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
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?