Hacker News Reader

Comment by lacker | Hacker News Reader

This whole area of law is nonsense. Facebook software engineering doesn’t have “positions”. You don’t apply for some specific role. They are hiring thousands of engineers every year, they hire for general software engineering skills, and you figure out what exactly you’re working on afterwards.

Meanwhile, US immigration law assumes that you are hiring one person at a time, and that each person is being hired for a separate “position”. You cannot say, we need 3000 people in this role this year, we have 1000, so we need 2000 more.

It ends up just being incoherent. You have to answer questions like “why are you unable to hire an American” and it’s like... well we are. We’re hiring many many Americans.

View on HN

I think you just made the Justice Department's case for them. An H-1B is intended for individuals with specialized skillsets. The fact that Facebook engages in this form of mass, generic recruiting underscores the fact that they are not seeking out rare skillsets and don't really need to utilize this program to find people matching the required criteria.

Bingo. My dad came over here in an H1-B because his company needed a public health expert with experience in Bangladesh. There were probably a handful of people in the world with that background. The company wasn’t going to find an American with those skills.

I’m sympathetic to the idea that we should have a generic immigration mechanism for skilled workers. But we don’t have that. Congress hasn’t created one because the American people won’t support one. (Or at least, the parties that want such a thing aren’t willing to spend political capital on it so long as they can kick the can down the road by abusing the current system).

It sounds like your dad should've come in on the O-1.

It's not mutually exclusive. If a company has H-1B quota that is unused, it may be beneficial for the company to sponsor under the H-1B directive rather than start a new process for an O-1. O-1s are also significantly difficult to qualify for; it is unclear whether an "average" public health expert would qualify.

O-1 didn’t exit back then.

Gotcha. The H-1B was first created in the 1950s for aliens of "distinguished merit and ability". In 1990, it became a visa for workers in a "specialty occupation". The 1990 law also added the O-1 visa.[1] It sounds like the H visa was rebadged as the O visa and a new skilled worker visa was named the H visa.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-1B_visa#Creation

> Gotcha. The H-1B was first created in the 1950s for aliens of "distinguished merit and ability".

No it wasn't (as your own link clearly states), the H-1 was created in the 1950s, but the the H-1B was created in the 1990 INA, along with statutory dual intent for the H-1 category, and along with the creation of the O-1.

Sheesh ok. The H visa was created in the 1950s. Happy?

O-1 requirements are very strict, and it’s not enough to just be an expert on a random arcane topic X.

Stop retconning history. The H-1B has always been meant as a path to permanent residence, which is why it has been dual intent since the beginning.

The AC21 indefinite extensions were added because the per-country backlogs were not anticipated back when the program was created. But it has always, from the very beginning, built a path to permanent residence in via EB2, EB3 and the dual intent provision.

Edit: The person replying to me about the H1B not being dual intent from the beginning is wrong. I have receipts. The H1B was introduced in the Immigration Act of 1990.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/101st-congress/senate-bill/358...

> `(h) The fact that an alien is the beneficiary of an application for a preference status filed under section 204 or has otherwise sought permanent residence in the United States shall not constitute evidence of an intention to abandon a foreign residence for purposes of obtaining a visa as a nonimmigrant described in subparagraph (H)(i) or (L) of section 101(a)(15) or otherwise obtaining or maintaining the status of a nonimmigrant described in such subparagraph, if the alien had obtained a change of status under section 248 to a classification as such a nonimmigrant before the alien's most recent departure from the United States.'.

Edit to respond to the second reply: The H-1B is dual intent. I did not make any claims about a visa category that no longer exists. Besides, the argument about whether the H-1B is an update or a new category doesn't matter -- it is clear that Congress intended for the H-1B, as created (or updated if you will) in 1990, to be a path to permanent residence. The assertion that it was never intended that way is ahistorical.

Further edit: It sounds like rayiner's dad came in on an older H-1 which indeed didn't have the dual intent provision, not an H-1B which does. The details matter here!

Further, further edit:

> The only reason you need “dual intent” is because the law still requires H1-B holders to have non-immigrant intent.

I literally pointed to the provision of the 1990 Act which does not require non-immigrant intent for people in H and L statuses. This is what Congress intended.

Of course the H-1B isn't an immigrant visa. It is a dual intent visa, in that it preserves the option value of not having to become a green card holder (and thus pay US taxes worldwide if you decide to leave later, etc.) So someone on an H-1B can choose to become a permanent resident, but doesn't have to become one.

I'm sympathetic to the argument that people should have to decide within a few years either to leave or to stay permanently, but for that the green card backlogs need to be eliminated by statute.

> which is why it has been dual intent since the beginning.

It has not.

> > which is why it has been dual intent since the beginning.

> It has not.

The H-1B has been. The broader H-1 has not (but has been for 30 years, just as long as the H-1B has existed, other than H-1B1, which is not.)

Okay, then it's technically true, but it's not materially important, as elaborated by rayiner's response.

You're actually right. The H-1 is not the H-1B (in the same way that user ID 1030 in your database is not user ID 103) which is probably where the confusion is stemming from.

> The H-1 is not the H-1B (in the same way that user ID 1030 in your database is not user ID 103) which is probably where the confusion is stemming from.

The H-1B is, under the statute, one of the subcategories within the H-1, and is covered by the same rules except to the extent they are explicitly distinguished. The H-1B1, another subcategory, is explicitly not included in the carve-out of the H-1 from the rule generally prohibiting immigration intent for nonimmigrant visas, which, so the H-1B1 is not, while other H-1s including the H-1B are, dual-intent visas.)

H-1 nonimmigrant visas are the set of visas governed by 8 USC Sec. 1101(a)(15)(h)(i), which included the H-1A [now defunct, formerly Sec 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(a)], and includes the H-1B [Sec 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b)], the H-1B1 [Sec 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b1)], and the H-1C [Sec 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(c)].

The relationship is not the same as ID 1030 to ID 103.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1101#a_15_H_i

Right, but it's not the H-1. They're named that way because of the category of the code but it's a new visa category that is distinct from the H-1 from the 1950s. The area covered by the H-1 is now in language covered by a different visa.

Replying to your edit, H1 visa has been introduced by 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, and in 1990 it was only split into H1A and H1B, to separate out nurses into H1A.

That’s incorrect. The H1 visa is by its terms a temporary work visa of limited duration: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-1B_visa. It was created in the 1952 INA. In the 1990 INA, it was split into the H-1A and H-1B, but continued to be an non-immigration visa, as distinguished from immigration visas introduced in the 1990 statute: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1990

“Dual intent” is the “administrative fiat” I was talking about. Both the 1952 and 1990 INA define an H-1 worker as an alien “who is coming temporarily to the United States to perform services.” Non-immigrant intent is a prerequisite for the category. Since the 1952 Act, the INS adopted a fiction of dual intent to turn the H-1 visa into a de-facto immigration visa. However, the State Department didn’t recognize dual intent. When an H1 visa holder filed an immigration petition, the State Department treated that as signaling intent to immigrate, in violation of the H1 terms. When the visa holder travelled, they risked not being allowed back in the country, causing significant hardship.

With the INS having backed Congress into a corner, the 1990 INA included a narrow solution to eliminate the specific hardship and maintain the status quo. But it didn’t change the fundamental nature of the H1 visa as a temporary immigration visa. It’s still a temporary non-immigrant visa in the statute, as distinguished from immigrant visas which are also in the statute. The committee’s legislative history for the 1990 INA makes clear that Congress was just kicking the can down the road and alleviating that specific hardship without reconceptualizing H-1B as an immigrant visa:

> The difficulties encountered by those seeking temporary admission who have also expressed a desire to immigrate at some time in the future have caused severe personal hardship as well as inhibited frequent travel to the United States for business purposes. This has been particularly onerous for the beneficiaries of H and L visas. The Committee [on the Judiciary] sees no useful purpose in denying temporary entry to the United States for business purposes because of an inability to show that a residence abroad will not be abandoned. Such presumption of immigrant intent in particular circumstances creates purposeless, but often insurmountable, barriers for the prospective employee and the employer. For all categories of nonimmigrant visas (including the H and L), the bill provides that the filing of an immigrant petition cannot be a factor in determining whether an alien intends to abandon a foreign residence. The Committee notes, however, that the consular officers may rely on other evidence indicating the possibility of overstaying a visa, such as records of past visits to the United States.

If the H1-B was “meant as a path to permanent residence” the whole “dual intent” thing would be meaningless. The only reason you need “dual intent” is because the law still requires H1-B holders to have non-immigrant intent. It’s a kludge to deal with the fact that Congress can’t actually muster the votes to create a real skilled immigration system.

> “Dual intent” is the “administrative fiat” I was talking about.

Except that while the term "dual intent" is a term of art which doesn't appear in the statute, the exception from the rule requiring no immigration intent for non-immigrant visas for visas in the H-1 category (from which exception the H-1B1 is now also excepted, putting it back into the no-immigration-intent category) was also part of the 1990 INA that created the H-1B. While there are categories where you might argue dual intent exists by administrative fiat rather than statute (IIRC, that's the practice with P nonimmigrant visas), its absolutely not the case with V, H-1 (except H-1B1), and L visas, which are explicitly statutorily excluded from the no-immigration-intent rule.

> Since the 1952 Act, the INS adopted a fiction of dual intent to turn the H-1 visa into a de-facto immigration visa.

Possibly true between 1952 and 1990, but since 1990 the H-1 has been a visa which explicitly, under statute law allows for immigration intent. To the extent that there was an administrative usurpation involved, it hasn't been an issue since the middle of the George H. W. Bush Administration, and, moreover, its never been an issue for the H-1B, which was created at the same time as the explicit statutory dual intent rule.

As an aside, this whole debate has been super fascinating, but I'm a little confused as to why it matters. What major difference does immigration intent have on the economics of importing tech labor?

I think there's a good argument to be made that you should have to make your mind up about staying permanently after a few years. There is a lot of value in having people set roots in a community long-term.

That's kind of my thought? At the point where you're, like, both stably employed and committing to raise a family here, I no longer care at all about your immigration status. I feel like I must be missing something.

The problem is that the DOJ, and commenters in the thread, are attacking the process by which people make that happen.

As broken as the process is, the DOJ and commenters here clutching their pearls in the direction of excluding would-be permanent residents, by (for example) making false claims about how H1B was never intended to provide option value, are doing a xenophobia.

I'm confident Rayiner isn't a xenophobe, which is why I'm wondering what I'm missing about his argument.

Throwing around accusations of “xenophobia” is an attempt to shut down legitimate debate. I’m an immigrant from Bangladesh and a naturalized U.S. citizen. You can take my comments in that context.

The H-1 and H-1B system was the result of a political compromise. Americans didn’t want to create a new flow of skilled immigrants. So what Congress created in 1952 was a program for skilled nonimmigrant temporary workers. It came to be used, by executive fiat, as a permanent immigration system. And in 1990, Congress papered over it a bit. But if you read the 1990 statute, it still says it’s for “nonimmigrant” “temporary” workers.

The H-1B was never intended to give workers the “option” of either staying permanently or going back home. You seem to be confused about what “dual intent” means. It’s not an option (disjunctive). It doesn’t mean you can choose to be a temporary nonimmigrant worker, or an immigrant who intends to seek permanent residency. It’s a conjunctive. It means that an immigrant has both the intention to not immigrate permanently, and the intention to immigrate permanently, at the same time. Why do you need both? Why does the “dual intent” provision of the law say that filing a permanent residency petition shall not create a presumption that the person intends to immigrate? Isn’t that a ridiculous thing to say? Obviously someone who files a residency petition intends to immigrate! The reason you need all of that logical contortion and hoop jumping is because the H-1B is still intended for nonimmigrant temporary workers.

It’s very simple. Why does the law require Facebook to advertise a job to US workers when it files a PERM certification? There is already an H-1B worker holding that job! If the H-1B visa is intended to give that person the “option” of permanent residency, why does Facebook have to try and find someone else for the job? And if Facebook actually advertised for the job properly and found an American worker, the H-1B worker would then not get permanent residency and have to go home. If the system intends to give the H-1B worker the “option” to be an immigrant, why would it be designed that way?

What the DOJ is doing is enforcing the original design of the immigration law. Part of that compromise was that temporary H-1B workers would only be allowed to get permanent residency if the employer can certify that it has looked and can’t find an American to do the job instead. The process isn’t supposed to be a formality where Facebook ensures that the H-1B worker gets to keep the job so he or she can get permanent residency.

I think it's significant here that we haven't passed an immigration law since 1986, predating the entire tech industry. It's in these situations of Congressional constipation that existing mechanisms start to fall apart at the seams, and programs end up being reused for purposes far from their original intent.

It's relevant to understanding the theory of the case. The lawsuit accuses Facebook of not seeking to recruit Americans for PERM positions as the law requires:

> In its investigation, the department determined that Facebook’s ineffective recruitment methods dissuaded U.S. workers from applying to its PERM positions. The department concluded that, during the relevant period, Facebook received zero or one U.S. worker applicants for 99.7 percent of its PERM positions, while comparable positions at Facebook that were advertised on its careers website during a similar time period typically attracted 100 or more applicants each. These U.S. workers were denied an opportunity to be considered for the jobs Facebook sought to channel to temporary visa holders, according to the lawsuit.

In practice, what happens is that an H-1B worker is working for Facebook and wants to obtain permanent residency. To do that, Facebook files a PERM labor certification, which requires it to advertise the position to Americans. But Facebook doesn't want to hire someone else to fill that position--it wants the H-1B worker to continue doing the job they're already doing.

If you think of H-1B as being for people who wanted to seek permanent residency all along, this makes little sense. Why require Facebook to advertise a job someone is already doing to other people just to sponsor that person's permanent residency? After all, this person may have been in the U.S. already for years, and is surely counting on being allowed to keep his or her job and stay in the country.

To make sense of this bizarre system, you have to realize that H-1B was not designed for people who intended to immigrate all along. It was designed to satisfy the demand for temporary workers with people who will mostly go home afterwards. The PERM advertising requirement exists to ensure that there really is no American who can do the job instead.

Assuming for the sake of argument that Facebook does face a shortage of skilled engineers, what it faces is a structural shortage. To deal with that structural shortage, it needs immigrants who intend to work in the U.S. permanently. But we don't have a good vehicle for skilled immigrants to say off the bat "I want to come to the U.S. to work, and I intend to stay in the U.S. permanently." H-1B wasn't designed for that. It was designed to fill temporary shortages.

When it comes to "fixing" the H-1B system, you can't overlook the underlying political compromise. Americans don't support creating a permanent flow of skilled immigrants. (At least, not without concessions in other areas, such as curbing illegal immigration.) It seems obvious to "fix" H-1B by just getting rid of things like the PERM advertising requirement. But if you do that, you're subverting the political compromise that led to H-1B in the first place.

> Edit: The person replying to me about the H1B not being dual intent from the beginning is wrong. I have receipts. The H1B was introduced in the Immigration Act of 1990.

The statute doesn’t say anything about “dual intent.” That’s an administrative fiction. Under the actual law, the H-1B is a “nonimmigrant” visa status for temporary workers.

The status is defined in Section 1101(a)(15), which describes various “classes of nonimmigrant aliens.” See: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1101

In that same provision, subsection (H)(1)(b) defines the status as a worker “who is coming temporarily to the United States to perform services” in a “speciality occupation.”

The provision you quote doesn’t create some concept of “dual intent.” It simply says that someone shall not be presumed to have immigrant intent just because they file an adjustment of status petition. Why would that even matter? Because H-1B still requires nonimmigrant intent!

If Congress had designed H-1B to be a pathway to permanent residency, it would say that in the statute. Instead what happened is that for 40 years the executive branch abused the H-1 program to turn a temporary immigration visa into a de facto permanent immigration system. Congress didn’t want to blow up the status quo, but also couldn’t get the vote to create a real system for permanent immigration of skilled workers. The 1990 INA doesn’t even use the words “dual intent” or anything like it. Congress did the minimum it needed to address the situation where State Department was barring H-1 holders who has filed an immigration petition from re-entering, because that’s all they could get the votes for.

> The statute doesn’t say anything about “dual intent.”

V, L and H-1 (including H-1b, but excluding H-1b1) nonimmigrant visas are explicitly, by statute, excluded from the rule requiring nonimmigrant visa holders to lack immigrant intent; Immigration and Nationality Act Sec. 214(b), as amended, codified at US Code Title 8, Sec. 1184(b).

"Dual intent" isn't an administrative fiction, its a term of art for the nonimmigrant visa categories excluded from the generally applicable requirement for having (and demonstrating) the absence of immigrant intent. Its true that there are some visa categories where "dual intent" is applied adminstratively rather than from a clear statutory rule, but V, L, and H-1 (except H-1b1) visas have explicit statutory allowance for dual intent.

> If Congress had designed H-1B to be a pathway to permanent residency, it would say that in the statute.

But...it does say that in the statute.

> Instead what happened is that for 40 years the executive branch abused the H-1 program to turn a temporary immigration visa into a de facto permanent immigration system.

Whether or not H-1 may have been abused that way between 1980 and 1990 (the first 10 years of your "40 year period") [See EDIT below], the exemption of H-1 and L visas from the no-immigration-intent requirement has been express in statute since the Immigration Act of 1990, so for the last 30 years the behavior you complain about has been strictly as directed by statute.

References:

Summary: http://www.americanlaw.com/dintent.html

Current codification and history: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1184 [history of amendments, including text added by the 1990 amendment at issue, by clicking "Notes"]

[EDIT: The H-1B can't have been abused between 1980 and 1990, while I checked when the H-1B was added to the exception from the no-immigration-intent rule, I didn't check when the visa category itself as added, which was at the same time in the INA of 1990. So, no, it was never abused as a route to immigration, it has always explicitly allowed that use in the statute. Conceivably, the unsplit H-1 could have been abused between 1980 and 1990, though.]

> V, L and H-1 (including H-1b, but excluding H-1b1) nonimmigrant visas are explicitly, by statute, excluded from the rule requiring nonimmigrant visa holders to lack immigrant intent;

The US Code Title 8, Sec. 1184(b) has nothing to do with the "dual intent" thing. What happens there is that people on visas like B2 are _presumed_ to be immigrants, and need to actually argue that they are not in front of consular officers in the embassy and the immigration officers at the border. The holders of V, L and H visas are exempt from this, and they are presumed non-immigrant by default. However, contrary to what you say here, L and H visa holders are still required to lack immigration intent.

The dual intent rule stems from completely different piece o US code, see the section 205 of Immigration Act of 1990:

> (h) The fact that an alien is the beneficiary of an application for a preference status filed under section 204 or has otherwise sought permanent residence in the United States shall not constitute evidence of an intention to abandon a foreign residence for purposes of obtaining a visa as a nonimmigrant described in subparagraph (H)(i) or (L) of section 101(a)(15) or otherwise obtaining or maintaining the status of a nonimmigrant described in such subparagraph, if the alien had obtained a change of status under section 248 to a classification as such a nonimmigrant before the alien's most recent departure from the United States.'.

This is the source of the dual intent doctrine. Note what it says: it says that application for permanent residency shall not constitute evidence of an intention to abandon a foreign residence. The reason it says so is because prior to that, such application has in fact been used by Department of State to presume immigrant intent on behalf of H1 visa holders, and to deny them entry. This is the "legal fiction" rayiner is talking about: H1B visa holders are still required to have no immigration intent, and while the US Code Title 8, Sec. 1184(b) frees them from the presumption that they do have one and requirement to prove that they do not have it, the dual intent doctrine was still necessary in order to bar government agencies from concluding that they intend to immigrate based on their application explicitly saying that they intend to immigrate.

> But...it does say that in the statute.

No, H1B is still a non-immigrant visa, see section 1101(a)(15) which defines the non-immigrant visas.

> the exemption of H-1 and L visas from the no-immigration-intent requirement has been express in statute since the Immigration Act of 1990, so for the last 30 years the behavior you complain about has been strictly as directed by statute.

Right, the amended statute doesn't make it actually illegal, but still the whole procedure is based on legal fiction of not concluding immigrant intent where there obviously is one.

> This is the "legal fiction" rayiner is talking abou

Rayiner did not reference a “legal fiction” based in statute, he referenced an “administrative fiction” that he specifically claimed was unsupported by the statute and a product of abuse by the executive over the last 40 years.

This is clearly false. It is expressly the statutory policy directed by Congress.

> It is expressly the statutory policy directed by Congress.

Yes, that's what makes the fiction legal. However, the "fiction" part is about prohibiting government agencies from concluding immigration intent based on the application for permanent residency which clearly does show immigration intent. The H1B holders are still technically required to not have immigration intent, and it still technically is a non-immigrant visa, but it's all a fiction in practice.

H-1B holders aren't "excluded from the rule requiring nonimmigrant visa holders to lack immigrant intent." 8 USC 1184(b), which you cite, says something quite different:

> (b) Presumption of status; written waiver Every alien (other than a nonimmigrant described in subparagraph (L) or (V) of section 1101(a)(15) of this title, and other than a nonimmigrant described in any provision of section 1101(a)(15)(H)(i) of this title except subclause (b1) of such section) shall be presumed to be an immigrant until he establishes to the satisfaction of the consular officer, at the time of application for a visa, and the immigration officers, at the time of application for admission, that he is entitled to a nonimmigrant status under section 1101(a)(15) of this title.

This creates a rebuttable presumption that an alien has immigrant intent, and excludes H-1B holders from that presumption.

But the H-1B is still a non-immigrant visa. 8 USC 1101(a)(15) clearly distinguishes "immigrants" from "nonimmigrant aliens." An H-1B is classified as a "nonimmigrant alien." Subsection (H)(1)(b) still applies to those who will work "temporarily" in the U.S. H-1Bs are still governed by 8 USC 1184 ("admission of nonimmigrants") and not 8 USC 1181 ("admission of immigrants").

> "Dual intent" isn't an administrative fiction, its a term of art for the nonimmigrant visa categories excluded from the generally applicable requirement for having (and demonstrating) the absence of immigrant intent.

It's a term of art that refers to an administrative fiction. That fiction allows a visa that is by its terms a nonimmigrant visa for temporary workers to be treated in practice as the first step in the path to permanent immigration. The 1990 INA doesn't change that in substance--it merely excludes H-1Bs from a presumption to avoid blowing up the fiction. This is the result of H-1B being a statutory kludge in response to the executive branch's longstanding abuse of the H-1 visa created in the 1952 INA.

Other countries have real skilled immigrants visas that are designed to be such. They work very differently, and make much more sense because they were designed for that purpose. E.g. https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/se...

An H-1B is intended for individuals with specialized skillsets.

Specialized, yes, but it isn't supposed to be for completely unique skills. If someone is one of the top 100,000 software engineers in the world, that is a specialized skill set. And it makes sense for our country to encourage those people to immigrate.

> And it makes sense for our country to encourage those people to immigrate.

That’s a decision for Congress to make and it hasn’t done that. What it has created is a temporary immigration system for skilled workers. The skills don’t have to be unique, but employers must prove that they can’t find workers with that skill set domestically at prevailing wage rates. And that it seems absurd for places like Facebook to say that when they reject so many applications from talented developers.

That it has a fairly well documented system I suppose? Their interviews are well defined. They tell you what their interviewers will look for. The hire/no-hire decision is made by a panel not a single individual.

Whether tech interviews should be algorithmic or not is beside the point. But they have a very well-defined process. So every rejection and acceptance is probably very well documented.

And that it seems absurd for places like Facebook to say that when they reject so many applications from talented developers.

It isn't absurd at all. Facebook is one of the companies doing this the right way. Facebook interviews H1-B candidates in exactly the same way it interviews American citizens, and they pay the same to H1-Bs and American citizens in the same role. When they reject an American candidate, it's because they don't think that candidate is sufficiently skilled, not because they want to hire a foreigner with the same skills for cheaper.

If Facebook loses any candidates in this general pool because they were outbid by other companies, then they could have filled the slot by paying an American more than the H1-B.

No it fucking does not. I interviewed with facebook ten days ago. Management cancelled my phone screen and instead I got a generic interview with a foreign manager "where do you see yourself in five years" followed by a reject within 12 hours.

Stop the fucking bullshit goddammit.

There are not anywhere near enough American-born skilled software engineers to supply the US tech industry. Take foreign-born software engineers out of the picture and the majority of software engineers in Silicon Valley are gone.

You can't make up for that by just offering higher wages. Maybe a few top companies would be able to manage it, but only by poaching all the engineers from other companies. Ultimately, the industry will move elsewhere if US companies can't hire foreign engineers. The US only supplies a fraction of the world's software engineers. There's no inherent reason why the world's tech sector has to be so concentrated in the US.

> And that it seems absurd for places like Facebook to say that when they reject so many applications from talented developers.

That's nonsense. FB pays upwards of $200K per year to fresh CS graduates. Compare that to $60K made by a chemical engg graduate. If there were plenty of talented developers why are they paying such astronomical salaries?

> If there were plenty of talented developers why are they paying such astronomical salaries?

Because Facebook (and Google, for that matter) discovered a money hose that is called online advertising, so they can be more liberal with the money they dole out. Also, SV tends to be expensive.

The amount of money your are paid does not necessarily mean you are the best and brightest, as much the HN/software types like to believe.

> Because Facebook (and Google, for that matter) discovered a money hose that is called online advertising

They are more generous because they have more money? Preposterous. That's not how businesses work. Businesses pay the lowest possible salaries regardless of how much money they make. If they are paying high salaries that's because that's what it takes to hire the top talent. The laws of supply and demand come into play here, not generosity.

And how are you going to show that your candidate actually has the “is in top 100,000 in the world” skill?

I think that US should have an option to give residency to top professionals, but H1B visa hasn’t been designed to allow that, and it is now used for that through hacks, legal fictions and tacit agreements.

No, the O-1 is meant for individuals with specialized skillsets. The H-1B is meant for workers with a bachelor's degree or above, or equivalent experience.

Besides, the idea of trying to segregate workers like this is bogus anyway. Fuck the police state.

"Specialized" != "rare". An auto mechanic has specialized skills, in that a general person on the street can't do that job. Auto mechanics aren't rare.

Also, the proportion of the total population that's capable of getting a job at FB is quite small. Within FB the people are largely interchangeable, precisely because of that high hiring bar. Everyone who's hired is smart, so they can all do everything (in theory).

Porsche-certified mechanics, are rare though.

Right, they're specialized and rare.

It's not the governments problem that FB's hiring bar is so high.

I don't even know what to make of this.

Well, they are rare though. If I have a problem finding 2,000 qualified people in X time then that skill is rare.(I recognize "qualified" is the company's threshold to call).

The problem at the core is the law itself. Why don't we instead just auction off visas to improve efficiency?

> Why don't we instead just auction off visas to improve efficiency?

The areas with lower cost and wages can't compete attracting local talent, but auctions would make it even harder for them to attract foreign talent as well. It's a losing proposition for pretty much everyone.

Do you think they have a problem finding 2,000 if they are paying market rate, or can you suspect that this is seen as a cheap alternative for getting equivalently skilled people at a lower cost?

Facebook tends to be one of the highest payers in industry. It's possible paying even higher would net more people, but overall math suggests the best N people won't necessary be US citizens or permanent residents.

The law doesn't say you can hire the best person if they are abroad though.

It effectively says you can't hire a better person from abroad if there is a person who is good-enough domestically.

(I'm only saying what the law says, not what is best for Facebook, the USA, or even what is morally right)

"qualified" is completely arbitrary. I can just set the threshold high enough such that there aren't enough "qualified" people domestically.

Mass generic recruiting doesn't mean that the jobs being filled aren't highly specialized. They're not hiring cafeteria workers on a H1b.

SWE is a specialization and job descriptions typically ask for things like experience dealing with high QPS distributed systems which is a very specific skillset.

> underscores the fact that they are not seeking out rare skillsets

Have you checked out FB salaries? They pay upwards of $200K for a fresh CS graduate. Compare that to a mechanical or chemical engineering graduate that makes $60K at best. You really think they would pay 3x if the skills aren't rare?

They pay more because they are a fucking GANG and they are probably paying a cut of that 200k up the chain to the people from their own country.

Yeah, I want more details.

It claims that Facebook specifically did not advertise some roles on its careers website, which led to these specific roles having ~0 US applications. Whereas most other roles have hundreds of US applications.

What 'roles' were these? Is there some specific role they are not advertising?

Edit: The original complaint https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1342786/downl... You are exactly right; there are no 'roles' and it stems from the completely different type of hiring exactly as you describe.

"Beginning no later than January 1, 2018, and continuing until at least September 18, 2019, Facebook’s standard operating procedure was to automatically initiate a PERM process when a temporary visa holder who was a Facebook employee in a “level 3” role1 or above asked Facebook for a permanent position, if the PERM process was needed to offer the PERM beneficiary such a position. 36. Facebook’s standard operating procedure was not to consider the temporary visa holder’s job performance or seniority or consult with the employee’s manager about the temporary visa holder’s job performance before initiating the PERM process on his or her behalf. 37. As noted above, to file a PERM application, Department of Labor rules first required Facebook to ensure that there were no minimally qualified and available U.S. workers for the position that Facebook wanted to offer to the PERM beneficiary. 38. From at least January 1, 2018 to at least September 18, 2019, when a Facebook employee who was a temporary visa holder expressed interest in receiving a permanent position through the PERM process, Facebook diverged from its normal recruiting protocols by not advertising the position on its external website, Facebook.com/careers, by not accepting online applications, and by requiring interested applicants to apply to the position by mail."

Essentially, it seems like when a temporary visa holder working at Facebook wanted to have a permanent position, Facebook would create a 'dummy' role for them, then advertise it where people would not apply, so that they could then hire the employee permanently. But I wouldn't call this discrimination at all; I would call this Facebook hiring as many talented people as they can, as fast as they can. The same 'role' is still available and on the careers website.

It's a reference to these "positions": 'However, the PERM process requires an employer to first demonstrate that there are no qualified and available U.S. workers for the position that the employer plans to offer to the temporary visa holder.'

I.e., not really new positions, as the temporary visa holder is already in said position.

It took the original as well as your quote, but my hot-take is: FB loves to automate; FB wants to scale hiring; FB automates an annoying process. Oops, that step (done automatically) is technically illegal. However, it probably never really came up in review or was optimistically ignored.

I'm torn between the "FB should be allowed to scale!" side vs the protectionist "Forcing higher demand would materially impact my personal wages in this profession."

IANAL or a FB employee.

Your description makes it sounds like they are blatantly violating the law are you sure there are not any more details?

Facebook SWE does have positions. There is a generic SWE role they hire a lot of recent grads into, but there are many bespoke positions. In my case, I was hired at Google onto a specific team via a bespoke role ("Test Engineer, Site Reliability Engineering") that was distinct from the general Test Engineer role. I interviewed with the team that I would be working on.

I don't understand why hiring 3000 engineers for a generic "engineering" can be reduced to "Facebook doesn't have positions."

Facebook is looking to hire a human to fill a spot in the org chart. The fact that they are hiring other people for other spots in the org chart (and they might be able to swap people) does not change that they are positions.

>You have to answer questions like “why are you unable to hire an American” and it’s like... well we are. We’re hiring many many Americans.

Saying no to this question means you are not hiring a US resident for this position. You're hiring many US residents for other positions. That seems...accurate?

Are you thinking that, if a company hires X number of US residents, that should entitle them to hire Y non-US residents? I'm not trying to be obtuse - I want to understand what a non "incoherent" policy would look like for you.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but Facebook hires people under a generic role (Software Engineer) and then has them choose the team they will join after a “bootcamp” session. So they are not preallocated to a team to fulfill a specific need, and it’s not a direct 1 requisition to 1 person type system. I believe that’s what the above poster was referring to when they mentioned Facebook hiring to be general.

The purpose of the program seems to be to bring in workers where there is a specific need, so if it’s a generic role then that’s not helpful to their cause.

Definitely not true. "Competent developer" is sufficiently specific. Role is just an instance of the class job.

What purpose do you need to hire that developer for?

To build software so you can compete with other software companies? These big companies have large engineering offices overseas as well, if they can't hire in USA they'd just put these people there instead. They wouldn't start hiring less qualified Americans as many in this thread seems to believe.

“Building software to compete with other companies” wouldn’t be specific enough for me if I was the judge.

If you said to me “we are building a VR headset and there is a specific image technique we want to employ to correct for foveated lenses, and we want to bring in an image processing expert” then that would be different if I was the judge.

I’m not arguing what should be the case, I’m saying what I think the intent of the current law accommodates for.

Right. But the DOJ is saying you cannot use the law that way.

> Facebook is looking to hire a human to fill a spot in the org chart.

This isn't true. Most (not all) engineers are just hired into "Facebook", in general, not onto a specific team with a specific manager. They choose a team to join about ~2 months after joining the company and going through an internal training and team selection process.

> Most (not all) engineers are just hired into "Facebook", in general

That, to me, sounds like a place on the org chart. Like you have a division or a subsidiary and they have X engineers. Those engineers could be placed with more detail, but they're still inside the organization.

If you're hiring janitors aren't they still janitors even if you don't know what building they will clean?

I feel like I am totally missing the point that people are trying to make and I apologize for being obtuse.

I think you're just misunderstanding the terminology. An org chart is a diagram that shows the connection between each manager and the people they directly manage. When you don't know who someone's direct manager will be, they don't have a "place on the org chart" yet.

I don't think that's it? "Org chart" describes both charts that identify particular people and also charts that describe the larger organization[1]. When Facebook says they are going to hire 3000 engineers, they are adding 3000 people to the Facebook organization. Even if they don't know what division / project / team / etc those people will end up in.

Edit: Probably a better thing to say is - even if I was using org chart wrong, I don't see how it would make a difference. Hiring N people that fit a set of requirements is seeking to fill N positions.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizational_chart has examples of both. You could imagine the organization chart of Tabulating Machine Co. including headcounts for each division.

The goal of these work visas is to hire someone with specialized skills to do work when the company can't find someone with the necessary skills locally. From a quick skim through the DoJ briefing, the argument which the DoJ makes is that Facebook knows that they have more power over employees that depend on them for work visas, and games the system by creating special job listings that only the applicant seeking a visa would know about and apply for.

On an intellectual level, I guess the distinction is in how you define "highly skilled" workers. Are all software engineers considered highly skilled? Or is there a distinction between a general engineer and someone who has experience and expertise in a specific subfield such as mobile development or infrastructure?

My way of thinking about it is with the latter. I would think that the DoJ is not happy with the idea of Facebook jumping through a bunch of hoops (mentioned as making positions invisible on their career site and requiring an application via physical mail while rejecting any U.S. candidates) to guarantee a work visa for someone to do specialized work that the company supposedly couldn't find any qualified Americans for when the person they hired doesn't even know what type of work they'll be doing or what team they'll be joining until after they go through 5-10 weeks of bootcamp, and which may end up not even aligning with their specialization.

Given that new hire engineers at Facebook sign an offer letter and are officially employed while they go through bootcamp before the whole team matching process, I don't think it's possible for someone to not get matched to a team, at worst they would get assigned to a random team with headcount at some point, which would really raise the chances of that person not working in their specialty.

If this assumption is true, the DoJ would definitely not be happy that Facebook was supposedly not able to find a qualified citizen/green card holder to do this job, but the new hire on a visa may not be qualified to do it either and there were most likely citizens/green card holders applicants who actually do have experience in that area of work.

Sorry if this is a bit ramble-y, I'm fairly new to HN.

> The goal of these work visas is to hire someone with specialized skills to do work when the company can't find someone with the necessary skills locally

The interesting thing is how difficult it is to understand the specific goal(s) of legislation. It depends on who you ask.

Just to clarify (I'm not taking a particular position on this discussion):

At Facebook, as of earlier this year at least, most Software Engineer and Production Engineer hires are definitely not headed toward a particular team. For the first few weeks, they're in 'bootcamp', which is quite generalized. For example: I've never done any meaningful Android or iPhone development in my life, but during bootcamp, I learned how to do Android and iPhone development (at a basic level) at Facebook.

After the first few weeks, but with a couple of weeks remaining in bootcamp, new hires are actively looking at and talking to different teams with open positions to join. By the end of bootcamp, a total of about five weeks, the person formally joins a team.

I would say it's more to assert or, if you are skeptical, present, in good faith that your business model or strategy isn't H1-B employee arbitrage. I.e. for the purpose of this scenario, in a holistic sense, Facebook doesn't avoid hiring Americans.

So like, the government says facebook had a bunch of PERM positions that they sandbagged recruiting for to Americans. But then, > while comparable positions at Facebook that were advertised on its careers website during a similar time period typically attracted 100 or more applicants each.

Are these...the same positions? How does facebook's hiring process work? Is there actually any discrete limit to the 'slots' on the careers website? Do they have 2500 listings for software engineers, or just like, everyone applies, we are looking to hire ~2000 people this year.

I can see where the government is probably right in saying "you did it wrong". But if you are facebook, and the hiring strategy is honestly:

* Hiring for the 'American' positions is only limited by the company finding the applicant skilled enough. There is no numerical cap.

* Only foreign applicants apply to a discrete, government-limited pool of PERM positions. This way you don't waste the PERM positions on Americans, who can apply to you nigh-unlimited pool of 'American' positions.

* Starting salary for everyone is the same ($156k)

I could certainly see that the government's way of interpreting your 'insidious hiring program' is flat-footed to the point of being wrong.

Seems like a bad idea to allow a corporation to reinterpret immigration law to mix and match visas and green cards in whatever ways that best fits its goals. You can pretty much bet it will be used in a way that gets around some aspect of the law.

Suppose the 500 jobs at the highest skill level are basically impossible to keep filled? Playing games like you suggest allows them to continually hire less skilled workers for roles Americans have no problem filling also. And they can continually complain to congress about needing more visas.

A lot of immigration law seems built around the idea that workers are interchangeable cogs. I see a lot of arguments in the comments here that seem based on the same assumption.

At top tier software shops (that pay US and immigrant employees the same) you're lucky if you can find enough US employees to fill the available roles by the time the next fiscal year starts. There are plenty of people applying who call themselves "Software Engineers" but most of them aren't very good. There is also a limit to how many new grads you can take on while having the bandwidth to train them. Once every team of 3-7 has a new grad you can't really take on any more. And the places I'm talking about already pay the highest salaries and bonuses in the world for SWEs.

Doing an L1 transfer or H1b is a lot of work. Dealing with PERM is a lot of work. If there really were a glut of super capable US engineers no one would bother going through that hassle.

Just what is supposed to happen here when you're already paying 2-3x (or more) average comp, hiring hundreds or thousands of US engineers every year, and you still can't find enough people?

I guess the government thinks somehow you should use the PERM process to find a replacement for your immigrant employee when you already can't find enough qualified US candidates to fill the brand new positions your company created this fiscal year? That chain of logic just leads to an even bigger deficit in unfilled positions or a government mandate to lower hiring standards. Neither of those is good for the company's competitiveness.

I don't know if this case is politically motivated but surely the Justice Department's time would be better spent going after the many well-known H1b body shops, where mega corps are abusing the system to replace US workers with cheaper immigrants?

If you mean the big consulting firms, they got taken out first. And they still prove the point don't they? The constraints got tightened, but it's still a bell curve with most people at the lowest level that makes it past the constraint.

And while I shudder at the thought of Facebook not being able to man its critical ad targeting development, this is all about growth and taking over every major new booming product category as they emerge. The more people they can funnel into the game of leveraging of their current products to take over others, the more they can take over. Then the economics of paying more makes sense. Also the need for people productive immediately without training. Though according to the complaint, the pay for PERM positions is 156k, not that crazy. And that's the average. For a company in Menlo Park. This isn't the "super-capable" people of the field.

Definitely, I agree with that a lot. That the process as-is would force them to justify not hiring an American over the foreign employee who already works for them just feels so strange to me.

Admittedly, reading the complaint further, it looks like there are accusations facebook did indeed do some sketchy stuff with regards to the process. For instance, if an American happened to actually apply to one of these jobs, and be qualified, they allege facebook would just abandon the process.

But honestly, I think for the same reasons that what they did was sketchy, I find myself agreeing with it more. I think that the complaint really buries the lede because not only did they have someone in mind with these PERM positions, according to the complaint, it looks like they had someone in mind who already worked for them.

Once again, I can see why the government is mad, facebook seems to have hacked their process. But while there is an accusation of a systematic dark pattern, I don't view it as a pattern of abuse. If the law is so spinlocked that you can't in good faith hire your own employees at market rates since they aren't American, I can't really blame companies trying to take their destiny into their own hands.

They really don’t hire that many Americans

You should really elaborate when you make a claim like that.

Go look on linked in. Of FB engineers, probably at least 40% are Chinese.

Is this a serious comment? First, skimming Linkedin is hardly an accurate way to see the racial makeup of a company. Second, Facebook has offices all over the world. Third, and most importantly, you know Chinese Americans exist, right?

Why can’t I reference a nationality without being called a racist? Who made you the thought police?

You said anything about being racist? I'm implying your comment is ridiculous, because you've used being racially Chinese as a proxy for not being American, which is clearly not valid.

I mean that's sort of the point. The program is supposed to be for specialized positions that you just can't get an American worker to fill. If you've just hired 1,000 Americans into an identical position you've demonstrated that you're misusing the intent of the program.

Not really, they wanted 3000 positions, they only found 2000 qualified Americans, so they hired the additional 1000 on a H1b.

Suppose you have a company and you need 3 people who can do X. You interview as many Americans as you can, and find 1 who can do the job. You fill 1 position with that American, and now start interviewing non-Americans and find 2 who you hire for the other two positions. This seems entirely within the intention of the H1B program.

Now suppose instead of 3 employees, you need 3000. You find 1000 Americans able to do the role, and hire 2000 non-Americans for the remaining roles. This still seems consistent with the intention.

Is it so hard to get american workers? Don't they pay enough? Or why do they need foreigners?

You want foreigners for diversity of workplace and ideas, for their different perspectives, for their direct exposure and intrinsic knowledge of their home countries, for the different expertise taught at their different schools...

Title VII of the civil rights act makes it illegal to classify applicants on the basis of national origin. If you are taking that into consideration while hiring you are in violation of the civil rights act.

National origin is not the only way to measure diversity.

Anyways, thankfully neither me nor my company is in the USA. If this is the reason why one can't build a diverse workplace, you built a very sad country.

That has nothing to do with why Facebook wants to hire foreigners.

Facebook wants to hire foreigners because they want to hire essentially everyone who passes their interviews, and only some subset of those are American.

Only 4.25% of the world's population lives in the US. It's mathematically impossible for all the best people to already live here.

What % of that is developers? What is the global demand for software developers?

Does it matter? There is no realistic way that all the best developers, or even all the good developers, already live in the USA.

> Does it matter? There is no realistic way that all the best developers, or even all the good developers, already live in the USA.

Yes, it does, you used a figure to suit your argument, now people are rightfully asking for a more relevant figure to see if your argument still stands. So what % of developers live in USA? The rest is just purely your opinion.

I would contend that the unknowable numbers the person is asking for are not actually relevant to the argument at all.

It is a knowable number you're just omitting it to suit your argument.

> I would contend that the unknowable numbers the person is asking for are not actually relevant to the argument at all.

More like you don't want to know, or it would turn your argument into an absurdity.

Please explain to me how knowing those values would change the argument. At what thresholds would it make a difference one way or the other?

Please explain how the number you cited is relevant at first place, with the same conditions:

> At what thresholds would it make a difference one way or the other?

You can look at a person and tell that they are bald. You can look at a person and tell that they are not bald. But you can't say exactly when they go from not bald to bald.

Since we can't know how many people are employed as developers, we must guess. But we can reasonably guess that if only 4.25% of the world's population lives in the US, it can't possibly have all the best developers, or even the majority of them.

It doesn't. This is like asking what percentage of international level pop singers live in the US. Definitely not 100%. Even considering baseball players the proportion isn't 100%.

If it doesn't then the grand grand parent's figure doesn't matter either, you can't have it both ways with this kind of argument. You can't use a number and when asked about an accurate representation of the problem, opt out claiming numbers don't matter.

I didn't say numbers don't matter. I just said your numbers don't matter, because they aren't relevant. It's on you to prove that the numbers you seek are relevant.

US companies definitely make up way more than 4.25% of the global demand for skilled software engineers. The global software industry is highly concentrated in the US, which is why there's a large influx of skilled software engineers into the US.

Without that influx, this concentration would be impossible. If the US heavily restricts immigration by software engineers, the industry will ultimately relocate elsewhere. Europe would love to get all its software engineers back.

Companies don't just hire the best people, otherwise they would not be advertising for new graduates and intermediate levels of experience. They hire the cheapest people they can get for the skills they need.

What exactly does Facebook need the best people for? To implement the remaining 5 percent of MySpace?

As to the H1-B thing, I suspect most of the people here haven't interviewed at the crummier software jobs (like at a commercial bank) but it's amazing how an entire department can be nothing but foreigners of no apparent excellence, and yet they can't "find" any citizens to hire even after interviewing them. There's heavy fraud top-to-bottom and it's going to get much worse.

FAANG resources are the highest in the country. They could afford to hire 100% US citizens if they chose to. Even if that made it much harder for non-FAANG companies. No one could afford to compete with them.

The motivation for FAANG committing so much fraud using the H1B isn't really debatable. They do it to to steal money for their shareholders. The same motivation for all their tax cheating. The difference being that the H1B fraud is clearly illegal, even if it has remain unprosecuted by virtue of political bribery, etc.

There aren't enough skilled American workers for FAANG's appetite. These companies are desperate for talent. The problem is just there isn't that much out there.

You're a victim of their big tech propaganda machine. The math proves this theory wrong in seconds.

And even if it was true (it's not), FAANG have enough money to train every person they want to hire from scratch. It would just cost more. Which is the entire point: they're greedy in the extreme.

Could you provide the math, then, rather than haughtily dismissing me?

You made the dubious claim that there aren't enough U.S. programmers. Why don't you feel the burden to back that up, rather than just blindly asserting it as fact? And you should ask yourself where you learned this "fact" from. I suspect that it came from the PR departments of the fraudsters themselves.

It's very easy to disprove in any specific instance that there aren't U.S. programmers available to fill a role. Take a look at the H1B openings and see if you can't find some people in your LinkedIn connections that could fill those roles and don't yet work for FAANG. I certainly could for almost any role because they're almost all very generic tech jobs.

It also seems likely to be false just based on the number of U.S. programmers and the number of programmers employed by FAANG. They are very big employers but not nearly big enough to employ even a majority of U.S. programmers.

I don't think anyone in FAANG leadership believes this claim to be true at all. They all know why they're committing fraud, which is to compete against the others that are doing it too. The same reason restaurants and farms hire people that are in the country illegally.

You probably fell for the same propaganda about Americans not wanting to work in restaurants or in farms. When in reality, they don't want to compete with people being exploited.

Some companies exploit "unskilled" illegal immigration.

Some companies exploit "skilled" fraudulent immigration.

In both cases, it's the unethical theft of wealth from the population.

You know what, you're absolutely correct! I should do a bunch of research in order to convince you of my point. I suspect this will be a really productive conversation, and will get right on that.

But do they need that many "best" people? Or are just "good enough" people from "shithole countries" cheaper than locals? I mean... why pay an american a good wage, when you can get someone from some poor country, give them a barely livable wage (especially with rent prices in silicon valley), bring them there with a h1b visa and treat them badly, because if they quit, they must leave the country.

I'm making an assumption that facebook only wants to hire what they perceive is the top 1% (Or some other number) of programmers regardless of background.

Maybe they want some employees to implement scary backdoors or portals and it's easier to control an immigrant dependent on Facebook or with different sense of morality.

Same reason bands from all over the world come to perform in America (well, in normal years, at least) even though America is full of performing musicians who are lucky if they ever make a penny? What reason is there to see the Rolling Stones when <band I have never heard of> is playing?

When the job is more than perfectly repeatable steps defined by an employer, which certainly describes the development of software, where anyone can be replaced with anyone else, there is sometimes value in specific people doing the job. People who may or may not be American.

Or maybe because foreigners are cheaper, are willing to work more for their pay, and even if treated badly, they won't quit, because they'll have to leave their country then.

But, in fact, the domestic performers are the cheaper ones. The employer still chooses the Rolling Stones more often than not, despite a substantially higher cost to employ them over a band that has never been heard of. Cost does not seem to be a consideration.

And if not music, the same holds true everywhere. There are all kinds of Americans willing to throw themselves into a job – especially a job at prestigious company like Facebook – for minimum wage, or even an unpaid position (often known as an internship). No problem at all. It is definitely not lack of Americans willing to work for almost nothing to even literally nothing. Those people are in abundance – particularly right now with higher than usual unemployment rates.

There is no moral obligation to hire a worker just because a particular state blessed them with a set of papers, usually because they were born on the right side of a line drawn in the middle of a desert.

edit to respond: Fine, then anyone willing to pay taxes in the US should get to work in the US.

Again, fuck the police state. People and communities matter, the state can burn to the ground for all I care.

But you can always find people in a shitty to do the job for cheaper than a local worker. why would local workers (=voters) want that?

The government should make rules that make lives better for their citizens,... other citizens have their own governments to take care of them.

Its because many Americans don't pass the interviews. Many more do. BigTech generally hires agnostic of citizenship or current status.

Source: Am American, and did not pass the interviews 2 years ago

Why shouldn't they hire foreigners? It is a global company.

When visa policies are tightened, FAANG companies don't decide "well, instead of hiring this Indian who passed our interview process, we'll hire an American who failed it instead". Rather, they expand their offices in places with less restrictive visa policies, like London or Vancouver.

...or they hire an american, who they have to pay money than a foreigner, and is not tied to them via their visa.

Indeed, one could plausibly imagine that happening! But in fact, at Facebook, it doesn’t.

Except that they really don't. That may change post pandemic and would change in the long term due to policy decisions. But global offices tend to organize around specific functions and/or products. A lot happen by acquisition. You need, not just the talented employee but all of the support systems in place around them to operate in that country. That cost is a lot higher than bringing them over. Then you have the risk of them leaving too. Way more expensive than employing 4k H1Bs.

Then once you get that office established you can bring people over on L1 visas I believe.

> global offices tend to organize around specific functions and/or products

Simply not true for Facebook. The London office has a wide variety of different teams working on different projects, often directly on the same projects as teams in the US offices.

I am pretty sure the London office is focused on UK and European issues, GDPR and the like as well as the local ad market.. Well FB has an office in Ireland so they are probably focused on the EU issues more so. But yes there is cross pollination but that is the exception rather than the norm. FB is not the first to venture down this road.

> I am pretty sure the London office is focused on UK and European issues, GDPR and the like as well as the local ad market.

You may be “pretty sure”, but you are wrong. I worked at Facebook for four years including with many people from the London office. I don’t know how else I can convince you.

You mean why shouldn't Facebook hire foreigners in America. One, their motives are because they want slaves that can't rat them out to illegal activites. Two, they "remit most of their paycheck out of the country. Three, if everyone had to travel to the other side of the planet to get a job, that would be fucking insane for everyone. Four, their managers are foreign gangsters who don't give a fuck about this country.

Facebook already has offices over there. Everywhere. They could hire tomorrow. They want slaves and slavery is what this shit is about.

This is how it works. Foreign manager bribes a US based VP and gets a inter-company transfer. Automatic L1 visa no questions ask. Then they start selling 200-500k jobs to people they know back in their home country. Those people pay a cut, maybe $50k maybe $150k to their trafficker in order to come to the US as a SDE away from their "shithole" country and make $50k.

They don't know what they are doing. Doesn't matter, SDE, manager, director, VP are all from the same country and are a fucking GANG

I'll just say it: They don't pay enough.

Someone who can pass their interviews and earn $300k in SF can just as easily earn $150k in Mayberry. And that $150k goes a lot farther in Mayberry than $300k does in San Francisco.

I'd gladly work for them if Zuck promises that I can remain in Mayberry while I draw a Facebook salary.

Are you a lawyer?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com