House votes to end country limits for skilled workers seeking green cards
washingtonpost.com
washingtonpost.com
The primary problem with the U.S. green card system for skilled workers is that you are at the mercy of your employer, and the whole application process restarts if for whatever reason you change employers. This vote does nothing to change that.
Even more ironic, now that I am no longer in the U.S. on a work visa, I have more freedom to start a business targeting U.S. customers.
Didn't expect that.
It is sort of like how in the US House is representation by population but in the Senate is equal senators per state.
Wether that is good or bad is up to us as a society. It will certainly reduce the diversity of the types of people getting visas as more populous countries crowd out less populous ones.
So, without this change, each group was getting treated fairly? Care to explain how multidecade wait times for the two biggest groups while the rest get visas in a matter of years is fairness?
How is first-in first-out not more fair compared to discriminating on national origin?
> It will certainly reduce the diversity of the types of people getting visas as more populous countries crowd out less populous ones.
Not really. Employment based visas are a small fraction of the number of visas awarded each year. Diversity doesn't make much sense for employment based visas because companies hire based on need and employee talent, not race or language.
Not to mention that India is so diverse with race, languages and culture that it's called a sub-continent. Lumping them into one 'group' like you did doesn't make much sense. Countries don't directly map one to one to diversity.
To be fair, each country gets quota for working visa based on a size of population. Unfortunately requests for working visa from those two countries outnumber that quota. This is the fact and everybody knows that. So if you are from country with more than one billion people where maybe 100.000+ ask for working visa per year you have to understand that the process can be complicated. And you have to understand as well that getting working visa here is a privilege, not a right.
Right now, that's not the case, each country is capped to 7% regardless of the population. Making it proportional to population would be much fairer than the current system.
>And you have to understand as well that getting working visa here is a privilege, not a right.
What a strawman. Maybe you should tell that to Mr. Lee who said the following:
> Hosin “David” Lee, president of the Korean-American Scientists and Engineers Association, said the bill would force engineers from South Korea to wait an additional two years in their immigration process to get green cards.
Yes, from the perspective of the individual countries, the old policy is more fair. If you gave all of the countries of the world one vote each and had them vote, that's what you would get. However, if you gave all of the people of the world one vote, that is not what you would get as the people in the more populous countries would want their country to send more people.
As I explained, it is fair to the group not to the individual. All countries were capped at 7% of the total so large groups (and here we group by countries) would not crowd out small groups. You obviously don't like that policy.
As for the diversity argument, I am not stating wether it is better or worse. I explicitly said that it is up to society to decide that and our legislators have chosen to go with the less diversity option, so there you go. I think the fact that it will cause a reduction of diversity - diversity in the sense of what country immigrants come from, not cultural diversity - in applicants is indisputable. It is important to understand the consequences of our choices and this is one of them.
Also, I didn't lump all of India's diverse cultures into one group, India (and I guess the British and French) did. The grouping is done by country because that's how immigration laws and treaties work. I am fully aware of the cultural diversity in India.
That may make sense for voting(to prevent tyranny of the majority), but makes no sense for employment based visas. Countries don't really send people in any sense. It's people that are hired by companies and what has that got to do with countries really?
How is being born in the USA any less of an arbitrary distinction than being born in Korea?
The usual argument given for the lack of freedom for H1B visa holders is that the bureaucrats need to ensure that a H1B doesn't cause a job loss for a citizen. A pencil pusher doesn't even know what it takes to make the pencil [1] he is pushing, and yet somehow he can ensure that a citizen doesn't lose a job! The H1B visa is indentured servitude by the back door, plain and simple.
Anyone who has given some thought to the idea of protecting jobs knows it is an exercise in futility (For a start, Congress must pass an Amish decree [2]: ban all technology invented since 1830, and declare Thomas Edison as the worst job destroyer [3] the world has ever seen. Also it will have to order the arrest and lock up of all entrepreneurs aka wannabe job killers, which is most HN readers). Therefore, I suggest to do away with all the current H1B bullshit, and adopt a point based immigration system where every qualified applicant is given full economic freedom from day one!
[1] I, pencil. http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/rdPncl1.html
Milton Friedman on "I, pencil" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5Gppi-O3a8
I recall Milton Friedman calling the H1B program as just another subsidy for big corporations, but can't locate a reliable source with the full context.
[2] Family Guy 10/7 "Amish Guy" (one of those increasingly rare insightful jokes): http://www.hulu.com/watch/303946/family-guy-amish-guy#s-p1-s...
[3] Bastiat's famous "Candlestick makers' petition": http://bastiat.org/en/petition.html
Also worth reading in this context is Bastiat "What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen": http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss1.html or (for another translation): http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html
You are deliberately and dishonestly misusing these terms.
Slavery is a real problem in the world today. H1B visa holders are not slaves. They are free to quit and work elsewhere whenever they like. Slaves are not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_day_slavery
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/17/opinion/kristof-the-face-o...
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/13/opinion/sunday/kristof-fig...
I would not equate the H1B to slavery, but saying H1B holders are free to quit and work elsewhere whenever they like is akin to saying anyone is free to make a million dollars any time they want..Its true in theory, but not so straight forward in reality. For starters many employers will NOT hire an H1B holder, so that narrows your options right off the bat. The companies that do hire H1Bs will often only do that for certain positions, so your career plans had better be exactly in line with those positions..
For starters many slave owners will torture and/or murder a slave if they try to escape, or don't do their work properly, so that narrows your options right off the bat.
In contrast, in the worst case, an employee on an H1B will be flown to India/China/Australia/wherever, where he is free to live his life.
See the distinction?
If you want to argue that we should replace a temporary work visa not intended to be part of a path to citizenship (the H1B) with another type of visa, go ahead. But don't do it with hyperbole that trivializes slavery.
Red herring. H1B visa holders cannot quit their job if they want to maintain their green card application as the GC process (and multi-year wait) restarts with every job. That's obviously a very strong incentive not to change jobs.
When will the US realize that it is already far from its peak and that today there are (possibly) better alternatives elsewhere?
Get a point based system - now - or watch Chile, China and the rest of the world ROLFStomp you to death.
I'm a freshly minted American (from Canada) and in my 20 person office there is one other American developer (who is also a co-founder).
I've lived in Canada and Europe and the US is by far my preferred place to live, I'm not sure how long it will last though there are generations of Americans that lack the proper skills to compete in the modern economy.
Why would one invest educating one's population if other countries are willing to do that for free?
Long-term, a problem is that, if local education drops too far, you need a huge import of 'human capital' to keep average levels of education constant.
I am fairly sure that is not what the law says though, although I am aware it is often claimed (I suspect falsely) there is such a law.
Actual requirements are here. They don't have to show anything, they just have to attest that in their belief the hiring won't "adversely affect" the "working conditions" of american workers "similarly employed", that there is not currently a strike going on when they bring in the new people, and that they have posted conspicuously a notice of intent at their place of business.
http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/faqsanswers.cfm#lcare...
But then there's a matter of 'prevailing wage' : Whereby one has to define the job to be as menial as possible (so that the employee doesn't suddenly expect a much higher wage bracket), while still making it demanding enough that all their qualifications are 'essential'.
And once the initial paperwork is filed, they're then bound to you for years while waiting in line, since if they lose their job (or have a change in job title), they have to restart the whole process.
Large numbers of people are trapped in bizarre employment situations, waiting on unbelievable bureaucracy - never able to complain on the offchance that the person they're talking to might be having a bad day and send all the documents back (and restart the process)...
This is precisely why I decided it wasn't worth waiting. Too much risk with too many restrictions for too little upside.
While it may seem like a zero sum game (as number of visas is still the same) and thus i have no idea how, yet still lets hope that like in other cases of abolished discrimination everybody ultimately wins.
In my case (as a UK citizen working in NYC), it's a good job that the E-2 Investor Visa (which only exists for countries that the INS deems 'worthy') can be renewed indefinitely.
The flip side of this (and where it starts to get comical) is that as part of the E-2 approval process one has to "intend to leave" once the business is finished - which means that one cannot intend to embark on the Green Card path prior to getting the E-2 visa. It also means that all my (mandatory) payments for unemployment insurance are strictly throw-away money - since I could never claim unemployment in the US anyway. Ho Hum.