nceqs3

Exactly this. The difference in the pitch to voters (labor market test) vs the actual implementation (box checking sham), just shows how dishonest the whole tech industry and immigration lobby is about this. The actual solution is somewhere in the middle, but it will likely never happen because those with political capital and high social status benefit enormously from low wage h1b/opt/l1 workers. The people who are hurt by these immigration programs don't have high social status so nobody cares.

Ironic that liberals turn into libertarian boot likers for mega corps when it comes to immigration.

H1-B wasn't invented until 1990...

> because there simply aren’t American graduates who want those jobs.

Facts are just invented in these debates. Here is an actual fact: in the 2026 residency match cycle, about 6.5% of U.S. MD seniors went unmatched, resulting in approximately 1,300 to 1,400 U.S. MD students failing to secure a position initially.

All paid for by taxpayers because a few extremists have appointed themselves kings

> It is not ideal, but it is necessary when the higher-desirability options are not working.

You are simply imposing your own views on others. Just because you disagree with Flock doesn't give you the right to destroy license plate readers that my tax dollars paid for. Who appointed you king?

>Not sure what you are referring to here but if you do find the news stories be sure to post the article and I will read the cases on PACER to see what its all about

https://calmatters.org/investigation/2025/12/california-road...

The anti ALPR narrative is not based in reality. I for one support using tech to automatically flag when a stolen car is spotted. With the sky high cost of car insurance in CA, which disproportionately impacts low income drivers, you would think liberal legislators would be in favor of reducing one of the largest reasons insurance is expensive. Restricting tech used by police just means more LE time spent on easily automatable tasks, and forces LE to use their own judgement (which many would argue has bias). The ACLU and EFF are so discredited on tech issues. They simply support criminals. The ACLU is fighting DUI laws in CA right now for instance. SF is a hell-hole because of these crime loving activist groups.

Thank you, Flock!

if you are exceptional, there is always the O-1 visa

This is such a stupid exemption. Most small businesses are not Delaware C corps, so they don't even qualify. Total handout to SV.

>Never expected to see the EFF siding with a big tech company, and fighting for its right to profit from its users.

The EFF routinely sides with big tech companies. See their work on copyrights, patents, etc. Tech figures fund them. See https://thebaffler.com/salvos/all-effd-up-levine

How common is it for companies to skip over a minimally qualified US worker during the PERM labor market test process?

If a minimally qualified US worker is found, are they under a requirement to hire the worker or can they just reapply for PERM later and conduct another labor market test?

The sanctions the court is talking about are monetary sanctions against the lawyers/defendants, not sanctions, as in the Treasury Department style of sanctions. Two different things.

Palantir had no role. It's disgusting they try to tie themselves to it.

>Unfortunately they also frequently get non-profits to be their mouth pieces

Important to note that the EFF is also a nonprofit, which is funded by big tech.

DOE? The Department of Energy?

The way Palantir talks about the CIA really rubs me the wrong way. For years, they would leak to journalists that Palantir "found bin Laden" when, of course, it had nothing to do with finding him. Several CIA employees died trying to find Bin Laden, all for some schmucks in Silicon Valley to try and capitalize on their sacrifice.

I'm sorry, but what nation-state or billionaire is fighting against the EFF? In fact, the EFF is funded by billionaires and nation-states.

I wholeheartedly agree.

The website was created by fightforthefuture.org, an astroturf advocacy organization. Their tax filings show their backers are largely venture capital firms and tech companies.

It's no surprise that big tech companies don't want increased liability.

See https://thetrichordist.com/2016/05/12/list-of-corporations-a....

Common people generally don't like terrorism.

> people who write them $100,000 checks

Which law enforcement agency is writing $100k checks? There are no commercial interests in Section 702. In fact, if any, they would be against 702 (as Verizon doesn't like having to deal with it).

FSP required?

Qatargate?

>They profit hundreds of millions and get a $400,000 fine for breaking the law. This is not an accident.

Can you give an example of this?

Imagine thinking stopping the horrors of child sexual abuse makes you an evil person. Perhaps you are projecting.

> Personalized advertising is built around an obvious violation of human dignity and the right to privacy as recognized by the UDHR.

lmfao. HN never gets old.

Yes, the huge and profitable 90s web.

Have you read how vague the laws are. It's all designed to extract fines from US companies.

>Anything that chokes off the flow of money via advertising to these companies is a two-tier win in my book.

So you want paywalls for every service?

You do realize the endowment funds 1/3 of the operating budget at Harvard?

Calling it a "hedge fund" proves you don't know what you are talking about.