I think the linked CNN Money article provides a better explanation of the motives behind this change http://money.cnn.com/2018/02/23/technology/h1b-visa-abuse/in...
>That's when firms bring on H-1B visa holders but don't give them work and don't pay them the required wages while they wait for jobs.
I can 100% guarantee that the top Indian companies do not engage in this practice. Every single one of them have a policy that if the H1B employee doesn't have a project for 2 weeks to 1 month, they must go back to India. And they get paid the full amount mentioned in their offer letter for the duration they are in US. And they are also paid for expenses that arise from having to go back to India. This includes lease breakage, air fare for the H1B holder and their family and a few other expenses. For "benching", the only exception I have seen is the Indians they hire from US. Those people get to stay on bench until the company can find a new project for them. But they are still paid in full.
>if an employer can't prove the H-1B holder is "more likely than not" needed for the full three years, the government might issue the visa for fewer than three years.
This has already been the case. I have seen many H1Bs getting visa approved only for 1 year.
EB1-C is a Green Card category for multinational managers. It is supposed to be used to move job creating foreign nationals to US.
Till 2010, the body shop and consulting companies didn't use it much. However as rule tightened since 2010, these companies started using EB1-C to most low cost labor to US and delaying Green Card for everyone else.
With EB1-C you can get Green Card within an year, cutting in line in front of everyone else from India.
With this ruling, these companies are going to double down on EB1-C.
Even if these companies wants to double down on EB-1C, it’d still be much harder to bring in low skill tech workers as “multi-national managers”
There are financial and legal reasons why a company might not hire you if you were in this situation. There is more hassle for the company, and additional expense. They may or may not think any particular candidate is worth the additional hassle and expense. So it is a perfectly legitimate question to ask ( again, assuming it is asked in an appropritate manner ).
This is complicated a little for transferable sponsored visas like the H1B. Someone already on an H1B might reply ‘yes’ to the work authorization question, but with the caveat that you would need to take on their sponsorship. Technically, their answer should be ‘no’. They aren’t authorized to work for anyone other than their sponsoring employer, in a specific location, with a specific job title. As I say, the point is that if the answer is ‘yes’, not ‘yes but’, or ‘no’, then you’re not permitted to discriminate. Asking someone with work authorization questions about their visa type should be as much of an interview no-no as asking a candidate if she’s pregnant.
Only exception is certain jobs can place citizenship requirements because of security clearance requirements.
I am not sure but in the UK employing some one without the legal right to work has no defence even if they had perfectly forged passports/documents.
I had to (as some one with all 4 grandparents being natural born uk citizens) have had to take my birth certificate to register at a local high street agency.
It's most likely (almost certainly) a legal obligation. Each time I had to furnish a SS card as well. A non-citizen SS card has a disclaimer on it saying it's not valid for work authorization alone.
You probably have been asked for documentation that gives you permission to work. The Department of Labor has a list somewhere (can't find it right now) of what constitutes a work permit, and the employer has to accept anything that conforms.
My wife ran into a particularly obstinate HR drone once who wouldn't accept what she had. She asked company counsel if her documentation was in order and received a phonecall from HR to please come in and sign paperwork before the day was over. Yes, federal law has teeth.
If the way Infosys and Tata use the H-1B visa is abuse then so is how Microsoft, Google and Facebook use it.
> If the way Infosys and Tata use the H-1B visa is abuse then so is how Microsoft, Google and Facebook use it.
Infosys and Tata enable companies to abuse H-1B laws. Disney use them.
Your statement also imply that Microsoft, Google, and Facebook is abusing too and no difference between Infosys and Tata. There is a small difference that I've stated but all of them are abusing it.
The point of contention is not that the Indians are stealing our job. The point is the people who are using H-1B visa are unable to negotiate wages which depresses their American counterpart wages.
That's just a rephrasing of "they're taking our jobs": rejecting foreign competition of similar qualification because it's cheaper.
I don't think there is nothing wrong per se with this position; it would be impossible to maintain any decent standard of living for the middle class citizenry with an open border policy where everyone from Afghanistan or Centrafrican Republic can freely enter the country and claim any low level job available. Many of such jobs, the result of government spending specifically aimed at economic development and creation of opportunity, so in limited supply in the short run.
Where this policy backfires and turns to rent seeking is protecting very well paid professionals from foreign competition simply because they have the adequate lobbying power. The economic progress is retarded and consumers pay much more for the services of those professionals - doctors are a good example.
Ideally, the visas should be granted simply to anyone making a high enough paycheck (with criminal liability for anyone artificially inflating it). If you are making more than $100.000 net per year, you are in absolutely no need of protection from unfair foreign competition, as such a measure pushes the increased price of your work onto the rest of citizens who earn less, possibly much less.
Note that I am making a distinction between Google eng roles and those tech roles which Infosys and TCS hire for. For the latter the play is cost arbitrage such as replacing Disney engineers with Indian eng who can do the same work for lower cost.
However, I want you to be aware of the real talent shortage which is present there on the high end tech side.
Did you really think this response was going to convince anyone of anything? If you are so smart maybe try applying that intellect to your reading comprehension and communication skills.
Your response about false positives and false negatives is a strawman argument. Why does a low false positive single out non Indians and not Indians? Also, this is not only a phenomenon with Google - the same is true for Facebook, Amazon, Netflix etc. All have 100s (if not thousands) of eng roles open right now and is up for grabs whoever is qualified.
How is helping all people of the world compete fairly abusing the law? Aren't we all free people of the world? Why should anybody be privileged just because he was born in a certain country?
This is largely true. These days Microsoft and Google do not outsource to Infosys and Tata. They set up their own centers in Bangalore, that way they can even quality control at many levels and the net result is the same.
The fact that Infosys and Tata aren't involved is just a minor detail here. Practices as a net do not change.
I have been in US for 15 yrs now. Came here for my masters and still on H-1B today. I’m one layoff away from having to uproot my family and moving back. My girls have only known this as their country.
I earn way above market and have paid plenty in taxes over the years. Because for tax purposes you are considered a permanent resident after 1 yr. Someone brilliant came up with this.
I never complained about my situation because I always have a choice to leave US and it is my decision to stay. Most in my situation feel that we deserve to be bumped up over random lottery and unskilled immigrants. I don’t because I don’t feel this entitlement. Maybe the current generation is unskilled but their future generations could go on to create a lot of value. Some even become President.
Finally this year I’m considering moving out of US. In media it sounds like an awesome place but a glance at the indexes show a different story (education, social security, health care, even freedom). Every time I drop my kids at school I’m worried about them. It all seems not worth it anymore.
I left after being in the US for 5 years. I pretty much felt the same way.
Probably even a cheap one is better than any public school?
And I say this as an Indian H1B worker who's actually left the US because of the broken immigration system.
I spent 8 years working for a big tech firm, and left the country when I realized that I was essentially never going to get a green card, despite my application being approved 4 years ago. The queue is now decades-long.
I worked directly for a giant tech company that you all know, and was paid a very good salary, easily at par with a US Citizen. I know of so many people who gamed the system, working in cahoots with consulting companies that exist solely to scam people.
Now I live in Canada, working for the same company, making the same amount of money, but as a Permanent Resident here. Life is so much simpler because I don't need to worry about capricious immigration policy, and being treated with suspicion at the border every time I fly back home.
Your system is broken and needs to be fixed. Now, I don't think your current administration is going to fix it, but who knows.
I couldn't agree more. The solution here should be to lift the per country cap on each visa category, which is a remnant of the pre-1965 overtly racist national origin system, and increase the overall number of employment based permanent visas. EB-2 and EB-3 (not including other workers), which are the main categories for high skilled workers, are only allocated around 70,000 visas per year. Compare that to the lottery system at 50,000 or siblings of US citizens at 65,000 per year.
While I am totally in favor of permanent resident visa programs being fixed, and am in general in favor of increased immigration including of high tech workers, the H1B is being abused. Not just by the Indian BPO companies like Infosys and Tata but also by multinational consulting companies like IBM and Accenture. If and when the EB2 and EB3 backlogs were cleared, I'd support: 1) eliminating the exemption rules for determining H1B dependent employers, 2) barring H1B dependent employers from filing any further H1B petitions until they were no longer dependent, and 3) apply the attestation requirements to any employer regardless of size that files at least 1000 petitions in a visa year.
I understand that pre-1965 it was used in a racist way, but isn't a per country cap a good way maintain a diverse group of immigrants today? I'd keep that, and add a gender cap, forcing a relatively equal distribution. I'd also greatly increase skilled immigration overall.
The per-country caps only have the effect that some people need to wait longer than others for their rights, while still living here and paying the same taxes as you do, but not being easily able to switch jobs, not being eligible for certain jobs (eg. SpaceX), or certain research grants (eg. NIH), and being one layoff away from having to sell their house, sell their car, take their kids out of school, and leave on short notice.
If diversity is the goal, then the entire pipeline (H1/L1, potentially F1) should have per-country caps - that way, nobody living here is denied their rights based on where they were born. Raising the per-country caps on green cards to 100% to match the H-1B caps (aka eliminating them) is one way of achieving this, and arguably the most egalitarian - but it isn't the only way.
At this point now, I suspect some companies prefer hiring people from India/China because they know they'd be indentured. That aspect should be removed.
I for one prefer the diversity of immigrants we get with the cap.
Making Indians wait for up to 70 years (a de facto Indian exclusion act) is extremely racist.
Plenty of Indians can come to the US, we just want to leave room for others as well.
(2) India itself is very diverse: ~30% speak the same language (Hindi) with different dialects. Rest speak over 16+ regional languages with distinct scripts and a 1000+ dialects. Someone speaking Tamil won't understand a Punjabi speaker and vice versa.
(3) If someone was born just 5 kms from say Gorakhpur in India , across the border in Nepal, they suddenly meet the diversity bar.
(4) Not sure why two immigrants from Austria and Germany are 'diverse' but two immigrants from India's Nagaland and Gujarat, who have different religions, cultures, languages (even facial features, if those count) are clubbed together.
(5) Logically extending your argument, you'd also agree with a quota system in all jobs classifications. For example, we should have a 12% quota for African Americans in Google's engineering team.
This is an asinine argument.
Merit, fit and an ability to contribute to the society should determine America's immigration policy not some racist concept determined by the accident of birth.
That's an interesting point. When asked by others where I am from I normally respond with "I am from India" - but it would be more appropriate to say "I am from Tamil Nadu" (an Indian State north of Sri Lanka).
And if they were born 9000 miles away in the US, they'd already be a citizen, so what's your point.
Listen, no system is ever going to be "fair" for every person.
And considering how often people talk shit about the US on HN, I'm surprised people don't just go to Canada or Australia instead.
Arbitrary country lines don't count for diversity, as somebody else pointed out. China and India have huge populations, and China at least has a huge land mass.
Why wouldn't we not "leave room" for others, especially if they weren't as skilled?
If Americans don't want H1Bs, its all fine. Kick all Indians out. But why a nation that claims itself to be the land of freedom, who routinely criticizes other nations including India for human rights violations, allow such a visa system to exist all these years, I don't know.
I think going to Canada is the most rational thing for tech workers and people without papers too. I keep wondering why it hasn't been happening more.
We've lost our collective shit over immigration in the us. Trump is a temporary aberration, either that or our country will have to fall apart eventually, and we'll split up into different countries, and a lot of us would immigrate to Canada or something.
Our years of easy economic growth and high salaried and widespread middle class jobs is ending (even before we lose most trucking jobs) and we are worried collectively about the future. A more rational approach would be improve education, figure out how to get better paying jobs and help industries-its more than cutting taxes on rich people and re-train people that don't have good jobs. We are stuck in a different direction, blaming others, with backwards policies that are supposed to increase employment opportunities in many decaying industries that are mostly or completely pointless.
Our visa policy has been screwed up and we've had this insane split about immigration for years - fears of people coming in from 'outside' and taking our limited number of new jobs, but needing at least lots of farm workers and low skilled workers. Never mind that when my forebears came to the us that was 'good immigration' from today's view, even though we've always had mixed feelings about it.
So as our lack of good jobs becomes more acute, the pressure against immigration planning just increases. And since we failed to do much to help the people who have lost their jobs for whatever reasons the last 40 years, all those people are feeling ever more desperate and subject to huckster political claims.
I think unless there is an amazing massive failure of our current political leadership, and probably even if that happens, we will have a really hard time changing our immigration "strategy". I mean we already had the iraq war 2 debacle, destruction of that country, thousands of americans died, the economy crashed, and we still ended up where we are now politically.
Because you can easily double your salary working in the US. That and the fact that Canadian winter can be brutal for months out of the year.
Do you know how much paper work has to be done to file a petition. I have around 20 pounds in weight of past paperwork!. Every petition is 100s of pages. Even if you have an approved petition, you have to go for Visa stamping where there is a 8-10 page questionnaire, waiting in line on 2 separate days and answer questions.
It's all really fucked it. You can do it for maybe 1-2 years. Not for decades.
There are many Indians in US, who would be screwed if they lost their jobs in US. They work for the outsourcing companies and if they have to move to to India - their quality of life will take a big dive. There if they make 80k USD, they will make 20-30k USD in India and have a much worse quality of life. These people wouldn't go back unless they are forced to. And they save every penny they can, because they are trying to be ready for the worst case scenario.
However, anyone who is highly skilled - they can get a job anywhere.
Being in US is like being in a decades long dating relationship where you counterpart raises questions on the relationship and threatens to throw you out every few years. However, some people want to get married and settle and it makes sense for them to move on!
Because the US still has the vast majority of prestigious tech companies and still has the edge in innovation. That may be changing long term, but at least on the short term, this is the truth. The opportunities you get at Microsoft or Amazon are unmatched.
People will gladly prioritize wealth and career at a Big 4 company vs a nice stable life at some not well know Canadian company.
> If Americans don't want H1Bs, its all fine. Kick all Indians out.
If you like the Canadian system then you should love Trump. That's exactly the direction he wants to take the US.
I am 100% for more immigration, hell I favor open borders completely. However as much as I am in favor of more immigration, and I am staunchly opposed to the H1B program.
I am for individuals, not corporations. Ever wonder why large companies are always pushing for more H1B but never for Full Immigration reform.
They like the power in balance H1B creates
And this is not new with trump. Been on h1b for years. It just got worse over time under obama. Americans dont care about indians. Either we don't get our voices heard too much, or we are just a slightly wrong shade of brown ("people of color" - ha!). Go care about illegals.... I'm just tired of dealing with immigration and then getting shat on by "pro immigration" people who dont care about Indians (and frankly Chinese).
To my american friends, you dont realize how racist the immigration system is currently. Forget refugees and "muslim bans". Those are really nothing compared to how Indians and Chinese are treated. I'll show you: https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/visa-law0/v...
Do a search for "FINAL ACTION DATES FOR EMPLOYMENT-BASED PREFERENCE CASES"
See that table. There are a few salient points:
1. That table shows where the queue pointer is right now. "C" means at the head of the queue (no entries, everything being processed). If it is a date, that is the date that is currently being processed (for all intents and purposes).
2. Notice the special columns for the different nationalities. So they discriminate based on national origin. But, only 5 to 7 countries are special cased. Everyone else (including all refugee countries, muslim countries, etc) fall under "Rest of World" ("All chargeability areas..").
3. Now notice the INDIA column. The date is 01Jan07 for EB3. This means, for someone with a Bachelors degree, they have to process people who applied 11 years ago. Let that sink in. No other race has to face this discrimination. EB2 (masters or phd) is not much better either. You have to be a genius (EB1) to get a greencard 'now' without a queue ... at the same level as a Bachelors graduate from Iran, Saudi, Somalia, whereever. .
Anyway, hopefully you can empathize a little bit with Indians and Chinese who did things by the book and stop focussing so much on illegals.
Would have thought this was obvious.
It’s fairer to the rest of us.
If there was zero discrimination on country of origin, each qualified individual applicant within a given VISA category would be situated equivalently regardless of nation of origin.
India, China, Mexico, and the Philippines (I may be missing one or two other countries) would see an increased number of total immigrants to the US and other countries less, but that's because the per country of origin limits currently put individuals of those countries in a worse position, not because the present system is fair and removing the per country limits would be unfair.
If whole of Europe gets a single EU passport, does it suddenly make them any less diverse?
If race does not matter, then why does "diverse" mean as many races as possible. Shouldn't it mean diversity of thought instead? If nationality does not affect personality, then why should diversity be about diversity of nations?
If you remove the national origin quotas (it has little to do with race and everything to do with where you were born), then it would be the exact same process for green cards except you only have a limited number of chances before you cap out the time on your visa and get sent back. How is that a better, less capricious system than the current one for anyone who isn't Indian or Chinese?
The US political system gives disproportionate power to states with smaller population. The US immigration system is disproportionately more difficult for countries with lots of applicants. That's what the US looks at as fair - giving each state or country a fair shot, not each individual.
Yeah, those things aren't correlated at all. Come on.
> then it would be the exact same process for green cards except you only have a limited number of chances before you cap out the time on your visa and get sent back.
No it wouldn't. There's a different system in place for permanent visas than for temporary ones. Viz. a waiting list. The grandparent post linked the visa bulletin which explains how it works. You have the tools at hand to educate yourself, there's no excuse for ignorance.
> How is that a better, less capricious system than the current one for anyone who isn't Indian or Chinese?
Because human being are human beings, not 1 billionth of India or China. It is a bedrock principle of contemporary liberalism (small l) that people ought be to treated as individuals. The remnant of the pre-1965 racist national origin system is a disgusting anomaly of a worse time.
> The US political system gives disproportionate power to states with smaller population. The US immigration system is disproportionately more difficult for countries with lots of applicants. That's what the US looks at as fair - giving each state or country a fair shot, not each individual.
One terribly unjust system originally put in place to protect slavery doesn't define the United States' entire notion of fairness.
In any event it is nonsensical to talk about giving a country a shot. Countries aren't going to immigrate to the US, people are.
You should perhaps learn a bit more about the history of the country which you want to immigrate to. Slavery had nothing to do with representation in the senate. It had everything to do with protecting Connecticut, Delaware, and New Jersey from New York, Georgia, and the Carolinas.
The green card diversity lottery is based on exactly the premise I mention. Applicants from countries with low rates of immigration to the US have a great chance of winning. Applicants from countries with high rates of immigration to the US are ineligible to apply.
Sure. But that has nothing to do with employment-based green cards.
By all means, choose for diversity when it comes to other types of immigrants (extended family, lottery, etc). But it makes no sense to consider country of birth for skilled worker green cards, where employers hire based on talent - and especially so when the beneficiaries already live here and pay taxes here.
> The alternative is to turn the green card backlog into a problem for immigrants of all nationalities rather than a problem for immigrants of some nationalities.
Sure, but a 3-4 year wait for everyone (while living here) is literally an order of magnitude lower than the current 60-year wait for those born in India. Problems like not being able to switch jobs, kids having to leave when they turn 21, etc, are just less likely to occur when the wait is shorter and more transparent.
In order to prevent a shock to the system, per-country caps should be phased-in over 2-3 years. That way, those currently in the system will all get their green cards in the expected 1-1.5 year timeframe, while future applicants will know, prior to applying, that the wait will be 4 years for everyone. HR392 does this.
Think a 4-year wait would be too long? First, let me point out the hypocrisy. Second, a solution then is simply to increase the employment-based numbers, from 140K currently, to around 220K (these numbers include immediate family: spouses and minor kids). This is hard politically, because Democrats would also want to increase chain migration and other categories.
The fact is that the backlog will get longer in every year that more foreign temporary workers apply for green cards than there are green cards available. So what might start out as a 4 year backlog in (say) 2020 will get longer each year by as long as 1 year (if there are, say, 280,000 H-1B petitions every year and the worst case of 100% of them applying for greencards occurs).
If it really is a matter of going from <2 year wait for non-Chinese, non-Indians and a multi-decade wait for Chinese and Indians to a <4 year wait for everyone, forever, because there will no longer be an accumulation of a backlog, then it is a no brainer for the US to make that change in policy. I believe that that scenario is a fantasy and the actual result of HR 392 will be a multi-decade wait for everyone. The solution to that will, IMO, turn into a lottery similar to today's H-1B process.
Because no one could possibly be opposed to per country caps unless he were a disgruntled Indian.
I was born in New York. My parents were born in New York. Three of four of my grandparents were born in New York. The fourth grandparent was born in Germany. His parents died in a concentration camp because they couldn't come to the US with their teen children. You see they had be been born in Eastern Europe and the racist national origin system was designed to prevent too many people born in Eastern Europe from coming to the US. Kind of like how you don't want too many people born in India or China to come to the US.
> The green card diversity lottery is based on exactly the premise I mention.
With your encyclopedic knowledge of American history I'm sure you are aware of the political origins of that program.
That's not true - anyone with a submitted I-140 can renew their H-1 or L-1 visa indefinitely in yearly increments. See sections 104 and 106 of AC21.
If there weren't country caps, then someone born in India would have an equal chance as someone from Sweden.
I argue what you're proposing isn't fair at all - it's clear that limiting by country is discrimination, not the other way around.
Now what I will grant you is that it'll skew population statistics for immigrants to the more populous countries. But that's just a function of global population distribution by nation.
Which again, isn't the fault of the applicant.
Or to put all this another way, should someone born in Vatican City have an extremely high chance to get in, versus someone from a country with several million in population? No.
That trope is uncivil, shallow, and predictable, so please don't haul it out here.
I disagree with this statement, or at least your belief around the sentiment. To me, the angst seems to come from the United States putting out a welcome mat saying "please, come here and enrich our economy" but then, once someone does arrive, he or she is treated with near-contempt, especially if the person is from the "wrong" country like India or China or Russia or basically anywhere not western Europe, Australia, or Japan.
Debate the number of arrivals or permissions to be given all we want. That's fine and reasonable. But once someone has taken up the United States on its offer to have the person relocate halfway across the globe, TREAT THEM WITH RESPECT. My spouse is a green card holder and has been for many years (and is not a green card holder by virtue of being married to me). If any US citizen had to regularly deal with the USCIS, it would be disbanded within a week. The IRS is more warm and inviting and has better understood rules and processes. And my spouse has the benefit of not being from the "wrong" country but, still, even doing something as simple as renewing a green card involves a trek to the most depressing-looking office building on the planet, a bag and person search that rivals going to an airport, and meeting with a dour clerk who wants my spouse to be in the country almost as little as the clerk wants to be at work that day.
That's just for someone who's already made it through almost all of the hurdles of the U.S. immigration system. To be here on a "temporary" visa like H1B or on TN status is even worse since one wrong word from an immigration officer means you have ten days to self-deport or ICE is coming for you.
It's one thing to say "potential immigrants keep out." It's quite another to abuse the immigrants who have arrived until they give up and quit the country.
(To establish that I'm not ranting because I'm caught by this: I am a natural-born citizen of the United States who, through one parent, has a line of ancestry that traces back to the Mayflower. And I think our immigration system is obnoxious.)
To be fair we like New Zealanders too...
I think locals should follow the same advice. Don't like political lobbying, high house prices, the president, etc? Move to Canada. I personally moved to a country that suited me better. Americans are very reluctant to emigrate for some reason though.
I came to this country for about 13 years. I know I dont have a right to live here. But after paying college fees, taxes, various visa fees, etc, I feel some entitlement. I have lived here longer than any other country in my life. Definitely consider is a home, but it is clear most people dont want us here.
Ah well, thats life.
I'm writing this form a throw away for obvious reasons. The H1-B system or the green card system does not distinguish between TCS/Infosys/etc.. and bay area engineers making a lot of money.
I made over $300k+/year at one of the large tech firms. Because the US limits green cards from people born in a single country to 7% (same upper limits to India / China and Montenegro), me and many of my friends have to wait 70+ years. (https://www.cato.org/blog/no-one-knows-how-long-legal-immigr...)
I paid a lot of money in taxes for a long time. Over a decade, this was taxation without representation.
Many of my american friends could not believe how bad the system was. It took several beer chats with hours of question answering before they realized that you had no way around this if you were born in India. Before anyone says EB-1, remember that EB-1 was meant for nobel laureates and requires a lot of luck to work out. It's ridiculous - a person I used to lead in my job who was born in Spain got their green card in under 2 years because of where they were born, while I had already waited a decade.
Life is short and there's no point waiting for 70+ years paying taxes without representation.
I'm back in India starting a company. The access to venture capital here is improving, and it's so much easier to be creative without having to worry about immigration status. If I hadn't move back to India, I would have moved to Canada. They have really got their immigration system right.
As someone who doesn't know a lot about american immigration laws, that sounds surprisingly insane. Probably a stupid idea, but might it be preferable to become a citizen of another country - let's say Estonia, which seems to embrace immigration - just to use that citizenship to apply for a US green card?
Correct me if I'm wrong but as far as I understand the greencard path for H1B workers seems unrelated to the number of H1Bs issued but more to which nationality H1Bs go to. Since Indians are more likely to apply in the first place the wait time will stay ridiculously high unless the actual quota for greencards is increased.
However, this issue stems from the fact that the US has no real high-skills immigration path the way Canada, Australia and a bunch of other countries have.
Because of this, an H1 worker from a body shop is equal to a rocket scientist from MIT if they're both Indian.
Look, I have nothing against the body shop H1 worker who's only trying to make a better life for himself - what I don't like is companies that exploit Indians (and other nationalities) and the American public alike.
We all get screwed together, and the US should have sensible immigration policy that works to improve the lives of its citizens.
Of course Americans shouldn't be exploited.
Of course you should be trying to attract the best and brightest - but also lower skilled workers who can fill jobs that have a low supply of labor (all the illegal immigrants are working away in this space).
Immigration is an important aspect of public policy, and by having a broken system, your government is not doing its job.
That said, the Canadian system, while definitely better than the US system, still isn't that great, and not something to model after. Specifically, it gives too much weight to credentialing, which is unfair in its own right, and still very much subject to gaming.
I personally believe in complete free movement of labor (which totally existed before, the current state of things is relatively young), but that seems politically infeasible around the world right now. Brexit is an example of even taking a step back from it. Maybe this will someday happen in my lifetime.
The system is definitely broken, I want to see change immediately.
It's sort of strange you even write this. Almost all engineers from India 'gamed the system' in some way both back home and in the US to do anything they have done in the US.
The only thing not surprising to me is the way you talk. All Indians/ex-Indians I met while I was in US believed they deserved to be there and others do not. Therefore they should go back, giving them a chance. And of course everybody thought, everybody else should go back and only they deserved to stay. Not surprising, because Indians live the crab mentality day in and out.
Also the 'consulting company' bogey is so broken to repeated in these situations. Why do you think you deserved to be there and they don't?
I feel so great for you! Finally, I am moving out. Enough dealing with the immigration crap here!
I waited for 8 years too. Didn't let immigration stall my career. Built a company, sold it to one of the top tech companies in Bay Area. Building another company to solve a really tough problem. But man it has been stressful! USCIS keeps getting hung up on technicality and makes it as difficult as possible to live here.
Meanwhile I have paid millions in taxes in US.
People who are in the lowest part of the value chain, will always find a loophole - there is too much money at stake and they don't have any other choice!
Accomplished people will move out or stop coming! US, keep doing this and eventually H1B will be just be a tool for cheap labor! Best talent from India, doesn't come to US anymore! And most of who are still here will move out!
I applied for EB-1. They need 3 criteria. Accepted 2 criteria (extra ordinary contribution to my field and leading role in organizations). They rejected the media and press criteria because most of the press about my company's acquisition, while mentioned me by name, was about the company and not me. And BTW I was Founder of the company and built it from scratch.
In any other country, one of the criteria that they accepted would have been enough.
If you are talented and from India, don't waste your life in US. Where ever you go, jobs will follow you. Move out as soon as you can!
Good bye US!
When the system allowed segregation, whom do you blame more - the system which allowed it or the general people who were taking advantage of it.
That is easy - the people who were taking advantage of it.
E.g. I have the right to be a racist dirtbag - but if I act like a racist dirtbag that is on me and not on the system.
That is such BS. I was gonna try (I have some publications and stuff) but that's about it. Now I feel like I am rotting away here.
It really a luck thing. And if you have to go premium. You will find out sooner!
But if the case is really strong, and the petition is really strong - it's possible that you might get lucky and they might approve it.
It depends on which officer did you get, which side of the bed they woke up and did they have a fight with their spouse recently!
It really sucks!
Also depends on the company and the leverage you have with the manager in the company. Plenty of people from India have gotten GCs in that category in months after arriving to US.
So yeah, Its luck by most means. Life is unfair, if its any consolation, think about this aspect of luck. There are likely more merit people in India who haven't even gotten as far as you. Is it unfair for them and their lives to be compared to you.
Don't get too disparaged by this example. It depends a lot on the individual reviewer. Yes, that sucks, but it also means that in many cases it's not as hard as the in the quoted case.
I thought EB-1 was more definitive and I felt that I was the right fit for it.
However at this point I am kind of done!
So, EB-2 NIW - doesn't help people from India - because it is really easy to get a EB-2. I have 2 approved ones which are useless!
Did you use an immigration lawyer for that?
If you (or anyone) don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email firstname.lastname@example.org and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.
I want to prioritize being in the place, where I can be most effective as a human being and contribute back to the humanity.
As a side effect of this I contribute back to the places, I care about. I donated to a school in my hometown (which as my as I love I can't move back to because it has power cuts for 22 hours a day in 120F summers). Send decent amount of USD to India and advise startup in Indian ecosystem.
If at some point I feel that I can be most effective being in India, I would definitely go back!
The point is that the US is very forgiving and easy going with respect to immigration and everybody acts like we’re a bunch of Nazis. Newsflash, we have the most liberal immigration policy in the world. Try getting permanent residency in Japan, or Switzerland, or China and let me know how that goes. It’s only difficult because we have too many people that want to move here.
And while I trust that you think you’re “giving back” to India, it’s easy to say you are while enjoying a nice cushy life in Canada.
I don’t mean this to be personal but I’m really sick and tired of hearing people complain that the US is shitty wrt to immigration when we are not. Does any other country have Dreamers? Will Canada allow 11 million undocumented kids to become permanent citizens? Hell no. Would India? Japan? China? Korea? Germany? Brasil? Nope nope nope - you would be deported in a heartbeat. Why does Canada even make you fill out paperwork or have a point-based system if they are so liberal?
Most people can get a Green Card within a year (even with moderate skills) and citizenship at 5 years without language test.
This is great! But doesn't work for Indians. Which is what Indians in this thread are complaining about!
Many times things have a lagging indicator. West Europeans don't have strong reasons to move to US. Neither do Chinese to a large extent - because of vibrant local opportunities in China now.
Till 2010, best from India wanted to move to US. Not anymore! The problem is self solving. If Hackernews would be around in 10 years, and US immigration stays the same - there wouldn't be Indians complaining here about this - because they wouldn't be in US
You don't need to restrict immigration for low skilled to remove crazy restrictions for high skilled immigrants. I don't know how and where you are making this connection!
You are hilariously misinformed. I am 3.5 years and waiting on an EB2 and I am British, I know Caltech professors who took 3 years to get on EB1.
Part of the issue isn't entirely the government but also the cottage industry of legal firms. These firms (at least in my experience) can take _longer_ than some of the government steps.
PERM - 3-4 months (EB1 and EB2-NIW don't need it)
I-140 - premium - 14 days
I-485 - can be filed concurrently with I-140 - Takes around 5-6 months
Green Card - 1-2 months within approval of I-485.
Of course this is the best case scenario, which doesn't involve company delaying, bad law firm and RFEs from USCIS. But the system is designed to be done within an year!
I know colleagues who have gotten their Green Cards within an year.
And unfortunately, I know more about the immigration system that I should be knowing :(
Maybe Canada should do the same? Instead of increasing brain-drain on the rest of the world by providing an easy avenue for immigration to highly skilled people (and increasing their interest in loving) Canada should allow millions of people from Latin America, Africa, and elsewhere without much education to immigrate to Canada? Why not?
Indians are an ethnicity. Africans are geographically-defined and Hispanics culturally. Did you mean to say “low income”?
The main point was: It is really difficult for highly skilled people from India to immigrate from India. And because of this many highly skilled Indians want to leave.
First, you insinuated that letting highly skilled Indians in means not letting in low-skilled immigrations. No it doesn't!
Second, you insinuated that this means allowing every Indian. No it doesn't.
Seriously, which part of Highly skilled do you not understand!
The amount of flagging your post has seen, indicates that others agree with me.
Troll, Please go away and do not pollute HN!
And if you spent any time in the West you would know that just because a few people (even many) hold a wrong opinion (I.e. downvoting) doesn’t make them right.
And next time instead of making a throwaway and calling people trolls I think you should post under your real username and spend more time discussing the merits of their arguments.
The current system was designed for situations which existed in the past. It wasn't perfect but served the job then. Times have changed and ground realities have changed - so time to tweak it!
As far as where I have to go - it's my prerogative! If US doesn't work, will find what works best for me!
Don't need your suggestions! Apart from not getting the birthplace lottery - am ahead on everything else!
Are you paid/employed in cad or usd? If the latter is it hard with PR?
I'm lucky - my employer was sympathetic to my situation, I had built good relationships with senior management, and what I do (I'm not an engineer) is a skill that they don't have in abundance, and I had a global role in any case.
All these factors contributed to them moving me to Canada without a major hit to my salary.
There is a difference (I get paid about USD 10K less), but that's more than made up in the lack of healthcare costs (I pay absolutely nothing for healthcare coverage in Canada), and most importantly for me, peace of mind.
Also, I couldn't realistically switch jobs in the US without tons of paperwork. As a PR, I am treated exactly like a citizen and could easily switch if I got a better offer.
My spouse started working too unlike in the US where she was not "authorized" to work on H4. We are well ahead economically than was in the US and planning to buy a home soon and settle.
Seriously, what kind of country says that just because someone is on a work visa that their spouse cannot work !! Why cant ACLU take this up because DACA gives more PR for them ? Take cue from Canada, they too have temporary work visa, but the dependent spouses are free to work. The plight of H4 spouses..sigh.
The right to work is a basic human right. And they say other nations violate human rights because they block social media !! but wont allow my wife to work because she was married to me and on an H4 visa. Hypocrisy at its best.
So I left all those bullshit behind.
However, my out of pocket costs are zero. My employer pays for prescription drug coverage and dental care, but that isn't deducted from my pay check. It's over and above my salary.
In the US, I was paying nearly $600 a month from _my_ paycheck for equivalent healthcare.
No your out of pocket costs are hidden, abstracted away, and hard to quantify so you never know if you are actually getting a better value, it only seems that way because you lack the proper levels of information to make an informed opinion.
Similar to how the True cost of National Defense is abstracted away and shifted to the US by virtue of your proximity to the US... Canada has a much much smaller national defense cost (which they can use that saving for national healthcare) because they know the US would never allow an invasion/attack to the Continent of the North America,
The demand to immigrate into the US far exceeds that limit while in Canada there are many years where they don't even hit the limit.
The USA typically allows about 0.3% per year. Canada is around 0.8%. Per capita, Canada allows many more immigrants than the USA. (Since the USA's population is so much larger, USA allows more in absolute numbers.)
About 21-22% of Canadian residents are immigrants. About 14% of American residents are.
The USA typically allows about 0.3% per year.
I’m grateful. I made my life here. But I think it’s not worth it, the America we all romanticized is long gone.
That's when all that Suburban sprawl started and we all think of maybe when we think of "great USA." Nevertheless, I do think that propaganda (mainly Hollywood) is adding to that positive image.
The America that I was dreaming of, might never exist in the first place. However, it is painful, now even a little bit enthralling to see it disintegrate at this speed.
If you asked Trump supporters, he turning the US back to what many people romanticized.
And if you don't like the direction of the country, vote with your feet.
You are also unaware of how the refugee program works. Otherwise you'd know some of the things that qualifies folks to be a refugee. You'd know that folks can't really choose their country. Most refugees I've met would have rather stayed in their home country, by the way, if it weren't for things like war and starvation. Some are saddened that they will never be able to go back home because they think they'll get killed. Tends to happen after getting tortured by the cops and taken by ISIS - or your family getting this done to them.
I'd put links up for you, but that is seriously too much work for this comment.
How can an unskilled person get permanent residency in Switzerland if the only connection they have to the country is:
- they have family in Switzerland
- they are a refugee
? It's ok if you don't know. But bullshitting is not ok.
You might not be able to go to Switzerland, but other countries aren't so bent out of shape about it so long as you have some income. And if I remember correctly, if you are rich enough, you can go. Even technically unskilled.
1. Saying “you’re unaware and I’m too lazy to post links” means you don’t know enough (and no I don’t care if you’ve immigrated before) to discuss the point.
2. Yes some countries allow people who secure jobs to work in those countries - that doesn’t mean they allow them to become citizens.
3. All countries have confusing immigration systems and tests - boohoo. I have friends from Somalia who live in the United States right now as permanent residents who have not taken any exam. Even so - not a big deal.
4. I didn’t say much about refugees, so for you to suggest that I’m not knowledgeable about the process is a naive assumption you’ve made to argue some silly point.
5. Yes most folks can’t choose their country. Too bad. If every country on the planet opens its borders than fine, if not we are just arguing over arbitrary numbers. Can I without restriction move to Sweden, Switzerland, Japan, or New Zealand? No? Ok then discussion over. I don’t want to hear one single criticism about liberal US immigration policies while the rest of the world is ass-backwards.
6. Yes it’s sad and tragic that some people are born in war-torn countries or countries that become involved in war. Life goes on for the rest of us. I didn’t choose to be not born a billionaire or not born in glorious Germany. You get the hand your dealt and make the best of it. And if the West keeps letting all the best people from these war-torn countries in, there won’t be any good people left to seek justice. It’s amazing the backflips that people will do to justify their racist, imperialist policies while pretending the U.S. is yet again some big bad boogeyman. It makes me sick.
Which first world countries and what is a bit of money in the bank?
Many countries allow you to migrate if you invest $500k+ in the country.
Is that what you meant?
Is that the only requirement?
I just checked and Slovakia has a tiny immigrant population - <2% of total population. Compared to ~28% AU and ~14% US.
What am I missing? Have they drastically changed policies in the last 2-3 years?
But really, the system is broken. A lottery is a horrible way to decide value or qualifications. Let in the people who truly deserve it, not the ones who flood the system with applications.
Point system, please.
The only role that appears to make sense for corporate involvement is that perhaps a company could select from individuals who have applied and are awaiting entry.
MBA's her originally designed for high flying corporate types in their mid 30's who where tapped for advancement.
Why does the system have to be simple or even fixed?
I think this aligns with most other modern economies out there. If anything, we're the outlier allowing randoms to come in without regard to skills or means.
FYI: the immigrants who are chosen at random by the lottery are thoroughly vetted. They go through criminal and medical screening. All they win is the opportunity to be interviewed at a US consulate/embassy after the screenings; the interviewing officer (a US diplomat) considers skills and resources and decides whether or not to grant a visa. It's not as if they win today and buy a ticket tomorrow.
However, as others pointed out, the DV is a small fraction of green cards granted, and the process for family based immigration may differ.
Source: I went through this process.
This is wrong; they use their judgement to gauge the likelihood of you ending up being a "public charge". Even if you meet the bare minimum (high school), but have no/inadequate skills and/or you are broke, I guarantee that you will not get a visa. This is what I meant by "skills and resources". It's most certainly not a "rubber-stamp", but might have seemed like it to you because you met the requirements.
Also, even if they verify you meet some minimum bar of being able to support yourself (which I was not asked about in my interview, other than turning up looking generally presentable), this is still a far cry from a more rigorous points-based immigration system. Per GP, DV immigrants are still basically chosen "at random".
They only ask you about in the interview if it looks like a problem. Otherwise they use the signficant amount of documentation you've already provided to make that determination.
Japan, S Korea, China, Singapore, etc., would be extremely hard for anyone to work off the books without having to resort to the underworld. Otherwise you may last a month or two, but most people will get kicked out without a visa. What's more regular police have the authority and responsibility to make sure anyone without a visa gets expelled.
You need either a family based justification (spouse or parent, mainly) or labor certification to apply for a green card. It's not a government defined point system, but an employer has to deem you worth the trouble to sponsor. Indirectly, at least, that measures the need for the applicants skills.
Means are also examined. E.g. to get a student visa you have to prove you can pay for tuition and living expenses without relying on working in the US.
Perhaps mc32 means the diversity visa program?
It's only a big deal because most of them are coming to work for 1 industry.
1st, the citizen who is sponsoring an immigrant is means tested.
2nd, UCIS must use their judgment to determine the immigrant has the means to support themselves and won't become a public charge.
This applies for all immigrants applying for permanent residency.
Also I'm not just talking about relatives sponsored by lawful immigrants, I'm also talking about relatives sponsored by citizens.
Btw unless a permanent resident is sponsoring their minor child, sponsoring another immigrant is generally a multi decade process.
Even the spouses of green card holders aren't considered immediate family and the average wait time when sponsoring is over a decade.
The reason why it is still brought up is because Teddy Kennedy and others assured the public that the 1965 Hart-Cellar Act (the real name of the immigration act) would not change the ethnic makeup of the country.
Clearly something in the law did change something...
Enough will of the people? Don't tell me a simple majority of the popular vote, which in the end means nothing selecting a president, means you can ignore the will of the people that put Trump in power.
The US system is set up such that each state has a say in how we elect a President. The whole thing is specified by the Constitution.
If you subtract out the votes of the people who live in ONLY the major cities like San Francisco and New York, the idea that a majority of people in the US wanted Trump to lose falls away. Another way to look at this is that the people in this country who were being left behind by policies that favored urban areas turned their back on HRC.
And then you have the fact that African-Americans in large part didn't come out and vote to support HRC.
When you voluntarily enter a race set up according to rules that have existed for a couple of hundred years and lose, you don't get to complain that the rules are unfair.
Middle and upper middle class white women overwhelmingly favored Trump.
Black voters are tired of being blamed for the HRC campaign cockup. I believe liberal media is uncomfortable with the fact that their sisters, wives, and mothers may have supported a racist troll for president.
"The black voter turnout rate declined for the first time in 20 years in a presidential election, falling to 59.6% in 2016 after reaching a record-high 66.6% in 2012."
To be clear, my point is that it's disingenuous to claim that black voters supported HRC in 2016 at the same rate that they supported Obama in 2012. I'm not trying to argue that black America is the reason Trump won, since I don't believe that to be the case for a number of reasons. For one, it's obviously stupid to attribute that much voting power to a demographic that makes up ~12% of the population. And that's made even stupider by the fact that black voters are probably the most Democrat-leaning demographic there is. Like, yeah, there's a chance the result would have been different if black America voted for HRC in 2016 at the same rate that they voted for Obama in 2012. But if white people voted for HRC in 2016 at the same rate that black people voted for Obama in 2012, she'd have won every state.
Also, I'm not sure why you're calling out women in particular, when women favored Clinton by a 12-point margin while men favored Trump by a 12-point margin . I've personally lost a great deal of respect for a lot of people since the beginning of 2016 because they supported a racist troll for president, but in my case those people have predominantly been men, and the numbers tell a similar story in general.
So what you're saying is that your vote should matter more than mine because of where you were born v.s were I was born?
Let's turn that around. IF you subtract out the votes of the people who live ONLY in flyover country like the part of Pennsylvania in between Pittsburgh and Philly and the part of Michigan which isn't Detroit etc HRC wins by an overwhelming margin.
Actually lets take it a step further. New York and California pay the bills vis a vis the national budget. They subsidize the rest of the country. Therefore they're vote should count for more not less.
I know what the electoral college is and I've read the constitution probably more times than you. Just because its codified in law doesn't invalidate my point, which is that you're ok with minority rule so long as you're the minority. With all due respect, fuck you.
And I highly doubt you've read the Constitution more times than I have.
What we have in this country isn't minority rule, it's basic fairness. If you want to live in a different country you're free to lobby for a Constitutional Convention and/or move to a country with a political system that matches your idea of what a government should look like.
I'm fine with the system as it is. That's MY vote. And I live in a solidly blue state where MY vote doesn't even come close to moving the needle.
And with all due respect, the feeling is mutual.
It will probably work about as well as it worked when Americans in 1776 asked the people with geographical-based privilege in their political system to voluntarily give it up.
We have the system have. It's old. It was a great leap forward in a time when much of the world still had monarchies, but is no longer state of the art. It's not unpatriotic to acknowledge that. Love of one's country doesn't require being blind to its flaws.
Further, if you look at the actual impact of the flyover votes, where do you really see that showing up in national politics? The flyover states have been demolished by the financialization of our country coupled with our economic and trade policies. If the flyover states have outsized power, it certainly isn't helping them. You talk as if the flyover states are steamrolling the cities when in fact it's quite the opposite. And you want to further empower the big cities to steamroll over the rest of the country.
If that's not enough to convince you, just look at who tends to vote to increase the size and scope of the federal government vs who tends to vote to minimize it. If the federal power structure isn't in your favor, then why in the world would you want to make it even more powerful? Because it's NOT actually balanced against the big coastal cities.
If regions and states and cities are the appropriate level of analysis rather than individual human beings, then why not professions? Shouldn't we worry about the limited number of actuaries having their voices drowned out by the many more retail workers? Why not give actuaries disproportionate political power to prevent them from being "steamrolled"? And how about race? Aren't you worried about African-Americans being steamrolled by the many more Caucasian people? Shouldn't they be given disproportionate legislative power too? Also, religious minorities. Why not have disproportionate political power for Jews and atheists so as to insure that they aren't steamrolled by all the Christians?
Lest you think this is some argumentum ad absurdum, such as a system does exist. In Hong Kong:
> The legislature is a semi-democratically elected body comprising 70 members, 35 of whom are directly elected through five geographical constituencies (GCs) under the proportional representation system with largest remainder method and Hare quota, while the other 35 are indirectly elected through trade-based functional constituencies (FCs) with limited electorates.
> In the political systems of Hong Kong, a functional constituency is a professional or special interest group involved in the electoral process. Eligible voters in a functional constituency may include natural persons as well as other designated legal entities such as organisations and corporations.
If you want to argue for that, go ahead. But don't pretend that there's something special about geography minorities that means that liberal democracy and corporatism are compatible. They aren't. Rotten boroughs are as undemocratic in the US as they were in the UK. The problem for us in getting rid of them is a combination of self interest and blind worship of the founding fathers.
You seriously sound like a white person denying white privilege. Sure, the entire nation is designed to maximize your benefit, but the system is rigged in such a way that minorities sometimes get something they want. Meh, you'll be fine.
I think the H1B system is dumb. Educated, highly effective workers in in-demand fields are exactly the kind of immigrants you would want to fast-track in for real citizenship, rather than exploiting them in quasi-indentured servitude. The other category I found somewhat mind-blowing was the situation of a lot of my international classmates upon graduation; educate them for four years or more at a prestigious US university, and once they graduate, kick them back home and make it difficult for them to come back.
Some state systems "discount" fees for state residents, but that's based on the premise that those families have been paying into the system.
American students may receive financial aid either from the government, or the university itself (scholarship or other aid). International students on the other hand usually don't. They pay full price. They make universities, particularly private ones, a lot of money.
I went to a good but not top private college on scholarship. Some undergrad majors such as business and the graduate business school were overwhelmingly international students. The law school is approaching 50% international students.
The additional surcharge is based on additional staff for the additional paperwork and programs (e.g. ESL) used by students from abroad. https://iss.wisc.edu/international-student-fee-increase/