Comment by ziyadb | Hacker News Reader

Comment by ziyadb | Hacker News Reader

This is absurd. I was originally considering moving to the US for my postgraduate studies, however, after speaking with peers I decided against it, as other countries that offer far more favorable visa terms exist. Currently, my leading option is New Zealand, bundled with their student visa is a permit to work 20 hours a week, and a year's residency after the completion of your program among other things.

While some of you may not view New Zealand with the admiration that you view the US, as its tech-scene isn't quite as developed. It is a beautiful country nonetheless, free healthcare is available for all residents and citizens, not to mention the all around natural beauty of it.

Don't get the wrong impression, there is no doubt that the US is a great place, but it isn't without its problems. I'm not trying to sell you on NZ, the point I'm trying to make is why should I have to bust my balls and save up $100k for a green card when I can have more lenient and reasonable terms in another country with an emerging tech scene?

Note: it is probably easier for entrepreneurs to supply $100K for a green card, however, I intentionally ignored that circumstance as they're a minority amongst immigrants and chose to discuss immigration to the US in general.

Bottomline: America unknowingly abuses and doesn't treat immigrants with the respect that they deserve, they contribute equally to the economy as any other demographic (if not more), and are a major part of high tech industries, and therefore, of the US economy.

The answer to your question is that you shouldn't. The US has some serious immigration problems right now and it's a fact of political life in this country that getting them worked out quickly is not going to happen. We have a fractured government (not just the two parties holding different reins of power) and a screwed up lobbying system. You are exactly the kind of immigrants we as a nation want, but there is an incredibly shrill minority that shouts down anything that's immigration-related when it looks like that change could benefit "them durn illegalz" who are already here. This article is about trying to get some sort of change through quickly that would allow people who are going to provide direct investment into our country. The price tag puts it out of reach of all but "business people," so the screeching fringe will probably keep its mouth shut.

Unfortunately, this is the system US citizens have right now and, for my compatriots who agree with me and would like to see you on a plane tomorrow, ready to study here, graduate, be inspired by, and enrich our society, I am truly sorry we couldn't get the change done in time for you. We're working on it.

/buys another ream of paper for more letters to various representatives

I commend you on speaking out and pushing towards change. It's people like you who make America the great country that it is.

With regard to FUD on the part of the masses driving legislation, I suppose it's an intrinsic part of democracy. Which implies the following:

The vast majority of those satisfied by the status quo are the uninformed members of the public. On the other hand, the highly educated and those driving the economy are strong proponents of leniency in immigration, as evident by the frequent discussions on popular forums such as leading publications and HN.

The average American believes that more opportunities are made available to them, regardless of whether they're qualified, if they stop immigrants from coming and stealing their jobs. Which I suppose is a reasonable conclusion for an uninformed person to reach.

The solution? Inform the public, for after all, the US is a democracy, and it's in their hands to change the system. Explain how immigration is essential to the development and progress of economies, educate people on the implications of immigration.

PS: I would be interested to learn if there are any non-profits that run campaigns that aim to educate and inform the public.

> I would be interested to learn if there are any non-profits that run campaigns that aim to educate and inform the public.

There are thousands of such organizations.

During the up-coming campaign, you'll hear lots of screaming that they're "unregulated campaigning" and the like.

> if they stop immigrants from coming and stealing their jobs. Which I suppose is a reasonable conclusion for an uninformed person to reach.

Unions and all professionals organizations believe that decreasing competition for jobs results increased salaries. We also believe that decreased competition in other products results in higher prices. Are they wrong or is immigrant job competition different?

Yes, some immigrants bring skills etc, but not all, and you didn't make that distinction.

>Explain how immigration is essential to the development and progress of economies, educate people on the implications of immigration.

I'd say that if you want to fix high-skilled immigration, that's exactly the argument you should not make.

What you should do is make an argument that appeals to American culture and sensibilities. Most Americans have ancestors who suffered--some a little, some a great deal--to come to America This is such a strong part of American culture that one of our major holidays, Thanksgiving, basically got it start from the spirit of gratitude that comes from surviving the horrors of trying to immigrate to the New World.

So an argument that boils down to "we're so awesome, how dare you make us bust our balls to become Americans" is going to rub a lot of voting Americans the wrong way. Especially when coupled with a condescending Vivek-Wadhwa-style "you Americans couldn't possible grow your economy on your own, so you should be grateful we immigrants want to come at all." Most Americans expect immigrants to be grateful for the opportunity to come to America, not the other way around.

So, as I said, make an argument that appeals to American culture and sensibilities. In my opinion, the biggest problem with skilled immigration is that 1) H-1B is tied to employment, and 2) so many H-1B visas are consumed fradulantly. So fight against H-1B fraud by insisting on strong enforcement of immigration law. Very few Americans will argue with that, and it will help open up H-1B slots.

And push for H-1B to be decoupled from employment, using the (accurate) argument that the current scheme is basically indentured servitude, a concept that most Americans (as part of our founding mythology) know is a Bad Thing. If H-1B wasn't tied to employment, you wouldn't need a Startup Visa. You wouldn't need the permission of an employer to move to the U.S. And it wouldn't matter (as much) if your green card application took years.

...there is an incredibly shrill minority that shouts down anything that's immigration-related when it looks like that change could benefit "them durn illegalz" who are already here.

It's always convenient to blame things on your political opponents, but lets be realistic here. Bush's amnesty bill was shot down by a bipartisan group.

Some of them did actually oppose amnesty. But quite a few of them on the opposite side of the aisle had strong opposition to replacing family based immigration with skill based immigration.

In reality, the fight about immigration is about importing people to vote for their political party. The politicians don't care about much else.

> You are exactly the kind of immigrants we as a nation want, but there is an incredibly shrill minority that shouts down anything that's immigration-related when it looks like that change could benefit "them durn illegalz" who are already here.

Not true. The "smart immigration" proposals keep getting tied to the amnesty proposals by an alliance of the open borders folk and the "smart immigration" folk.

And the reason why amnesty is such a tar pit is that we've had it before, with a promise of enforcement after that never happened (hence the current amnesty push).

The opponents to amnesty are willing to have smart immigration, but not with amnesy.

Are you willing to have smart immigration without amnesty?

> The price tag puts it out of reach of all but "business people," so the screeching fringe will probably keep its mouth shut.

I'm afraid the price tag will mostly put it out of reach of most but drug dealers and similar undesirable people.

Sounds like a "legal bribe".

As an extra bonus... With a NZ permanent residency, I believe, one is also permitted to work and reside in Australia; easily the outstanding economy and often top placed in most living standards, job opportunity and economic and political stability surveys. By way of example, Australia's current head of state and head of government are women.

If the USA continues to put up unnecessary barriers for up-and-coming entrepreneurs to stay in and benefit the US, why not take your business ideas elsewhere?

Frankly there are many more places in the world to live and prosper financially. We live in a global economy, so location should not be always of prime importance for a web-based startup, or...?

NZ citizens can work and reside in Aus, permanent residents cannot. But it's also worth noting that since a 2002 law change, Kiwis who make that move are considered temporary residents in Australia and don't have the same rights there as Australians:

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/lifematters/kiw...

http://www.indymedia.org.au/2011/04/21/help-appeal-for-a-fai...

> This is absurd. I was originally considering moving to the US for my postgraduate studies, however, after speaking with peers I decided against it, as other countries that offer far more favorable visa terms exist. Currently, my leading option is New Zealand, bundled with their student visa is a permit to work 20 hours a week, and a year's residency after the completion of your program among other things.

US has almost the same case, as far as STEM students go. You can get a F-1 visa for 5 years, which includes permission to work 20 Hours on campus, or 40 hours off-campus for work related to your education (like a internship or something). Once you are done with 5-6 years of your PhD, you get Optional practical training time(12 months), during which you can take a job, etc. If you are in STEM category,you get another 17 month extension. So in all you have about 2.5 years after your studies (assuming you join a PhD in CS).

As far as students are concerned, US has a very good visa program, but getting a visa to stay after 2.5 years of work seem to be the tricky part. They are not very enthusiastic about keeping students in which they invest a lot of money and time.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com