

Article linked from the post is on Bloomberg https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-06/trump-s-h...

Can we have the slashdot link replaced with this? The guidelines say to submit the original source. There's no paywall on Bloomberg.

That bloomberg article was already shared and heavily discussed actually: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15646456

Duplicate of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15646456

Lots of discussion over there.

Slashdot comment section seems to be on the same level as newssite comment sections.

Why is that everybody talks about H1B abuse when it involves bringing Indians from India by companies like Infosys, TCS etc, but nobody mentions about how students from India come to study in US, join fake consultancies and get fake experiences and resumes? These students are more eager to get a visa sponsor and they will be willing to settle for a lower salary. I have seen so many such cases. If they loose a job, there are consultancies who will keep them in payroll in exchange for money while they look for another job (otherwise you have to leave US immediately). And some of the companies I know actually prefer hiring those than bringing people from India because they are already in US and can work for 1-2 years in OPT while the company can take its time to file h1b as opposed to wait hoping to get the lottery.

http://www.firstpost.com/world/18-more-andhra-students-sent-...

http://www.hindustantimes.com/education/25-indian-students-a...

https://splinternews.com/hundreds-of-indian-students-are-bei...

https://www.murthy.com/2017/08/03/h1b-workers-denied-entry-b...

There are also cases of applying "future green cards". That is, applying for green cards when the beneficiary is residing in India, or working with another employer in the US.

These kind of body shops which are setup solely for applying future greencards are prevalent in New Jersey. They have their back offices in Hyderabad India.

Nobody needs heavy-handed censorship or directly intervene or override anything. A bureaucracy not run entirely by a computer is bound to be a failure because as long as there is some dude at the top with clearly expressed opinions those will find their way into decisions immediately.

What makes you think a computer run system won't be subject to biases (in particular of the implementors)?

I agree partially - I think it's easier to audit the biases an implementor has encoded into an automated system, especially since the pressures a high-level official exerts are often verbal and unrecorded.

We can barely understand existing machine learning systems, what makes you think that we will understand those that run a global bureaucracy?

Machine learning systems by their nature design their logic without human intervention; a bureaucratic system encodes human rules in a way that a human programmer decides. cf a US college's system for signing up for classes, which is usually a one-to-one translation of preexisting bureaucratic procedure.

Bureaucracy isn't the promise of a system free of biases. The promise is that of a pure function: \forall a,b: a = b -> f(a) = f(b)

What's the point? The point is that there is a clear, rational audit trail for "why was this decision taken" with a computer system. You can challenge that. You can't challenge an overpaid gov admin whose primary motivating factor in making decisions is pleasing his superiors, no matter how removed.

There isn't any meaningful difference between the kinds of challenges you present. It's given a facade of mathematical rigor, but it's still a facade.

Highly recommend you check out the book "Weapons of Math Destruction" by Cathy O'Neil

Very accessible set of case studies where algorithmic management of traditionally human-run bureaucratic processes is biased and destructive.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com