Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
US plans to strip H1B immigrants' spouses of work permits (sfchronicle.com)
116 points by networkimprov 30 days ago | hide | past | web | favorite | 159 comments



In a country where even citizen couples can need two jobs, each, just to survive, it is frustrating that immigrants are still expected to just somehow pull it together. Oh, and all the immigrant-heavy jobs seem to be in very expensive areas, at least for tech.

Here’s a good yardstick for citizens: for any given immigrant policy X (or heck, any policy X on any subject), would you want to live that way? If “no”, the policy is Wrong. Period.

These policies also keep trying to restrict immigrants without paying any attention to the benefits that companies receive, and indeed that citizens receive, when there are immigrants. First, the basic one: more people = more customers to buy stuff in your local economy, broader tax base, etc. Second, sometimes the entire presence of a site is based on filling a certain minimum number of jobs. A site with 1000 people that has 300 immigrants is not “300 stolen American jobs”, it’s +700 jobs that wouldn’t have otherwise existed for citizens; or, it’s a site that wouldn’t be able to do as much otherwise, possibly causing the entire company to fail in some way that ends up costing U.S. jobs all over the place, even at other sites.

Policies should never be “death by 1000 cuts”, either. Politicians keep finding ways to make things that they don’t like unnecessarily hard, just because they haven’t found a way to kill them off entirely. Well, frankly, that kind of thing is crap.


>it is frustrating that immigrants are still expected to just somehow pull it together

But understandable, companies that use H1Bs tell us that the H1B holders are highly compensated and doing work that no available Americans can do.

I live in the bay area and I hear (rightfully and often) about the ways that xenophobes make life harder for immigrants (H1b / illegal / otherwise), but I never hear people commit to making the changes they can make here or prioritize the election of officials who will do things like approve enough housing to make it possible to get a 1 bedroom apartment for less than two thousand dollars in SF / Palo Alto / San Jose.


> Here’s a good yardstick for citizens: for any given immigrant policy X (or heck, any policy X on any subject), would you want to live that way? If “no”, the policy is Wrong. Period.

We're a long way from thinking like this. First, let's get most of the country to stop treating immigrants as the enemy.


A good chunk of the country has had a backlash to Trump's rhetoric and is actually now more pro-immigrant than before the election.


>These policies also keep trying to restrict immigrants

With H1B visa cap this is literally true

When did H1B turn into a family work visa ?


Not everyone gets h4 EAD. Someone who have approved I-140 but couldn't get Green card due to country backlog, may get EAD. So essentially these are families who have been stuck in green card limbo for years in some cases for 10+ years, because they are from India.


Policies should never be “death by 1000 cuts”, either. Politicians keep finding ways to make things that they don’t like unnecessarily hard, just because they haven’t found a way to kill them off entirely. Well, frankly, that kind of thing is crap.

Not a great test. I would want to live in a place I couldn’t vote, but prohibiting immigrants from voting is good policy.


The title on the article is wrong. H1B workers aren't immigrants and using that word in this context is wrong.

H1B is a visa. They are visitors.

That being said, visitors should be able to work and so should their relations if they are allowed to visit as well. One shouldn't need the blessings of the federal government to earn a living.


H1B is classified as a dual-intent visa; as such it explicitly acknowledges that people who obtain this visa may have be allowed to immigrate into the country subject to certain conditions.

http://www.americanlaw.com/dintent.html


I am aware, but dual intent means just that. Until they file for a green card, their intent isn't known and calling them immigrants is wrong. They are not immigrating. Although they may, if they choose to.


The rule that the article talks about is only valid for folks that have already filed for green cards(thus expressing intent to immigrate) and been on work visa for 6 years+. They would be immigrants if not for the extremely long wait list.


This "wait list" is created by the law. Congress has set the number of immigrant visas ("green cards") to be issued each year. Since there are more people than visas available - some people are not getting them and, thus, do not become immigrants. It's not some kind of bureaucratic snafu with the paperwork stuck in some desk somewhere - this is by law. So they would be immigrants only if the law was different somehow.


Many people seem to be confused and think the "intent" applies to the visa itself, not the applicant. I.e. it's issued with a dual intent for both non-immigrant status and immigrant status or something like that.


All that dual intent acknowledges is that people, who obtain such a visa may have an intention to immigrate and still be allowed to get such a visa. It does not grant any immigration benefits.


>It does not grant any immigration benefits.

Red herring. He made no such claim. Dual intent acknowledges that these people aren't just visitors, they may stay forever.


It does not. But we already had an argument where you've shown the absolute lack of knowledge of the US immigration.


Not necessarily. While waiting for green card processing to finish, for instance, people can be on an extended H-1B. Nor do these technicalities mean anything when I’m talking about treating people humanely.

Go “visit” New York or San Francisco for 2-3 years (the length of a visa) under the same constraints as visa holders and see how far your money goes.


At what point do they stop being considered visitors? I've been here 17 years, have paid my taxes on time, assimilated as best as I can and am patiently waiting in line.


Being in the USA for 17 years means the candidate not only kept his job and status throughout the Great Recession, he even entered during another recession. In both cases, there were plenty of Permanent Residents out of work.


H1b employees in this category with an approved i140 have already expressed an immigration intent. So, they're almost immigrants except on a waitlist.


H1B is dual intent and EAD is given only to those who have approved GC application. The need for EAD arises because of racist per country caps which apply only to India and China.


> The title on the article is wrong. H1B workers aren't immigrants and using that word in this context is wrong.

The title is exactly what the new policy means.


According to the current queue times, many of these people will die of old age before being able to legally work and their spouse getting a green card.

This rule only applied after waiting six years in the green card queue. Is 90k folks in the entire US really that high when fields like Computer Security have 0% unemployment? This might end up encouraging offshoring.

Country based discrimination at it's finest.

Born in the wrong countries(China/India) = 70 years waiting for a green card and dying before your spouse can legally work.

Born in the right countries = Green card in 7 months and being able to work instantly.


You know that the H1B program is actually _not allowed_ to discriminate based on country, and equal numbers of H1Bs are reserved for each country, right?

The fact that some countries have a decades long wait list and others do not is not because different countries are being treated differently. They're all of them being treated the same. The wait lists are a result of more people from some countries wanting H1Bs and fewer people from other countries.

Of course I agree that this state of affairs is not good. It is stupid to me that countries with 1M people get the same number of visas as countries with 1B people. But it's important to understand the proper causes of problems if you want to fix them


The key thing however is that the H1B is a non-immigrant, temporary worker visa. Expecting wine from water doesn't engender much sympathy. Using H1B as a pathway to a green card is not any different than expecting to convert an EU tourist visa into a work permit. The long waiting times for a green card are a symptom of expecting an immigrant outcome for a non-immigrant visa.

If people want to immigrate, then isn't the correct choice to obtain an immigrant visa?[1]

An H1B is a non immigrant visa[2]:

"Temporary worker visas are for persons who want to enter the United States for employment lasting a fixed period of time, and are not considered permanent or indefinite."

So I'm confused. How is it some kind of tragedy when the visa under which you are working doesn't provide a quick path to a green card? Isn't the visa doing exactly as advertised? Furthermore, providing the H1B spouse with a work permit -- doesn't that mean that the spouse can work in a non-shortage occupation without restriction? Doesn't that necessarily mean that the spouse is able to compete with Americans and permanent residents for jobs that are not hard-to-fill? Basically 1 work visa provides 2 jobs? That doesn't seem like the intent of the H1B program which is to provide temporary workers of high ability to fill specialized jobs for which there are verifiable shortages. It certainly isn't designed to be a recruiting tool for big tech: "Come work for us and your spouse can get a job too! The salary is lower than an equally qualified American, but since your spouse gets to work too, you'll have enough money to live in San Jose and maybe one day, you might even get a green card!" That seems to be the promise the H1B crowd is expecting.

I'm not opposed to immigration -- but H1B isn't about immigration; it's about filling otherwise unfilled jobs in specialty occupations for which there aren't enough qualified Americans. If the sole purpose is to fill shortages, then providing the spouse with a free-riding right to work in any occupation (not shortage areas) is not consistent with the purpose. If H1Bs can't afford to have a non-working spouse, then they ought not accept the jobs at the salaries offered. What's happening now is that the working spouse's job is actually a subsidy to compensate for an H1B wage that is lower than it should be. That lower H1B wage is then being used to displace American workers.[3]

[1] https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/immigrat... [2] https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/employme... [3] https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/04/us/last-task-after-layoff...


H1B is a dual intent visa.

>So I'm confused. How is it some kind of tragedy when the visa under which you are working doesn't provide a quick path to a green card? Isn't the visa doing exactly as advertised? Furthermore, providing the H1B spouse with a work permit -- doesn't that mean that the spouse can work in a non-shortage occupation without restriction? Doesn't that necessarily mean that the spouse is able to compete with Americans and permanent residents for jobs that are not hard-to-fill? Basically 1 work visa provides 2 jobs? That doesn't seem like the intent of the H1B program which is to provide temporary workers of high ability to fill specialized jobs for which there are verifiable shortages. It certainly isn't designed to be a recruiting tool for big tech: "Come work for us and your spouse can get a job too! The salary is lower than an equally qualified American, but since your spouse gets to work too, you'll have enough money to live in San Jose and maybe one day, you might even get a green card!" That seems to be the promise the H1B crowd is expecting.

The problem is that everything you wrote currently applies to only two or three countries. For H1B from all other countries, H1B is a pathway to green card in as low as 7 months upon which their spouse gets a green card and work authorization. How is that fair?

If H1B is all what you claim it is, why are these people getting green cards and work authorization?


  How is that fair?
In the case of those three countries, what is their immigration policy toward incoming work migrants? How many foreigners (especially Americans) has each onboarded in the past decade compared to the USA?

"Fair" goes both ways.


H1B is dual intent, meaning a H1B holder is allowed to have intent to immigrate. This is different from, say, a TN visa, where a holder expressing intent to immigrate at a border could be denied entry


right so H1B is temporary worker visa, then why is someone there in the country 'temporarily' supposed to pay social security tax ? he is there temporary, will go away in 6 years, is not eligible for any social security, spouse cannot work, pay income tax and also pay social security tax ?


For all practical purposes, H1B is the skilled immigration track in the USA, because you don't have anything better available to most. Other countries generally have more sensible policies.


> Country based discrimination at it's finest. > Born in the wrong countries(China/India) = 70 years waiting for a green card and dying before your spouse can legally work. > Born in the right countries = Green card in 7 months and being able to work instantly.

Born in some countries... have almost zero chance of getting any visa at all.


I wish they'd just limit H1B's to a salary of say 100k or more or something so that the whole concept of "can't find enough people here" might actually apply.

That way we'd see less abuse as far as some really low level work just being imported for cheaper. At one point you could search active H1B jobs on a government site somewhere, I found what looked like basic customer service positions being filled for pretty low wages. I really doubt they couldn't find someone to do the job, just they didn't find them willing to work for cheap / tethered to the company via an H1B...


It really seems like the opposite would make more sense - that companies should have to bid in a salary-auction for H1B candidate slots, with slots going to the highest bidders. At the very least that would make the body-shops that H1B opponents point to unworkable.


This sounds great but also may suffer from frauds: consider a company paying something like 500k in the first year then only paying minimum wage for the next N years together with early-leave penalty. Moreover even the first 500k might be fake and actually paid by employees


Some kinds of fraud are easier to stop than other kinds. The existing problem, involving bad ideas of market rates, is really hard to stop.

We can do this well. Here:

The salary is bid for based on family income percentile in the county. There is a minimum of being at the 99th percentile, and also a minimum of half the salary being at the 90th percentile. Salary is paid to the federal government, which then pays the employee. After the income tax is paid, the federal government collects an additional 50% of the salary from the employee. To cheat this system, an employer would somehow have to demand that the employee issue a payment back to the employer. This should be punishable by the employer going to prison.


I like the auction idea.

If they are willing to pay a lot...I'd say there is a fair chance they really do want that person and they're worth bringing in.


H1B visas must be paid market wage. In SF for example, it'd be surprising to see even a junior-ish dev (with some specialization somewhere else) under $100k.

Customer service may be lower if that's what the market bears, but the individual should probably be able to speak e.g. Japanese (at a professional corporate level) and the company can't find that individual locally. The $100k minimum would hurt those companies here (and cost Americans lost tax revenue and jobs). It's an interesting system.


"must be paid market wage" I'm not sure if that is the always the case. If everything was equal I'm not sure anyone would bother with the system.

I don't think a minimum would work as you say. The jobs I found were surprisingly common. I think the system is being heavily gamed. We've already seen evidence of companies choosing to do the minimum amount to claim they tried to find local talent with the explicit intent of using H1Bs.

I think you're describing the intent of the systems, and in your area it might actually work, but there's a lot of evidence that it is used in other ways.


I've seen statistics that show 50-85% of H-1Bs are underpaid. There are so many ways to abuse and game the system it's not even worth saving. Make the minimum $150k and give visas to the highest paid applicants. It shouldn't be a lottery...


I think the H1B should be ended entirely. What incentive is there for corporations and the government to invest in its own people when they can just import workers. Not only that, it is unfair to others countries who lose workers. If these employees are so valuable then isn't almost evil to steal them from poor underdeveloped countries.

The idea that a nation of 350 million people can't supply the workers needed for the US economy is nonsense. What it really means is that corporations want to use foreign workers to cap wages. Or it could be that corporations and governments haven't done a good job developing the work force they needed. That's their problem, not the american people.

I can see a temporary workers program being useful after a catastrophic event like a world war where millions of your people are killed and you need to rebuild. But in peacetime, it's not needed.


Historically US and its economy has benefited tremendously from immigration. In the modern world it continues to be a big edge. Anti-immigration mindset is also anti-American mindset. How about we revoke the citizenship of folks with such mindset and make way for a prosperous nation? Maybe we could let them cut in front of the line to earn back their citizenship with hard work after catastrophic events. I’m of course just using a far fetched example to make a point.


Firstly, you are repeating propaganda you've heard in the media that simply isn't true. From the founders til today, the US has been highly anti-immigration. Secondly, population growth may have been great for the US economy, but it has also been terrible for average american workers and minorities ( especially blacks and native americans ). Thirdly, we benefited far more economically from war, conquest, slavery, genocide, expansion and resources than from immigration. Just because something is good for the economy doesn't mean it's good or moral. And just because something was good in the past doesn't mean it is good today.

Having said that, I'm actually for immigration. But H-1B isn't immigration, no more than human trafficking is immigration.

Immigrants, like Jerry Yang and Sergei Brin, can start and own businesses. Do you know what H-1B visa holders are forbidden to do? They can't start or own businesses. Interesting huh? I laugh whenever pro-H-1B visas try to lie about how H-1B visas is the reason why Yahoo and Google exists. When H-1B explicitly prevent you from starting businesses. Had Yang and Brin be H-1B visa holders rather than being actual immigrant americans, they would not have been able to create yahoo and google.

So the H-1B visa was created so that foreign workers can compete against american workers, but not against american business owners. Isn't that great for business owners?

If you are for immigration, workers rights and plain fairness, then you'd be against H-1B visas because it's purely exploitation by billionaires so that billionaires can profit.

Why not do away with H-1B visas and shift it to real immigration ( which I support ) so that they have actual rights and can start businesses themselves and create jobs?

How about a non-exploitive and fair immigration policy rather than a exploitive non-immigration visa like H-1B? How about we let these foreign workers compete against both the billionaire owners and the workers? Why protect billionaires from competition and subject stressed american workers with more competition?


There are big gaps in your understanding of what H1B is (it is dual intent). Most folks on that visa go on to become greencard holders and citizens. Several of them go on to create jobs (directly or indirectly).

And it is not like H1Bs are handed out like candy. There are caps, lottery, wage requirements, 6 months of advertising etc. (sure there is abuse like with anything else which should be addressed).

Also ironic that you come to a thread discussing how things like these rip apart families (and work against women) and try to take a higher moral position.

Your stand of, "I support immigration" doesn't sound sincere because you seem to imply that if we reclassify H1B to immigration-visa you will suddenly be supportive of it.


I want to address one of your points, I work here in the US under a work visa for a FAANG company. I disagree with your idea that it's somehow unfair/evil that I was "stolen" from my home country.

I decided to come work to the US, no one "stole me" from nowhere, and I don't think it's somewhat unfair to my home country that I decided to do so, just as the many immigrants I met and worked with back in my home country in the tech sector.


> Not only that, it is unfair to others countries who lose workers. If these employees are so valuable then isn't almost evil to steal them from poor underdeveloped countries.

Then that would be a good thing, both for America and the workers. What is good for other countries isn't and shouldn't be a 1st-order design consideration for an American policy.


> The idea that a nation of 350 million people can't supply the workers needed for the US economy is nonsense

What is the nation doing about it though? People that go to ivy league schools (and even not so elite schools) mostly are only able to afford it because they themselves have the financial means, whereas in many countries, top education is 100% government-subsidized.

Also, consider this: there's a thing called a PERM application, which involves advertising for a position for 6 months. The reality is that people getting green cards via H1B sponsorships do so after companies literally spend half a year looking for local talent, and at signicant cost (a I-140 application w/ premium processing costs the company $1400 and that's only one step in the green card process, and that's without counting lawyer fees.)

When high tech companies hire foreigners, it's not for lack of trying to find native talent


Many people who study engineering decide to leave it because of the horrible working conditions caused by H1B.


>What incentive is there for corporations [...] to invest in its own people

Where does this obligation come from, especially considering most large corporations are multinational?

>The idea that a nation of 350 million people can't supply the workers needed for the US economy is nonsense.

For some jobs, a pulse is all you need. High Tech jobs are much more demanding. The US isn't producing enough engineers, this is well known. Even in universities, more than 50% of enrolled students are foreign born in STEM fields, see: https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2017/10/11/foreign...


You could say an obligation comes from the USA providing a legal framework and a market and the military force needed to dissuade others (countries, pirates, terrorists, etc.) from interfering too much.

No obligation is required however. The USA can just insist. This is what China does, notably, and China is not alone. Countries all around the world are forcing corporations to serve their people. That is kind of the point of a country, using the threat of force (prison, asset seizure, war, etc.) to serve a group of people.


Well then you should move to China, seeing as you prefer their system.


>Not only that, it is unfair to others countries who lose workers.

That is not how countries work - every other country can ennact their own policy


That's unfair to the smart talents born outside of the US.


There is currently no consistent incentives for global multinationals to invest locally when there's "always labor somewhere else." If you compelled local hiring, then the multinationals might stop giving locals the middle finger and invest in a country instead of strip-mining it into an impoverished favela. I don't want to get into divide-and-conquered, tribalism political malarkey, but the people have to push out the corporate corruption and get politicians working for We The People, not just We The Corporations. Without fixing the political system by rising up, the corporations will keep killing the middle class.


There will always be "labor somewhere else". Have we not learned anything with all the industry moving out of the US and other developed countries? Corporations ALWAYS find a way to get the job done cheaper. Better? not always, but cheaper? Sure if they try enough they will! At least an H1B worker will pay taxes in the US and contribute to the life of the community they settle in, where some off shore contracting would be likely a net loss for the US.


Or better yet, give labor the same freedom of movement that capital has. Problem solved.


I've had too many friends be forced to spend their last two weeks on the job training their H1B replacements. I'd be happy if the H1B program was done away with entirely. The idea you can't find enough employees in a country of 326 million people is a joke.


Cisco is a really good example of this. They actually ran afoul of anti-discrimination laws for explicitly rejecting American born workers.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/08/21/h-1b-visa-reliant-cis...


Same with IBM. And Disney. And UC.


Do you know how many H1Bs are issued per year? Do you know how many jobs are lost per year? Do you know how many jobs are created by immigrants (and their kids) who started out on H1B? Do you know how much tax revenue comes in from H1Bs and how many social programs they support? Sorry about your friends, buy H1B here is just a boogeyman.


It's because companies rarely train.

Few H1Bs would be needed if companies trained.


Most H1Bs in high density areas are not this way. A lot of companies like Oracle, Google, Facebook etc.. have very few H1Bs even though you see a lot of them. Look at them as a % of all employees. And most H1Bs are highly paid, highly skilled, US educated graduates. Atleast, they ought to be given a chance to live and work here.


Statements from the article such as "Rand pointed out that, only families already approved for green cards qualify for the work visa, meaning the government has already determined there are no Americans who could be working the high-skilled job" make me question the entire program. Really, "no Americans"?, What rocket science project are they working on? Or did they leave out "at the wages offered" part?


The employer has to post the job requirement and try multiple recruitment channels for 30 days. Only if they cant find another candidate, can they file for Perm. So that specific "Rocket Science project" didnt have any qualified american apply for it. This is a good article to explain the whole process - https://www.usavisanow.com/perm/


When I stop getting South-Asian recruiters bombarding me on LinkedIn asking if I want to work a 1 month contract in Pittsburgh writing PHP for $16 an hour despite living in Texas then I will agree the situation has been straightened out. There are fast-food places offering $15 an hour.

Until then the system is being abused and it's American labor that's losing out, followed by people being abused by the H1B racket. If they want to pay someone $x to do some job then hire them in their home country and outsource it. Or offer the visa to the worker. It's much more preferable for these firms to abuse the system and their "placements" until it's fixed though.


And employers will maliciously comply, they'll advertise their low salary so no one applies, then if people are desperate enough they'll find some reason to reject their resume.


  has to post the job requirement and try multiple recruitment channels for 30 days
... but doesn't have to interview a single Permanent Resident candidate. They can then hire visa holders who didn't even meet the original posted requirement.

Notice how most of those postings allow only mailed replies? Those aren't genuine. What is this, 1985?


I used to work at a H1B shop and the way we got around this was by posting the job for three or so months and only interviewing those candidates who did their undergrad at an Indian university.


Employers are forced to determine average wage for the job description in the area and pay this as a minimum wage to prevent exploitation of foreign labor. This has always been the case. H1 employees are not being paid less than citizens.


Even with the best estimates for people born in India, the Green Card wait times are at least 10+ years to 120 years. What are the spouses of such people ought to do?.

There seems to be no interest in fixing the root cause of the problem. The only partial fix for the problem is to let the spouses of approved GC petitioners work. But, this administration is bent on removing those provisions, without providing a fix for the problem in the first place.


> Even with the best estimates for people born in India, the Green Card wait times are at least 10+ years to 120 years.

10 years is the length of the current backlog for Employment 2nd, 3rd, and “Other Workers" preference visa from India, but only two years for Employment 1st Preference,.and Employment 4th preference is current.

> What are the spouses of such people ought to do?

In principal:

(1) Come to the US but not work, or

(2) Remain in India, to which the H-1B recipient, as a nonimmigrant, will return.

> There seems to be no interest in fixing the root cause of the problem.

Do you mean the existence of the H-1B in the first place, or some other “root cause”.


> 10 years is the length of the current backlog for Employment 2nd, 3rd, and “Other Workers" preference visa from India, but only two years for Employment 1st Preference,.and Employment 4th preference is current.

Have you looked at what's required to get a first preference greencard? 99% probably dont qualify unless you abuse it with companies like CTS or Accenture.

> (1) Come to the US but not work, or

What do spouses with advanced degrees and prior work experience do? With H1B lottery, this was a decent outlet when you have stayed here already for a few years.

> (2) Remain in India, to which the H-1B recipient, as a nonimmigrant, will return.

You suggest stay away from your wife and family when you're just married or have young kids?


> Have you looked at what's required to get a first preference greencard?

I was clarifying the backlog statement, not recommending a method of bypassing it.

> What do spouses with advanced degrees and prior work experience do?

The same as other spouses.

> You suggest stay away from your wife

No, I suggest nothing; those are the options under the law in the absence of the H-4 EAD.

More bluntly, the entire point of the policy change is clearly to discourage H-1B applications, especially from countries like India and China, so complaining that it doesn't leave attractive options for the spouses impacted is pointing out that it is working as designed. What the spouse is really supposed to do, in the eyes of those crafting the policy, is prevail upon their partner not to seek an H-1B in the first place.

The mechanism may be a bit more subtle than closing border crossings and firing tear gas across the border to turn away people attempting to exercise their legal right to apply for asylum, but the intent is the same: to make clear that the affected people are not welcome in the US, at least by the present administration.


Spouses with advanced degrees and prior work experience are exactly the sort of people who can raise children well. Due to exponential growth of the number of descendants with time, this has a far more beneficial impact on the world than anything else. The alternative is idiocracy.


>(2) Remain in India, to which the H-1B recipient, as a nonimmigrant, will return.

Sad to see people advocating for separating spouses from each other at the price of their careers.

Also this problem also applies to China, not just India.


> Remain in India, to which the H-1B recipient, as a nonimmigrant, will return.

H-1B is a dual intent visa, and US specifically provides for an employer-sponsored green card track, which many people take. So "will return" is wishful thinking.


Sorry it does not work that way. If not allowed to work legally for such racist reasons they will work for cash on various jobs screwing up poorest of poor American citizens.


No matter where you are on the politics of all this our immigration system is incredibly broken.

There are so many “work arounds” or “hacks”, if you prefer, placed precisely because the system is so badly broken. Whether it’s DACA, or this, or the many other things put in place and intended to help families these are all hacks around a fundamentally broken law system.

No one seems to have the courage to fix it and the politics are now so devisive that the state things are in is incredibly sad and frankly inhuman in many cases.


The H1-B Visa was abused, intended only for cases where there are absolutely no Americans with the qualifications that can fill that job.

A number of politicians are effectively "bribed" by large firms to attempt to increase the H1-B Visa quota (see Gang of Eight Immigration). My own state sen Schumer, has a daughter that works for Facebook and it is no secret that Facebook wants to increase the number of H1-B Visas.

Fixing immigration is comparatively easy. 1. Get rid of H1-B Visa abuse. The reality is that there should be few H1-B Visas given out because there are in fact Americans that can do most of the jobs. H1-B Visas should only be given out at salaries 1.5 times those of Americans, to incentivize the hiring of Americans and minimizing H1-B Visa abuse.

2. Force the implementation of eVerify with massive fines for employers that don't use it.

3. Obama broke the law by not having Congress pass the DACA legislation. It appears that Congress doesn't want to pass it so they should return to their native countries.

Remember, in all of these programs of Visa abuse, or the hiring of illegal aliens, takes jobs (and in the case of DACA) university spots from US Citizens and those who are living here legally.

Thus, the system is not broken. Just enforce existing laws such as eVerify with massive fines for abuse, get rid of H1-B Visa abuse, get rid of H4 Visas which Congress never passed in the first place, get rid of DACA, have them apply and wait in line like everyone else that wants to live here.


I was an H1-B for a couple of years many years ago, I don't remember spouses (H-4) having the ability to work back then. If this passes, it would be reverting to how it was for the longest time.


>If this passes, it would be reverting to how it was for the longest time.

Not really. The system wasn't created for wait times of upto 120 years, someone waiting a few years for their spouse to get a green card like in the past is different from now waiting for 70 years and actually die before being able to work. How is that reverting to what it was?

Only people from certain countries are affected by this, because the 7% visa per country cap is enforced the same for both Vatican City with half a million population[edit: 1000 population] and for China and India with more than a billion population each.

Also, the H4 work authorization only applies after the worker has been working on a H1B for more than 6 years.I am assuming you were never qualified for that when you were on a work visa since you presumably got a green card much faster.


> The system wasn't created for wait times of upto 120 years,

H-1B wasn't crested as an immigrant visa, either, though it allows immigration without exiting. It was envisioned and sold ad primarily a way to temporarily fill transitory needs.

> Only people from certain countries are affected by this, because the 7% visa per country cap is enforced the same for both Vatican City with half a million population[edit: 1000 population] and for China and India with more than a billion population each.

Population is only loosely correlated with the issue, it's not about visa demand; in many cases (basically, all the family-based categories) the backlogs are worse from Mexico and/or the Philippines than India or China.


>Population is only loosely correlated with the issue, it's not about visa demand; in many cases (basically, all the family-based categories) the backlogs are worse from Mexico and/or the Philippines than India or China.

Population is definitely part of the issue, with people from smaller countries getting a green card in 7 months vs. 70 years for the biggest ones.

>in many cases (basically, all the family-based categories) the backlogs are worse from Mexico and/or the Philippines than India or China.

That's irrelevant because those people in family based backlogs are not legally present in the US fulltime, so the pain for them is much less compared to people on work visas and their spouses who are not able to work.

People in family based queues can still work because they're in their home country.

>H-1B wasn't crested as an immigrant visa, either, though it allows immigration without exiting. It was envisioned and sold ad primarily a way to temporarily fill transitory needs.

I was talking about the work green card system. Also H1B is a dual intent visa. If it was designated as a temporary transitory visa then it should not qualify for green cards.


H1B does not qualify you for green card. "Dual intent" means the applicant can obtain the visa even with immigration intent. For all non-immigrant visas the immigration intent is assumed and the applicant must prove the lack of thereof in order to obtain most of them. The acceptable proofs are strong ties to the home country such as family, job, realty etc. Work visa applicants generally cannot provide such proof since their job is in the US and they take their family with them on dependant visas so the DoS just made this "dual intent" doctrine to be able to issue such visas.

Perpetuating the myth that H1B somehow qualifies you for greencard is only harming people who sign up for H1B and suffer abuse in hope they are on the way to greencard. Greencards are immigrant visas and obtaining one does not require or benefit in any way from a non-immigrant visa of any kind or even presence in the country. If you are truly an indispensable worker, likes of which could not be found in the US, you could just stay in the home country or any other country where you like and wait for the greencard.


> Vatican City with half a million population

I don't think this is correct.


You are correct. This was only introduced in 2015.

From the article, it reads, "In 2015, the Obama administration created the H-4 employment authorization document, known as H-4 EAD, to allow those spouses to work until the family can get green cards."


Thanks for filling me in. I got my perm residence (a.k.a. 'green card') in 2000 and citizenship in 2006 so I've washed my hands of all things immigration since that time... quite a lot has changed in the law since then. I voted for Obama too :).

Although I can see with Trump's administration wanting to go back to how it was because it's supposed to protect jobs for Americans and others who are green card holder or otherwise authorized to work here.... although to be honest, I don't think they should restrict H1-B spouses (H-4's) from work. My wife basically learned all the movie dialogues and commercials by heart when she was unemployed and just sitting at home, watching TV or playing on the computer... :)

Good thing is, we were able to claim her 'residence status' after one year on H1B/H4 so we could dodge paying out of state tuition in college for her accounting degree... which would not have been possible if she wasn't an H-4... E.g. F-1, J-1 and similar student visas always end up paying out of state tuition, which is at least 4x-8x more than in state, depending on the state you live in.

On one hand I like being able to say we can get by on a single income... on the other hand, not every wife (or husband) fancies herself or himself as a stay at home entity while the spouse is working... people are designed to work and be productive, thus, this reverting to pre-Obama regulations, IMHO, is not wise. Not wrong.. just unwise. Then again.. it's Trump :)


Indeed my old CTO at BT came back from the valley in the late 80's as his wife (senior nurse) could not work.


That doesn’t make it okay.


Picking at the program by brutalizing people here and there is unconscionable. Put everyone out of their misery, stop trying to predict winners and losers and just end the program.

The normal immigration processes served the country well for generations. The new policy of catering to particular industries by creating second class citizens is never going to be fair to anyone because it was never designed to be.


As a US citizen, I both agree with returning to a more explicit work-permit system yet apologize for our terrible immigration system.


unfortunately there's vested interests, corporate and political, to keep it sucky.


This is great news for Canada. https://www.canadim.com/h1b-riskier-canada-welcome-record-im...

Legal immigration is the reason silicon valley exists. Ask Mark Zuckerberg why he moved Facebook HQ to silicon valley. It is because that's where the engineers are. If legal immigration wasn't a thing Zuckerberg would have moved considerable number of jobs to places like Beijing, Bangalore and St. Petersburg, because that's where he would have found software engineers.

Canada, already a major center for AI innovation, will be the new silicon valley.

Edit: s/H-1B/immigration/g because the exact visa doesn't matter.


This is pure chauvinism, like claiming NASA is 50% Indian. Silicon Valley was the dominant tech center of the world well before the H1B.


Canada, already a major center for AI innovation, will be the new silicon valley.

The corollary of this is that with our punishingly high personal income and capital gains taxes and dearth of good exits for startups, the only thing we really have going for us is our sane points-based immigration system. I work at a company with a lot of engineers who were trying to get entry to the US and gave up and decided to work towards PR in Canada instead.

We are essentially arbitraging America's dysfunctional immigration rules. If the Americans ever get smart and pass comprehensive immigration reform (hint - like Obama's Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013 which never got a vote in the House and withered on the vine), tech in Canada is even more screwed than it is now.


Silly Valley and NYC aren't exactly low-tax areas, either. The difference is that in those places the pay makes up for it; if pay in Canada weren't so far behind the taxes would be a non-issue.


> the only thing we really have going for us is our sane points-based immigration system

I lived in Seattle and enjoyed it, but staying in America long term was never an option for me. There's so much more to living in Canada than just our immigration system.

Even with the pay cut for being in Canada, and even with the additional taxes, I still make enough money to not need to worry about money. More money would be nice, but it's not all that motivating.

Meanwhile, those taxes go to things I think are important: a strong public education system; a health care system based on need, not wealth; a safe, gun-free society; a safe haven for refugees in need.

In my office in Toronto, probably 1000+ Amazon devs could transfer to an American office and make more money. But we don't. The same goes for the even larger Vancouver office.

Our immigration rules are just one aspect of why devs live here.


I lived in Seattle and enjoyed it, but staying in America long term was never an option for me. There's so much more to living in Canada than just our immigration system.

You work at AMZN - I work at a US company in Canada too. Canada is a nation of branch-offices, largely because we have no VC-ecosystem, which is largely because we're a highly redistributive country with high capital gains taxes.

What makes us attractive for branch offices is that smart, hard-working, well-educated immigrants who can't make it into the US can often make it into Canada. Native born Canadians, OTOH, are leaving in droves (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/technology/article-...)

But we're a terrible place to start a company and exit, which is why it doesn't happen very often.

The original poster claimed that Canada could replace Silicon Valley - that's not going to happen without a better ecosystem for funding start-ups and rewarding founders.

As for those devs who choose to stay here when they could leave on a TN-1, make twice the money in the US after taxes and expenses (including health insurance and private schooling for kids), and work on more interesting problems at US companies, I encourage them to do the math. They're not doing themselves any favors living in unliveably-expensive cities earning pennies and not saving for retirement, and retirement will come a lot sooner than they think.


Punishingly high compared to CA?


> our punishingly high personal income and capital gains taxes and dearth of good exits for startups

Yet, taxes are still higher in California than in Canada unless you make something like $350k+ (the crossover point used to be a bit lower but then Trump removed the State tax deduction).


Canadian taxes are lower? Maybe if you’re comparing BC or Alberta (lowest taxes) to California (highest taxes).

And if you ignore things like Canada’s VAT.


Is it? This program Trump is getting rid of didn’t exist before 2015, yet Silicon Valley and Facebook were a thing.


The program was not a thing only because long wait times for a green card was not a thing. A lot of companies have a lot of Indians compared to elsewhere. But, majority of them is probably factually wrong.


The long wait time for a green card for Indian and Chinese people existed long before 2015.


It did not long exist. It only started since 2009.


Silicon Valley significantly predates the immigration act of 1990 that made the H-1B visa category.


Today's silicon valley is not the same as the silicon valley that existed before 1990. Take everyone that was ever on H-1B out of silicon valley, and there will barely be anyone left.


If you already are a Canadian citizenship: PSA to get started early in the process so you're prepared in the possible eventuality

https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/se...


And great news for Canadians eligible to work in the US under a TN visa. Why work in Canada when you can dramatically increase your earnings and reduce your living costs?


Why do you post the same lies in every H1B related thread?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19156756

As I corrected your lies in that thread, I'll correct them here as well.

H-1B visas had nothing to do with Silicon Valley. The H-1B visa was created in 1990. Silicon Valley had already existed for decades by then. How can H-1B visas be the reason that Silicon Valley exists if Silicon Valley predates H-1B visas by decades?

You do realize that H-1B visas aren't confined solely to Silicon Valley right? Zuckerburg could have gotten H-1B visas workers to work in Massachussettes. There are plenty of interviews by zuckerburg stating why he moved to california. It had nothing to do with H-1B visas.

And H-1B visas doesn't prevent zuckerburg from opening offices all over the world.

Canada is a country, not a small region like silicon valley. And if canada becomes the new silicon valley, good for them. Please stop repeating the same lies over and over again.


>H-1B visas had nothing to do with Silicon Valley.

Nonsense. I am guessing you have never been silicon valley. 90% or more of tech workers there were born outside USA.

Edit: it is 70%, which is still very high. https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/01/17/h-1b-foreign-citizens...


Well that's just flat out not true (the percentage is high, but not 90%), and you've completely ignored the meat of the criticism above.


You're right, turns out it is about 70% https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/01/17/h-1b-foreign-citizens...

What exactly is the meat of the criticism above?


[flagged]


>most of the foreign born workers in silicon valley are people who immigrated to the US as children

Where did you get this stat? You're calling others liars while posting questionable stats yourself.


A lot of foreign born workers are not H1B because they got their green cards or citizenship. I'd safely say a majority of them were H1Bs till recently. Till 2008, getting a green card for any country was not a problem. It has gotten a lot worse since then.


Born outside the U.S. ⊇ H1B migrant workers. The majority of those born outside the U.S. are immigrants.


I have and even more, I know people who work in silicon valley. Have you been there?

Ignoring the fact that "90% of tech workers there were born outside the USA" is absolutely false, what does that have to do with H-1B visas?

It could be true that 90% of tech workers were born outside the USA and none of them could be H-1B visa holders. There are plenty of american tech workers who immigrated to the US as a child and became american citizens. Like sergei brin or jerry yang. They may be born outside the US, but none of them are H-1B visa holders. They were all american citizens.

The fact that you are intentionally lying and being sneaky with stats is very worrisome.


Shenzhen area will be the new Silicon Valley most likely.


Really? I’d be worried about doing R&D in China, given the track record of outright stealing anything that isn’t nailed down. You’d also have to wade through a Byzantine network of graft and family connections to get anything done, deal with the central government’s whims (imagine Apple in China telling their equivalent of the FBI to sit and spin), and hope that their opaque economic structure really is heading in a good direction. China gets the manufacturing business because of plentiful, desperate labor, but that’s just for manufacturing. Much of the other business there is a matter of gaining access to the Chinese market.


If China were to have continued its gradual openness before XJ, I would have agreed. Now, I have my doubts. Sure, innovation needs capital and it also needs an educated and skilled workforce, but it also needs freedom of speech to thrive and grow. Without freedom of speech, all you have is one giant copier. There's an intellectual cost to constantly having to determine whether you can say or write something without getting in trouble. imo A South Korean metro has a much better chance of replacing SV long term.


For hardware prototyping and manufacturing, it already is.


High chance this will get and injunction in courts as soon as the rule is published.


But serious damage to the overseas perception of US employers would result regardless.


It doesn't matter. Are the Indians and Chinese going to stop pounding on the doors because the American government makes the rules marginally more strict? No, probably not.


In the last 4 months, I've already seen more than 5 friends in my circle who've left the US for good. They do not plan on returning to the US until the pathway to a green card is sorted out. They work at companies like Microsoft, FAANG, etc. Over the next year, another 10-15% of my friend circle is moving out of the US - most of them cite the green card issue as the primary cause of returning back.

They've already worked at good tech companies here, most of which have offices around the world. Their choices directly cause the shift of their jobs from US to outside. Couple this with the fact that many of my juniors at the best universities in India (harder to get into than Stan/MIT here) now no longer consider moving to the US because of these cases, there is already an effect of really good talent not arriving here. The effect is not obvious in a year or two, but surely over time you will notice the secondary effects: a lot of engineers coming from India/China would not be the countries'best - the best do not want to put up with this, more employees leaving earlier/not settling, the expansion of India/China offices for these tech companies, or China/India companies doing better than the US counterparts (in cases where this is already happening, a lot of the HN crowd blames Chinese protectionism rather than acknowledging the talent that already exists in those countries).



USA is the new frontier for Indians and Chinese. If the laws get idiotic mostly idiots from these countries will flock to American shores. The brightest ones will go elsewhere.

In last 2 years we laid off entire QA department of my employer to move all those jobs to India. We then later moved half the engineering team in India and opened an office in Singapore to by pass US visa restrictions. US laws will not matter much to Indians or Chinese seeking better life, it is just that US society will waste a lot of wealth and opportunities to comply with them.


the overseas perception of US has been quite poor in asia and europe for a while now. dont think it can be further damaged.


People don't want to work in the US because they perceive employers as liberal.


What do you mean by liberal?


The normal way its used


See the article, it's the other way around. Courts are forcing the Trump administration to publish the rule instead of delaying.


Which is actually a good thing, because the constant delay meant we could not obtain an injunction nor sure if EAD would exist. Also some of the recent changes by USCIS means that time to get H4+EAD is now around 12 months. Effectively as good as killing EAD.

Courts have forced them to publish the rule on which we can then obtain an injunction.


The system is fundamentally broken and it's partly my own countrymen to blame. I've lived here for 17 years (in 4 years, if I live here, I'd have lived here longer than in my home country), earn more than $500k per year and recently got an offer for $600+k/yr. I've probably paid at least three quarters of a million in taxes. I'm still on a H1, cannot change jobs easily, cannot do anything on the side like advise companies and though I get opportunities for VP roles, cannot take them up since companies usually don't want a VP that's on a H1. This news is devastating since my wife quit her job after my kid was born and only recently has used the EAD to work with autistic children which has been her passion all her life. If HR1044 does not pass, we've decided to move back. I'll take my $1.5M, which I could have invested here, with me and invest it in my home country instead (or I'll come back on a L-1 visa like so many of my lesser-qualified friends and get a green card in a couple of years).


$500k/year? I’m supposed to feel sympathy towards you when there are H1b holders who are being horribly exploited?

$500k/year is a lot of fucking money, even in the Bay Area.


Sorry if it came off as asking for sympathy. I mentioned my compensation only to highlight the fact that I'm not cheap labor that's taking American jobs away. I happen to have some skills that top employers in the country deem enough to be worthy of half a million dollars per year.


H1B-holder: earns $80k/year

"Cheap labor! Exploitation!"

H1B-holder: earns $500k/year

"You greedy bastard! You want a green card on top of that?!"

H1B-holder: shocked Pikachu face

Sorry for the Reddit-style comment :-). Also, I haven't downvoted you (in case someone has and you were wondering) because I don't believe you're posting in bad faith. But you do see the contradiction?


Why are you stuck? Country quotas?


Yes, I come from an 'untouchable' country. :)


Just take look into EU countries and try to apply some of the same policies. They seem to have if not zero, less issues with high skilled workers.

Otherwise you can blame H1B holders forever. They didn't wrote the policy or the law. You shouldn't punish them for what they had no influence. They should be able to plan for their living. They should be encouraged to contribute and integrate with society.


As a former H1B visa holder with a spouse, and friends in the same boat, I have experienced first-hand the effects of having a spouse that is not allowed to work.

First, they get bored out of their mind. They're young, they want to grow, but they can't. While you're off to work, networking, learning, your spouse is at home, trying their best to chase away the feeling of stagnation.

It's OK for the first few months - they go for walks, cook, read, go to the gym - anything to keep busy, but unless there's a child that takes up their entire time, they just get bored, then they get sad, and then they get depressed.

It takes a hard toll on the relationship, which, ironically, is the primary reason why spouses agree to this in the first place. Most just want to live with their husbands or wives and have a normal life. Long distance isn't a realistic option when you're talking about a 6 year H1B visa.

Being unable to work makes the relationship one-sided, because one person goes to work, provides for the family, and has various experiences which slowly add up and allows them to grow personally and professionally. In addition, if you come from a society where gender roles are heavily promoted culturally, it is especially hard when the roles get reversed when the couple is in the US. Typically, men lose confidence in their ability to provide for the family and get very depressed. Women from cultures where there's an expectation that they'll be a homemaker, have much less stigma associated with not working, especially if there's a child to take care of.

They are also competing with other couples in various areas: social status, disposable income (that lets you go on vacations) or ability to buy a house, and they'll be losing ground simply because of the income level (less so for FAANG employees, but there are plenty of places hiring on an H1B visa that pay the minimum they can to meet the H1B criteria).

There are only 2 realistic options most spouses end up taking: the spouse works illegally (clearly a risky move) or the spouse changes their legal status: divorces you and marries a citizen (risky and further damages the quality of your relationship), tries to go to school on an F1 status (which now requires even more income and puts more pressure on the H1B holder), or the relationship deteriorates to the point where the non-working spouse goes back to their home country because they are unhappy here.

Finally, I will say that yes there are many real issues with the H1B visa, but disallowing the spouse to work is not a solution to any of them. It only manages to get these young couples behind in life.

I am fortunate enough to have come out of this ordeal fairly unscathed, but others I know have not been so lucky.


Everything you've said is true. My wife is not even in tech. "the relationship deteriorates to the point where the non-working spouse goes back to their home country because they are unhappy here." - this is what we're close to right now.


The difficulty of assimilating in a strange new country is enough to make many people want to go back, with or without employment. I don't think employment is the issue here. Culture shock is real.

You're also away from extended family. This is difficult for many people.

Native-born people, with or without both spouses working, experience relationship troubles and depression. It happens, even without the culture shock. You may have had the exact same problems had you stayed where you were born.

FWIW though, there is no need for the spouse to sit around being bored out of her mind. The solution is to participate in in-person local mommy groups. Typically the moms gather together at a local park or library, bringing their little kids. The moms chat with each other while the kids do some activity together.


> The difficulty of assimilating in a strange new country is enough to make many people want to go back, with or without employment.

That's applicable to one group of immigrants, namely those who don't want to assimilate. However, this discussion is about those who are perfectly OK with assimilating into the US culture.

> I don't think employment is the issue here.

It's absolutely the issue here. You seem to be focused on immigrants who fail to assimilate, and you're applying their problems to all other immigrants ("What's that, your spouse can't afford to pay for tuition and you are not allowed to work? well, see, it's actually very simple. You just failed to assimilate and you will soon have to go back to your country. Ha ha, one less evil immigrant to deal with!")

> Native-born people, with or without both spouses working, experience relationship troubles and depression.

What we're talking about here is the direct link between a government rule, and the known issues that rule has created for immigrants in the past. The argument you brought to the discussion, however, is similar to shooting an immigrant in the foot and telling them that native people also have foot pain, with or without being shot in the foot. It's non-sensical.

> FWIW though, there is no need for the spouse to sit around being bored out of her mind

Since you said "for what it's worth", I'll just say that it's worth exactly zero. I've already given examples of what most folks attempt to do when faced with the reality of not being able to seek employment, though you, again, chose to focus on a narrow subset of the group, extract a detail about them and then apply it to everyone else in the group. Do you notice a pattern here?

> The solution is to participate in in-person local mommy groups.

Finally we got to the part of your comment where you show how little you think of spouses of immigrants. Just to drive this point home: you took a detail from a subset of the group ('mommies'), and claim it will work for everyone else in the group. Again, do you notice a pattern here?

Also, I've already mentioned in my comment above that a child will consume most of one's time, but also most of the limited income, so that solution 'solves the problem' by creating an even bigger problem. Sometimes it works out, some time it doesn't. We could increase the chance of success for such families if we allowed both spouses to seek employment.


The point of the visa is supposedly to bring in unusually high-value workers. The value of a worker is called into question if they need a second income. The same is true if a child consumes "most of the limited income". You should be able to afford a half dozen children and a house (4 bedroom, 3 bath, garage, fenced yard) and a car. Maybe you even send all of your kids to private school, or you pay full tuition at Harvard.

The visa is supposedly not for people who just want to come take a couple ordinary jobs away from ordinary Americans. You're supposed to be extra-special and wonderful, bringing amazing value to the country. The idea is to let you try out the country, with the hope that you might become an unusually productive citizen.

Anyway, if you don't like the deal, you don't have to accept the deal.


The purpose of an H1B visa is to bring in "foreign workers in specialty occupations" (engineers, architects, etc), not foreign workers that are able to command a very high salary (e.g. CEOs).

Sometimes foreign workers are able to negotiate an above average salary, sometimes they can't, because the company has a very high reputation or access to unique resources and uses that as leverage (for example, NASA, Harvard, etc).

Most likely, they'll get an average salary in exchange for being able to work at the company in a first world country, so they'll be able to afford whatever the 'local' Americans are able to afford in the area. Can your average American afford a 4 bedroom house and 6 children in 2019?

That's the real deal that's being sent in a Word document requiring your signature. Yes, you don't have to accept the deal, but the US government doesn't have to prevent spouses from seeking employment either, causing more issues for the immigrant families.

Which one of these 2 options benefits the US more?


The average engineer can afford a 4 bedroom house and 6 children in 2019. The same goes for somebody who might be called a software architect, but not for the type of architect who draws floorplans and rooflines for houses.

Maybe that doesn't work in San Francisco, but there are many other places to live in the USA. Most of the country is very affordable for somebody who can design software or hardware.

As I understand it, getting an above-average salary is nearly a legal requirement. Going below average is prohibited. (one could be exactly average I think)

To make a random example: $150,000 per year will have you living very well in Deerfield Beach, FL or in Georgetown, KY.


I'm sorry to see another couple going through this. It's certainly a shitty situation, but I hope it'll work out for you.


Some possible impacts:

1) Drives up wages to the point where an H1B couple can contain one non-working spouse. Not bad.

2) Causes H1B applicants to skew towards younger folks without families, reducing housing pressure. Not bad.

3) Causes H1B recipients to marry citizens at slightly higher rates and more quickly assimilate, especially in the second+ generation. Call it a wash.


1. Might not happen in the probably the next decade. Earning 200k+ in Bay Area is common and still hard to live on a single salary. What should an engineer do to make it go to 400k? 2. So, you want experienced, well trained experts in their respective fields to leave the country and go elsewhere after the companies spend so much on their younger selves? 3. This would be a small minority whatever happens. After growing up in a country with a completely different culture for ~25 years, a sudden shift in a small timeframe is not expected.


1. "Hey boss, I need a raise." "How much?" "Enough to cover my spouse's income or I have to quit." Seems compelling.

2. I didn't say anything about current recipients. Just commented on how it may impact new applicants and the housing market.

3. Demographics change slowly.


Realistically how can 200k+ be hard to live on?


It's not hard to live on. But, you mostly don't save anything or you might take a long time to buy a house.


To the moderators: the article title here is incorrect. The title on the linked page is actually:

  “Trump administration begins effort to strip work permits for immigrant spouses“


[flagged]


Per the article, this is not an attack, rather the Obama administration changed this rule, and a court found that to be illegal. It then transitions to the Trump administration to rescind the rule, and they delayed, but the court said "no more waiting".

The new rule was only in effect for a short time (from 2015), reverting a rule is not "an attack".


Legal. Court found it to be legal.

From the article: “A group of technology workers called Save Jobs USA who argue the program jeopardizes American jobs sued the Obama administration and, after losing in D.C. federal court, appealed the case.”


Trump. Making Canada great again.


This isn't Trump, this lawsuit was filed during the Obama years.


Yet another hurtful policy that puts paid to the notion of "oh, but we're perfectly ok with legal immigration".


I don’t someone has to support open borders to be “ok with legal immigration”.




Applications are open for YC Summer 2019

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: