
House votes to end country limits for skilled workers seeking green cards - incosta
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/federal-government/house-bill-ends-country-limits-for-skilled-workers-seeking-visas/2011/11/29/gIQA7BQ99N_story.html
======
jbarham
I'm Canadian and a year ago I left the U.S. for Australia (my wife is
Australian) primarily because I did not consider it worth it to stay in a
lousy job for at least another two years for the possibility of getting a
green card. This vote changes nothing about the logic of my decision (in fact
it would likely have made my wait longer because I'm not Indian or Chinese).

The primary problem with the U.S. green card system for skilled workers is
that you are at the mercy of your employer, and the whole application process
restarts if for whatever reason you change employers. This vote does nothing
to change that.

Even more ironic, now that I am no longer in the U.S. on a work visa, I have
more freedom to start a business targeting U.S. customers.

~~~
jacques_chester
If I read it correctly, only 140,000 "green cards" are handed out each year.
That's less than Australia takes and we have ~15x less population.

~~~
ovi256
That's also less than what France takes in. But I'm willing to bet there's
illegal immigration to the US as well, and it's a sizeable quantity.

~~~
cafard
There's plenty of illegal immigration here, but the skilled workers among that
population are far outnumbered by the laborers.

------
gwern
> Still, because there will be no increase in visas issued, there will be
> losers. Hosin “David” Lee, president of the Korean-American Scientists and
> Engineers Association, said the bill would force engineers from South Korea
> to wait an additional two years in their immigration process to get green
> cards.

Didn't expect that.

~~~
gms
Yeah, basically Indians and Chinese gain but everyone else loses.

~~~
Jayasimhan
..their unfair advantage.

~~~
po
Calling something fair or not is applying your morals to the situation. This
change means that each _person_ gets treated fairly (in the mathematical
sense) but each _group_ does not.

It is sort of like how in the US House is representation by population but in
the Senate is equal senators per state.

Wether that is good or bad is up to us as a society. It will certainly reduce
the diversity of the types of people getting visas as more populous countries
crowd out less populous ones.

~~~
recoiledsnake
>This change means that each person gets treated fairly (in the mathematical
sense) but each group does not.

So, without this change, each group was getting treated fairly? Care to
explain how multidecade wait times for the two biggest groups while the rest
get visas in a matter of years is fairness?

How is first-in first-out not more fair compared to discriminating on national
origin?

> It will certainly reduce the diversity of the types of people getting visas
> as more populous countries crowd out less populous ones.

Not really. Employment based visas are a small fraction of the number of visas
awarded each year. Diversity doesn't make much sense for employment based
visas because companies hire based on need and employee talent, not race or
language.

Not to mention that India is so diverse with race, languages and culture that
it's called a sub-continent. Lumping them into one 'group' like you did
doesn't make much sense. Countries don't directly map one to one to diversity.

~~~
po
>So, without this change, each group was getting treated fairly? Care to
explain how multidecade wait times for the two biggest groups while the rest
get visas in a matter of years is fairness?

Yes, from the perspective of the individual countries, the old policy is more
fair. If you gave all of the countries of the world one vote each and had them
vote, that's what you would get. However, if you gave all of the _people_ of
the world one vote, that is not what you would get as the people in the more
populous countries would want their country to send more people.

As I explained, it is fair to the group not to the individual. All countries
were capped at 7% of the total so large groups (and here we group by
countries) would not crowd out small groups. You obviously don't like that
policy.

As for the diversity argument, I am not stating wether it is better or worse.
I explicitly said that it is up to society to decide that and our legislators
have chosen to go with the less diversity option, so there you go. I think the
fact that it will cause a reduction of diversity - diversity in the sense of
what country immigrants come from, _not_ cultural diversity - in applicants is
indisputable. It is important to understand the consequences of our choices
and this is one of them.

Also, _I_ didn't lump all of India's diverse cultures into one group, India
(and I guess the British and French) did. The grouping is done by country
because that's how immigration laws and treaties work. I am fully aware of the
cultural diversity in India.

~~~
cooldeal
>Yes, from the perspective of the individual countries, the old policy is more
fair. If you gave all of the countries of the world one vote each and had them
vote, that's what you would get. However, if you gave all of the people of the
world one vote, that is not what you would get as the people in the more
populous countries would want their country to send more people.

That may make sense for voting(to prevent tyranny of the majority), but makes
no sense for employment based visas. Countries don't really send people in any
sense. It's people that are hired by companies and what has that got to do
with countries really?

------
bfrs
A GC grants economic freedom to indentured servants (H1B visa holders is the
politically correct term). The longer freedom is denied the more profitable it
is for the corporate masters. One of the tricks of this modern day slave trade
is to lobby Congress to set a quota (about 30% of the demand) on the number of
people who are set free each year. For the groups with the largest numbers of
indentured servants, additional quotas are lobbied for. As long as the dollar
was strong and life was shit in the third world hells these people came from,
this system worked. The corporate masters recognize that the game is now up.

The usual argument given for the lack of freedom for H1B visa holders is that
the bureaucrats need to ensure that a H1B doesn't cause a job loss for a
citizen. A pencil pusher doesn't even know what it takes to make the pencil
[1] he is pushing, and yet somehow he can ensure that a citizen doesn't lose a
job! The H1B visa is indentured servitude by the back door, plain and simple.

Anyone who has given some thought to the idea of protecting jobs knows it is
an exercise in futility (For a start, Congress must pass an Amish decree [2]:
ban all technology invented since 1830, and declare Thomas Edison as the worst
job destroyer [3] the world has ever seen. Also it will have to order the
arrest and lock up of all entrepreneurs aka wannabe job killers, which is most
HN readers). Therefore, I suggest to do away with all the current H1B
bullshit, and adopt a _point based immigration system where every qualified
applicant is given full economic freedom from day one!_

[1] I, pencil. <http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/rdPncl1.html>

Milton Friedman on "I, pencil" <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5Gppi-O3a8>

I recall Milton Friedman calling the H1B program as just another subsidy for
big corporations, but can't locate a reliable source with the full context.

[2] Family Guy 10/7 "Amish Guy" (one of those increasingly rare insightful
jokes): [http://www.hulu.com/watch/303946/family-guy-amish-
guy#s-p1-s...](http://www.hulu.com/watch/303946/family-guy-amish-
guy#s-p1-so-i0)

[3] Bastiat's famous "Candlestick makers' petition":
<http://bastiat.org/en/petition.html>

Also worth reading in this context is Bastiat "What Is Seen and What Is Not
Seen": <http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss1.html> or (for another
translation): <http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html>

~~~
yummyfajitas
_...indentured servants (H1B visa holders is the politically correct
term)...modern day slave trade..._

You are deliberately and dishonestly misusing these terms.

Slavery is a real problem in the world today. H1B visa holders are not slaves.
They are free to quit and work elsewhere whenever they like. Slaves are not.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_day_slavery>

[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/17/opinion/kristof-the-
face-o...](http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/17/opinion/kristof-the-face-of-
modern-
slavery.html?_r=1&ref=nicholasdkristof&gwh=F32F376979F042B42FD58A22B8F495BD)

[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/13/opinion/sunday/kristof-
fig...](http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/13/opinion/sunday/kristof-fighting-
back-one-brothel-raid-at-a-
time.html?ref=nicholasdkristof&gwh=9B9263F0F80F1325A742D2A070FBF9F7)

~~~
nanijoe
"H1B visa holders are not slaves. They are free to quit and work elsewhere
whenever they like."

I would not equate the H1B to slavery, but saying H1B holders are free to quit
and work elsewhere whenever they like is akin to saying anyone is free to make
a million dollars any time they want..Its true in theory, but not so straight
forward in reality. For starters many employers will NOT hire an H1B holder,
so that narrows your options right off the bat. The companies that do hire
H1Bs will often only do that for certain positions, so your career plans had
better be exactly in line with those positions..

~~~
yummyfajitas
_For starters many employers will NOT hire an H1B holder, so that narrows your
options right off the bat._

For starters many slave owners will torture and/or murder a slave if they try
to escape, or don't do their work properly, so that narrows your options right
off the bat.

In contrast, in the worst case, an employee on an H1B will be flown to
India/China/Australia/wherever, where he is free to live his life.

See the distinction?

If you want to argue that we should replace a temporary work visa not intended
to be part of a path to citizenship (the H1B) with another type of visa, go
ahead. But don't do it with hyperbole that trivializes slavery.

~~~
nanijoe
I'm not sure why you see the need to make a distinction, when the first thing
I said was that I would not equate the H1B to slavery. What you did not
clarify, was your statement that H1Bs were free to get another job any time
they wanted

------
tomjen3
Thumbs down.

When will the US realize that it is already far from its peak and that today
there are (possibly) better alternatives elsewhere?

Get a point based system - now - or watch Chile, China and the rest of the
world ROLFStomp you to death.

------
kreek
While I think this is a plus, it's still very depressing for the US. Are
American schools really so bad that a country of 300 million can't churn out
enough tech/science employees?

I'm a freshly minted American (from Canada) and in my 20 person office there
is one other American developer (who is also a co-founder).

I've lived in Canada and Europe and the US is by far my preferred place to
live, I'm not sure how long it will last though there are generations of
Americans that lack the proper skills to compete in the modern economy.

~~~
Someone
From the viewpoint of a country, this makes perfect sense, short term.

Why would one invest educating one's population if other countries are willing
to do that for free?

Long-term, a problem is that, if local education drops too far, you need a
huge import of 'human capital' to keep average levels of education constant.

------
scottshea
Sadly the H1 process is better now than during the dot com era. At the time it
was as close as we have come to institutionalized servitude since the 13th
Amendment was ratified. I am not saying it is great now, far from it. Rather I
get a little nervous any time our Congress starts talking about this.

------
droithomme
The article ends with "U.S. employers are prohibited under law from hiring
foreign workers unless they show there are not sufficient U.S. workers willing
and able to take the jobs."

I am fairly sure that is not what the law says though, although I am aware it
is often claimed (I suspect falsely) there is such a law.

Actual requirements are here. They don't have to show anything, they just have
to attest that in their belief the hiring won't "adversely affect" the
"working conditions" of american workers "similarly employed", that there is
not currently a strike going on when they bring in the new people, and that
they have posted conspicuously a notice of intent at their place of business.

[http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/faqsanswers.cfm#lcare...](http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/faqsanswers.cfm#lcarequirements1)

~~~
mdda
Actually, it's more farcical than you're thinking. Suppose I have a foreign
employee that graduated in the US, and has worked for my company (on a valid
OPT, followed by an H1B) for several years. In order to progress to the Green
Card stage, I must prove that there are no other Americans that are suitably
qualified, and willing to do the job. Thus, I have to put up an advert for the
job, and interview applicants. That's why you'll see very narrowly defined job
criteria advertised in newspapers : They're designed to prevent anyone but the
current employee (who, after all, is the one that currently has the job) from
getting the job.

But then there's a matter of 'prevailing wage' : Whereby one has to define the
job to be as menial as possible (so that the employee doesn't suddenly expect
a much higher wage bracket), while still making it demanding enough that all
their qualifications are 'essential'.

And once the initial paperwork is filed, they're then bound to you for _years_
while waiting in line, since if they lose their job (or have a change in job
title), they have to restart the whole process.

Large numbers of people are trapped in bizarre employment situations, waiting
on unbelievable bureaucracy - never able to complain on the offchance that the
person they're talking to might be having a bad day and send all the documents
back (and restart the process)...

~~~
rdtsc
An interesting test would be if there was a way to expedite the processes. Say
pay more and it gets rushed and wait time is now only one or two years. Would
employers do that or not? Otherwise aren't they actually interested in
prolonging the process artificially ("Oh yeah our lawyers are working on it,
get back with us in 5 years..." kind of attitude).

~~~
mdda
For H1B visas there certainly was an expedited process - a couple of times our
firm paid ~$1000 to get the response within 2 weeks, rather than 'several
months'. Reducing uncertainty was valuable to us, since otherwise we might
have been mentoring an excellent employee who could be plucked out of the
workplace by the INS on any random day : and due to the whole bureaucracy
thing, any 'appeal' would be a huge, huge waste of time (and life).

------
keeptrying
To realize how conflicted Indians and Rest Of The World(ROW) are with this
bill, have a look at this thread in an immigration forum I used to frequent
before I got my g.c. [http://www.trackitt.com/usa-discussion-
forums/i485-eb/862139...](http://www.trackitt.com/usa-discussion-
forums/i485-eb/862139499/eb-3-rowers-please-take-heart/page/last_page)

------
hetman
Not to be pedantic, but I would have appreciated the title giving an
indication of the House of which country made this vote.

~~~
incosta
I think it's pretty obvious from keywords such as "green cards" and
washingtonpost.com.

------
VladRussian
congratulations to everybody on abolishing of one more instance of legal
discrimination on ethnic grounds.

While it may seem like a zero sum game (as number of visas is still the same)
and thus i have no idea how, yet still lets hope that like in other cases of
abolished discrimination everybody ultimately wins.

------
thewisedude
I am trying to understand the implication here. Does this bill mean Indians
and Chinese ppl will have to wait 3-4 years only now? Also, I am not sure how
its detrimental to Koreans (Some OP here seemed to imply that) ?

~~~
recoiledsnake
It makes it into a first-come first-served system. Indians and Chinese
applying now might still have to wait a couple of decades. This primarily
helps the people who applied in 2002 and the following few years and are still
waiting.

~~~
mdda
And it's fair, in the sense that applicants from the UK might now also have to
wait a couple of decades.

In my case (as a UK citizen working in NYC), it's a good job that the E-2
Investor Visa (which only exists for countries that the INS deems 'worthy')
can be renewed indefinitely.

The flip side of this (and where it starts to get comical) is that as part of
the E-2 approval process one has to "intend to leave" once the business is
finished - which means that one cannot intend to embark on the Green Card path
prior to getting the E-2 visa. It also means that all my (mandatory) payments
for unemployment insurance are strictly throw-away money - since I could never
claim unemployment in the US anyway. Ho Hum.

------
beedogs
Translation: Skilled worker wages to continue their freefall in the US.

