https://canadabychoice.com/services/move-to-canada/usa/occup...
Canada also floating idea of alliance with Europe for travel and job opportunities
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-european-union-eu-me...
This is especially impacting Indian tech workers in the US [1] since these are often the types of roles that InfoSys and other foreign tech consulting firms are staffing. The new $100,000 fee to sponsor an H1B visa has made it difficult to justify hiring foreign tech workers when most of the time they are just going to be using American LLMs to do their work anyway.
The foreign tech workers that are worth the $100,000 fee are still easily getting their visa sponsored.
[1] https://thefederal.com/category/news/h1b-visa-indian-tech-wo...
Every single H1B I worked with was brilliant in their field - and paid extremely well often in excess of $400K. I know several that are earning well past $500K. If you claim these are generic Jira pushers, well you are showing ignorance.
The $100K fees isn’t material to them but the whole vitriolic nonsense poured around what they do and just rolling their work in mud - well that’s where they just move and take their 50 ppl organization with them.
This is pure nonsense.
To say that the H1B are all brilliant is hyperbole.
It's a lottery system. Yes, by random chance, some of the visas will go to people who can otherwise get a job at FAANG. But most of the industry is "JIRA pushers," and that's where most of the visas go.
fwiw the h1-b workers I encountered in bigtech were totally on-par with their US citizen equivalents in both coding and english communication. many teams were about 50/50 in my office (SF, non-HQ).
my current talent/placement company works mostly with AI startups who are usually too early to support visa requirements [0]. being able to support the lead-time and planning for international applicants is a huge advantage later stage companies have in terms of being able to scoop up talent at reasonable prices. big loss for the local ecosystems if these jobs move across the border imo.
The debate by supporters is set like: Look at these 5 top guys they are best in class in every aspect so why shouldn't they be here. And now don't look over there 500 guys which are business analyst, basic enterprise coders, testers application support engineers lest question maybe asked how come they are considered highly skilled.
I think I'm more just speaking out loud here: what is the optimal way to do this that allows a capped influx of talented outside workers, that doesn't allow "degree mills"?
I don't have an answer, but I honestly wonder. Some of the green card folks I've worked with (I know that is different, or at least I think it is in the grand scheme of things?) have been some of the smartest people I've worked with.
The sort of work traditionally handled by cheap offshore labor is now the sort of work most ripe for replacement by AI. So it’s burning the candle from both ends. The low value stuff is getting replaced by AI and not sent there and the high value stuff struggles to get delivered by cheap labor because the play was always cost of and not the quality of the talent.
Partly that push was created by the labor unions, who pushed the cost of doing manufacturing business far above what was profitable and feasible.
When the environment becomes hostile to conducting business, then jobs will leave and local industries atrophy.
BTW - with or without unions manufacturing was profitable in the US before NAFTA and China entering WTO. So your narrative that manufacturing was dying because of labor unions does not hold much water.
My fear is that if US becomes hostile to foreign tech workers, they will simply create alternatives to US Big Tech in other countries and US economy will suffer.
Current US domination of global tech is partly because of foreign tech talent.
Manufacturing offshoring started in late 90s in small part due to NAFTA and then accelerated when China entered WTO in early 2000s (thank you President Clinton for this one).
The manufacturing employment trend shows this quite clearly I think: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/manemp
Speaking as an Irish person who grew up in the 80's, this isn't true as there were loads of US companies manufacturing in Ireland back then. There were even clothes manufacturers until the mid 90s.
So I'd probably agree more with the OP here, perhaps the Asian outsourcing happened in the 90s (but even then, loads of my toys as a kid were made in Taiwan), but this has been happening for a while.
It's potentially related to the relaxation of capital controls that happened in the 70s.
If the issue was cost the jobs would already be in Canada. If the issue was cost the jobs would also have already been offshored.
The issue is on attracting the best talent and here, despite doomsday predictions to the contrary, the US continues to lead. The $100k fee is nothing to bring in top talent. Top talent was competing against Indian offshore companies scooping up thousands of visas for iffy-at-best talent.
The cold reality is many folks in tech on this visa were mediocre talent at best coming out of degree mills or body shops, in roles that could easily be filled domestically if there wasn’t inexpensive overseas labor willing to work for less.
Folks casually leave out the bit that all that iffy talent was crowding out far better talent looking to come to the US but couldn’t because they didn’t get picked in the lottery. This raising of the entry bar is freeing up space so the best folks have a better chance.
Agree with it or not that’s what these changes are aiming to fix, and there’s little evidence this will just send all the jobs to Canada.
Now that H1B pathway is being blocked, Canada can build an alternative tech center and ecosystem. They can do it, Canada has very strong CS programs and is a birthplace of AI and deep learning
And your North American friends do not? Please.
The commonality is that software engineers all across the globe live pretty great, compared to their local peers. But of course, compare them to inflated NYC/SV salaries and everything looks like peanuts.
It's not even close. Both my current and previous company have substantial percentage of engineering in Mexico so I have good visibility into this. Even middle-tier software engineer salary band in Mexico allows for a very comfortable high class life. Whereas the same level engineer in Silicon Valley is crushed by rental costs without not too much left over, and if they also have kids expenses they are barely scraping by.
That just isn't true. You can easily look up the cost of living for e.g. Vancouver:
> Cost of Living Including Rent in San Francisco, CA is 57.8% higher than in Vancouver
> Rent Prices in San Francisco, CA are 91.7% higher than in Vancouver
https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?cou...
I don’t know if current SF prices are reflecting the boom in AI. Another anecdote I look at the areas I used to run in under a decade ago and they are all around 60% higher. Really hard to do exact apples for apples between geographies so at the time I just went off basic necessities and it was skewed heavily in favor of SF.
SF average rent: $4,795USD [1]
Vancouver average rent: $2840USD [2]
[1] https://www.zillow.com/rental-manager/market-trends/san-fran...
[2] https://www.zillow.com/rental-manager/market-trends/vancouve...
I would say categorically false is accurate and an anecdote from 7 years ago isn't adding anything productive to the conversation.
EDIT: Sorry, I just saw that you said "all things considered". I think we agree that when you factor in salary, it is financially worse to live in Canada. I just noticed a lot of completely inaccurate statements about the rent being the same which I was trying to correct. Apologies if you got caught in the crossfire.
Yes, pay and money matter. It's why people go to US rather than Canada.
If you can only afford rent on a Canadian salary as a tech worker without much profit, why come here?
Canada has bad weather, expensive large cities and an overworked health care sector.
At least Europe has better weather and social services.
Europe is not a country, these vary wildly across members of the EU/UK/Europe more broadly.
As an Irish person, I'd love if the weather and social services were better here.
Though I don't worry too much about the pay -- it's still a decent amount. It just sometimes makes me feel unfair when I'm doing the exact same job as my US colleagues.
This is false. Your source says it's for work permits. Though I still doubt IRCC would process an application in 10 days.
My wife and I have been US tech refugees in Vancouver after our US working permits were indefinitely held for security checks. We are targeting Canadian PR through Express Entry (EE) in case we are not able to return to the US. I have to note it's not a sure path to PR for US tech refugees.
EE heavily favors French speakers and workers with local education/working experiences, and penalizes "old" people above 30. It also subsidizes certain fields (healthcare, transport...) that's not favored by the market. If you can max French points and have a bachelors degree, you are in. If you are not in these favored categories, learn French (which a lot of new immigrants are doing) or wait for years to accumulate Canadian experiences (and hopefully the rule doesn't change).
We have masters and PhD degrees, my wife has gained 1-year working experience here, and we have maxed English scores, but we haven't qualified only because we entered our 30s.
PNP (provincial nominee) is a more guaranteed path to PR, but it requires company sponsorship and the chance still depends on your paid level and other factors. Our US employers view our relocation to Canada as temporary so they don't do it. The alternative is switching to a local position/company. But tech positions here in Vancouver are very limited (at least compared to US tech hubs). I personally don't really want to sacrifice the career just for immigration.
Could we hold off on using the term "refugee" here? My partner works with actual refugees. We're talking about a 12 year old Ukrainian girl who last saw her father comatose in a hospital bed with both legs torn off, and who witnessed her entire neighborhood turned into rubble. I doubt you and your wife moving from a safe country to another safe country makes you a refugee of any kind. Call it what it is: you are economic migrants.
> indefinitely held for security checks
Canada has been known to be extremely lenient when it comes to background checks, which, honestly, is something that should be addressed if we want to maintain the free movement of people between the two countries.
We had been living in California for years until USCIS arbitrarily hold my wife's new working permit apllication for longer than one year and had to leave the country to be able to work. The US CBP subsequentially denied my entry and revoked my visas after I visted my wife and used the same travel documents that I had used several times. I was forced to abandon my home in the US and even unable to collect my things and it almost runined my job. Her new US visa applications have been stuck in the consulate for longer than a year.
Even under UN definition, someome forced to leave their home due to unfair treatments is a refugee.
The law of your new country is already taking care of that. There's a clear legal definition to "refugee" in Canada. You aren't one: you are an economic migrant.
> Even under UN definition, someome forced to leave their home due to unfair treatments is a refugee
You are more than welcome to apply for refugee status if you believe to be eligible under the legal defition of the term. I'm sure a lawyer will be happy to take your money and help you file for it.
But from the sound of it you were denied entry into the US because you failed a criminal/security background check. Maybe I wouldn't brag about it to the Canadian authorities...
OTOH, you have free universal healthcare - and, the best part is that everyone in Canada gets it. You also have gun-free schools, abortions are considered healthcare, and, on top of all that, a sane government and a population that's considered pathologically nice to each other.
Honestly, I'd take the pay cut (in fact, I did - but I live in Ireland instead).
And this "sane government and a population that's considered pathologically nice to each other" is literally just the definition of chauvinism. Sure _you_ like it, and that's great. Let's not be assuming everyone in the world shares our values though.
That is not true. Way too many murders in middle class schools.
Not that it should even be a justification. No school of any level should ever ever experience a murder.
Bringing people over has negative consequences in the US (housing demand goes up; water demand goes up; power demand goes up) and in the person's home country (money doesn't flow to the local country; good people leave who should be staying and building their own country).
Their son is doing well, but I don’t see how it makes economic sense for Canada at that point. It boils down to a circuitous and expensive way to direct government dollars to smart people who are likely to have smart kids. You could save yourself a step and just give lower income kids in Canada IQ tests and throw money at the promising ones.
It doesn't.
Look at immigration numbers from 2000 to 2026 and overlay them with productivity per capita and GDP per capita.
The federal government will give extra points to an applicant with an engineering degree without ever bothering to check whether the immigrant's degree would be accepted by an accredited licensing board.
In some cases, it's possible to get accredited by passing a series of exams (the same ones given to 22-year-old new grads). Figuring out why the pass rates are so low for foreign applicants without a mutually recognized degree is left as an exercise for the reader...
Why should US employers be forced to pay $100k to Donny or compromise for substandard smaller labor pool in the US and bear increased costs?
It comes down to whether you have a globalist or nationalist mindset. Depending on which, you will come to a different conclusion about what to think. Should a government prioritize the individual success of citizens of its country, or the profitability of companies domiciled there (and therefore overall national economic performance)? Which approach, which tide lifts more boats by a meaningful amount? Which comports with a government's stated duties?
You decide!
The problem with all anti-H1B discourse is Lump Of Labor fallacy ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy ). The loudest people are the least educated about the consequences of blocking high skilled immigration.
This is wrong. In practice, we bias toward this rule because it happens to align with benefit to society moreso than other rules (most of the time), but it is not the end, it is the means. The responsibility of employers (and all people participating in society) is to jointly maintain, and ideally improve, society. That's part of why government exists - to control harm-doers.
Also, "the loudest people are the least educated" is probably true on most topics, but it's not a great way to make an argument. You should address the smartest people who disagree with you, not the dumbest (and that way, you also avoid being perceived as believing you are better than other people, which damns so much socially-bisected discourse at scale).
The fact that America is global tech leader is thanks to foreigners, all these FAANGs and MAG7s and OpenAI and Anthropic, the paper "Transformers is all your need", everything was created by highly skilled foreigners.
Without foreigners there is no tech sector, no sweet MAG7 and FAANG stock returns, America would be steamrolled in tech the same way Ford, Chevrolet, Buick, and Dodge were steamrolled by Toyota and BMW.
All of whom would have no problem securing an O-1.
The H-1B is a mess, in no small part because you can have world-class contributors and low-skill, entry-level positions applying for the same visa.
Second, this admin (steven miller et al) and loud wignats supporting it, want to shutdown all immigration completely, starting with high skilled one.
So please lets stop pretending that wignats will accept any immigration. Just say you sont want brown people, and that will be honest at least.
A lot of H1Bs are more qualified than the O-1 just because its easier to get coming from top tier Ivy League school and phd
Smart people are not arguing that we should have zero immigration forever. They are arguing that H1B should be reformed or replaced (e.g. with O-1, or something else), which, yes, is synonymous with destroying it in its current form. And they are arguing that offshoring should be punished unless actually necessary. This does not conflict with the historical case studies you are using as dramatic rhetorical example.
Maybe the people you are disagreeing with are wrong - you could simply argue that. But you are making a different argument. It's going to be very hard to convince Americans that Americans should not be protected by America, and that everybody suffering is just a stupid racist idiot who should accept what is happening to their homes and livelihoods instead of trying to comprehend solutions.
It is very easy to undermine American big tech. If tomorrow China comes up with cheaper version of American tech products it will be over. Same way TikTok took over social media, same way DeepSeek can undermine openai/anthropic, and any other random SAAS can undermine existing american SAAS, because American salaries are 2x-4x compared to other countries. The moment America experiences reverse brain drain and alternative tech hubs are established, they can undercut prices with the same quality. So do not take it for granted that America will be tech leader forever, the global immigration is the only thing that keeps the leadership and drains other countries of top talent.
Immigration must be legislated by Congress, it is their job. GOP controlled the congress during trump1 and trump2 and decided not do anything. Superior Court mostly decided to maintain the status quo.
I am for reasonable and thoughtful reform of immigration, that should be done by Congress. Current admin has zero capability and no interest to pursue bona-fide reform.
All they want is throw defenseless foreigners under the bus and draw blood of innocent people for a big show, all while stealing money for themselves. and GOP voting base has no interest in keeping the people in power in check and demand accountability.
This is why I am firmly against the current admin using administrative procedures to halt immigration via backdoors like "$100k admin fee". Let's be honest here - nobody is interested in recouping admin costs of adjudicating immigration paperwork. They are simply using $100k to stop it.
The authority for stopping/reforming immigration lies firmly with Congress.
Who'd imagine squeezing the middle class would backfire epically? Compensation hasn't reflected the GDP per capital increases for the majority of the workforce. I don't think even the productivity increases from personal computers in the end of the 1970's have trickled down.
Why would investments by employers result in higher compensation for employees?
That said, median real individual income has increased substantially since the 1970s: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/mepainusa672n
Actual immigration from outside the US is a vanishingly small part of our housing problems, just as immigrants do not actually "eat the cats and dogs".
Where I live in Oregon the conflict is almost entirely about other Americans moving here vs those pulling up the ladder - which doesn't, of course,stop anyone from moving here, it just means only the wealthy can, rather than teachers, nurses, firefighters and so on.
This is a pretty stark straw man. It's very normal to be critical of immigration policy without believing that immigrants will eat your pets, and it's petty to try to implicitly cast the person you're talking to into that camp.
Of course you can - good point. It's just extremely misleading to. However, "throughout history" America is only about 400 years in total, and for a lot of that there was loads of free land available. And - more importantly - no benefits, so you came to the US to carve out a new life from the soil, not to join a successful nation and raise house prices.
Land in America is now settled, and that means that historical time is over, and no more applicable to debates today than it would be in any other nation, for most of whom the first 400 years would also have been a time of settling and opportunity.
I think if you want to be able to block your neighbors from building denser housing on their property then that should only be enforceable if it was agreed to by everybody in advance when they bought the place (e.g. via an HOA contract or some similar type of restriction on the property deed). Otherwise this is tantamount to allowing Walmart to get a vote on whether to allow Target to set up next door.
I totally agree it's both, although most first world populations have low birth rates (until you add in generational immigration from high birth rate cultures), so slow building works well.
The obvious problem is that you can only develop a "desirable" area so much before you have fundamentally altered it. When there is a perception that the demand is driven in large part by people moving into the country, rather than by being born, that naturally engenders bitterness. When there is a perception that there are plenty of other areas available for development, which would then become desirable over time, but the developers want money and the government is focused on short-term goals, that further engenders bitterness. This is all very natural, and doesn't necessitate people to be unreasonably NIMBY to oppose it. Again, most people would.
Then we stopped doing that, with devastating consequences for many people wishing to move to places with better opportunities: https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/mac.20170388 - as well as the economy as a whole.
You can read about it in books like Arbitrary Lines https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9781642832549/ar... or Zoning Rules https://www.lincolninst.edu/publications/books/zoning-rules/
https://journal.dedasys.com/2014/12/29/people-places-and-job...
I.e. no, it's not a zero sum game, but it is a complex system with inputs, outputs, some finite resources, and lots of human subjectivity and desires. Concrete harm easily comes from bad immigration policy (regardless of the "direction" of the policy's badness).
This is true in the literal sense in which you are using the phrase, but the context is not realistic. This sentiment is used a lot in defense of bad policy.
Economics is a zero sum game, just not a static one. People are variables in the equation, which makes it non-trivial (after all, people are the entities splitting the sum, which is normally not part of the system of a "zero sum game").
The point is that the implication that "more people === better" is an oversimplification, to be point of being meaningless. In some contexts, more people makes everything better for everybody. In some contexts, more people makes everything worse for everybody. In most contexts, it's somewhere in between. Where the sparks really fly is when more people makes things better for the new people and worse for the existing people.
lower wages and higher rents are 99.99% of the reason for the West's immigration policies.
The thing about potential is that it needs to right environment to be realized. Canada still has two hurdles to create that environment:
- Access to capital, either in the form of risk-tolerant VC funding or established companies willing to invest significantly in R&D. Those are not quick to move over the border.
- A critical mass of _experienced_ talent. Entrepreneurs and high-agency ICs who've seen what it looks like to build a successful startup and capable of replicating it. Those don't have much incentive to move over the border either.
The U.S. has hundreds of startups that later became unicorns. The employees of those startups are typically the key members that drive the success of new ones. For Canada, the only name that easily comes to mind is Shopify.
Once they figure out the ecosystem Canada can arbitrage away the broken US immigration policies and anti-immigrant bigotry.
Just as manufacturing jobs in heartland have left US for Asia, so do tech jobs can leave US for Canada, India and elsewhere
1. It is not easy to immigrate to Canada.
2. There is also a lot of anti-immigrant sentiment in Canada even from people on the left if you’re not white. Canadians just do not like Asians anymore.
3. Canada has so much red tape for business that it forces many entrepreneurial Canadians to either gravitate towards real estate, online streaming as entertainers, or simply just move down south.
You can easily look up the cost of living for e.g. Vancouver:
> Cost of Living Including Rent in San Francisco, CA is 57.8% higher than in Vancouver
> Rent Prices in San Francisco, CA are 91.7% higher than in Vancouver
https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?cou...
I'm not denying that the cost of living to salary ratio is better in the US. But it is simply false to say that the cost of living in cities like Vancouver (widely considered the most expensive in Canada) is the same as SF or NYC. Rent in SF is roughly double that of Vancouver, which itself has the most expensive rent in Canada.
I only know this because we thought of relocating to Canada
Beyond anecdotes, various comparison websites have rent in SF at around 100% more than Vancouver.
Obviously salaries are lower in Canada and your disposable income can very likely be lower living there if you're in tech.
A fair comparison would compare areas outside of SF with areas outside of Vancouver. There are obviously some outliers like Oakland, but on average you would expect to pay 50%-100% more in rent in the Bay Area than in the Vancouver area.
There is a lot of data available online that you can find very easily. Zillow for example, regarding rent for a one bedroom:
SF average rent: $4,440 USD [1] vs. Vancouver average rent: $2,500USD [2]
Mountain view average rent: $3,395USD [3] vs Burnaby average rent: $1,989USD [4]
Union City average rent: $2400USD [5] vs Surrey average rent: $1689USD [6]
[1] https://www.zillow.com/rental-manager/market-trends/san-fran...
[2] https://www.zillow.com/rental-manager/market-trends/vancouve...
[3] https://www.zillow.com/rental-manager/market-trends/mountain...
[4] https://www.zillow.com/rental-manager/market-trends/burnaby-...
[5] https://www.zillow.com/rental-manager/market-trends/union-ci...
[6] https://www.zillow.com/rental-manager/market-trends/surrey-b...
2. You’re ignoring the option of buying homes which is impossible for Canadian vancouver salaries but still possible with American salaries in the SF Bay Area
Otherwise, as I already stated, we agree that it is almost always better from an economic perspective to live in San Francisco as an engineer, given the vastly higher salaries.
NOTE: I'm specifically responding to your claim that "the cost of living in Canada is just as high or even higher than the US", in the context of HCOL areas where tech workers typically reside.
Honestly I don't know what can convince you, so maybe we can just agree to disagree.
1. Vancouver is well regarded as one of the least affordable cities. 2. I stay in the same role but got a 40%+ pay cut so that offsets the "Cost of Living Including Rent". 3. If you compare other bay area cities (Sunnyvale, San Mateo, Fremont...) where tech workers live to Vancouver, it's not as dramatic. 4. While I support universal health care, which is good for average people in society, it's not necessarily a pro for tech workers. US tech companies buy good health insurance plans for their employees. I used to walk in my company's on-site health centers to get same-day health care in the US. In Canada, I have to wait for days to see the primary care provider and drive one hour to another provider to get exams.
Side note: if you're willing for me to ask you some questions about your move I would be really grateful.
This stuff doesn't actually help Canada at all, it's in a bit of a development trap.
In any case I wish well to people in Canada and Europe and people who are looking to move there. More spreaded opportunities lead to better outcome for everyone including US even if it does not look like one.
What if I told you the people Canada really want have no issues getting a US work visa/Green Card?
Check out O-1 visas and EB-1/2.
This is ignorant. Stop pretending like the government is just barring illegals or "low-skill" workers (as you indicate in another thread) and welcome everyone else.
I used to hold O-1. I have approved EB-1A I-140. Yet I ended up surprisingly being denied entry by the US CBP, unable to return to my home in the US, almost losing my job.
The government is targeting all fronts. Those with slightest law violations are prosecuted and deported by ICE. High-skill workers from certain backgrounds are facing increasing visa/green-card scrutiny. International students are barred from internships (see recent regulatory changes for CPT and news about potential 100K fee for OPT as well).
Did it have anything to do with failing a background check? Often, denials aren't as "surprising" as they seem.
After my wife moved to Canada to wait for her US work permit / visa last year, I visited her every few times. I hold O-1 status in the US but didn't have an O-1 visa. I had been able to return to the US through a program called Automatic Revalidation [1].
At the same port-of-entry, using the same documents, CBP let me in three times. Every time they put me in secondary inspection, ask me for a lot of details about my travel. But they did let me in. The fourth time, the CBP changed their mind. They said a student visa I used to use was revoked a few years ago and wanted me to apply for an O-1 visa to prove my eligibility to enter, which I argued had nothing to do with my O-1 eligibility.
Why was my student visa revoked? I quote the email the consulate sent me years ago: "The revocation of your visa was due to additional information that became available after the visa was issued." That's it. I had sent follow-up emails and requested FOIA but never got any more details. That was a hard-earned visa. When I left the US to a Latin American country to apply for the new visa, I was detained and interrogated by CBP at the airport, presumably because of suspicions of Chinese espionage -- I was also investigated by FBI at some point. I lived in a country that was badly hit by COVID for two months to wait for the administrative processing of my visa. They stamped the visa, then revoked it, and that hit me again after years.
Surprising? Having the same travel documents at the same port, being eligible for entry for 3 times but denied the 4th time is definitely surprising. Not surprising? Yeah I have had a lot of troubles with the US government.
I never technically "fail a background check". Every of my previous visas and immigration petitions got approved after an unusually long obscured process. But how fair is it? Can I even expect an end to this?
And I'm definitely not the only one. I know a community of Chinese students / workers with more or less similar experiences. You can also search on Reddit for stories about long visa administrative processing that ruined people's careers and life.
[1] https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/visa-inf...