Hacker News Reader

No company would ever sponsor someone if the last bullet is part of the deal. You're just killing the visa program another way with that wishlist item alone.

If you just want someone and not this particular applicant, yes but if you want a particular person to work for you, you will sponsor them regardless of this bullet point.

I totally support bringing in actual specialists, or fantastically talented people from abroad… but it’s painfully obvious how infrequently that happens. I worked with an H1B doing L2 support in the mid aughts. The position required significant knowledge of networking, but nothing close to even a mid-career enterprise network administrator, and it wasn’t a rare skillset for the area. We had plenty of very local candidates when we hired people before, but suddenly, new management decided it was an incredibly specialized, difficult-to-fill, rare job that paid locals an eye-watering 70k/year to start but paid an H1Bs far less than that I assume.

That's the problem. H1B visa is for talent that is almost impossible to get domestically. It should be for bringing in actual specialist.

Not for an interchange cog. However you can keep someone with a golden handcuffs deal at above market rates if there’s some reason to bring that specific person.

That's pretty common in Europe. Temporary work permits can be valid either for a specific job or a specific industry. In the latter case, as long as you can find a job that meets the requirements in a reasonable time, you can quit and stay in the country.

But those work permits mostly concern the individual and the government. The employer is not as much sponsoring them as providing evidence.

Really? Most if not all EU work permits, especially highly-qualified ones are tied to an employer for at least the first 2+ years. If you get fired you have up to 3 months to find another employer who is willing to take over your residence permit.

I'm not sure why you are getting downvoted because it's correct.

People are down voting you so is there evidence that it's tied to a single employerM

I held a work permit in Europe. There are categories of immigrants who can work freely e.g. residence permits granted via family reunification or asylum. However a professional work permit is tied to your employer and this is the case until you get permanent residence (typically after 3 years).

Uhh. No. That's a common misconception held by people that don't actually read their T&Cs. Your worth authorization is tied to "a" employer for the first two years. The employee is completely free to quit and enter into a contract with another employer. All you have to do is go get the name of the employer updated. It's just a formality and nothing else.

Yes, you have three months to find a new job if you're fired, but it's Europe, you most likely got at least a 3 month notice as well.

Here in Norway it's 6 months[1] for skilled workers, and if you get the same position somewhere else you don't need to reapply. If you change position you need to reapply.

[1]: https://www.udi.no/en/answer-pages/answers-skilled-worker/#l...

You are arguing about semantics of residence permit vs work authorization which is not the core of the issue. If you get fired and don’t find a new employer then you leave in 3 months.

Also, it is definitely not just a formality to change employers. For example, on a blue card the new employer must prove to the ministry that they couldn’t find anyone local or EU to fill this position aka “Labour Market Test”. The position needs to be registered in a special gov database to prove that, etc, etc.

The requirements are far from uniform, because each member state sets its own policy. For example, Finland requires the labor market test from ordinary employees but not from those with a Blue Card or those applying for a specialist permit (similar to the Blue Card).

> as long as you can find a job that meets the requirements in a reasonable time

how long is that reasonable time in europe? For H1b it's only 60 days

90d for the first year or two. 180 thereafter

I thought there was no-one else on the market? If you think it will kill the visa program, that means you thought hiring underpaid developers was the goal of the visa program. No-one would change companies if if get paid decently: You leave a bad boss, but you can stay with a with a 10-15% lower-than-market salary just because of the friction of changing (Cue the downvotes: “I’m changing for a cent more” - yes you do when you have energy but most employees absolutely don’t). And employees will stay because they need time to settle in the new country and the welcoming company is generally equipped to make integration easier for newcomers.

If they are using the program as intended they would. They are supposed to be looking for skills that are impossible to find in the US. If they are offering a good deal to the employee then the employee should stay, just like someone with full work authorization would.

If they are just using the program to pay less than they otherwise would for labor that does exist in the us, well, then we have another issue.

I would modify the proposal to include a larger annual fee rather than an application fee, so that the initially sponsoring company isn’t solely bearing the cost. There should also be a floor pay rate for the visa holder, something the 75th or 80th percentile of both the company and of income in the MSA the visa holder is located in.

All you're doing is having a gold card program but where the immigrant pays the applying company rather than the government. Seems pointless.

Why is it pointless? I think thats exactly what the people advocating for H1B for specialized workers want.

I dont know if thats a good idea. It does leave a bad taste in my mouth. Im also not sure its a bad idea either, it seems useful from an economic perspective. What i know its not is "pointless", it does do something.

Perfect. More Americans get jobs.

Stopping companies from hiring quasi-indentured servants is a good thing

As you'll see from my other comments about H1-B visas, I agree. However, it doesn't change the fact that the person's suggestion would just be another way to kill the program, not a way to fix it.

If enforcing employee rights kills the employment program, then it stands to reason that the program is built on the premise of them being exploited and therefore shouldn't exist, at least in the form it does.

A lot of those bullet points could and perhaps should be shuffled around and the terms changed, but not in a way where the employees are more or less tethered to the company.

As a counterpoint to my own argument, one could argue that those programs let people escape even worse living conditions, so I guess it could be exchanging a greater form of oppression for a lesser one, which is still better than nothing.

If employers can't employ in the spirit of the H1-B, which to my knowledge is hiring top talent around the world that can't be found domestically, without putting them in golden chains: maybe the program should be killed.

I don't want to be too hyperbolic, but this has the same vibes of "but freeing slaves will impact the economy!" IMO businesses that can't operate ethically shouldn't be encouraged.

Locals have always been allowed to quit the new job on day 1, and it has never been a crisis for employers.

A company that is confident it is offering worthy salary and career should have no extra reason to worry a foreign worker will quit during first week, than that a local worker would do the same thing.

The only difference a fee would make under such conditions is that locals become cheaper to hire, which is the point.

Part of the proposal is that the employer pays the government a large fee to sponsor the visa. They're not doing that for local workers; it's an entirely incomparable situation.

This is not true at all. Employers will still sponsor talent that they need.

If you are sponsoring an employee for a visa and "it's a great thing they can't quit, it's the main thing that's keeping them here!", then you are abusing the system and should be excluded anyways.

Wait, so if we give the foreign workers the same at will employment rights as Americans, then they are no longer interested?

I thought they needed these foreign workers because no American could do the job?

No, what they wouldn't be interested in is paying $100,000 to help someone enter the country, with no compensation if they ditch you on day one.

The idea would be that you would pay that employee at above market rates, so they wouldn't ditch you on day one because you pay them more than any of their other alternatives.

Right now, the H1B system is used to bring over cheap labor, willing to work for compensation and conditions worse than native labor. This is not the stated goal of the program, the idea was to bring over highly skilled labor doing jobs that no-one native is able to. The system detailed above is supposed to be a way to change it from how it currently is to what it was supposed to be.

Almost all European visa programs have the last bullet point with the stipulation that they have 90 days to find another visa sponsorship job if they leave their sponsor.

Then kill it.

You never get someone to pay a large application fee without some kind of reasonable prospect of getting an exclusive right.

Else, if company A pays a $100k fee, company B has an incentive to give the worker $90,000 more to jump ship. And this devolves to no one paying the $100k fee.

Only if employees are actually interchangeable at the rate you’re paying. You might bring someone from oversees who knows your internal systems and is therefore worth far above market rates to your company relative to any other US company.

Then it's not H1B visa anymore - internal employee transfers use different mechanisms.

An L Vista is designed for internal employee transfers, but that may not apply.

What if we make the fee per-year? "It costs $10,000 to sponsor a new H1B immigrant's entry, and then it costs $5,000 per year per H-1B employee you have." H1-B holder is free to leave, and the cost of that happening to their employer is fairly low. Then let's say after 5 years of H1B employment, you automatically become eligible for citizenship, since you're clearly a valued worker.

That's what they're doing, it's going to be $100k per year to sponsor, up to 6 years.

The other thing I've heard is to sort the priority of who gets H1B by projected salary which would go a long way to eliminate anyone trying to get people to train their lower paid replacements.

Forcing citizens to train their foreign replacements is a violation of the terms of the program and illegal. Disney did that and, while not being held accountable, they were forced to reverse their criminal decision.

I was a person training Disney’s replacements. In reality a major tech company hired a small consulting company and had them (me) train Indian replacements on the software. It appeared as regular training that we did in foreign countries and nothing was amiss. Until the news broke. So maybe Disney had a plan for replacement all along, the training wasn’t necessarily done by Disney employees and the contractors surely did not know either

* The worker gets to leave their sponsoring employer on the day of their arrival, if they choose to. The employment contract may not include any clawbacks of anything.

You almost had me there.

The alternative is tying employment to freedom of mobility.

We can do better than bonding people by immigration status. This might be controversial, but I don't think should be bonding people at all.

You're taking a all or nothing stance. There must be a middle-ground where employers don't risk getting "scammed".

Is it ever ok to legally or economically force people or effectively force people to work?

I'm open to hearing why it's ok, but it's going to take a lot of evidence to convince me that a company's well-being is part of that calculus.

> IMO the problem is that H1B employees are stuck at the employer for the duration of their green card process, and so end up both paid lower and unable to escape abuse.

This is not true. Transferring your H1-B to another employer is entirely possible, the new employer will have to file the application as usual, but the application is not subject to the annual H1-B quotas.

At least this was the way it was several years ago. I doubt the process has changed since.

Would they now have to also pay the $1k fee for a "transfer"? AFAIK, it's considered a new application, but as you stated, its excluded from the quota/lottery.

The fees apply to every application.

That'll certainly make transfers much harder to get.

> The worker gets to leave their sponsoring employer on the day of their arrival, if they choose to. The employment contract may not include any clawbacks of anything.

I'm not familiar with current H1B law, but what prevents this from happening today? I've hired away an H1B holder in the past; the process wasn't particularly difficult.

My understanding at the time was that the tricky thing for H1B holders is that they can only have a 60-day gap of unemployment before they need to leave the country (or find a different visa resolution, I guess).

Now, if this new fee applies to H1B transfers as well as the initial application, well, that'll actually make it harder for H1B holders to change jobs.

who in their right mind would shell out 100k + relocation and not require some level of commitment?

People who are going to pay them enough money that they stay specifically because of the money?

The whole reason most people stay at jobs? (Theoretically)

That's the whole point. It distorts market forces when companies are allowed to just trap people.

If the talent is that good and you are paying above market you would. Not much different than a signing bonus

Signing bonuses almost universally have a 1-year clawback (or are otherwise only doled out periodically and not all up front), so not a good analogy here.

They had no problem offering 7-figure salaries to PhDs with research experience in AI a few years ago. Those are the exceptional workers the program was supposed to be bringing in the first place, not dime-a-dozen JS vibe coders.

A company paying half a million annually to ensure this employee is retained. It's not meant for joe sixpack making $100k/yr as an underpaid consultant.

The last one is tricky because who is going to sponsor a worker at the price tag of 100k with no guarantee of performance. That is rife for abuse. You could get google to sponsor you and then hop to your friends startup on day one.

It is reasonable that if you get a temporary visa to perform work in another country, and you decide you don't want to do that work anymore, you leave. They aren't enslaved or anything if the work is not worth it you can attempt to transfer your status to another employer or leave.

Thank you! I am so, so sick of not a single person in this thread (except you <3) looking out for Google’s shareholder value.

It seems the best way is to sponsor a seat and not a particular individual. That way you can rotate persons for the same paid h1-b seat.

It seems like there are two conflicting forces here. We want to ensure that we accept mostly high-skilled immigrants, so we can't do a pure lottery. But anything less than a pure lottery and immigrants are forced to "perform" or be kicked from the country, they will end up "both paid lower and unable to escape abuse" as you say. I don't know that it's possible to solve this satisfactorily.

Index the H1B quantities issued to the unemployment rate per job specialty + geographic region?

Why is a lottery necessary? There is a quota so why not fill it with those being paid the highest compensation? What's wrong with a market solution? It would bring in those who are most in demand. What better way to measure demand than prices?

I mean, yeah, I was assuming that we have immigration at all.

A lottery allows a natural influx of people, who are free to find their way into whatever jobs are needed. It's another form of market solution, but more of a push model than a pull model. But it also, logically, reduces wages across the board (to some degree).

A pull-based model, where companies compete to bid for visa slots, lowers wages in high-end roles, because visa holders are beholden to their sponsor company, and uprooting and moving back to your home country is not something to be taken lightly.

> IMO the problem is that H1B employees are stuck at the employer for the duration of their green card process, and so end up both paid lower and unable to escape abuse.

> I think a very high application fee is actually part of a good solution, but is useless by itself.

This is always going to be bad if you compare to what any functioning democracy should be doing in this situation which to revert the deterioration of wages and punish/reeducate abusers. I admit it's idealistic, but if you could suspend the need for political realism here a moment there is a chance you could see this is only logical.

> * The worker gets to leave their sponsoring employer on the day of their arrival, if they choose to. The employment contract may not include any clawbacks of anything.

This would be workable if it also results in the person losing their visa. There must be some downside for the employee, otherwise it's an invitation for abuse.

If the worker gets to keep their visa then it's just a backdoor way to get a company to pay for their visa and relocation so they can immediately quit and then go do some other job they actually want (at no expense to the next employer).

The final scenario you describe already happens with immigrant visas. Once you have your Green Card you are free to quit the sponsoring employer and work for whoever you want.

The last bullet is a good idea but wouldn’t work in practice. Otherwise a company could hire someone else’s H1B worker for $10k more per year and avoid the $100k fee.

Maybe a company that hires someone else's H1B worker for $10k more per year in the first year has to pay the $100k fee and the first company gets their fee back.

>> IMO the problem is that H1B employees are stuck at the employer for the duration of their green card process, and so end up both paid lower and unable to escape abuse.

This is not true. Typically you want to stay until i140 which for me took 1 year or so back in 2020. If I want to switch there are multiple other reasons I'd end up delaying the switch anyway (wait for vest, bonus etc ...)

Instead of a $100k lump sum by the first employer, what about $10k each year by the current employer? Or even $2.5k each quarter? That way there is no particular incentive to poach a "paid-off" H1B employee, and the company doesn't have to worry about making a $100k investment up front.

But then you can't make a placement firm selling access to the US job market.

> It also means that employers don't really look abroad unless there really is a shortage of existing labor. But when there is a true shortage and you're willing to spend, the door is open to act quickly.

You underestimate the ability of INFY/TCS etc.. to game these laws.

> * Dispense with the 'need to search for a qualified American' which just complicates the process without achieving the stated goal, and includes a ton of legal and bureaucratic expense and time.

Most H1B go through perm process that does this already.

You care about that, and you say that's the problem with H1B but I think that, really, a lot of tech workers in the US, and even a lot of the HN crowd _really_ care about protectionism. They want to suppress competition for their jobs, they want to keep their salaries high. I think this is myopic, but... What the heck, your country is speed running some interesting trajectory, this measure is the not even the biggest one on the radical measures pile.

What's myopic about keeping your salary high? Most people work for themselves an their families, not how their countries will appear economically in three decades? The situation of wage suppression helps investors and the owning class more than anything.

If you see near, but you don't see far, that's myopic. Even you agree with this in your post. Therefore, I don't see where the confusion comes from.

You can argue you only care about the now and, sure, if that's all you care about, who am I to say your priorities are wrong?

I do think that you're wrong though, I think it doesn't make you better off neither now nor in the following years. But, again, who the heck am I to tell you how to run your country. I guess we'll see how this plays out.

For that matter it's not necessarily my country, despite my being here, and I don't necessarily have just one country I'm attached to. I'm not particularly nationalistic. However I do care about how retirement might look and how much I will have saved. It's almost as if you are implying I should accept a wage cut for the good of my country. (How that's good for the country and not just for a select few percent at the top of my country eludes me)

They should set a very high salary as a criteria for hiring someone from abroad. You want exceptional people, not regular people that you pay less than the ones you find in your own country.

Your proposal is the same as shutting down the program, no company will take this? Like what's the benefit?

Isn't getting specialized workers (who you supposedly can't hire from the national talent pool) incentive enough? My understanding of the H1B system is that it was supposed to be a "last resort, exit hatch" sort of a programme.

I mean I'll admit I'm a bit of a radical on this issue, but I think the most sensible work authorization policy is "you're welcome if you're not a criminal, terrorist, or public health risk, and on that last point here's some penicillin and a flu/covid shot, let us know when you're feeling better"

My ancestors came here ~140 years ago when the only "visa" process was a look in the mouth at Ellis Island. I don't see any fundamental reason why we need to have stricter regulations than that, and I reject dragging the Overton window further right on immigration.

Hear, hear.

In 3 months after implementing this policy there will be ports of entry full of people who paid any money to get to the US and that ready to share beds and work for $4/hour. Salaries will plummet, rent will skyrocket, crime will go up, quality of life will drop. Your neighbors will have to move out and new tenants will be 20+ people who don't speak your language and share none of your values.

Funny thing is those who opened the gate will be protected from consequences of their own policies in their gated communities.

That's what we see here in Canada after reckless immigration policies implemented by past government.

I wish I lived someplace where we could take the huddled masses yearning to breathe free instead of a place where they're literally rounding up my neighbors for the crime of wanting a better life.

For what it's worth I know multiple people who have been turned away from Canada because their immigration laws are even stricter than ours. So I don't know how much you can attribute your lack of housing to immigration.

> Canada because their immigration laws are even stricter than ours

Saying Canadian immigration laws are stricter that US is just delusional.

Canada has the most straightforward and permissive immigration laws, if you don't take countries like Argentina or Dominican Republic. Fill up the forms, get your score, wait for a draft, obtain your PR, wait 4 years, you're a citizen, that's the whole immigration. Compare it to h1b now.

> Canada has the most straightforward and permissive immigration laws

> Compare it to h1b now.

H-1b is a non-immgrant work visa, so it should be compared to the same category in Canada, not the immigration process (which in the US is nearly identical to the process you describe for Canada at the same level of detail, except “wait for a draft” is instead “wait for your priority date to come up in the Visa Bulletin.", and the four years is 10 years.)

How is US process identical to the one in Canada? Canada checks your papers and gives you a PR (Green Card) right away. You enter the country, and boom you're a citizen without voting rights and jury duty.

Is there such a thing in US? Maybe I'm missing something, because the only realistic way to immigrate to US that I know is h1b lottery/caps bs.

I wish I lived on some planet where masses could breathe free and build good life where they live, instead of going somewhere where other people build good life based on different values.

> My ancestors came here ~140 years ago when the only "visa" process was a look in the mouth at Ellis Island

This is revisionist history. 140 years ago the Chinese Exclusion Act had already been in place for 3 years, and the Foran Act had just been passed. The high clearance rate of immigrants at Ellis Island had far more to do with preliminary screenings being conducted by transport companies, who were liable for the cost of deportation plus a fine.

hard disagree on the 'search for qualified citizen' or something to replace it. American policy needs to put Americans first.

Your other points are a good start. The main thing I would add is a floor on salary. H1B for a >$200k job makes some sense, it shows it's essential, the employer really wants to fill it and is having a hard time finding a US citizen. H1B for average or below average salaries is where the real abuse is. It's basically a form of indentured servitude.

The search for a qualified citizen is a sham process. Why shouldn't it be eliminated?

Make the incentives align with the priority, is what OP was getting at.

I'm with OP. Make it crazy expensive and let the employee quit if they want. Employers will immediately build the 'search for qualified citizens' into the process themselves.

I agree the current process is broken. I disagree that you don't replace it with something workable. Like many govt regulations, it's several decades out of date. Heck, a simple "I submit under the penalty of perjury that at least 10 US permanent residents have had good faith interviews for this position." type submission would be sufficient for me. HR people aren't going to want to commit a felony for their company, so the scams are going to go way down.

I agree with the protectionism aspect, to a degree. I also believe the current system does not achieve that in any way.