GM lays off engineer who helped expose VW’s diesel fraud | Hacker News Reader

GM lays off engineer who helped expose VW’s diesel fraud

nytimes.com

431 pointssundvor388 comments

When I saw the NYT headline, it seemed to suggest that the GM engineer was singled out precisely due to helping out in exposing the scandal. But when I read the article, it turns out he's just one out of 4,000 other engineers.

We could probably make many other scandalous headlines from the same group of people:

"GM lays off engineer who contributed to trade union organising his colleagues"

"GM lays off engineer who only two years earlier contributed to patent XXX which saved $$$ for the company"

"GM lays off engineer who was recovering from cancer and is now at risk of relapse"

"GM lays off engineer whose seven dependents are now facing an uncertain future"

This is not to belittle what Hemanth Kappanna did, but there are four thousand stories out of which one is now lifted up, even though what he did previously is, as far as we know, not at all connected to this position being terminated. Contribution of Kappanna and his colleagues was to first to WVU and then the world as a whole, not GM. So perhaps a job at GM shouldn't be his "reward"; something else should be.

But I hope that the NYT headline might help him with that.

Except that in this case his life is being uprooted due to the power the company wields over his life.

Citizenship (or at least a green card) should be his reward.

My point was that the same is probably the case with many among these 4,000.

They all exposed that GM lied?

No, they didn't

Did GM lie?

I know some people did accuse GM of emission cheating, but haven't heard of any actual proof.

I believe the point here is some of these 4000 now have to entirely uproot their life by having to leave the country.

The part that makes it tragic is that these people have no chance of getting a green card in their lifetime and have to be at the mercy of corporations to maintain their temporary visa status simply due to their nationality, no matter how long they have been staying or working.

Getting laid off is an unfortunate reality that happens to people now and then. It becomes especially nerve-wracking when it is tied to your ability to reside in a place without having enough time to find alternate employment.

It sucks, but these people are not citizens in the country they work in, so I don't see how they have any kind of right to stay here. They're only here because the government here allowed it, for a while, with a temporary worker visa.

Now, it seems pretty obvious to me that these people are probably much more productive and better contributors to this country and its economy than most of our own natural-born citizens, but the fact that we're losing them means we're basically shooting ourselves in the foot. The US isn't the only country where skilled engineers can find good work; these people should be able to find good jobs in another country where they can get a better deal w.r.t. immigration. Germany seems like it's much more welcoming to highly-skilled immigrants, for instance.

I think this should be a cautionary tale to skilled immigrants.

I look at this from a different angle, and to me the U.S. seems very welcoming to highly-skilled immigrants. They are very well-paid from European point of view, not to mention others, and the society in general is used to absorbing immigrant workers.

Germany and other EU countries have expressed their welcoming attitude to immigrants in general ("Wir schaffen das"), often exaggerating the skills of people who actually had no relevant training or competence at all (plenty of quotes available for this). But the current discussion in EU about the recent immigration wave has turned into a blame game of "why does Eastern Europe not carry its share of the burden".

>I look at this from a different angle, and to me the U.S. seems very welcoming to highly-skilled immigrants.

That was before Trump was elected.

The implication from the title is that his role in the scandal is what lead to his layoff or that his role in the scandal should have saved him from being laid off.

Sorry for typo, fixed.

News organizations are masters at writing headlines that imply causality without actually stating it. See also: every single article about stock price changes. It’s basically high-brow clickbait.

I was a contractor at GM, and I had automated about 20% of the design Engineering work.(automation of 6 figure Engineering jobs)

I had working software until the company updated to Windows 10.

In the process of making it work again, me and thousands of others were let go.

My boss knew what I was working on, but couldn't/was afraid to stick their neck out.

The world isn't fair, but now I'm doing similar development at a competitor.

> now I'm doing similar development at a competitor.

this means your boss wasn't doing their job.

My dad's company used the same strategy to get rid of their "undesirables". Quietly flag the naysayers, whistleblowers, or anyone who went against the grain, wait until a wider lay-off occurs, and then prioritize their departure.

Organizations have short memories, except when it comes to grudges.

Is there any evidence whatsoever that GM would have considered Hemanth Kappanna an "undesirable"?

As far as I know, they hired him after his participation in exposing the VW scandal. If this exposing is what made him "undesirable", why did they hire him in the first place?

I find it more believable that this is just the usual outcome of corporate restructuring, i.e. layoffs in units.

Not the same thing.

Your headlines are indeed scandalous. While the one picked by the NYT correctly emphasizes that as part of the layoff plan, GM management decided that the department responsible for investigating emissions was not worth of funds.

When 4,000 people are laid off, it's much more than just this one department that is not worth of funds.

It is important to note that this engineer is from India and has been legally in the US for 17 years and still on a temporary H1B visa (conveniently not mentioned in NYT)

If this person was from any other country, he would have a green card by now. But now, he has to leave everything behind and go back. This is all too familiar for Indian nationals working in the US. It has become way more precarious for Indian families now due to the current administration arbitrarily denying visa extensions for people in tech.

Hopefully he finds a good job in India, Canada or Europe.

I don't think enough people know about this. People from India have to wait for 150+ years to get permanent residency via the employment-based route.This website does a great job at explaining this: https://siia.us/ People from most other countries can get employment-based green cards in a matter of months. These people have approved (I-140) green card applications, yet cannot "receive" their green card unless they wait 150+ years.

Moreover, until recently, their spouses were prohibited from working. The Obama administration issued regulation that granted permission to work for spouses of people with approved (I-140) green card applications, who've been waiting for over a year. In a cruel and sadistic manner, the current administration, decided to revoke these authorizations, so that their spouses don't "enter the labor market early"[1].

> But now, he has to leave everything behind and go back

I don't think this is necessarily true. Can't he try to find another company that will sponsor him for an H-1B? If he has an approved I-140, he's cap-exempt, practically forever.

[1] https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=2018... Quote:

> Anticipated Costs and Benefits: > DHS anticipates that there would be two primary impacts that DHS can estimate and quantify: the cost-savings accruing to forgone future filings by certain H-4 dependent spouses, and labor turnover costs that employers of H-4 workers could incur when their employees’ EADs are terminated. Some U.S. workers would benefit from this proposed rule by having a better chance at obtaining jobs that some of the population of the H-4 workers currently hold, as the proposed rule would no longer allow H-4 workers to enter the labor market early."

> Can't he try to find another company that will sponsor him for an H-1B?

Yes, he has exactly 60 days to find another employer and get the visa application through before accruing unlawful status. And according to this article, he did try but couldn't get a job, so he left.

Infinite visa extensions are all fine until you either:

1. Hit a recession or an industry slowdown (like the situation here)

2. USCIS decides your job isn't a "specialty occupation" anymore and denies your visa extension.

3. You become old (imagine an Indian national engineer at age 50-55 trying to get a company to sponsor H1B).

Most of these people dont even get to progress much in their career because [2] can happen.

If this engineer had a green card, he would have more time to search for another job if laid off.

> Yes, he has exactly 60 days to find another employer and get the visa application through before accruing unlawful status.

This is not entirely true. In U.S. immigration law, "unlawful presence" and "violation of status" are distinct concepts. Unlawful presence of 6+ months results in 3 year bar, and of 12+ months results in 10 year bar. These bars are probably lifetime bans as far non-immigrant non-dual-intent visas are concerned.

However, you don't accrue unlawful presence as long as your I-94 is valid. That's the date stamped on your passport, and usually coincides with the expiry date of your visa, or H-1B approval notice (I-797A/I-797B), whichever is longer. If your company had filed for an extension, and are beyond the I-94 deadline, and you're waiting for adjudication, then you could accrue unlawful presence (if you lose your job).

I'm well-aware of the 60 day rule. (The 60-day grace period which itself was created in January 2017; prior to that you had no grace period.) Within 60 days, you change jobs, and start working at a new job, if the employer files the petition before the 60 days is up.

However, if you've gone past the 60 day limit, you can still get an employer to sponsor you -- you just need to leave the country and return, before you can start. Also, you need to make sure the file your H-1B/other I-129 petition while you're outside the country, so that USCIS doesn't have an excuse to issue an NTA (which can itself easily result in 10-year ban).

Thank you for clarifying this. I thought your I-94 becomes invalid once you lose your H1B.

I was not aware that you won't be considered to have unlawful presence until your I-94 date. Very helpful information for people on H1B.

Not a lot of H-1B visa holders seem to be aware of this. I've been out-of-status many times since then. I've violated the rules of my H-1B visa multiple times, by (intentionally) taking several-months-long breaks between jobs. (Many many years ago, I even violated the terms of my F-1 student visa, and my university terminated my SEVIS record.) None of these past visa violations has affected me adversely, so far.

I've had several visas (including multiple H-1Bs) approved, regardless of my past visa violations. I've been careful to read up on the law. You can't be denied a visa you unless there's a clear basis for denial under the INA. Violations of status while you are within an "authorized period of stay" do not result in a bar.

Honesty is important though. There's a question in the DS-160 visa application form, that asks something to the effect of "Have you ever been illegal in the U.S.?" I've always been very careful to completely and honestly disclose all my past visa violations -- since dishonesty can you get you barred from the U.S. for life. My answer to that question in the DS-160 grows longer and longer, as the years pass. With every visa application, I list all my past violations, starting with my ancient F-1 visa violation. It's never been an issue.

There was one time a consular officer made a comment about it, but that was it. They've been more surprised by my salary. The last time I renewed my visa, post-Trump, they asked to see all my tax returns, and other information. The consular officer actually went through my tax returns in front of me, and seemed kind-of taken aback by my income, and made a comment saying "you've been doing quite well". Most of my visa applications have been at the consulate in Chennai.

I was also outside the US for a little while, 6 years ago, and during that time, I even got a B-1/B-2 visa approved, which is a non-dual-intent visa, and therefore harder to get approved. (The B visa is often denied for people with strong ties to the United States, under Section 214(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which prohibits immigrant intent--and having lived many years in the US is likely a strong indicator of immigrant intent.)

The important thing to keep in mind is to be well-aware of the law, and of what can trigger lifetime/10-year/5-year/3-year bars. Dishonesty results in a lifetime bar. Being turned away at the airport results in a 5-year bar. Many H-1B holders were turned back in 2010 during the recession[1]. Actual unlawful presence results in 3-year or 10-years bars. Getting an NTA while on a temporary visa inevitably leads to a 10-year bar.

Violations of status do not directly result in a bar. Right now, USCIS can initiate removal proceeding (by issuing an NTA) if you file a petition requesting a change-of-status, while out-of-status. However, they don't go after people on humanitarian or employment-based statuses[2]. (Previously, under the Obama administration, officials in USCIS were actually prohibited from issuing NTAs or attempting to deport status violators.)

NTAs inevitably lead to 10-year bars because they give you a court date that's always over a year ahead in the future. You have the option to arrange "voluntary departure" on your court date. But if you leave before the court date, you're considered to have been forcibly deported, and a 10-year bar is slapped on you. If you wait until your court date, you accrue unlawful presence, and get a 10-year bar.

Even some corporate immigration lawyers aren't fully aware of the laws. My last company's immigration lawyers freaked out when they saw my visa violations, and thought there was no point in porting my H-1B since I surely was subject an unlawful presence bar (they must've thought my past approvals were all accidents). I had to actually provide them with links to the USCIS Adjuticator's Field Manual (AFM) pointing to the relevant sections of what counts as a bar (along with references to statutory (U.S.C.) and regulatory (C.F.R.) law) and show that them that I've never actually ever unlawfully present. They did a bunch of their own research, and then came back to me and said "you are right", and proceeded to file paperwork for my new job.

[1] https://redbus2us.com/why-were-h1b-holders-sent-back-at-port...

[2] https://www.uscis.gov/legal-resources/notice-appear-policy-m... -- Quote: "USCIS will not implement the June 28, 2018, NTA Policy Memo with respect to employment-based petitions at this time. Existing guidance for these case types will remain in effect."

> If this person was from any other country, he would have a green card by now.

Can you elaborate this a bit (or provide some links)? I am well aware that there are some policy changes around H-1B extensions, and that Indian workers make a huge percentage of the total denials, but I don't understand the connection between the two.

How long you wait for an H1B is dependent on the country you are from because of USCIS imposed per year limits per country.

See: https://www.uscis.gov/tools/glossary/country-limit

This has nothing to do with H1B denials -

It has to do with the fact that green cards are allocated based on a per-country quota. Other visas, especially H1B are not.

So, to simplify:

- Assume there are 1000 H1B visas and 1000 green cards allotted each year and that an H1B worker can apply for a green card after living in the US for a year.

- 50% of H1Bs are from India, so there are 500 H1Bs a year from India

- But green cards are subject to a 100/year/country quota. So, the next year, only 100 of the Indian H1B workers can apply for a green card.

- This creates a backlog of 5 years for all the 500 to get a green card

- The problem keeps getting worse because the next year, there are 500 more Indian workers applying for a green card but the queue only has 100 more green cards to allocate, so now the wait for the last applicant is now 8 years.

- This process then repeats for a few years and workers from India now have a 100+ year wait for a green card.

In reality, not all H1B workers apply for a green card and there have been some temporarily relief mechanisms passed in the past to mitigate the delays, but you can see why the problem is especially bad for workers from India. In the past, it was a problem for Chinese workers as well, but with the economy in China improving in the past few years, there is lower demand from Chinese workers for green cards.

As described with those numbers, it is clear that Indian nationals are especially favored, not discriminated against as was claimed. Thus the complaint is really that India, favored above all other nations, is not favored enough. Same chance at green cards as other countries, and massively more chance at H1B, utilizing 50% of all slots, and therefore more than any other nation.

If one wishes to establish a balance between H1Bs and Green Cards on a per nation basis, the H1Bs could likewise be limited on a per-country basis, matching that of the Green Card allocation.

So Vatican City with its 1000 population is being heavily discriminated against in favor of India because there are basically no H1Bs from there? Stop the press.

Let us restrict work visas to one or less than one per country to make it fair to Vatican City.

Interesting example.

Vatican City was granted 0 H1B visas in all of 2018, as well as all previous years I could find. Are you aware of any years where Vatican City used the H1B visa? You must be since you use it as a counter example.

2018 Vatican City was granted a total of 42 non-immigrant visas across all categories. Most of these were consular visas for embassy staff and government officials on official business. H category work visas are totally non present.

In 2018 India was granted 125,528 H1B, 111,242 H-4 (family of H1B), 42,694 F-1 (student), and others coming to a total of 1,006,802 non-immigrant visas.

Only Mexico and China had more visas overall, with Mexico at 1,372,420 and China with 1,464,810 non-immigrant visas. Nearly all of China's and Mexico's visas were B-1,2 which are for very short tourism and business trips. This was also the case with India, with 616,312 visas being B-1,2. As to H1B visas, China received 27,482 and Mexico received 2,524.

Looking at work visas, India dominates all other nations by a large factor.

Bringing up the Vatican is an amazing argument given that they receive zero temporary work visas each year.

Yet you still continue to argue that India is being unfairly discriminated against by the United States. You are privileged to argue this, and also disingenuous.

I think what you're missing is that it isn't the absolute numbers of green cards and H1-Bs that matter, but the number per qualified applicant or per source country population. If each country has 1000 green cards allotted, it's going to be far easier to be a top 1000 applicant from a country of 1,000,000 (or 1,000) than from a country of 1,339,000,000.

Or put another way - India, the country, might not be discriminated against, as it gets the same allocation of green cards as everyone else. Indians, the people from India, are discriminated against, as there are far fewer green cards per person allocated.

(the situation is of course more complicated than each country getting a flat number of green cards, but the idea holds)

All right. We can do it as a proportion of population, as you wish. Given that zero Vatican citizens receive green cards or H1B visas in the US each year, the population corrected ratio of H1B visas and green cards granted to India vs granted to Vatican, having zero in the denominator, is actually "infinity" for both. Indian citizens receive infinitely more green cards and infinitely more H1B visas than Vatican citizens. Those are the actual numbers we get when using Vatican as a counter example. India is infinitely more privileged and favored here.

And I think you're missing that this is caps, not minimums. The actual selection process happens before these caps are applied, which is what leads to the waitlists - people pass the selection process, and then get stuck in line due to the per-country cap hitting India but not Vatican City. (Or Germany, or Japan, or the UK...)

The cap for Vatican City is far larger than the population. This does not change just because no one used it.

> Yet you still continue to argue that India is being unfairly discriminated against by the United States. You are privileged to argue this, and also disingenuous.

There is certainly reform needed in how, to whom and with which companies H1B visas are granted. However, let's put that aside as a separate issue and assume for now that H1B visas are granted in a fair, non-discriminatory fashion.

How does it make sense to limit the total green cards for any country to 7% of the total, regardless of that country's desire to immigrate to the US or even that country's overall population? What legitimate, non-discriminatory reason is there to cap green cards this way? (Vatican city is brought up because has the same cap on green cards that India has, despite much lower population and non-existent demand.)

The cynical view here (and one I suspect is at least partially correct) is that the relative inability of Indian workers to get green cards makes Indian H1B workers more cost effective and valuable to the companies that bring them to the US to work precisely because they are easier to exploit.

A truly fair system would impose identical caps on both H1B visas and green cards. (Ideally, this cap would scale somewhat with the overall population of that country.)

As it is, we have system seemingly designed to provide companies with low cost workers who are more easily exploited. This is bad not only for Indian workers, but for those worker's American peers and labor force competitors.

What we should have is a system designed to bring high quality, diverse workers with needed skills into our country and provide all those workers with a fair and realistic path to citizenship.

> Ideally, this cap would scale somewhat with the overall population of that country.

You bring up good points. Focusing on Vatican City is a funny example to pick and doesn't work well when we look at the facts.

So let's instead look at populations of each country and distribute caps that way. This seems reasonable and democratic, though different from the current system.

In 2017 there were 179,049 new H1B visas issued to persons of all nations globally. There were also 136,393 H4 H1B spousal visas issued.

Of this number, 129,097 new H1B visas were granted to Indian nationals and 117,522 spousal visas (which allow the right to work) were granted to spouses of Indian nationals.

Indian nationals received that year 129097/179049 = 72.1% of all new H1B visas. Indian spouses received that year received 117522/129097 = 91.0% of all H4 spousal visas.

I agree with you that these numbers are vastly disproportionate to population. You are right. These numbers are incredibly unfair to people of most nations, all but one in fact. Can you state what you have learned here which nations are receiving unfair treatment and which one single nation is receiving vast privilege and preference completely out of proportion with their population, based on documented verifiable facts? Please state what you have learned now that you know the actual facts regarding distributions of H1B and H4 visas population as they pertain to national origin. Thank you!

Vatican citizenship is based on having a job inside the Vatican, or at an apostolic nuncio (ie, embassy), or very rarely, being married to someone with such a job. Quitting the job means loss of citizenship. So it is no surprise nobody applies for work based visas with a Vatican passport.

I'd think that Vatican City, as the theocratic seat of worldwide Catholic Christianity, would mainly use a visa category reserved for clergy and religious workers (R-1), anyway.

The Vatican applied for and the US granted 0 R-1 visas in 2018, 2017, 2016, 2015 and 2014.

I can go back further if you wish. Do you wish me to research and list more years? The data is available from the State Department, going back to 1997.

It doesn't really matter though does it? If the number is 0 back to 1997, will the argument suddenly be that 1996 and before were the huge years when lots of Vatican R-1 visas were issued? It is clear from the statistics that the claims being made about the US being racist, biased and unfair to Indian citizens are not only completely false but the assertions are the exact opposite of reality where Indian citizens are more privileged and favored than any other nationality. These are the facts. But facts don't matter these days. All that matters is race baiting and fabricated claims of hate incidents. It doesn't matter that Justin Smolley and others lied and the lies have damaged the US and create an environment in which people are terrorized by people making false claims. All that matters is the false narrative of chanting racism and denouncing America. Incite that mob. Create division. Truth and reality are unimportant when the violent revolution must be had by those who benefit from it.

I was being sarcastic. It's disingenuous to use outliers as though they are apples-to-apples comparisons.

It is especially deceitful to compare absolute numbers from a tiny city-state with among the lowest populations againt a giant country with the second-highest population. At least divide by each country's total population to get per-capita numbers.

Vatican City is an atypical country. As other posters mentioned, there are many reasons why no-one with a Vatican City passport wants a nonimmigrant work visa for the US. Every individual who might possibly be eligible to have Vatican City citizenship and who wanted to work in the US would likely use their primary passport--probably Italy.

You're cherry-picking. And the cherry you picked is rotten.

Yup. compare this to i.e. Philippines. I only had to wait 2 yrs for my GC while a lot of my indian colleagues are still waiting. Due to the extreme backlog, they couldnt really plan long term for their families.

There’s always an option to marry a US citizen (genuinely if it happens) and get a GC without being subject to a quota.

Only around 2,500 people from India are allowed to get EB-2 and EB-3 green cards per year. That's ~200 Indians per month. This is a numerical limit imposed by Congress. The US government will approve an EB-2/EB-3 green card application, but not actually issue it, and place people from Indian on a queue. The queue for India-born people is over 300,000 right now. So the queue wait time is over a century.

These people from India are forced to spend their lives in the U.S. on the H-1B visa. A visa which prohibits spouses from working, deports your non-U.S.-born children[3] when they turn 21, makes it difficult to switch employers, prohibits unemployment / taking a break, and prohibits starting your own company.

This all goes back to the 1965 Immigration Act. That was the Act that made it possible for people from outside Western Europe to immigrate to the US. It allowed a limited number of highly-skilled people to immigrate if they were sponsored by a company (and the company proved there was no minimally qualified Americans willing to do the job).

Some rather-racist members of Congress were presciently concerned about a lot of skilled immigrant coming from China and India, which were the two most populous countries back in 1965 as well. To appease them, a 7% limit was put based on country of birth.[1] No more than 7% of immigrants in a numerically-limited category can be from the same country of birth.

Again, when the 1965 law passed, there were hard numerical limits on immigration. To appease the racists, Congress reserved most of the green cards for family members. Even the majority employment-based green cards go to family members.[2]

Effectively, out of the 80,000 skilled immigraiton (EB-2 and EB-3) green cards, around 55% are used by family members. That leaves around 36,000 spots for skilled immigrants a year. With the 7% per-country limit, you end up with a limit of ~2500 per year per country.

[1] Specifically, Section 202(a)(2) of the Immigration Nationality Act (Sec 202 is codified as 8 U.S. Code § 1152 Numerical limitations on individual foreign states): https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1152#a

[2] Family Members Use Most Employment-Based Green Cards (Cato Institute): https://www.cato.org/blog/family-members-use-most-employment...

[3] An extremely sad story about this: https://www.statesman.com/news/20171013/commentary-how-a-20-... Quoting:

> My wife and I came to the United States nearly 20 years ago from India with our daughter, Himani — legally — in hopes of a better life and an aspiration to succeed and contribute positively to American society. Unfortunately, due to immigration laws, she was unable to stay in the United States due to massive backlogs. This is a problem that affects thousands of immigrant children.

> She has lived in Williamson County following all the legal processes — but last year she aged out of the system, when she had turned 21 while we were still waiting for her permanent status. Under the current immigration system, a child can only stay on their parents’ visa as a dependent until he or she is an adult. We had been waiting in line for 20 years to get permanent residence but are now stuck in a massive backlog that is extremely disheartening.

> [...] This is all she knows and can call her “home.”

> Juvenile memories — such as her lemonade stands and attending prom her senior year — are some of the beautiful things she had to leave behind. We still cannot digest the reality of the situation. As a parent, it is bearable to see your child leave home voluntarily for college or their career — but not when they’re forced to leave through the result of unfair laws.

> She initially went back to India alone last year with a big smile and positive attitude. Since then, life has been a struggle to live for her: assimilating to a new culture, undergoing chronic illnesses due to her environment in India, and trying to figure out her life in general.

> She says it feels like someone has spontaneously taken everything away, including her identity. On top of that, her college education in the U.S. was abruptly stopped because she was unable to obtain a student visa; there is a law where gaps between a dependent visa and the college semester start date should not exceed 30 days. Unfortunately, she was five days over the limit. She has since applied to another university in India, where she will spend another four years studying.

> She hadn’t been able to see us for a year but later opted for a visa to “visit” a nation that is practically her home.

> These people from my India are forced to spend their lives in the U.S. on the H-1B visa.

They’re choosing to spend their lives in the US on an H-1B; they’re not being forced to do that.

I take the libertarian non-aggression principle-based point of view on many things, especially immigration. Basically, there's a group of people (the government), that's threatening violence on me and my family because of where I was born. This is my home. The constant threat of violence that's associated with temporary statuses like the H-1B really really suck. Yes, I chose to make this my home. You have no right to threaten violence on me and my family, when I've done absolutely nothing morally wrong. C.f. https://www.zeroaggressionproject.org/

I also take the libertarian “people should understand and make the best choices for themselves and those that they’re responsible for and own the outcome thereof” point of view.

Sorry, my kid was born here. This is her home. This is all she has ever known for the last 10 years. I'm being 'forced' to be here because of her.

I am not arguing with the rest of your post, but people do move around. The fact that your daughter did not see the rest of the world for 10 years does not mean she cannot thrive there. Kids are adaptable (and adults, too). Moving when one is 50 is much harder than when one is 10. My 2c.

I have kids around the age of ten and moved countries. It's very, very hard for them.

SO you are saying that it's ok for an American citizen to be forced to relocate because their parents couldn't be given a permanent visa after 17 years? Sure my daughter might be able to thrive but why?

That’s a family choice for her to leave the US or not. That there might be one obvious dominant choice does not change the fact that it’s a choice. That choice you face today is influenced by a choice the parents made a couple decades ago. All still choices.

My kids might be forced to move if I got a job in another city or or if one of our parents fell ill if my wife and I divorced or any other number of reasons, including simply deciding to move someplace else.

It’s a sucky situation that you want and can’t get a green card. I think you share that same situation with 10s or 100s of thousands of others.

I am not saying any of this, I am just responding to your point which I understood as "I have 10 yo daughter who has not seen the rest of the world, thus I cannot relocate".

If your kid is being born in the US, then isn't it a completely different situation than [3] in the gp post?

By birth the kid is a citizen at age 18. In [3] the kid is born before moving to the US, that's what makes the situation even more difficult.

By birth the kid is an American Citizen via jus-solis automatically. At age 18 she or he can sponsor GC parents.

I know I fall into the "bad guy" minority here, but....

> Indian people are forced to spend their lives in the U.S. on the H-1B visa.

Have the rules changed dramatically since they made the choice to do this? Because it sounds like just that, they chose to spend their lives in the U.S. on the H-1B visa. I agree that the rules suck and need change, but nobody if forcing them to come.

> She hadn’t been able to see us for a year but later opted for a visa to “visit” a nation that is practically her home.

This again appears to fall into the category of a choice. That they chose to subject their child to the situation described, because the rules were in place before they came here.

I would like to see the rules change, but it's unfair to act like you had no choice when you voluntarily signed up to have those rules applied to you (or your family).

The problem that I see is that the child had no choice in the matter. Imagine if you turned 21 and were kicked out of the country that you grew up in and had to move to a country that you haven't been to since you were a baby. I don't really know what a reasonable solution to this might look like.

Making choices that cast long shadows on their children’s lives is basically the job description of parents.

It's not about the parent (which is not a job by the way). We are talking about actual people turning 21 and having no choice but to leave the country where they spend their whole life based on the situation of a different person. I personally have difficulty thinking of a more unfair situation.

Note that the USA is pretty exceptional in this regard. Most countries don't ask for people to be permanent resident before being able to apply for naturalization and children of immigrant having lived their whole life in a country can just apply for and be granted citizenship.

If it helps, you're arguing a different point than I am. I agree the rules are bad, the child should be able to stay. However, the parents don't get to lay the entire blame on the government/laws, because they knew going into the situation what was going to happen. They _chose_ to set things up so their child would be sent back to a country it didn't know.

This situation is pretty normal. If my parents moved to Japan for work and their visa is up, my visa is up too. It’s probably the same if they had worked in India as foreigners.

> If my parents moved to Japan for work and their visa is up, my visa is up too

That's not the problem here though, It's more like your parents moved to Japan for work, stayed there, and when you turned 21 you were kicked out of the country and they get to stay.

That's true, but I think the point was that it's more like your parents knew how long the backlog was, moved somewhere, had a child, failed to do that simple arithmetic (aka hyperbolic discounting; when a thing is so far in the future that we fail to take it into account), and then you didn't get to stay once you were too old.

Exactly. If I move to France on a temporary work visa with my 10 kids, they don't automatically get to stay indefinitely or get granted citizenship somehow just because their parent has a work visa. They have no French parent and weren't born there so their rights as visitors are limited.

Everytime these discussions come up there are all these articles and pundits passionately advocating for the US to have extremely wide open immigration rules that are not observed by any other country in the world, and they claim racism if it doesn't happen the way they want. This constant race-baiting they do is racist in itself.

> Exactly. If I move to France on a temporary work visa with my 10 kids, they don't automatically get to stay indefinitely or get granted citizenship somehow just because their parent has a work visa.

That's a very poor example you have chosen.

The children of foreigners granted a titre de séjour (the maximum duration of a visa in France is one year) as family members of a person working in France:

- are allowed to work in France ;

- are entitled to titre de séjour allowing them to stay for 10 years provided they apply before their 19th birthday and have lived for three years in France.

Considering you can apply for French citizenship after having lived five years in France or after completing a three years degree in a France, unless he is in France for a very short stay, the 10 kids of your hypothetical immigrant are pretty much guaranteed to become French if they want to.

Are you talking about people with temporary non-immigrant visas, or highly skilled immigrants?

https://www.expatica.com/fr/employment/employment-law/work-i...

> After 18 months in a long-stay residence permit marked ‘employee’ or ‘temporary worker’, you may apply to bring your family to France. Spouses (partners are excluded) and minor children can apply for a one-year ‘visitor’ visa (without being able to work during this time), and must sign the CAI.

This policy is very different than that for the 2016 "Talent Passport" permit, which allows the immediate family to migrate immediately and obtain work permits. It seems you are talking about that visa?

The US also has green cards for migrants that allow one to bring their whole family, stay indefinitely, have the family work, and all apply for citizenship after a time. These are fundamentally different visa classes than temporary non-immigrant work visas like the H1B. Unlike France, the US does not require the worker to wait 18 months before bringing their family on the H-4 family visa, they can come right away. Also, the spouse can work, unlike in France according to the above link. So the US policy is much more progressive.

How about the reverse? You move to France, have a kid that's a French citizen and when the child is 18, you are kicked out but they are allowed to stay.

Unlike the US, France does not have birthright citizenship so unless you or your spouse are a French national, your children born in France are not French citizens. If you live there legally long enough though you can apply for citizenship. Same as for permanent legal residents of the US who have lived here long enough.

A little technicality: persons born in France are automatically granted French citizenship at 18, providing that they are living in France at 18, and have lived in France for at least 5 years previously. These criteria tend to change a lot as this is a rather sensitive topic in France. Also sometimes an application is necessary, sometimes not.

An odd case: if both parents are foreigners, but one of them is born in France, then their children will automatically become French at birth (if born in France).

Then there are special rules for Algeria, as it was a part of France until 1962...

My point is that I've lived here long enough (in 4 years, I'd have lived here longer than I lived in my home country) and I still have to wait an indefinite amount of time to become a permanent resident. I've been here 17 years and I'm still a 'temporary' worker. 15 years in the industry, >$500k/yr compensation and I've oversee a budget of $5 million.

If you're born here, you're an American citizen. Cold comfort, I know, but they can come back.

Discrimination based on place of birth isn't a concern?

Would you have the same response if there was a similar rule to limit immigration for Muslims, or homosexuals?

Limits per country it is not discrimination, as it limits a White British or French, a Myslim Pakistani, or Indian Hindu the same.

The limits are there to prevent one ethnicity just gaming it industrial scale and taking over the system.

Unfortunately it sucks for aj Indian, but it is great if you are an African from Senegal.

I personally think it should be more proportional to the country's population size, (i.e. India should have a higher quota) but the limit is still a good idea.

Of course it is discrimination. A British born person has better chances at PR than an Indian born person. The Indian is being given less opportunities not because of their skills or talent, but because of their place of birth.

> The limits are there to prevent one ethnicity

Why? Is it okay for an individual to be disadvantaged because of his ethnicity? Why are there no limits on religions too? After all, you get to choose your religion, but not your ethnicity.

Further, who told you India is only one ethnicity? India is more diverse than Europe.

> Unfortunately it sucks for aj Indian

If it sucks it is because this is discrimination.

> I personally think it should be more proportional to the country's population size

Why though? Why can't you judge an individual on their own skills without trying to either be bigoted like right wing or doing identity politics like left wing.

I think people sort of forget that "only let so many people into the country" isn't something we have to do, or that limiting immigration is some absolute positive thing.

I am not arguing for open borders though. That is a separate argument.

You can definitely limit immigration, and do it fairly.

Not fairly, as ultimately something will always be the criteria for admission, and that something will always be arbitrary or uncontrollable.

I am arguing for open borders. Being American isn't special, people need to get over it.

Yes, we need to apportion blame equally between a couple of parents just trying to live their lives and the government of the most powerful nation on the planet. Wouldn’t want to be unfair.

This is the same argument used to justify reporting DACA recipients back to countries they can’t remember, and to justify putting migrant children in concentration camps along the Mexican border. It’s sickening! When did we decide that some words on paper matter more than our duty to protect the innocent?

The children can complain about their situation. The parents should not complain about the children's situation because the parents actively chose to put their children in that situation.

The rules are bad. The children are in a bad situation. The parents don't get to pretend they didn't contribute to that situation.

Why not? Why can’t people complain about unjust laws they could have avoided? Why is it so important to control who gets to complain that you give that question more attention than the problem of innocent children being victimized by bad laws?

The children are being victimized by their parents' bad decisions to break existing law, not by the law itself. Whatever happened to the idea of personal responsibility and the accountability of parents to make good decisions for their children?

Why do lawmakers have no personal responsibility for the consequences of the laws they enact?

The way you talk about "choice" indicates you have a flawed and limited model of how choice actually works. Choices are contextual and entirely dependent upon circumstances. You should assume that people by-and-large make the best choice that is available to them. If they are dealing with this H1-B rules, they are doing so because this was better than the alternatives.

The problem with the H1-B is that it drastically limits future choices. Therefore people who made the logical choice at the time can end up, through no fault of their own, in a situation where they have to choose between bad and worse. It is entirely fair to blame the system for "forcing" these situations because it is doing so by DESIGN.

People complain so much about the USA immigration law, however the USA remains to be one of the only countries where you can own property if you are not a natural born citizen. There are those who think the latter should change to protect its natural born citizens. Is it a simpler matter to immigrate to India?

If you have a well paying job getting a work visa is by all accounts not difficult. If you’re legally resident for twelve years you can naturalise, or seven years if you’re married to an Indian citizen.

Most developed countries will let anyone with the requisite funds buy property, with no particular restrictions on foreigners. It’s certainly the case in the EU, Japan, the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

I am not talking about most “developed” countries. I am taking about most countries.

> USA remains to be one of the only countries where you can own property if you are not a natural born citizen.

This is just not true.

You are implying that it isn’t one of the only countries where this is the case?

Yes.

> one of the only countries

I live in Europe. I wonder what my Chinese landlords (who've lived their whole lives in China) would say if they read your comment.

So are there more countries that let foreigners own land or more that do not?

Where do people get crazy ideas like this?

A survey of the differing laws of nations.

Can you share your data? I did a quick search and found few countries that forbid property ownership for non-citizens, and no mention of any restrictions on naturalized citizens.

A system can have both good and bad parts. The good parts cannot protect the system from criticism about the bad parts.

For people from India or China, this is bad, agreed.

But if the US didn't limit by country how would people from less populous countries be able get green cards? Given the exponential size differences in play I'd expect many years to have 0 immigrants from <insert small country here> and that doesn't seem right either.

This isn't an argument for the current system. I'm just not sure what a system would look like that doesn't unfairly disadvantage someone.

Why should people from less populous countries get special treatment? Treat everyone equally, set a quota for work visas every year and auction them all. If you make it ten years, paying tax the whole time you can get a Greek card. People are individuals, not representatives of their groups.

Diversity

The only diversity I see being achieved due to the per-country limit is the diversity of passports. India, with it's many cultures and languages, is quite diverse. For example, see this thread here on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16538881

Yes, diversity at least in country of origin or as you might say passport.

For skilled immigrants, why does it matter what passport they hold?

I can understand the argument for and benefits of diversity of thought, of culture etc. But why passports? It makes as much sense as trying to insist that there must be equal number of right-handed, left-handed, and ambidextrous skilled immigrants.

There might as well be a preference for right-handed preference, if someone can convince enough people for it to be the law.

As of current, that is what the congress prefer. They made the law. Indirectly it was the american public preference because it is the representative of american people.

Yes, that is what the current law states. The GPs question was why it was so. What did you mean to add to the discussion when you originally replied, "Diversity"?

As I replied, diversity in term of country of origin. If you then asking why is this is the case. Its because its simply the current preference of american public.

> Its because its simply the current preference of american public.

Yes, that much is obvious. The question, if it was not clear, was an attempt to understand why this is the preference.

Note: This thread is already gone much pedantic IMO, but I give you the benefit of doubt that it is some miscommunication in language. If your point is "it is the way it is, and no explanation is owed to anyone", I will withdraw from the discussion because we don't have much to discuss.

In the end, it maybe the case. Why people prefer x ? They just like it.

Seems similar to the concept of total population per capita representation instead of pipeline per capital representation in hiring goals.

Why should big states get the same number of senators as small states? Equality in all things leads to inequality through structural imbalances.

You are just trading one inequality for another.

I guess the argument for the current system is that it makes the process reasonable for people from small countries. If it were all one giant pool then the process would be an unworkable nightmare for everybody instead of just people in highly populated countries.

> I'm just not sure what a system would look like that doesn't unfairly disadvantage someone.

I imagine USA is a capitalist country, and since we are talking about high-skilled immigrants here, how about ranking these potential immigrants based on their last 5 years W2 income and handing out green cards to the top "x".

I'm sure valuable people are paid more. I don't see how nationality needs to come into this. There is always a Diversity Visa lottery for people from less populous countries.

Is a medical doctor who lives in a country making half what a janitor makes in another country more, or less valuable?

The scope of my argument here is clearly based on past income in the US (that's why I mention W2 income).

I'm fairly confident a medical doctor in the US is paid more than a janitor.

Now, you can make an argument about whether a doctor in a rural area is more valuable than a software engineer in SF but there is an NIW (National Interest Waiver) category that can be utilized to grant residency.

Funnily, in the current system, janitors and meat packers (from other countries) get their green cards earlier than doctors and engineers from India [1,2]

[1] https://www.myvisajobs.com/GreenCard/SearchAll.aspx?ST=Certi... [2] https://www.myvisajobs.com/GreenCard/SearchAll.aspx?ST=Certi...

The entire H1B system is farcical. It's a white collar migrant worker program.

Eliminate the program, and increase the quotas to compensate. The path to citizenship for an educated, English speaking individual should be less impeded than it is now.

To understand why this is racist, imagine that this rule considered all of EU as a single country. I believe that this per-country limit would be scraped in no time if that were the case. My point is that "country of birth" is an arbitrary category formed to justify a racial discrimination.

Everyone would have the same wait time. What’s unfair about that? (Other than the fact that the wait time would probably still be way too high for everyone.)

Vatican City with its 1000 population and India with its 1.4 Billion population are allocated the same number of visas.

That's why wait times are miniscule outside of India/China, but are several decades long if you're from India.

We have racist immigration laws that cap the percentage of green cards going to people from any one country, which has created a really long waiting line for Indians who seek green cards (currently ~15 years).

>>has been legally in the US for 17 years and still on a temporary H1B visa (conveniently not mentioned in NYT)

disgraceful. USA needs highly educated (and other) immigrants so if he has been working at such high level positions for 17 years, why not roll the carpet?

Not sure why this is downvoted (maybe unnecessarily flamebaity?). I definitely agree there's a big tension between "temporary" and "17 years". I mean, jiminy, even revoking the visa would make more sense than keeping them in the country that long with the pretense that it's temporary. And seriously, by that long you've probably assimilated.

It’s worth noting the main investor visa E2 doesn’t have a path to citizenship at all. At least there is some hope in h1b.

Counting my lucky stars everyday that my dad decided to send me to Canada for undergrad and not states. From my limited experience in states, people here are friendlier, nicer and a much better immigration policy. The con is the real estate prices are ridiculous compared to the salary you get here in TO.

hopefully we change or enforce h1-b so that it fulfills its purpose to bring skills we don’t have.

I'm in the same boat. 17 years here. Masters plus 15 years of experience. Getting paid >$500k per year yet I'm dependent on my employer to stay here legally. I'm still a temporary worker. I cannot take a sabbatical or take up side gigs (consultant). If Canada weren't so cold, I'd already be there.

Well, it's less cold with every passing year

If you're getting paid >$500k, would it be possible to do a bit of Mr Money Mustache and then get some kind of high net worth visa. At >$500k a year, that can't take more than a few years.

And you'll be retired too.

not if you have to live in Bay Area and rise a kid or two here

Of course you can. That's around $25,000 a month in income after taxes. $5000 in rent, $1000 for food, $1000 for utilities and public transit costs, $2000 for misc expenses. That leaves $19,000 a month!

I'm pretty sure that the person you reply to had a crazy lifestyle inflation and is now unable to live "simply" again with less than 20k$ a month. This is everything that MMM warns about.

Bay area have a problem trust-fund-baby mr mustache smug comments will never grasp: living around people who love crazy lifestyle inflation.

If people living around you keep paying more and more for expensive lifestyle, eventually you will be paying 5mil for a 2bd house in a so-so neighborhood. Because everyone already paid 7mil for the houses with 3bd.

Sure, you will pay 5-6k$ in rent (let's even say 8k$). But since you are making 25k$ a month after tax instead of 10k$, you are still coming ahead. Unless if you also need to buy a Tesla Model S like your cool neighbors.

yeah I'm tired of that guy. Stirring peanut butter with a drill is for the birds.

No, I don't have that lifestyle. Except for house everything is paid off. Live relatively frugally except for eating out a few times a month (no expensive restaurants $12/person max)

Not saying that 500k isn't more than adequate but $5000 is only a one bedroom now.

That is patently untrue. I live in Silicon Valley, a few miles from one of the big tech giants. I live in a 4 bedroom house (with three roommates) and our collective rent is $4200 a month. Rent is expensive, but $5,000 for a one bedroom is absolutely not the norm.

Possibly rent controlled. The Landlord could get $7K + month.

OP was talking SF, not the wider SV. That is a good rent though. That's 2009 SF prices. We were paying $4100 for four bedroom apartment back in 2009. That same apartment is going for double that now.

SF totally jumped the shark.

I still disagree. 30 seconds on padmapper shows 3 houses north of South San Francisco (maybe this also doesn't count as SF but I think it should still fall in that category) https://www.padmapper.com/apartments/san-francisco-ca/4+beds...

I just took a look at Park Merced to see what apartments and townhomes are going for there right now. You can get 3 bedroom homes there for under $5000 a month. Is it a trendy neighbourhood? No, but it does meet the criteria of being in SF. I'm sure you could find similar deals in other non-trendy areas like the Outer Sunset if you take the time to look.

Yeah, but Walnut Creek is the same travel time to downtown. And it gets more than 10 days of sunshine a year.

But even if my figure is wrong then it's only because I accidentally posted it from three or four years in the future. But I suppose it's good news that a one bedroom is only $40k a year rather than $60k. At the moment anyway. And if you made 100k, then it's only 2.5 times more than taxes and leaves you a full 40% of your salary to thrive on, so that's nice.

No it's not.

That is definitely not true. Cheapest 2 beds in great areas in the city at 3.7k. If you want a nice place with wd in unit dishwasher etc. They are 4.5k.

Only the new construction in soma is more than that.

Lol wut, I have a 2 bedroom in the most expensive city in the Bay Area (San Francisco) in one of the most popular neighborhoods in the city and my rent (not rent controlled) is 4300.

You can get a 3 bedroom with that budget.

You forgot to add 3k-10k a month in child care. 3k for day care, 10k if you need a nanny at 60 hours because you and your wife work crazy hours.

I get that SF is expensive, but 10K/mo is $120k/yr. At 60 hrs/wk that's, what, $33/hr for a nanny? That seems on the high end even for SF and if your needs are that high you should be looking into an au pair.

I admittedly have never lived in SF with kids, but this seems like a series of choices and likely some exaggerations. If one of you is making >$500k and both of you chose to work, have kids, and you don't have the option to shift morning/evening so nanny/daycare is only 40 hours these are all choices.

Even at the rate you quoted it doesn't seem unreasonable to be able to stash away significant amounts of money. The problems are very similar, but the solutions are a lot more enviable than most of the US.

10k a month is the extreme end for a nanny and would be 65+ hours a week for 2 kids, taking em places etc. (Dont forget anything over 45 hours is time and a half. Plus 10% payroll tax plus other expenses)

4k a month is probably average for an over the table nanny at 45 hours a week with 1 kid.

Au pair is an inexperienced person which is fine, but not for the type of nanny work someone may need if they are working a lot of hours.

I believe you should be able to save serious money at 500k if you dont over extend yourself on a large apartment, but things add up very quickly so I can see how it might not be much left over with 2 kids.

you forgot $15000 worth of candles per month https://twitter.com/dril/status/384408932061417472

Even in the Bay Area with a large family $500k/year is more than enough to live very comfortably. Maybe not a billionaire lifestyle, but certainly well above average.

$200k/year is middle class in the most expensive areas.

I can afford to get a high net worth visa but it's not guaranteed and rejection rate continues to go up for that visa.

Also, good luck getting that compensation in Canada...

I know. Right now, I'm weighing freedom against money.

Yes, there are many people like you (highly qualified, but can't get a green card due to nationality). I think people realize the situation and are making decisions accordingly. Those in tech fortunate enough to have made enough money simply get an internal transfer to EU, CA or back to India. Others just try to save for as long as possible until they get ejected.

no offense but it’s hard for people to feel bad for someone making more than half a million

Try fractured relationship with spouse because they cannot work, uncertainty about long-term investment since I can be asked to leave the country any moment if my employer fires me, unable to take up the jobs I want, trepidation about not being allowed back in if I leave the country, not being able to travel to see sick parents if visa is currently being processed with no insight into ETA.

It sounds like you have enough money to go back to your home country (where your parents are) and retire very, very comfortably. This isn't something many people are going to feel bad for you for.

Also, there are other places to work, even if they don't pay as much as the Bay Area (but they also cost less to live in). Canada is pretty immigrant-friendly. If you don't like the weather, that sounds like some pretty petty complaining; you enjoy a lifestyle and income that most of the people on the planet would envy.

Have you ever tried living in a cold climate, though? I'm from Houston, and I thought I'd hate living through the winter in Washington State but actually I was totally fine with it.

Where in Washington? I grew up in Vancouver and live in Toronto. Compared to Vancouver, winters in Toronto are horrible. For 4-5 months per year it's too cold to be outside for anything more than a few minutes. Aside from the west coast, the rest of the country is as bad or worse. It sucks and I want to either move back to BC or leave the country. Why waste 1/3 of your life trapped inside?

To be fair, living in Toronto is it's own form of punishment :)

Compared to (most of) the rest of the country, Toronto has pretty moderate winters though (if a bit of wet cold off the Great Lakes). 4-5 months in Toronto being horrible though? I've lived in Vancouver a bunch, and the late fall/winter there can be a dreary mess (though I still like it).

You are right though, that much of Canada has absolutely brutal weather. I grew up in one of those places. It's help set my barometer for what really bad weather looks like.

Keep in mind there's much of the States that is way colder in winter!

Central Washington, right in the middle of Iras.

I realize there are places in Canada that are much colder than that, though.

Are you in Eastern Washington or Western? When I think "Canada" and "cold" I sure as hell don't think "Vancouver".

You can get a green card under EB-5, since you have saved enough.

High rejection rate with $500k of hard-earned money locked in. Not gonna happen.

$500k eb-5 is through regional centers. You can do $1M without regional centers.

If you make over $500k a year, consider shrinking your expenses and living as if you were making $250k/year for a few years to gain financial independence. Raising family is expensive, but your family may be supportive of living on a reduced budget for a few years if it means removing your shackles. My 2c.

Have saved up enough that if I had my GC, I can retire today outside California and I'm less than 40. I've to keep working in order for me to stay here legally. It's not a money problem. In fact, if I had my GC, I'd only work part-time and help out poor children in my spare time.

Are you saying you are a consultant? I took a sabbatical while on H-1B.

I'm not. I cannot be without a job at any given point.

Not sure which country you are from but I know some who came from India on a H1B around 2000 and they long since got a green card and citizenship. Maybe the wait time started increasing around that time?

Try Vancouver. You'll probably earn about a third of that though.

Have developer salaries risen in Canada? Thought you'd be lucky to earn 20%, but probably earn only 15% of that

There has been upward pressure on the comps by American tech companies setting up shop in Vancouver. That said, OP's salary is probably in top 10% in the Bay Area, so I just made a rough mapping based on that.

Wife will not move to a colder place. Already considers NorCal cold during winter.

Master's degree and making over 500k a year, so I'm going to assume you are an intelligent person and were able to understand the terms of the H1-B visa program and the limits regarding green cards 17 years ago when you intially applied for a visa.

The conditions may have their downsides but they are the ones you agreed to and in exchange for agreeing to them you were provided access to opportunities that would not have been available to you in your home country. It sounds to me like now that you have reaped the benefits you want to stop paying the price you agreed to in exchange for those benefits.

So I shouldn't complain? You vote for a senator and that person does not do what they promised to do and acts against your interests. Would you not raise your voice against them even in private about the situation? I'm still going about my job but just raising awareness here.

> has been legally in the US for 17 years

Should we also mention that he only worked at GM for 3 years and that was his first job? Before that he was on a student visa for college, then grad school in West Virginia where his advisor proposed they apply for a federal grant to test emissions on German cars, and there were several people working on this taxpayer financed project. They collected the data and another member presented the data at a conference. They were not the ones that discovered that VW was cheating or how the cheating was done, but their paper was what called attention to the issue, prompting further investigation by others.

It's interesting that having 3 years work experience in the US after 12 years of education mostly financed by US taxpayers is sufficient to be called a "hero" who "discovered" something he was part of a team that is not mentioned, and presumed to be worthy of permanent citizenship.

Did he have noteworthy accomplishments at GM? Was he one of their top engineers? Little about his brief 3 year stint at GM is mentioned in these articles. I wonder why.

Most people would see the 12 years of taxpayer-financed education as a reason to keep him in the country. If he returns to India, taxpayers are losing a lot of the benefits of that investment.

are you sure it was taxpayer financed. As a former international student, the tuition for international students was 3x for locals at a big state university in the south. Besides football programs, most schools get their financing from international students.

> Besides football programs, most schools get their financing from international students

Citation? Why do our federal and state budgets have multi billion dollar line items for funding universities if it's just international students paying for everyone.

State universities accept a lot more than 3 in state students for every international student.

Some universities yes, others decidedly not. Did this person go to a public university?

Further, why is it so bad that we spend money to educate people, even if those people aren't Americans? What makes an American inherently more deserving of his spot in class?

I'm responding to someone who's claiming that the schooling was subsidized. I have no idea if that's true. His time in grad school at least would probably have included a lot of grants.

International students are generally not subsidised, and are seen as huge cashcows by universities.

Not just US citizens but all legal immigrants pay taxes.

What he did in his grad school, mind you, is certainly much more than random immigrants or even US citizens do in their lifetimes.

> much more than ... US citizens do in their lifetimes.

And what was it he did?

Here's an article about their testing.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/25/business/vw-wvu-diesel-vo...

This article makes very clear Dan Carder initiated and was in charge of the project. The article also gives shout outs to the grad students Marc Besch and Arvind Thiruvengadam for driving, and quotes Hemanth Kappanna as saying that they they attributed the discrepancies to technical defects or design flaws in the cars rather than deliberate wrongdoing: "It was interesting, but we never thought it would blow the lid off Volkswagen. Never, ever." This now has become a thriller of a hero unmasking a fraud through diligent insight and breathtaking research. Who devised this study, directed it and did the key research?

Mentioned in today's article is that Kappanna helped fill out the grant application. OK, that's something. And that is "more than US citizens do in their lifetimes". I am not convinced that is true. I will agree though that most US citizens don't in their lifetimes do 12 years of college followed by a brief undistinguished 4 year career, all by age 41. Most people in the US who are 41 have worked more than that. Most people in the US don't have the privilege and opportunity to attend college for 12 years. Wouldn't you agree? Is this what you are referring to when you talk about US citizens doing far less? You clearly have sneering disregard and contempt for US citizens, which is a common position these days, particularly from people raised racist societies based on hate and systems of entitled generational privilege such as the caste system, in contrast to the US's culture and legal system which repudiates all of that, instead being the land of opportunity, with nearly all of the population descended from recent immigrants, coming from every nation and ethnic group on earth.

I don't have any disregard for Americans or for that matter for any person based on their nationality or religion. I used "Americans" since this about American immigration system.

I do have a problem people trying to diminish the credentials of a person whom they do not know and have no idea about circumstances of his professional or personal life. He did not get asked to publish in NYTimes. Many immigrants are returning to their home countries, how many have stories have you seen published ?

> 12 years of education mostly financed by US taxpayers

Clearly, you have no idea how the education system works in US. Most probably, only his PhD education was funded by a research agency for doing research, or if he was unlucky, like many PhD students he had to do TA apart from doing research for a living salary. Undergrad education is almost always not funded for any international student.

> ... presumed to be worthy of permanent citizenship.

Your tone seems to imply you do not believe he should be granted citizenship.

What requirements do you have for granting citizenship that this guy doesn't meet?

He's spent nearly two decades in this country being a productive member of society - at a level most citizens don't ever achieve in their lifetime.

Why do you feel he shouldn't be allowed to permanently belong here?

He was an undergrad for 4 years. He was in grad school for over 8 years. He then worked for 4 years at GM. So by the time he is 41 he has worked 4 years. He is laid off, with 4000 other people. Most of them were able to line up new jobs. He was not. If his engineering talent is as great as people here are suggesting, employers would be lining up to hire him. There's a massive talent shortage. Competent engineers do not stay unemployed. His main accomplishment is that while at a university in West Virginia he, and other students, did some emission testing on a project suggested by his graduate advisor. Contrary to claims in the thread, he did not discover cheating, that was found out by others. He did some emissions testing. That's great. We do need emission testers. How many? Don't know. Does he have exemplary skills in this? Where is the evidence.

The H1B program is not for permanent employment or a guarantee of citizenship. We have other programs that are more suitable for that. He spent 17 years here, 4 which he actually worked, and his work was not good enough to get a single job offer after layoff despite having a PhD (albeit from an almost totally unknown and undistinguished university).

You wish to argue he is entitled to US citizenship now. Why?

It appears that the US has more worker visas than any country in the world. I was just reviewing the numbers and couldn't find any countries that allow more people in on work visas. Likewise for student visas. We have one of the most generous immigration policies, if not the most, in the entire world. And the US lets in people from all countries, with a huge disparity - people from India are massively overrepresented. We are more generous with Indian nationals than any other origin.

Yet constant claims of racism, of hating the evil United States, of making one demand after another, of complete entitlement. Totally thankless, hateful, racist people making these comments, and totally contradicted by the actually measurable facts. It's absolutely shameful and disgusting to see this hate, disrespect and contempt for America.

He actually worked at Cummins first after getting his masters in 2006, and later went back to school for his PHD and then went to work at GM. His Linkedin is 100% open, so you should really do some basic research before questioning someone's background and if they're 'valuable' enough for your standards.

This is one of the things that pisses me off so much about the rallying against trump being a racist or a xenophobe. Realistically the man's just implementing a strategy to follow a law. Meanwhile the GMs of the world continue to use and abuse H1Bs and no one bats a fucking eye.

His golf clubs employed undocumented workers for years FFS

He's not "just" doing anything, he's always also Tweeting and talking about it, and the things he says put his motivations around "follow a law" into the "racist/xenophobic" realm.

Besides, the law itself is fucked up and backwards. Trying to enforce a bad law is itself not good.

Talking about what? Your claims are baseless.

You're saying not allowing anyone into this country is a fucked up law and backwards? Lol ok. I'd love to see you integrate into a shady Mexican community.

Trump is a total xenophobe. He is not implementing the law. He is changing its interpretations in a way that is completely arbitrary and is being taken to court for it. Meanwhile, USCIS is making decisions that are completely random and denying extensions to people on very flimsy ground.

No sources I see. I've never once witnessed trump act xenophobic. Not once. Just admit it - you only say this because CNN and the rest told you he's a bad man.

Circus around birther movement, "shithole countries", parent separation, "very fine people", retweeting white supremacists, cracking down on immigration, hiring Stephen miller, mocking black lives matter..should I keep going ?

Honest question - can someone explain why its harder for an Indian national to get a green card?

Backlog:

Every year there's a finite amount of green cards available, and a rule that says: a country can not claim more than 7% of all the green cards each year.

So every year the max number of Indians that can get green card is the same as the max number of Portuguese, but India has 100x the population of Portugal, so if in proportion to their population, as many Indians applies for green card as Portuguese, the Portuguese have a much higher chance of getting it approved this year

The Indians who didn't get it because of reaching that 7% are added to a backlog.

The following year, the same thing is repeated, but now in addition, you have all the people in the backlog, ... Repeat that many years, and now the backlog is more than a decade long: people who applied for the Green card a decade ago are still waiting.

Yep, I'm going for my Greencard through the EB program, and because I'm from New Zealand my priority date (which is where the queue starts), is "current" which means the day the paperwork gets approved, things can move forward. If I were Chinese or Indian the priority date is years ago - the current Indian priority date for the EB3 is 2009.

It's already more difficult, expensive and time consuming to get a Greencard vs. permanent residency in comparable Western nations. My Greencard will take 18+ months, $15k and a very flexible employer and I'm walking into the system with a lot of advantages. I feel for Indians and Chinese people in the system.

A maximum of 7% per year can convert over from any one country. Countries likes India, Mexico and Philippines (and China?) have higher proportion so there is a huge backlog. Most other countries are significantly better.

This is false. He must have done something to artificially lengthen this like not apply for his Green Card, because I have friends from India who have been here less years with their GC.

As expected there's another side to the fake news above. He was in school until 2014 pursuing his PhD so he wasn't eligible for employer-sponsored Green Card until then.

I'd like to see H1B simply be:

- Minimum pay 120k (something that would indicate the person being brought over is in fact valuable) or maybe more?

- Citizenship granted after ... 3 years?

Something like that.

I would add to that list:

- Do not tie the applicant to a particular employer, and

- in addition to min salary requirements, also require independent demonstration of in-demand skills. Otherwise this system is too easy to game for large employers/sectors, who could do the equivalent of dumping by temporarily paying high salaries and then ratcheting down once they anticipate the market will clear at their desired price.

So basically, turn the H1B into an O-1 style visa where you don't need to be as extraordinary as long as you're well-compensated.

Which was exactly the intent of the H1B in the first place!

> Citizenship granted after ... 3 years?

I like the intent, but that's pretty aggressive. Permanent residency after 3 years is maybe a better way of phrasing that.

Yeah I like that.

I'm cool with bringing people over to work if there is a real need. I really just want it to have an upfront cost that is tied to the need... some way of proving that need and skills would be nice.

I'd be ok with permanent residency, anything that disallows the employer able to kick you back home at a whim kind of threats.

I am surprised that this guy hasn't been given job offers at other places. He did good things, is ethical, and is clearly skilled. It's a shame that people like this are not properly 'rewarded' for their good deeds. Exposing the evil of others should always be.

Yes. Those good things included saving scores of peoples' lives. Diesel particulates are very bad for the lungs, and he helped put a stop to so much of it.

He deserved an award, not to be sent "home" after 17 - seventeen - years in the US.

> Diesel particulates are very bad for the lungs, and he helped put a stop to so much of it.

Dieselgate wasn't about particulates, and unlike petrol cars every diesel car of the last 10-15 years has a particulate filter...

Now petrol cars are getting particulate filters too, because new emission standards (e.g. Euro 6c) include particulate restrictions for petrol engines, which they didn't previously have, and direct injection engines utterly exceed those restrictions.

And yet, where I'm from(Poland) it's extremely common to have the DPF removed from a new diesel car, pretty much any workshop will do it and fit a DPF emulator instead so the computer doesn't complain. All of that to avoid a potential cost few years down the line to have the filter cleaned/replaced. I'm utterly disgusted by how common this behaviour is.

Wouldn't you need to have the DPF retrofitted prior to any periodic vehicle control (as mandated by the EU), pretty much neutralising any savings?

No, to my knowledge you can pass the annual technical test without any issues even with the DPF filter removed, unless the engine has other issues and is literally emitting black smoke - the particulate emissions without the filter are not enough to trigger a fail(essentially the threshold is so fantastically high that modern diesels are far below it, dpf filter or not).

-Oh. That was unexpected. Thanks!

Honestly I've never heard of DPF removals before (edit: reason being mandatory car inspection usually finds this modification where I live, apparently it used to be a thing for some time and then the inspection protocol was changed). I only heard about people bypassing the AGR (exhaust recirculation), but that's independent of diesel/petrol (both have them nowadays).

That being said DPF issues seem to mostly impact people who only use the car for short distances; I've lived with DPF diesel cars for ~10 years and no issues. That being said any ICE powered vehicle is completely unsuited for travelling short distances, not just from an ecology point of view. Some more than others, though, it seems.

Not anymore, since this year when you have DPF removed you will not pass the combustion quality check.

It's not legal in the USA either, but it's very popular to do with diesel pickup trucks. Look up 'rolling coal' on YouTube

I wouldn't say it's very popular... I rarely see trucks that are sporting DPF deletes, though I guess if you live somewhere like Texas with an insane truck culture, it's probably more popular than elsewhere.

Strange how no one talks anymore about how much more efficient and more suited diesel engines are when it comes to everyday traffic than petrol engines. It's become all about particles, and yes, diesel is more dangerous to humans if not filtered correctly. But at the same time, diesel engines are using less fuel and there is no reason why we shouldn't use DPF when they are available. I switched to a diesel car not long ago, and I can safely say that as long diesel cars are being manufactured, I'll never go back to petrol.

I think for city traffic ICE cars (and more generally, cars) are just unsuited. Stop and go, very low speeds etc. are just the worst case for both fuel usage and pollution (low load = low exhaust temp = catalytic exhaust processing doesn't work properly, problem gets bigger with the engine; e.g. truck exhaust processing basically doesn't do much at all in cities). And you get a choice of "do I want to wear the engine or do I want to minimize exhaust and fuel"...

For general driving I find it easier to drive a diesel for low consumption compared to petrol. I also like how diesels tend to have nice long gearing, leading to low RPMs and less noise. Pick-up from low RPMs is also quite nice, a diesel has no issues to start accelerating from, say, 1200 rpm (with practically all constant speed driving falling between 1000 and ~1600ish rpm for me, to see more you'll need the Autobahn).

For petrolhead(?) purposes I have to say that diesel tend to sound like a loose bag of bolts when you rev them (which you normally won't do), obviously it's not going to sound like a race car. In that regard tiny (1 liter, 1.2 liter) non-DI, non-turbo petrol engines tend to surprise... :) though at least some of these are way worse at fuel efficiency than you'd expect.

>low load = low exhaust temp = catalytic exhaust processing doesn't work properly

It's not 1970 anymore. Those cats are right behind the exhaust manifold for a reason and that reason isn't to save money on piping.

Audi A8 diesel on the autobahn is fun. Smooth ride at 250 kph :)

"Dieselgate wasn't about particulates, and unlike petrol cars every diesel car of the last 10-15 years has a particulate filter..."

Not true here in the UK - I buy and sell secondhand cars of this vintage as a side job, and not all the diesels I've seen have DPFs (I'd say it was 50% have them) - lots of models didn't have them, including quite a few vans (which pollute more due to bigger engines, lower mpg, etc). And anyone who's bought anything of this age range also knows that the DPFs are a reliability nightmare. Lots of people removed them (which is now at least tested on the MOT, although it's possible to remove it in a way that is not detected by an MOT test).

But most importantly, although dieselgate wasn't about particulates, it still means getting diesels off the road, which is a good thing. If particulates had been accurately measured in vehicles after a few years, I'm sure many more would be off the road, particularly 1st gen DPF cars.

The problem is that most people now equate a vehicle with a DPF as being a nightmare, and then by association don't care about the effect on the environment as the effect on their wallet is a more pressing need. Much the same as EGR valves, which are a reliability issue on most vehicles regardless of fuel. People block them off, leading to increased NOx pollution and better fuel consumption, and when it can cost hundreds of pounds to get it replaced (if it has to be calibrated to the ECU, etc, often a main dealer trip is involved), it's not surprising that this happens.

The sooner we can all go electric, the better, IMO. And I say that as someone who has considerable skill and experience in repairing and maintaining ICE cars.

Modern diesels are supposed to have particulate filters installed.

Yet just yesterday, in “ultra low emission zone” Central London, I saw a Ford diesel van with a 16 plate (meaning, it’s a late-2015 Model at the earliest) spewing a cloud of black soot every time it pulled away at an intersection.

It’s clear that there are still too many DPF removals going on, and lax controls about monitoring emissions from supposedly-compliant vehicles.

(Motorcycles are another huge issue. They may be compliant with noise and emissions regs at the factory gate, but too many people swap the exhaust for a loud, polluting, illegal one.)

What!? Cars/trucks that have been modded this way ought to have a mandatory crush penalty. Complete forfeiture of the asset, zero compensation.

Then let's see how popular the practice would remain.

Diesel cars should have a mandatory pre sale environmental inspection to root out buyers getting stuck in the 2nd hand market.

> Cars/trucks that have been modded this way ought to have a mandatory crush penalty. Complete forfeiture of the asset, zero compensation.

I feel like you might get a wee bit of pushback on the idea of crushing people's modes of transport because they stuck a non-regulation exhaust on there. All-or-nothing regulations such as the one you propose are rarely sustainable. Even CARB (the California Air Resources Board), the bane of California automotive enthusiasts, isn't that draconian.

Why should people be allowed to act so selfishly? It would stop the practice dead in its tracks, and from then a non issue. I dare say that makes it worth it.

Furthermore making it strictly illegal to perform the work would assist.

Because the few people who would have their cars crushed vote. They are not a large group, but small groups voting as a block are enough to change an election. If a politician wants to keep her job she will be careful angering groups like this.

Also, in the US the 8th amendment prohibits excessive fines. It is likely that courts will look on crushing a nearly new car as an excessive fine.

"It would stop the practice dead in its tracks,"

Of course, because executing people when they have the tiniest amount of drugs on them has also worked so well across the world rolls eyes

Wait - I thought we were talking about crushing cars?

My point was that severe, disproportionate punishment is the law-and-order crowd's wet dream (for moral reasons) but not effective policy.

Seems a bit like the ol' "cut off someone's hand for stealing" punishment, doesn't it? IMHO the punishment should fit the crime, in this case a fine commensurate with the estimated carbon impact of the illegal modification.

Societies that have draconian punishment for minor infractions tend to take the view that their punishment is fitting and proportional because it's much harder to steal stuff without hands.

Where is gets interesting is when they take a hard-line stance on some things but not on others. Like you get a slap on the wrist for theft from another commoner but if you're caught stealing fish from the lord's stream without the proper license you're strung up by your thumbs in some castle dungeon for a month.

>I feel like you might get a wee bit of pushback on the idea of crushing people's modes of transport

This is England we're talking about. American respect for individuals and their private property does not apply and Europe tends to come down hard at anyone that dares thumb their nose at authority by intentionally breaking the law.

... unless it is actual violent crime - there the American legal system comes down at perpetrators a lot harder than European ones do.

Only the ones committed by minorities.

It's highly uneducated (or dare I say cheapskate) move on the part of the keeper of that vehicle. EU6 rated diesels are supposed to do self maintenance on DPF ie they start burning rich mixture to bring the temperature up (and this is observed in cold weather)

From what I personally observed on my EU6 Diesel (a very common VAG 2 litre diesel... sadly ?) that, the net effect of that comes out as approx 50-100 mile reduction in the range. The reason being more fuel being used to up keep the DPF.

In summer (June till October) I observed about 600 mile range from a full tank. Between November and up until February I observed 500 mile from a full tank (between 62 to 64 litres)

I was alarmed by the difference and then tried the "Economy" mode. I guess it detunes the peak output to 150ps (from 190ps) and also disengages the engine from the gearbox i.e. the car seems to be coasting in neutral when the accelerator pedal is not pressed.

With that, I was able to get 550 miles from a tank so far and recently the weather has warmed up again and the on board computer shows a potential range of about 600 miles.

I do make sure to never drive with a heavy foot and even on motor way try to stick below 70mph limit as long as it is safe. However, most of the miles done in that car are strictly urban (max speed not exceeding 50mph)

The cost of ownership of electric car didn't quite work out for us as a family when we downsized from two cars to just the one (keeping in mind the cost of public transport in UK)

I still somehow think that Diesel is the lesser evil compared to Petrol. It has (hopefully) lower CO2 emission. The problem is NOx which is (hopefully) neutralised by SCR and Particulate which is neutralised by DPF. And you need to burn less of it over the same distance.

But sadly it is hard to conclude what's what when the governments and industry keep showing different facets of their relationship every half a decade or so.

AIUI DPF regenerates naturally if the engine is loaded enough and automatic regeneration with extra fuel use is only necessary when that doesn't happen enough. 70 mph (~110 km/h) is only slightly faster than regular rural roads (though many are limited to 70 km/h), maybe average Autobahn trips at comfortable speeds (130-170 km/h [80-105 mph]) do make a difference here. I'm pretty sure I don't reach similar constantly high rpms (e.g. on my car 160 km/h in sixth is a bit above 2000 rpm) and loads on the engine in other driving situations.

Your description matches up with my experience. I think I am wasting fuel in cold weather. IIRC I haven't been in a situation where I drove over 2k rpm constantly.

In the Economy mode, the ECU decides to shift into 5th gear at about 31mph and then I let the car coast.

I would think 2k at 160kph is where this engine would be too if ever I drove at that speed. 99% of the times the max I have done is about 110kph where it is in 7th gear at under 2k rpm (having read about the engine and the owner's manual, that 7th gear is out of power band and is effectively overdrive, not possible to accelerate in 7th even gently)

Really commonplace, alas. Did a quick search for Transit DPF (just to see about later transit issues), and one of the first results was this company:

https://www.avontuning.co.uk/services/dpf-removal-delete

Proudly professing their removal service, and with a caveat at the end to say that it makes the vehicle illegal for road use and is for off-road use only.

I don't think it should be allowed, personally, but I'm sure there are libertarians who think they have a right to pollute...

The way DPF works results in more <PM10 particulate than not having a DPF at all. (It does burn most of the soot, but results in more small particles at then end, and we know that those small particles are the ones that are causing most of the troubles in the lungs and blood stream)

Can you cite anything that proves it’s worse

Tom Denton: Automotive Technician Training: Theory page 213

no proof, just a statement though, but the same phrasing is seen all around the net, even on the DPF wikipedia page (without source though)

Perhaps other places don't want their shady practices exposed.

He is ethical, and known to expose wrongdoings.

No way in hell that he is getting hired in that industry.. and even if he is - no way that he'll have any kind of access to incriminating information.

He should be hired by regulators. They need more people who can expose wrongdoings.

The sad fact is, the regulators are so underfunded they probably can't afford to hire him.

Cherry on top, in a perfectly cynical (and hopefully hypothetical!) world: "After five years at the regulator, the car industry had paid him more than he would ever have earned as their employee"

Underrated comment. This seems like a great closure for this, which is a seriously embarrassing development

>No way in hell that he is getting hired in that industry..

So you're saying that no one in the auto industry is ethical, and that they deliberately hire unethical people? Out of the millions of employees across the country and globe? Deplorables, all of them?

That's rich. Silicon Valley is hypocritical and out-of-touch.

They are all ethicall, it's just might not have the same ethics as you. Ethics is relative afterall.

Hiring a known whistleblower is a risk not worth taking, even if you are not doing anything wrong. The risk vs. reward ratio is just too high.

I am sure that this is the logic executives like to go through, but whistleblowers aren't people who compulsively reveal company secrets. They reveal secrets which the public should know about, and usually have to be very large and important in order to justify the personal risk involved.

If your company is so ethically bankrupt that you can't afford the risk of someone who would only reveal things that are of critical importance to the public, then maybe you aren't the "good guys" anymore.

Is this a variation on "you don't need to be afraid if you have nothing to hide" thing?

It's more like "you don't need to be afraid of whistle-blowers unless you're killing people through your actions". VW didn't make a small mistake -- their evasion of emission standards has directly resulted in thousands of preventable deaths due to air pollution (they also decided to unethically poison monkeys in order to "prove" that the gasses weren't toxic). Again, whistle-blowers don't just reveal secrets willy-nilly -- there is significant personal risk to being a whistle-blower and very few people make such decisions lightly.

The thing is -- everyone has something to hide, which is why that adage is wrong. But not everyone is hiding a scheme they've cooked up to flaunt laws (and lied to regulators for years when they came knocking) which resulted in tangible deaths as a result. If you are worried that you have a scheme like that on your books, then yeah you should avoid hiring whistle-blowers.

You're right about the logic of corporations when it comes to hiring decisions. He probably doesn't have much of a future in automotive.

His career has taken an ironic downtown, ironic enough to land him as the centerpiece in a NY Times article. That will certainly help his profile.

> If your company is so ethically bankrupt that you can't afford the risk of someone who would only reveal things that are of critical importance to the public, then maybe you aren't the "good guys" anymore.

Exactly.

Fortunately, a great many companies are not hiring him, so it’s not like not hiring him will expose that we’re doing tons of illegal stuff.

It is unclear whether you approve of this decisionmaking heuristic

Who's a known whistleblower?

They were studying vehicle emissions for a grad-degree. Why would he be a whistle-blower?He didn't work for VW when he was studying that ?

Devils advocate for this one; to put a little meat on sibling comments.

A whistleblower has demonstrated that there are circumstances where they will short-circuit the chain of command and attempt to attract external intervention. The only way a corporate hierarchy can react to such a person is to see them as a risk to be managed; ideally by not hiring them. Large scale corporations have hiring processes with all sorts of weird informal risk-mitigation measures built in (which is usually expressed as discrimination on weird traits).

So people with that sort of whistle-blowing initiative who want to be employable need to build a strong informal network of people who will hire them because they think they understand what circumstances would trigger that behavior and that they are not present in the hiring corporation.

This may be true, but it's not how good business, corporations and executives should behave.

When profit is king...

He’s not a whistleblower, and didn’t short circuit his management chain. FTA he was an engineering student at WVU the time, not employed by VW.

He has ethics, we can't allow that at our CORP.

-- Some CEO probably.

Yeah, I'm sure the 4,000 person layoff was just to let go of this one engineer...

But it included this one engineer

It's not about the 4,000 being a cover up in itself.

It's about using a convenient 4,000 layoff to get rid of them too.

(Or worse, not even that, but just blindly getting rid of them, with no particular consideration).

They should be celebrated and/or promoted, not included in lay off lists...

Top 4,000 most ethical engineers ;-)

What they heck, why are people in these comments calling him a whistleblower?

He wasn't working for VW when he helped discover VW's fraud. He was working for a non-profit!

You'd expected them to be rewarded for doing a good ethical deed that hurts the company they were working for?

I'm not sure other companies would jump to hire him, that's not how capitalism works...

In some situations in the US, whistleblowers receive a portion of the money the government makes from fines.

https://www.whistleblowersinternational.com/what-is-whistleb...

This is the perfect example of the flaws in our immigration system. This man came here for grad school, was educated in America at a public institution (paid for in part by tax dollars), then worked here for years, contributing to our economy as both a worker and consumer (and probably putting in far more tax dollars than he ever consumed), and now after 17 years, we send him back to India.

We should be giving this man citizenship, not a ticket home.

Playing the devil's advocate here a little bit. We dont know the whole story. Perhaps he was not good at the job GM hired him for, perhaps he didnt get along with people, perhaps it was just as GM says, a blind restructuring. Things like this happen all the time. The only difference here is the VW scandal, for which all we know is he did good experimental work as part of a team that turned out to be groundbreaking. If the emissions had amounted to nothing, he'd be like any other experimental researcher. Was he instrumental in opening the results to the public in any way? As in he strived against the odds and backlash etc, playing a whistleblower of sorts? The article doesnt say so I assume not. So I cant say the article has convinced me that he deserves special treatment because of his role in the VW scandal.

I agree that we don’t know the reasons he was let go.

But!:

Of course he deserves special treatment for his role in the VW scandal, because of course we desperately want and need to build a society that always actively encourages and never discourages actions like those he took.

– But: Of course the car industry cannot be relied on to give him that special treatment. And we haven’t yet built the kind of society that does.

So it is incumbent on us here and now to give him that special treatment.

Not least to give the signal that we will help you if you help us. Keep you safe. To remove doubt of that. As it stands, that doubt has increased, and the expectation that the auto industry will retaliate has increased, so on the table there is less apparent safety to do what he did.

That’s not how this world works. Whistleblowers have their lives ruined, almost uniformly. Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning, William Binney, Jesselyn Radack, Frank Ford, Joe Darby.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_whistleblowers

He's not a whistle-blower though. He exposed the VW fraud as part of his prior job studying emissions

May I ask you to compare your comment with this quote from my comment: “And we haven’t yet built the kind of society that does”.

Would you agree that there are indications that you did read too fast? – The necessity of world-building and world-shaping is the core of what I was attempting to convey.

So we actually agree ;)

You have hope for change in this regard. I don’t. I’m not just saying that we don’t live in that society, but that we never will. People don’t like those who hold to their principles over their fellows and people aren’t changing.

Sincere thanks for an excellent reply. It’s better than I deserve for how snarky and pseudo-clever my reply was.

I don’t always have hope. I think I’ll go for “or die trying”. Build that world or die trying.

Those people won’t change. 100% agree. The others can learn and adapt and curb risks and manage and mitigate and unify. Communicate.

It’s possible to build small altruistic groups. I think I’m willing to expend effort on increasing the size limits.

Forget all the rest. He has been in the US for 17! years as a contributing member of society.

What business do we have sending him back to India?

"no good deed goes unpunished" - unfortunately this is how things are in the world. i hope things turn out good for him.

This is so sad temporarily for Hemanth but permanently for the US.

Hemanth is already a hero and he's done more than what most would only dream of doing. He has a bright future expect that bright future won't be in the US.

In the long term its more of a loss for the US if you consider the fact that he already "earned" the US $23 billion

US visa laws are barbaric. Giving only 60 days to find a new job when one has been laid off without prior notice. How is that supposed to be fair? H1B visa have the effect of creating indentured slaves by placing all of the power on the employers and prevent employees from having any negotiation power since they are always under the threat of losing their visa...

While the US is still seen in a way as a dreamland to live and work in by people in poorer areas, it seems to me anecdotally that more and more people in developed countries no longer have any interest in moving there due to the many issues surrounding visas, work conditions, living conditions, fun things like CBP and overzealous immigration officers, etc... This is not a good thing for a country that has long been successful in attracting the best and the brightest.

On another perspective, perhaps it will be good for India to have an influx of skilled and experienced people back. The West has long poached talent from everywhere else.

Not “poached”, they were moving voluntarily, because of much better conditions and attitudes.

So no, it won’t be good for anybody. They were not needed at home, and they are not needed now.

When discussing recruitment, poaching implies enticement rather than coercion.

What makes you think they were not needed at home?

People who are needed are not inclined to emigrate — they have a lot of respect at least, and monetary compensation at best. There are also ethical reasons — perhaps I am needed back in my country to help with their Internet censorship efforts and large-scale deception infrastructure, but I am not particularly inclined to go.

I'm one of the software engineers that decided I will not work in US at all in any possible future. Medical system, visa procedures and visa problems were major deciding factors on my decision to move and work in Europe instead.

Add high criminality and overall police state. Definitely a place of much less true freedom compared to any western europe (unless you define freedom as hoarding tons of guns for when 'they' come). Directly contributing to mass murder of some poor guys defending their home country from foreign invasion for power and greed half around the globe with your taxes. Much more free time to have a life. And so on and on and on.

We as software devs can literally spin a globe, close eyes and point randomly and simply move there. Some places are harder than others, but its still a breeze compared to many other professions if you have some good experience. Why would anyone go to US these days baffles me. The real quality of life is much harder to get there.

Hell. I left the US and got a job as a remote developer for a company in Japan (and since have started my own business). I make less than I would in the States but I’m happier overall.

Bad argument, since 'they' as in the state came pretty often in Europe. I don't give anything on patriotism, but I admire the US for their freedom and I understand the need to have it for the society they are.

Yeah, the security paranoia of the US in the last 20 years is abhorrent, dangerous, costly, infantile and probably against their own values, no further explanation needed.

But I don't think there are better countries concerning civil rights. No European state comes close. Not Sweden, not Norway, Switzerland maybe for some people...

I live in Europe and regularly think about working in the US. Wouldn't want to go to Silicon Valley though.

> But I don't think there are better countries concerning civil rights. No European state comes close. Not Sweden, not Norway, Switzerland maybe for some people...

I've read that often, but don't really think it's true. Compared to many European countries some of the more obvious civil rights problems are things like gay rights, minorities are systematically prevented from voting (through gerrymandering and other voting district decisions), the highest prison population per capita in the world (combine that with loss of voting rights and disproportionate share of minorities you get additional minority voter suppression), lack of whistleblower protections etc.

Freedom House has a civil rights ranking where the United States only land at rank 51 of 210 countries: https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world-2018-table-cou....

The US only get to the 38th position in their freedom of press index: https://freedomhouse.org/report/table-country-scores-fotp-20...

The focus on minorities seems always a bit strange to me and a bad start to argue for more civil liberties. Everyone should be equal under the law and I talk about civil liberties that are enshrined in law.

That doesn't mean minorities are not at a disadvantage or that everyone being equal under the law describes reality, but the best way to help with that are universal human rights and their strict enforcement. Minorities are too often used as a shield to their disadvantage. Using minorities as an argument to restrict speech for example is a very common example and plainly wrong.

I think the rankings in the US are correct and not really in the top class, but I do believe that the US ends its paranoia trip at some point. Maybe wishful thinking.

Germany has some better rankings but really lacks in freedom when compared to the US.

> The focus on minorities seems always a bit strange to me and a bad start to argue for more civil liberties. Everyone should be equal under the law and I talk about civil liberties that are enshrined in law.

People belabor the minority point because that is the cornerstone of a real democracy. You don't have a proper democracy if you have free elections - but only for the right kind of people.

The US voting system right now is designed to exclude certain kinds of people. This something most other industrialized countries don't do. That is a main reason for the low ranking in the list I linked.

> Germany has some better rankings but really lacks in freedom when compared to the US.

Care to qualify what kind of freedoms Germany is lacking compared to the US?

You secure the rights of minorities through universal human rights. These protect you from abuse. Nothing else matters. Why shouldn't the minority suppress the majority? Thinking of Iraq here for example, where it was a religious minority. Exactly the same problem, or what do you suggest here?

In most of human history minorities have suppressed the majority. It isn't even close.

> People belabor the minority point because that is the cornerstone of a real democracy.

That sentence doesn't make sense. In a democracy people are the sovereign. End of story and definition. That applies to everyone of course.

> You secure the rights of minorities through universal human rights.

No, you just declare them that way. You secure them through actual instiutional measures.

> In a democracy people are the sovereign. End of story and definition.

That's an insufficient definion. Please have a look at introductory material about the topic before stating things like this. The english wikipedia entry is quite good.

> You secure them through actual instiutional measures.

Partially correct, you secure them by law which is policed by the states monopoly on violence. And any institution is forced to follow that to the letter. Otherwise you have a right to legal compensation in any constitutional state.

> The english wikipedia entry is quite good.

It states exactly what I said. Maybe substitute universal human rights, which was admittedly optimistic, with constitutional rights and you have exactly the same statements.

Otherwise, since people do vote, they could indeed strip any anyone from rights, minority or not, protective institutions or not. So some rights are off limits to change by the sovereign.

To rule a people, you need either force or consent. So better make those constitutional rights generic and accepted by everyone. Otherwise you do not have consent and are not a democracy. Autocracy and its derivations are on the other side of the pole.

It is not a better way to secure minority rights, it is the only way.

> In a democracy people are the sovereign. End of story and definition.

Out of context quote and I was not denying mob rule. The tyranny of the majority is restricted by human rights by the way (may they be universal or constitutional, doesn't matter).

I live in Switzerland actually, can compare first hand both countries and these 2 countries are... incomparable (even as non-citizen here).

Its true each of us have different priorities but I can't think of a single important (for me) aspect of life that is better in US. If I involve in comparing process my potential future children, the comparison ends up even better for Suisse.

The other comment here points some proper stats, which are better than some hollywoodish image US has.

True, I thought long about including it in the list. Quality of life is probably higher on average, but in relation to freedom I would say the US comes up on top.

Even with a bad justice system, high property taxes, really bad healthcare, etc.

But from a European perspective, these are slowly becoming problems that a negligible compared to restrictions in Europe. Just an opinion of course.

Regarding which freedom does the US come up on top?

Yes, you have the constitution but the reality in the US is somewhat unconstitutional.

Since only some decades you have the federal reserve setting interest rates as they please (potential killing savings) and your wage (not income) is taxed at source.

This wasn't the case several decades ago.

The US laws are better than most countries. In Singapore (for example), you have just 30 days to pack your stuff and get out of the country, for instance. And that's hardly enough if you've lived there for years and usually you've accumulated a lot of stuff. It's not even enough time to sell all your stuff. Usually people just give them away for free when they leave the country. I know people who got 49" TVs for a ridiculous $100 from people leaving the country.

At least 60 days is not so bad. Can it be better? Yes, sure. But not bad at all.

Singapore is hardly a good counterexample, considering the authoritarian nature of the place. "Disneyland with the death penalty" is a very low standard for freedom and human rights.

> Disneyland with the death penalty

Haha, that's a unique description and also a good point.

https://www.wired.com/1993/04/gibson-2/

Better than most countries, yes.

Better than most of the western world? Not by far.

I found the USA visa system much more sensible (yet outdated) than most of European countries I lived in (no European citizen here).

USA, with exception of China and India, have a quite clear and manageable path for citizenship.

Denmark for example is constantly changing its rules because of "cultural" reasons.

If the job role really is in high demand and there is low supply (which are the reqs to get the permit in the first place), it should be 'easy' to get another one. Not arguing it is correct but that might be the reasoning behind it.

I wonder if his role in exposing VW got him the job at GM.

I am also wondering why he is so focused on returning to the US. With his skills and knowledge, there should be some opportunities in other parts of the world.

>wondering why he is so focused on returning to the US.

says he spent half his life there

Have you lived outside the US?

Even in Europe it seems standard of living is less (for professionals)

Not sure why you assumed that I am living in the US. I am not, I am living in Europe.

17 years in US and still no permanent residence of any sort?! That's why I'd never consider moving to US! If I chose a country to live in and they let me in I want to have a possibility of either becoming a citizen or at least have permanent residency (actually permanent; often permanent just means long-term).

Is Green Card that hard to get?

Discussed elsewhere in this thread, but it depends on where you are from b/c there is a per-country quota. There are many applicants for a Green Card from India so it's hard if you are Indian. But if you are from e.g. Singapore there are far fewer applicants competing with you so it's easier.

> He said he had a lead on a job with another automaker [...] But the industry is suffering a slowdown,

I wonder how much of the slowdown is caused by more and more aggressive emission regulations. Cars used to be definitely more responsive, and they get more sluggish and more expensive to maintain with every new Euro standard published.

Edit: I'm addig this to reply to some commenters. I'm not stating that car comfort is more important than public health. It's just a fact that emission regulations have pushed much fun away from the driving experience. And I honestly wonder how this impacted the car making industry.

Public health is more important than cars getting sportier. Particulate emissions are a real health hazard, causing respiratory illnesses for millions of people each year. The negative externalities of air pollution are huge, and it's not an exaggeration to say that air pollution is directly causing the deaths of 6 figures of people every year, who would otherwise not have died.

Every single one of us has lungs and breathes the air around us. Stricter emissions controls are better for all of us.

Fun fact: there are non-trivial differences in air quality from place to place-- that's how it's possible to estimate the impact on mortality.

If you have any freedom at all in choosing where you live, air quality should be a factor.

Do I misinterpret you or does it sound a bit as if you value the responsiveness of your car over the emission standard which exists to protect the health of people as well as the environment?

Obviously one can discuss the numbers and limits defined in the emission standard and how much sense they make but I would find it odd if someone put car performance over its negative impact on others.

Yes and no. Cars are less responsive than ever as manufacturers insert artificial latency into electric throttle-by-wire to reduce emissions.

However, at the same time cars continue to become heavier and heavier with each new model or generation. This in itself is poor for environment because heavier vehicles must burn more fuel to accelerate at the same rate, more fuel to maintain the same speed, use more pad material to brake (and thus release more particulates) while also having increased tire wear.

But for some reason the latter issue is ignored while the former is front and center.

It doesn't make sense to me

Unfortunately in the US car size is (still) a status thing and has led to an arms race. Size is an obvious differentiator, acceleration or responsivity much less so. Your gasoline is also way too cheap.

I live in the U.K, I pay $1.75 per litre.

Oops, sorry for assuming!

Safety regulations, stricter emissions regulations, drive by wire tech, crash zones and everything else petrolheads don't like about cars make them better for commuters.

Even with all these features, the average increase in weight for cars of the same size has been a paltry 23kg. The weight increase of the "average car" comes from people buying SUVs, which people increasingly are.

For a track day car, a cheap modern sports car like a miata, or a 1980s/90s sports car has all the characteristics you want for the price of a modern commuter car. Its just that a commuter cares more about relaxation than road feel. :-)

I agree! I have no issue with better safety regulations, stricter emissions regulations, drive by wire, crash zones, etc - to make cars better for people to use everyday.

What is frustrating is that we are now unable to offer features in high performance vehicles that we were previously able to because they're considered too bad for the environment. A perfect example is the 4.0 engine in the 911 GT3. It's likely that this engine will never be offered again, despite itself being a masterpiece of engineering, sound and character; produced in such few numbers and driven so infrequently to have an insignificant effect on pollution when you consider all cars on the road.

I'm curious where you got the 23KG figure? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just interested to see what kind of cars they looked at. If you consider a Golf GTI from 1980 to a Golf GTI of 2019 then you'll find that in 30 years the car has gained over 500KG. If we continue this trend then by 2050 the expected average weight for a hatchback should be somewhere around 2000KG.

I agree with the cheap, 1980s/90s sports car - and did something like that just a couple months ago. But, if we are no longer capable of manufacturing cheap, light-weight cars in 2020 and onwards because of regulations, then these cars will have no choice but to die out leaving track days and motorsport inaccessible to everyone but the rich, like air travel in the 1950 and 60s.

I'm not an expert on the matter, but I had the impression that you can buy all kinds of vehicles provided you only run them on a racing track. I suppose that also covers emissions. Normal roads are not for sports, so I see no issue banning features that only benefit motor sports.

That is more or less correct, look at the Aston Martin Vulcan, Ferrari 599XX, P1 GTR, or just about any street-legal car someone has turned into a non street legal race car.

There is an argument to be made whether a feature should be banned from the road or not. I'm not sure having an EV that can accelerate from 0-60mph in 3 seconds is good for road safety either. How are these two any different?

That is a good point, however, I believe the nuance is the future intent of the vehicle’s ‘purpose’.

So, if it is to store value and become a collectible, because of its unique peformance capabilities and driving ‘experience’, that is one thing...

But, if the intent is to eventually have multiples of these vehicles coordinating together to transport safely and quickly through ‘AI’ or ‘AI-assisted safety features’, I can see a possible use for the capability, as well.

I agree that the regulation is not perfect. We can do better to accommodate the needs of enthusiasts. But, in the case of brute regulation, I prefer we err on the side of safety vs enthusiast features.

Here in the netherlands, really old cars that fail to meet emission standards have special dispensation to be used on the road for less than 500km a year. Maybe something similar for sports cars would work. As you said, nobody is using their 911 GT3 for 10,000km a year anyway.

There is no point in that Porsche engine off the race track. Either the driver is fast, or the car is, and never both except for well trained drivers on the track.

Sure there is! The performance is just one feature of the engine. It has immense character, sound and response - possibly one of the best engines ever made. You don't need to drive it fast or irresponsibly on the road to enjoy it. It's like cycling with a carbon fiber race bicycle on the road. Just because you're not exploiting it to it's full potential on a velodrome doesn't mean you can't enjoy it sensibly in other situations.

Ferrari have built their brand on road cars with high revving, naturally aspirated V8 and V12s - primarily designed as Gran Tourers rather than track cars.

More evidence of this can be seen in the consumer demand for 911 Speedster, of which only 1948 cars will be built - and is looking to be one of the best Gran Tourers ever made.

And despite all of that character, you driving one down my street has more negative externatlities for me when I admire it as you roll past than a comparable electric car would.

I grew up reading Road & Track and Car and Driver, lusting after cars like the McLaren F1 and Acura NSX... but now I don't own a car at all, and live in a dense urban environment, and find it pretty annoying when someone's desire to show off their supercar leads to them riding up the avenue at high RPM in first gear, leaving both noise pollution and real emissions in their wake. Its the same annoyance I get when a truck drives by and uses its engine brake, or when a particularly poorly modified Civic with a soda can where the muffler should be rattles and roars down the block, or one of the fancy new hybrid grocery delivery trucks that still has an old reefer unit that belches black exhaust when it turns on is parked at the corner. None of these vehicles - modified or not, beautifully engineered or not - has a place contributing those noise and particulate and CO2 emissions in our densely populated regions.

I respect the precision and craftsmanship. I love reading about the stats and design notes. I'd unquestionably love to take one for a spin on a track. But I'd also fully support a total ban of ICE vehicles in dense urban areas, where the joy the driver gets from driving is far outweighed by the cost to the other people around them.

I understand what you're saying, but your generalizations aren't fair.

What you're talking about are wealthy people who like to show off and do so by driving supercars fast around cities and other densely populated areas. Take supercars away from them and they will simply find other ways to show off. Take away the supercar and what will fill their place? Perhaps Tesla Roadsters and P100Ds doing launch controls at the traffic lights? I too get frustrated at noisy EK3 Civics with fart can exhausts, who are just trying to show off too, but without the supercar.

For every loser revving their car through densely populated areas and disturbing residents or driving dangerously, there are hundreds of enthusiasts who are respectful and courteous. These people are rebuilding their engines in their garages, taking their cars to the track, or to some of the best driving roads in the world. NOT through Knightsbridge or Avenues of Americas.

I'm sorry you have to put up with that crap, but is it fair to deprive people who are responsible and take their pride and joy somewhere where they don't upset lots of people just because a minority ruin it for the rest of us?

The electric-car age, combined with environmental concerns, is ultimately going to limit car enthusiasts. My solution: cycling. It feels 1000x more fun than cars. I used to dig cars, and race them too. I'm now like the parent and no longer have a car because I use my bicycle (now I feel like a tourist of the unlucky people when I drive). Cycling is so much fun because it demands everything out of you: going fast requires intelligence (or an intelligent coach), incredible will power, fitness (which you build), and situational awareness. Instead of caring about the mechanics of an engine and the car, I care now about my physiology (which is amazing), and learn how to understand the uncountable ways we fatigue. My retirement will find me with muscles like those of a 40-year old. Bike racing is very intellectually taxing, and it is a shame that it is under appreciated in the U.S.

I think you are correct, in that it will become a rich-person’s luxury to operate an ICE vehicle in the future.

Correctly price in the negative externalities caused by burning petroleum and people can go have their fun in ICE cars away from major population centers. It'll be more expensive, for sure, but I don't think it'll only be in the realm of the rich. Gas is already something like $8/gallon in many parts of Europe and is still widely used, just for daily life (forget racing).

I think insurance rates will drastically increase for human operated ICE vehicles, as well.

Why would that be? Insurance is about covering accidents; why would accidents suddenly shoot up for ICE cars? I haven't seen any data suggesting that ICEs are inherently more likely to get in accidents than EVs.

Now if you want to talk about advanced driving aids, all the way through to self-driving, then sure, not having those will result in higher insurance. But that's not tied to the engine, and there's plenty of non-EVs that have very advanced driving aids.

> Cars are less responsive than ever

I don't think this is remotely true. Cars are more powerful than ever before and have way better automatic transmissions than ever before. There's simply no comparison, modern cars are faster and more responsive than older cars.

Can you give some specific examples (with model and year) where you think a modern car is less responsive than a comparable older car?

Sure!

So an example is the old Renault Sport Clios. These had the 2.0 NA F4R 830 motor with cable actuated throttles. The combination of this and no turbo means the throttle response is immediate, much better than newer turbo cars with drive-by-wire throttles. In fact it's so much better than I went out and purchased one.

Power has no real correlation with throttle response. Auto boxes often make throttle response worse - in fact even the latest ZF8 gearboxes tend to have noticeable lag between applying throttle and the power to the wheels. If you want to experience this for yourself I would recommend driving a manual M235i and an auto M235i back to back.

Which old RenaultSport Clios? My 172 had an electric throttle body.

I'd say the difference between older and newer engines is torque, I have B38 BMW engine in my car and it makes 220Nm @ 1250rpm, makes it lovely to drive around the city. Where the 172 was a bit of a pain as you had to wind it out a little to get any where quickly.

You're right, that is indeed correct. I'm not sure why I thought it was a cable.

I have a 197/200, and before than owned a couple of turbo cars. I'd take the 197 - it's so much more rewarding to drive with that extra 1000RPM and that noise that comes on when the cams switch on VVT.

Mk.2 is still better to drive than the Mk.3 and Mk.4.

I've driven them all, 3 & 4 are bland compared to the 172/182, barely any faster too.

If you want a responsive car, get an EV. If you want an even more responsive vehicle, get a bicycle.

I would quite like to own an EV, but are still too expensive for me! I also read that the batteries do not like repeated full-throttle accelerations as it causes excessive heat build-up and accelerated degradation on the cells. To reduce this the car will often enter limp-mode before then, so it might not even be appropriate for sports/track use.

I'm just curious what the math looks like for you with all monthly total costs accounted for? How much is the monthly loan payment on an EV plus charging costs vs the monthly loan payment on an ICE plus gas costs? How many miles do you drive per month?

There are some used EVs that are available pretty affordably, and the monthly savings on gas could be substantial depending on your typical monthly mileage.

you can buy a 2015 Nissan Leaf for a put $12-$14k on carvana. Surprised me!

They're going for $9k in the Southeast US.

> I would quite like to own an EV, but are still too expensive for me!

Without providing a specific use case or criteria then it's impossible to say.

> I also read that the batteries do not like repeated full-throttle accelerations as it causes excessive heat build-up and accelerated degradation on the cells

That's true and so is the statement "internal combustion engines used in automobiles produce heat during operation that will cause them to fail after a short period of time". But we know that ICEs don't fail because they have cooling systems, so to do EV's batteries and motors.

> To reduce this the car will often enter limp-mode before then

If someone said "my ICE vehicle won't allow me to red-line it and reduces my max RPMs when it's close to overheating to avoid damaging the engine" would you see that as a bad thing? Would you assume red-lining and engine overheating issues were common when driving an ICE vehicle?

If not, then why do you assume such behavior is bad in an EV?

While it is true that rapidly discharging batteries produces heat, it is also true that most EVs have thermal management in place and most have active temperature control systems for their battery packs. The Nissan Leaf is one of the few EVs that does not have active temperature control systems, their packs are air cooled. Also note that I said "temperature control" and not cooling, Tesla's and other EVs can actively warm their batteries to increase performance.

You should read up on the Tesla Model 3's track mode to get a better understanding of what EVs are capable of: https://www.tesla.com/blog/how-track-mode-works

> Without providing a specific use case or criteria then it's impossible to say.

The use case for me is for a fun weekend car with occasional track use. It must be fun to drive both at sensible, safe road speeds but also come alive when pushed on track. It shouldn't cost too much (I paid £10,000 for the car I just purchased that has both these characteristics), be affordable to insurance, run and fix when required. It should also be possible to upgrade and have a well supported aftermarket.

> Their motor torque for rotation has been done before, most recently in the Focus RS.

However unlike a traditional ICE, an EV has 100% torque with almost zero latency.

> Brakes are, in 99% of cases, inferior to mechanical limited slip differentials for the sole reason that it's much easier to overheat the brakes on track

And the overheating problem is negated by virtue of the fact that it's an EV and can take advantage of regenerative braking. While brake regen varies in EV, Tesla's is among the highest. Taking your foot off the accelerator in Tesla feels like you're stepping on the brake in most other cars. In track mode a Model 3's regenerative braking force is further increased.

Another interesting aspect of regenerative braking is that it's instantaneously applied unlike traditional brakes which suffer from pedal and hydraulic lag.

> However unlike a traditional ICE, an EV has 100% torque with almost zero latency.

Insignificant I'm afraid. A good track driver never has the engine outside the power band, even on the slowest corners. In race mode almost all automatic gearboxes do this for you. However, some auto gearboxes shift down on full throttle, even in manual mode, which is frustrating if not infuriating, so direct-drive is a welcome change.

> And the overheating problem is negated by virtue of the fact that it's an EV and can take advantage of regenerative braking.

If you're using regenerative braking on track then you're most probably losing time, unless it can capture the kinetic-to-heat transfer from the pads and discs. You should be maximum throttle right up until the braking zone, by which point you're mostly using full pedal travel to get the car down to the ideal entry speed and maybe even trail braking into the corner to improve rotation.

However, now that I think about it, regenerative braking makes a lot more sense on tracks such as the Nordschleife where for some corners you don't have braking zones as such, but minor taps of the pedal to set up the weight distribution of the car for the corner to improve turn in. This could be a valid use case of regenerative braking.

A problem with EVs is that they don't ultimately displace oil consumption. As long as oil is freely traded and pumped, an EV will just direct a car's share of oil to some other use (lowering demand and oil price so someone in a developing country can afford to use more fuel, for example). This combined with the high lifetime CO2 footprint of EVs (on the order of 50% of the lifetime footprint of petro car), this will make global emissions worse and not better. And also, the vehicle replaced by the EV will be sold, on the short term increasing supply of used cars and enabling more private car use.

Agreed on the bicycles.

Yeah, I agree. EVs are not the best way to reduce GHG emissions. But at least they improve the air quality in cities.

Cars are getting more expensive, and people are keeping them longer. The average transaction price in the USA is $36,000. Even a base model economy car with financing is $25k. A nicely configured economy car will be $30k with financing.

This is a lot of money for many households, and the sales prove that; fewer cars were sold last year than during the worst part of the last recession.

In GM's case, not only are they going though a national downturn in sales, but their management is keen to outsource engineering to far cheaper companies overseas.

The other side of the coin is that what is considered a “a base economy car” in US would be seen as luxury house on wheels in most of the world. In Europe, most people drive 10-15K eur (including very high taxes and VAT) city cars which can carry 4-5 people quite comfortably at 120km/h. US always seemed to me quite exorbant when it comes to cars....

Not even other parts of the world. These US economy cars are very nice in terms of quality and features, so luxury cars are really competing for status now, not experience (except for dealership amenities).

Combine that with a large used-car market, and unupgradeable infotainment systems, and it could be a tough sell.

The lines get a little blurry. The cheapest Acura (Honda’s luxury brand) starts at $25,900 which is easy to hit with any options on a Honda.

Lexus starts at a more traditional 34k, but again it’s easy to get low 30’s with a few options on a Toyota.

That is a natural progression. We could make a model T with only safety and emissions changes for pretty, lets say $5000 to give it a number. However if you buy a 7 year old car for $5000 it will have electric start, a heater (not to mention AC), a radio, likely heated seats and other luxury cars. So you are likely to not buy the base model new car. Thus all new cars need to provide luxury items, any luxury that turns out to be popular with customers quickly gets added to the base model (unless it is expensive even at scale)

it's also that people have less disposable income. around europe at least is uncommon for full size car not to be on some lease as a company car

I honestly cannot imagine this perceived slowdown is anywhere but in your mind.

Much less that it affects the fun of driving for the great majority of people.

Do you have any sources for that?

I honestly thinks you never drove a car where the throttle was directly linked to the butterfly valve.

From Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Throttle#Internal_combustion_e...):

Historically, the throttle pedal or lever acts via a direct mechanical linkage. Technically it means, that the butterfly valve of the throttle is operated by means of an arm piece, loaded by a spring. This arm is usually directly linked to the accelerator cable, and operates in accordance with the driver, who hits it. The further the pedal is pushed, the wider the throttle valve opens.

Modern engines of both types (gas and diesel) are commonly drive-by-wire systems where sensors monitor the driver controls and in response a computerized system controls the flow of fuel and air. This means that the operator does not have direct control over the flow of fuel and air; the Engine Control Unit (ECU) can achieve better control in order to reduce emissions, maximize performance and adjust the engine idle to ...

That’s possible. The first time I drove was some 10 years ago, but in a fairly newish car.

I guess it’s only a temporary issue though, as you’d get used to your cars characteristics quite fast.

> Much less that it affects the fun of driving for the great majority of people.

Commuting never was fun.

But, from time to time, when overtaking a long truck on a uphill road, you'd really like your car to work for you (as in "I need power, just for a few seconds, but I need it now!"), and not against you (as in "Please, if it is not too big an hassle for you, would you mind to try and rev the engine up a bit? Take you time, sure, but... that hairpin turn is getting closer and closer!").

I work in the auto industry. Most consumers care more about the dash system (CarPlay, Android Auto, etc.), mileage, and size of the car than the way it drives.

That's why Porsche sells SUVs.

> Most consumers care more about the dash system (...), mileage, and size of the car than the way it drives

They care about things they can choose. They don't care about responsive cars because responsive cars do not exist.

Actually, they did exist until a few years ago: they were VW! Why do you think they cheated?

> They don't care about responsive cars because responsive cars do not exist.

No. If that were true, surveys would show that people are paying a premium for electric cars because of the way they handle. People mostly pay the premium for environmental and financial reasons.

I have never seen marketing data suggesting that handling is a make-or-break purchase decision for the majority of consumers.

> If that were true, surveys would show that people are paying a premium for electric cars because of the way they handle.

Sorry, I don't agree with you. Responsiveness has been taken away from ICE cars, but EV have too many shortcomings w.r.t ICE cars: price, range, refueling time, comfort (too obsessed over CX, thus very low and rounded downwards).

I think that’s nonsense. Cars have much more power than they used to have. They are also much heavier due to all the luxury equipment they are carrying around. If you want responsive then reduce the weight.

> Cars used to be definitely more responsive, and they get more sluggish and more expensive to maintain with every new Euro standard published.

A Honda Civic use to have a 1500lb curb weight with a 1.2L engine, now it's over 2700lbs and has a 1.6L.

It is always crazy to read those layoff stories with people let go overnight for no reason and escorted out of building by security.

Must be hard to work knowing that can happen.

He should have applied for perm residency under EB-1. This EB-1 has many loopholes, which many postdocs and Ph.Ds exploit. Bunch of citations, h-index, review articles, letters from peers would do.

He should join Tesla :)

No emission issue for Tesla I guess. But they may have battery issues.

An engineer with strong critical thinking skills is what I imagine he can bring to the table.

re: H1-B et al immigration issues.

What the United States need to do is to completely abolish all welfare programs and go back to Ellis island style immigration system.

Kills 2 birds with one stone.

It astonishes me how society is so against exposing hurtful realities. At least this way.

Such is life in corporate America. It rains on the just and the unjust.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com