Friends, I'll approach this from a different perspective, if you'll please take a moment to lend me your ears, and hear my plight.
=============
> But in reality, most of today's H-1B workers don't stick around to become the next Albert Einstein or Sergey Brin
I recently wrote a letter to a Congressperson about this, regarding the recent House Judiciary Committee Hearing on Immigration Reform. The same point was brought up there too. Do these people think it's easy to start a company on an H-1B? It's near impossible. I'd know, because I've looked into it with a brilliant lawyer. Let's take a look at the factors.
* H-1B costs around 4-5k, and the result of the application is uncertain. Would you want an uncertain cofounder? Would investors?
* H-1B workers must be paid prevailing wage. For a programmer in Cambridge, MA, the cheapest level-1 codemonkey must be paid around $55k/yr. How many of us started out paying ourselves that much money? Or any money for that matter?
* A document called the Neufeld Memo from 2008 states that the H-1B sponsor and worker need an employer-employee relationship. This means that the company, that you helped start, must have the ability to fire you whenever it wants. You must relinquish your rights to control your employment in that regard. How would you feel about this?
* For similar reasons, owning majority stake in your company is nearly impossible, and owning any stake is generally frowned upon and investigated further by authorities.
* Work visas are per-company and per-job. You want to do some consulting on the side to keep the purse full? Tough luck, unless you also are able to get an H-1B from there. (hint: it's tough.)
If you had all these limitations, how likely is it that you'd be the next Sergey Brin? Is it any wonder that H-1Bs are not creating jobs for Americans? The reason for all this is that the H-1B was created for BigCo.
==========================
> ComputerWorld revealed last week that the top 10 users of H-1B visas last year were all offshore outsourcing firms such as Tata and Infosys. Together these firms hired nearly half of all H-1B workers, and less than 3 percent of them applied to become permanent residents.
Again, the H-1B system surely favors BigCO. The reason for this is because it was created for BigCO, and it was advanced by constant lobbying by BigCO. There is no equivalently large lobby, however, for the bright immigrant entrepreneurs that America wants. Brin himself is probably lobbying for the H-1B, as Google is in the top 10 H-1B employers.
"Less than 3% of them applied to become permanent residents". Honestly! This makes me angry. Do people think they didn't want to become permanent residents? Are we this out of touch? This is because they can't decide to apply to become permanent residents themselves! They need sponsorship for PERM (green card) applications too! But the companies don't want to take this costly and time consuming (6+ years for Indians) route often, when they can just replace them.
==========================
There are more glaring things in the article, but I want to keep my point clear. Do I think H-1Bs are great? NO! God no. But calls to ban it are a bit overzealous. Please, have some compassion.
People seem to forget that H-1Bs are the only way to legal immigration for people who don't have ties to the US, or people like me whose American parents haven't lived in the US for a long time. Ban it, and the likes of me are screwed.
I hope that there comes a better alternative that doesn't serve corporate interests as much, that supports foreign founders who create jobs for Americans. Something that raises the bar for potential applicants and lowers the bar for consultancy-farms. I'm hopeful about the STEM visa. I like the startup visa. I think there are tons of flaws to be fixed in the system.
Please, consider what will happen to us, just as you consider what will happen to you. I understand that America must think of its own first. But consider how immigrants created entire industries, when they were allowed to do so. Heck, most Americans are descendants of immigrants. If you call for the ban of the H-1B, please also call, twice as vigorously, for the creation of something better.
No one has said anything about banning H1B in this thread. You're misdirecting us from the real issue which is that H1B program is about to be EXPANDED. This will accelerate the damage to the job market in places like NY/NJ/CA/TX where most H1Bs are placed. The amount of H1Bs that were previously admitted in a decade will now be admitted in slightly more than 2 years. What do you think that will do to salaries (yours included)?
>> But consider how immigrants created entire industries, when they were allowed to do so. Heck, most Americans are descendants of immigrants.
You are once again misdirecting. If you consider the statistics, a 3% citizenship rate is indicative that the H1B program is not really a immigration program at all -- it is actually a guest worker program.
What's wrong with that? Guest workers who have limited freedoms, are tied to their jobs for legal status, and can be sent back to India on their employer's whim are not really free market participants or citizens -- they are indentured servants or modern day slaves to the corporations that hold their visas. It's then unsurprising that this special class of workers lowers market salaries, or that expanding the number of people in this special class will lower salaries.
>> Do I think H-1Bs are great? NO! God no.
You admit that H1B is a awful visa, but you don't want to rock the boat and do anything about it. You are not actively campaigning to improve conditions, instead you are here misdirecting and essentially supporting the expansion of the H1B program in its current form. I'm sorry, but that's a mistaken attitude and I can't get behind that.
I think you read me wrong. I agree with everything you said, but you need to take your thought process one step further.
You are indeed right about the banning - in this thread. This issue, however, has been coming up recently (3-4 major articles in the last 45 days or so) and there is a growing "let's get rid of it" sentiment, but without proposals for an alternative. If you take a peek at my conclusion again, you'll see that this is what I'm asking for. An alternative.
>If you consider the statistics, a 3% citizenship rate is indicative that the H1B program is not really a immigration program at all -- it is actually a guest worker program.
Read again please, I agree with this exact point in the second section of my comment. I made the point that it's not the worker's choice, it's BigCo's choice. The system is set up to serve temp-workers to BigCo. I've supported this exact idea in the 5 bullet points I've made above that. What I disagree with was the implication in the original article that guest workers didn't want to naturalize. "less than 3 percent of them applied to become permanent residents" makes it sound that way. They can't apply themselves!
I don't need lecturing about how guest workers have limited freedoms. I know firsthand! I'm not too keen on servitude myself! It's not that I don't think rocking the boat is a good idea, but I'm wary and scared. Do you know how many alternative visa program / immigration reform bills have been proposed so far? And how many have been passed? And how many of those have been bills that support the current long-term temporary worker style?
As my wise lawyer says, "I'll believe it when I see it".
I'm afraid that we're going to kick this system over, in favor of no system. And then no alternative is going to be agreed upon (in the Senate and House), or the alternative is going to be heavily lobbied yet again, to create a similar system, entrenching it even more.
Once again you are mixing in logical arguments with emotional ones, and using emotion to override logical arguments and ultimately support an unjust status quo.
You agree that changes need to happen. So why not lobby for the changes that you want to see? Why lobby for the status quo or the expansion of the current broken program?
From your comment, why not lobby for these:
1. Employers should NOT have the right to send people back within 30 days if they eliminate a position. Instead, the person should have the right to look for another job as long as the visa period has not expired.
2. Employers should not be involved in the green card application process -- people should apply for a green car on their own, after X years of stay.
Why not have a real change agenda instead of sniping at non-existing arguments (they'll ban H1B!) or adding support to the idea that being exploited by BigCos is the only way things can be?
Comments
Friends, I'll approach this from a different perspective, if you'll please take a moment to lend me your ears, and hear my plight.
=============
> But in reality, most of today's H-1B workers don't stick around to become the next Albert Einstein or Sergey Brin
I recently wrote a letter to a Congressperson about this, regarding the recent House Judiciary Committee Hearing on Immigration Reform. The same point was brought up there too. Do these people think it's easy to start a company on an H-1B? It's near impossible. I'd know, because I've looked into it with a brilliant lawyer. Let's take a look at the factors.
* H-1B costs around 4-5k, and the result of the application is uncertain. Would you want an uncertain cofounder? Would investors?
* H-1B workers must be paid prevailing wage. For a programmer in Cambridge, MA, the cheapest level-1 codemonkey must be paid around $55k/yr. How many of us started out paying ourselves that much money? Or any money for that matter?
* A document called the Neufeld Memo from 2008 states that the H-1B sponsor and worker need an employer-employee relationship. This means that the company, that you helped start, must have the ability to fire you whenever it wants. You must relinquish your rights to control your employment in that regard. How would you feel about this?
* For similar reasons, owning majority stake in your company is nearly impossible, and owning any stake is generally frowned upon and investigated further by authorities.
* Work visas are per-company and per-job. You want to do some consulting on the side to keep the purse full? Tough luck, unless you also are able to get an H-1B from there. (hint: it's tough.)
If you had all these limitations, how likely is it that you'd be the next Sergey Brin? Is it any wonder that H-1Bs are not creating jobs for Americans? The reason for all this is that the H-1B was created for BigCo.
==========================
> ComputerWorld revealed last week that the top 10 users of H-1B visas last year were all offshore outsourcing firms such as Tata and Infosys. Together these firms hired nearly half of all H-1B workers, and less than 3 percent of them applied to become permanent residents.
Again, the H-1B system surely favors BigCO. The reason for this is because it was created for BigCO, and it was advanced by constant lobbying by BigCO. There is no equivalently large lobby, however, for the bright immigrant entrepreneurs that America wants. Brin himself is probably lobbying for the H-1B, as Google is in the top 10 H-1B employers.
"Less than 3% of them applied to become permanent residents". Honestly! This makes me angry. Do people think they didn't want to become permanent residents? Are we this out of touch? This is because they can't decide to apply to become permanent residents themselves! They need sponsorship for PERM (green card) applications too! But the companies don't want to take this costly and time consuming (6+ years for Indians) route often, when they can just replace them.
==========================
There are more glaring things in the article, but I want to keep my point clear. Do I think H-1Bs are great? NO! God no. But calls to ban it are a bit overzealous. Please, have some compassion.
People seem to forget that H-1Bs are the only way to legal immigration for people who don't have ties to the US, or people like me whose American parents haven't lived in the US for a long time. Ban it, and the likes of me are screwed.
I hope that there comes a better alternative that doesn't serve corporate interests as much, that supports foreign founders who create jobs for Americans. Something that raises the bar for potential applicants and lowers the bar for consultancy-farms. I'm hopeful about the STEM visa. I like the startup visa. I think there are tons of flaws to be fixed in the system.
Please, consider what will happen to us, just as you consider what will happen to you. I understand that America must think of its own first. But consider how immigrants created entire industries, when they were allowed to do so. Heck, most Americans are descendants of immigrants. If you call for the ban of the H-1B, please also call, twice as vigorously, for the creation of something better.
>> But calls to ban it are a bit overzealous.
No one has said anything about banning H1B in this thread. You're misdirecting us from the real issue which is that H1B program is about to be EXPANDED. This will accelerate the damage to the job market in places like NY/NJ/CA/TX where most H1Bs are placed. The amount of H1Bs that were previously admitted in a decade will now be admitted in slightly more than 2 years. What do you think that will do to salaries (yours included)?
>> But consider how immigrants created entire industries, when they were allowed to do so. Heck, most Americans are descendants of immigrants.
You are once again misdirecting. If you consider the statistics, a 3% citizenship rate is indicative that the H1B program is not really a immigration program at all -- it is actually a guest worker program.
What's wrong with that? Guest workers who have limited freedoms, are tied to their jobs for legal status, and can be sent back to India on their employer's whim are not really free market participants or citizens -- they are indentured servants or modern day slaves to the corporations that hold their visas. It's then unsurprising that this special class of workers lowers market salaries, or that expanding the number of people in this special class will lower salaries.
>> Do I think H-1Bs are great? NO! God no.
You admit that H1B is a awful visa, but you don't want to rock the boat and do anything about it. You are not actively campaigning to improve conditions, instead you are here misdirecting and essentially supporting the expansion of the H1B program in its current form. I'm sorry, but that's a mistaken attitude and I can't get behind that.
I think you read me wrong. I agree with everything you said, but you need to take your thought process one step further.
You are indeed right about the banning - in this thread. This issue, however, has been coming up recently (3-4 major articles in the last 45 days or so) and there is a growing "let's get rid of it" sentiment, but without proposals for an alternative. If you take a peek at my conclusion again, you'll see that this is what I'm asking for. An alternative.
>If you consider the statistics, a 3% citizenship rate is indicative that the H1B program is not really a immigration program at all -- it is actually a guest worker program.
Read again please, I agree with this exact point in the second section of my comment. I made the point that it's not the worker's choice, it's BigCo's choice. The system is set up to serve temp-workers to BigCo. I've supported this exact idea in the 5 bullet points I've made above that. What I disagree with was the implication in the original article that guest workers didn't want to naturalize. "less than 3 percent of them applied to become permanent residents" makes it sound that way. They can't apply themselves!
I don't need lecturing about how guest workers have limited freedoms. I know firsthand! I'm not too keen on servitude myself! It's not that I don't think rocking the boat is a good idea, but I'm wary and scared. Do you know how many alternative visa program / immigration reform bills have been proposed so far? And how many have been passed? And how many of those have been bills that support the current long-term temporary worker style?
As my wise lawyer says, "I'll believe it when I see it".
I'm afraid that we're going to kick this system over, in favor of no system. And then no alternative is going to be agreed upon (in the Senate and House), or the alternative is going to be heavily lobbied yet again, to create a similar system, entrenching it even more.
Is this fear not justified?
Once again you are mixing in logical arguments with emotional ones, and using emotion to override logical arguments and ultimately support an unjust status quo.
You agree that changes need to happen. So why not lobby for the changes that you want to see? Why lobby for the status quo or the expansion of the current broken program?
From your comment, why not lobby for these:
1. Employers should NOT have the right to send people back within 30 days if they eliminate a position. Instead, the person should have the right to look for another job as long as the visa period has not expired.
2. Employers should not be involved in the green card application process -- people should apply for a green car on their own, after X years of stay.
Why not have a real change agenda instead of sniping at non-existing arguments (they'll ban H1B!) or adding support to the idea that being exploited by BigCos is the only way things can be?