H1B and Immigration should be kept separate. Personally I'm pro-immigration and anti-H1B because of the potential for the H1B relationship to be abused in ways that are a detriment to both the one with the H1B and to the general employees in the same field. Personally, I have the skills to compete with an Immigrant for a fair paid position. I do not want to be competing for depressed wages against a H1B worker who has legally enforced company loyalty lest they be deported.
They aren't a detriment to the one with the H1B. That person is better off than they would be without it.
Believe it or not, that Indian or Chinese fellow is a reasonably smart and savvy developer just like you. They compared the "legally enforced loyalty test" to their other available options and determined that the HUGE pay hike (think 500-750%) made it worth their while. Further, the transferability of the "legally enforced loyalty test" only means that finding a new job and rage quitting must be done in exactly that order. Many people take a job with the first sponsoring employer with the express intention to shift jobs the minute they hit US soil.
I know you don't want to be competing with the nice Indian fellow, but don't spin your protectionism as somehow being for his benefit. You simply want to confine him to (American style) poverty to protect your paycheck.
>I know you don't want to be competing with the nice Indian fellow, but don't spin your protectionism as somehow being for his benefit.
As I said, I am pro-immigration. I would have no problem him coming over here with a green card and I am for extending the number of green cards given out.
>You simply want to confine him to (American style) poverty to protect your paycheck.
It seems your assmptions about me are quite mistaken.
That's understandable, but perhaps also something of a "perfect is the enemy of the good" situation, since there seem to be large swathes of the US populace that do not want a more liberal worker immigration policy of any kind.
I'd prefer no policy change over an increase in H1Bs. This is more of a "nothing is better than bad" situation in my view.
I may even go so far as to suggest that significantly increasing H1Bs could hurt general immigration policy. Companies would rather have more H1Bs than immigrants with the ability to defend their rights and the general population will see the damage caused by H1Bs (and with some well place propaganda) instead blame immigration. But this is a thought I have just thought and have not yet given full thought to.
All else being equal, sooner or later, that will cause enough problems for companies that they'll start going elsewhere, and then it will be you filling out the immigration paperwork if you would like to move there to work with the best and brightest.
Even that is better than opening up more H1Bs. I would rather have to completely globally in places that have worker rights than have to compete domestically against an individual who has to remain loyal to the country lest they be deported.
It is possible for H1B workers to change jobs, you know. Granted, there's extra paperwork involved compared to people who chose their parents more carefully, but it is doable.
Is it the government's job to prevent legal wage depression? How exactly is H1B wage depression? If there is a legal and ethical way of hiring someone who can do your work for less, why should that be shut out? It's a different matter if you are talking about the minimum wage, which does merit some protection.
Wage-based arguments for H1B are pure protectionism.
There are legitimate problems with H1B, e.g. spouse not being allowed to work and the irrational country quotas for transitioning H1Bs into green cards. 'Wage-depressing' and 'job-stealing' are specious critiques at best. It is debatable whether the government should be in the business of preventing wage depression.
>Is it the government's job to prevent legal wage depression? How exactly is H1B wage depression
The problem is the government intervention in the H1B. That is why immigration without the specific form of government intervention that is found in H1B is something I can support. The problem is that the government enforces company loyalty on penalty of being thrown out of the country or worse.
Let them be hired and move here, but let them be just as free to seek a new employer if they ever feel they are being taken advantage of.
> That statement is self contradicting, since H1B is the only way to immigrate to USA.
No, its not self-contradicting. One, because H-1B isn't the only way to immigrate to the USA (there's a whole bunch of immigrant visa categories [0], H-1B is just one visa category, and technically its a non-immigrant category that allows dual intent -- that is, its a non-immigrant visa holders of which are not prohibited from also seeking permanent residency.)
And, two, because one can support immigration but think all the existing mechanisms are undesirable, and be pro-immigrant but oppose all of the status quo immigration mechanisms, preferring new mechanisms. So even if H-1B was the only existing US immigration avenue, the statement wouldn't be self-contradictory.
> Edit: Unless you already have family here willing to sponsor your PR.
And this is still wrong, because while family-based immigration is the main route in the US, there are also employer-based immigrant categories, and even additional dual-intent non-immigrant visas (what the H-1B is that allows it to be used for immigration) besides the H-1B.
No, it isn't. To argue such is disingenuous. You can be for the idea of immigration but believe the current H1-B system is a sham setup as an indentured servitude model to a majority of its participants.
It could actually just be a result of confusion or laziness.
(You usage of "disingenuous" is almost as a synonym for "wrong". It doesn't just mean "wrong" or "incorrect", it implies that you believe that the comment is intentionally dishonest. If you aren't absolutely sure someone is trying to mislead others, it's a poor word choice. It gets used on HN a lot, a lot more than it should be.)
edit: I do see from the sibling reply that you were more or less right.
> Care to tell me what are the other practical avenues for people to immigrate to US if they are not a noble laureate or an olympic gold medalist ?
Not be from a country for which the applicable immigrant visa categories are overloaded (IIRC, China, India are the big overloaded categories for employer-based categories; and Mexico, the Phillipines, and India again for family-based categories) and be qualified for either family-based or employer-based immigration.
Or, qualify for a number of the other dual-intent non-immigrant visas besides the H-1B, such as the H-4, or the L, E non-immigrant visas.
The H-1B is just one dual-intent non-immigrant visa category, its not even the main way for people who aren't noble laureate or Olympic gold medalists (or the broader group who qualify under the O and P non-immigrant visa categories that would seem to apply to those two groups) to immigrate.
