Hacker News Reader

Comment by afavour | Hacker News Reader

“Modern slavery” is definitely an exaggeration but many are also not quite so free to quit.

The H1B is a “dual intent” visa, meaning you can apply for permanent residency while you have it. But you must maintain your H1B the entire time, which can be a decade or more for folks from places like India. You can transfer an H1B but it’s not easy and if you quit your job you must line another one up in 60 days or say goodbye to the life you’ve built yourself in the US. Some employers are happy to take advantage of this.

View on HN

This is what creates more downward pressure on everyone's comp than just getting foreign workers. It artificially creates a group of workers for whom it's significantly harder and more risky to change jobs or simply quit when they are unsatisfied. I think everyone in tech would be better off if you wouldn't lose the H1B quickly if unemployed and if you wouldn't need to rely on an employer doing extra work to sponsor you. Make it two years instead of two months and make it so that the visa holder just can mail in proof of a paycheck. There is no real downside to this change for anybody in US society.

> There is no real downside to this change for anybody in US society.

Well, the downside is for the companies exploiting migrants and those are the ones donating money to the people who make decisions. Lobbying is legally bribing them and the effect is that the politicians don't represent the people who vote for them but the corporations.

And No, this is not a cynical take but a factual one.

I'm not sure about this. Maybe the companies would be better off with a system that makes it much easier to hire from wherever they want as well.

Or like... if the actual _company_ that claims it "needs that worker from outside the U.S. so so so much" actually took the risk on instead of foisting it on the poor employee (and by extension, the entire labor market). My 2-step process for fixing the H1-B system.

1. H1Bs are _auctioned_ instead of raffled. You really need that H1B? Prove it - pay for it. 2. Sponsoring companies are responsible for cost of living for that employee for the entire duration of their H1B. That obligation can be transferred to another company.

3. (Bonus) After reaching a certain threshold of "taxes paid to the U.S." (maybe 300k or something) H1B holders _automatically_ get their green cards. No questions asked. If you can take that much of their money, they can be citizens.

This is practical, but there is some inherently pay-to-play classist issues with handing out green cards to those with money.

There's already a category for that, the EB-5 investor visa.

If we understand the act of giving a green card to mean the US wants that person to join the society for the long term, is "taxes paid" really the best measure of desirability?

My issue with "H1B to the highest bidder" is that there's a lot of industries outside of tech that use H1Bs like healthcare, academia, skilled trades, or heck, even fashion models. I think something like that would have to be paired with quotas on the industry otherwise high tech salaries would blow away possibly-even-more-important healthcare and research spots.

As for #2, the main issue now is more of supply and demand. The US only gives out 140,000 employment based green cards a year (plus some from other unused categories), which also includes the worker's families. There are far more ways to get an employment based green card than through H1B. The problems we're hearing about are less to do with the process (which _is_ byzantine) and more to do with that there are not enough green cards to go around.

And just as an aside, there's no labor certification for an H1B, e.g. a company isn't saying they need that worker so so much. A company just wins the lottery and agrees to pay at least what the DoL says is the prevailing wage for the occupation. If they later want to get a green card for that employee, they have to redo the prevailing wage determination AND make an attempt to hire an citizen/GC before they can get the GC (or the employee has to prove they have exceptional skills that gains them international recognition, among other things which includes "being paid way more than your peers")

> Bonus) After reaching a certain threshold of "taxes paid to the U.S." (maybe 300k or something) H1B holders _automatically_ get their green cards.

I think this is a good idea in general. One of the main complained about immigration is some supposed cost to the barely-existing US welfare system. Having a minimum lifetime tax before getting access to that seems like a decent compromise to calm down the xenophobes

> which can be a decade or more for folks from places like India.

The current estimate for Indians is 140 years [0].

https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/united-states-green-ca...

> you can apply for permanent residency while you have it.

Just to further complicate it, for many people _your employer_ has to apply for permanent residency on your behalf which is another 2 year ordeal and fair bit of money (that's just to get the green card priority date, not to mention waiting for the green card itself which varies by country). And that further indentures you since if you leave during that period you effectively abandon that application.

As long as they’re able to switch job and can leave the states (if they want to) I don’t think that the “slavery” word applies at all.

And I’m saying this because there are places like Dubai where you very often get your passport taken on arrival, can’t leave the state and can’t really go work somewhere else. There is a lot more to say, but that qualifies as “modern slavery”.

Yeah I agree “slavery” doesn’t apply here, I’m just disputing how free to leave H1B workers are.

You're not really free to leave if you have to leave the country if you don't have a job lined up immediately.

> if you have to leave the country

i mean, this is meant to be a jobs visa. The fact that if you quit said job, you no longer have a reason to be given to stay, seems pretty normal. You are free to leave, it doesn't mean leaving is consequence free.

> this is meant to be a jobs visa

It isn’t, it’s a dual intent visa. Job and path to permanent residency.

> dual intent visa.

the gov't doesn't intent this visa to be dual purpose. It is a job visa first and foremost, and the path to PR is at best a secondary concern for the gov't.

If the government doesn’t intend for it to be a dual intent visa why did they make it a dual intent visa? This is all very much under their control!

It's made a dual intent because it's impossible to prove the lack of immigration intent for any long-term visa. It's not the only dual intent visa, almost every long-term non-immigrant visa is dual-intent for this reason. Even the TN, which is not proclaimed a dual intent is such de facto since the TN visitors don't have to prove the lack of immigrant intent either. The reason TN is such an exception is that it's not issued by the DoS and the concept of "dual intent" exists only as a legal fiction around the DoS procedures.

You're free to try and leave Dubai without a passport, but it's not consequence free.

I love when authortiarians use degrees of coercion to say "well technically YOU ARE free. But not free from consequences".

It's such a disingenuous line of argumentation.

that's a false equivalency.

When your passport is confiscated, you get arrested at the airport.

When you are tired of your H1B job, you can just leave. The fact that you lose your position in the queue for a potential PR is irrelevant.

If your passport is taken you are not free to leave. You physically cannot.

On an H1B you are free to leave whenever, and under certain circumstances forced to.

It’s a black and white difference. I don’t grasp why it’s hard to understand.

You can secure another job before leaving the old one.

That's like saying that I have a visa because I can just make sure my next job has a visa.

Past: a man can own a slave.

Now: the system can own a slave.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com