Hacker News Reader

Comment by uasm | Hacker News Reader

> "You do realize that the "highly skilled" part has been systematically ignored for a couple decades now?"

Is that a fact? "Ignored" by whom, and how exactly?

Applicants must prove they are indeed exceptionally skilled. Sponsoring employers must prove the candidates are skilled. The petitions involve CVs, references from colleagues, diplomas, supporting evidence, interviews, all kinds of proof. Are you saying it's all just bullshit?

Look, we've all met "bad" software engineers. But how much of it is simply subjective judgement? You can't possibly claim those are people coming here on a free pass.

For what it's worth, I've met plenty of mediocre "natives". Maybe it's just the talent pool.

View on HN

The applicants aren't the problem. It's the employers bending and breaking the rules and regulators not enforcing them.

> "It's the employers bending and breaking the rules and regulators not enforcing them"

Those are serious accusations, coming with absolutely no proof whatsoever.

You can't possibly claim rules are being broken at scale when it comes to bringing in skilled migrants into the US. That just rings like xenophobic scaremongering.

Disney broke the law when attempting to replace its IT department with guest workers. Proof enough?

> "Disney broke the law when attempting to replace its IT department with guest workers. Proof enough?"

You're lying again: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/14/us/judge-says-disney-didn...

Will you stop spreading false information? And will you stop making up false accusations?

>The outsourcing companies argued that the law would apply to them only if the American workers who were displaced by visa holders they hired had originally been their employees, not Disney’s. Judge Presnell was persuaded by that argument, although he did not entirely reject the idea that the Americans were “adversely affected” by being fired.

>>The decision was a broad victory for Disney and its contractors, but Judge Presnell left the former workers a small window to amend their lawsuits and to try again.

The lower court’s decision was based on a literal technicality loophole in the regulation where two companies are involved instead of one. An appeal was left open where a higher court may choose to use more leeway in interpreting the spirit and intent of the law and whether that technicality is skirting the law.

Please don’t post misinformation and straw man arguments instead of the OP’s intent.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com