Hacker News Reader

Comment by thetrb | Hacker News Reader

Isn't that what US labor and immigration laws are intended for? To promote hiring US citizens or legal residents?

Taking a bit more radical view:

Why should we discriminate against someone who is poorer and better skilled in favor of someone who is richer, privileged, and less skilled, just because of the quirk of geographic origin?

Morally I find that abhorrent, and personally it drives me insane that I don't get to work with the best people in the world.

I get that there are political barriers to following that moral claim to its logical conclusion, but they shouldn't mean we discard that moral claim; we should try to remove the political obstacles.

No. The US labor and immigration laws are intended to make sure immigrant labor doesn't pose an unfair competition to US labor. In theory, this should protect both immigrants (from being exploited) and US citizens (from unfair competition).

Unfortunately, this doesn't work as well in practice: the fact that the H-1B is completely tied to a particular employer makes it the modern equivalent of indentured servitude and the H-4 makes things worse by not allowing your family members to work.

http://www.immihelp.com/visas/h1b/h1-transfer.html

Here's an excerpt from your link:

Therefore, when people say "H1 transfer", it is actually just a new H-1B petition, all over again, without the restriction of the H-1B cap.

So the only thing this allows you is to skip the cap. Every other bit of bureaucracy is still there.

I've heard from some people on H1Bs it was easy to transfer from one company to another.

Not sure how it happened, but maybe it's not so hard after all (especially if they lawyer up)

You forgot to mention the excerpts that describe how the previous employer doesn't have to intervene in any way and that the employee may start working for the new employer as soon as they get the receipt notice.

Granted there is some bureaucracy (which is largely handled by lawyers hired by the new employer, as it should be), and as with any bureaucratic system there is always a (low) probability of (unwarranted) rejection.

The H-1B is a far cry from "the modern equivalent of indentured servitude". I wonder how many "free men" wouldn't love to be "modern indentured servants" while getting paid 6 figures (and unlike the 18th century version, without being subject to physical punishment and having the opportunity to leave whenever they desire).

I agree wholeheartedly with your statement about the H-4, that's just sad.

But note that what happened was that the whole team ended up being built in Columbia, so that didn't work out so well as an incentive. And generally protectionism is a great way to strangle your competitiveness and watch jobs leave. And that's just the practical side; my point was really against the "you should hire Americans instead of foreigners if you can" ethic that motivates laws like that in the first place. This sense of job entitlement we have is absurd.

You're god damn right I feel entitled to my national government looking out for the interests of its current citizens over foreigners.

Think of it this way: the talent will make its way to create a product, in or outside of the US. If the US immigration insist that the country doesn't need the talent, they just create a competition in another country.

Promoting US citizens just because they are US citizens may work for a while, but I doubt that it is a good long-term strategy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com