Hacker News Reader

Comment by ycombonator | Hacker News Reader

Visa is not a right, it's a privilege.

Please be aware, entering the United States is a privilege, not a right. https://help.cbp.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/757/~/friend%2C....

View on HN

Let's break this down a little bit.

> Visa is not a right, it's a privilege. "Please be aware, entering the United States is a privilege, not a right."

100% correct, and nobody is saying otherwise.

What people here are saying is that it's a two-way street. The alien agrees to leave their lives behind, leave their friends, their families, their jobs back home and come work for an American employer to the benefit of the US and the US economy over that of their home country. In exchange, the government agrees to allow them to enter into and reside in the United States for a period of time and affords them certain rights and privileges. That's the deal.

Reneging on your end of the deal half way through is dealing in bad faith. It makes America look bad. It diminishes America's brand, it's standing in the world, its reputation and the value of its word. Make no mistake it's entitled to do that. What we're arguing is breaking your word is bad and you could argue that's true regardless how you feel about the H-4 program.

It's just like backing out of the climate accord, backing out of the Iran deal and demanding concessions on NAFTA. America's word should be its bond. Every single one of these deals is time-limited, including H-4s. Change it on expiry. Don't renew it. Update the program for the next wave. Don't pull the rug out from under the world, especially those that depend on you. It's not a good look, and doing it enough times may leave America without a seat at the table.

> It diminishes America's brand, it's standing in the world, its reputation and the value of its word.

Spot on. The amount of damage done in the last couple of years is incredible, the long term damage is going to have major effect on America's ability to effectively develop its foreign policies.

Everyone is pretty aware that most H1-b visa holders aren’t exactly highly-skilled labor. It’s been heavily abused at this point.

How could you argue otherwise when the minimum salary for a H1-b eligible position is $60,000?

This seems to be correcting a massive loophole in the already broken H1-b program.

I'm trying to be very specific in not arguing about the merits of the program but in how the change was implemented and what that means. You made promises to these people and now you're breaking them (assuming you're an American, as the government acts on your behalf). You can choose not to make the promises again in the future, but that's totally different. I'm not opining on the merits of the decision but in how it was made, and that's equally important if not more so.

Just to address some misinformation -- again without opining -- I don't think the H-1B program has a $60K minimum wage as you assert. The program requires your employer pay you at least the prevailing wage for your job in the geographical area. This information is maintained by the Department of Labor Employment and Training Administration National Prevailing Wage Center (DOLETA NPWC), I kid you not. A prospective employer of an H-1B worker is required to file an LCA (labor conditions application) with the Department of Labor showing that they are paying at least the prevailing wage. The form is here [1].

Frankly if you search [2] you'll see a software developer would need to be paid between $95K and $175K in San Francisco depending on seniority. Sounds about right, tbh.

[1] https://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdf/ETA_Form_9035CP....

[2] https://flcdatacenter.com/OesQuickResults.aspx?code=15-1132&...

Everyone is pretty aware that most H1-b visa holders aren’t exactly highly-skilled labor.

"Everyone is pretty aware" seems like a way of avoiding examining the facts. H1-B visas are explicitly designed for skilled labor, and most non-US citizens working in the US at places like Google and Facebook come under a H1-B visa.

So.. maybe "most" aren't high skilled labor, but 90% of applicants are jobs requiring high STEM knowledge[1], so it seems like a bit of evidence to support your view here might be useful.

It’s been heavily abused at this point.

This is possible, but it seems like the solution would be to attack the abuse problem rather than banning the spouses of people who are doing the right thing.

[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/27/key-facts-a...

I have no idea why you're citing a government website on an ethical question. You realize that law and policy is just something a bunch of people decided was a good idea? The distinction between rights versus privileges, insofar as it is defined by law and policy, has nothing to do with ethics.

So "law and policy is just something a bunch of people decided was a good idea". What do you think ethics is? If we're going to be really strict, then everything about humans is "just a bunch of people decided was a good idea".

The criticism is that using what the government said to justify what the government then said when both are opinions is weak and circular.

And government’s opinions change far more frequently than ethics.

Government tends not to opine on ethics in official communiques

Do you believe, as I do, that the foundation of ethics is supernatural? If not, then ethics is also just something a bunch of people decided was a good idea too in your world view. And a democratically elected representative legislative body is as good a bunch of people as any to do so.

Edit: this really is the cultural differences thread

> Do you believe, as I do, that the foundation of ethics is supernatural?

In other words: if you don't believe in the supernatural you can't have ethics?

I would expect commenters here to have better reading comprehension skills. I explicitly allowed that one could have ethics based on arbitrary consensus.

That said, your discomfort is natural. After all, if the foundation of ethics is purely natural, then what is it? Logic perhaps? What logic tells us that murder is wrong, when logically murder is sometimes advantageous? Is it science then? What science tells us that rape is wrong, when evolution tells us fitness is propagating genes? Then is it aesthetics? Are goodness and beauty the same? Or is there an objective standard of right and wrong that isn't dependent on any human being's whims or self-interest? If so, what is its source?

I would suggest that rather than critiquing the reading skills of the people commenting on HN to start off from the position that maybe what you wrote was not un-ambiguous.

The way you write is suggestive (including the reply you wrote) and that is why I asked for your clarification.

Driving is a privilege and if the government arbitrary removed it from a certain class of people it would be considered unjust. Here an example. California revoking all drivers license to people who moved to the state in the last 5 years. It’s perfectly legal and could have a good justification with easing congestion but is pretty unjust to people who need a car to get to work.

Seems like an unjust way to retract a privilege, then.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com