Join [a bunch of millionaires] in [reducing their labor expenses]. You're not fooling anyone. Just bribe congress in the standard way and get your monstrous evil done.
Interesting.. this has little to do with the H1-B visa program but instead is mostly about the day to day immigration policies like Border Patrol, amnesty, and citizenship.
From fwd.us: "program must also include an increase in the number of H-1B visas"
There's no debate about this, like some theory of quantum mechanics. These are a bunch of people, many billionaires, who have banded together to push forward their class interests - to enrich their billions even further, at our expense - at a time when the unemployment rate is above what it was, from 1984 to 2009 (aside from two months in 1992). They are very well organized. This message is being typed on a web site of a wealthy person whose face is plastered on fwd.us.
It talks of the "tech community" and shows that little weasel Mark Pincus as a supporter. Pincus who robbed employees of their options once the startup lottery was won. I guess we the people who actually work the long hours, Ron Conman, Pincus, Rabois and all the people featured all all together in one big "community" where we all want more H1-B visas.
It's not a topic of debate, your statements on it just reflect which side your bread is buttered on. There are those of us who code and maintain servers and databases and routers, those of us who create all of the wealth. There are those - the VCs, the incubators, the angels, and especially the old aristocracy of money these middlemen get their money from, who are parasites on those of us who create wealth.
There is no debate like whether BSD or Linux, or vi or emacs is better. People have a class interest, and their feelings about this are just another way to affirm that fact.
So far I've already seen two comments dismissing this as an evil plot to drive down labor costs. I hear this argument a lot and I can't over emphasize my absolute disgust for it. It seems to cross both class and party lines.
There are human beings who are willing to risk life and limb, to separate themselves permanently from their families, to endure unspeakable hardship and constant fear of being deported simply for the opportunity to work -- and the only thing us middle-class, educated, privileged people can think about is that these people might dare compete with us! Excluding them from opportunity simply because they were born on the other side of some arbitrary, imaginary line is cruelty and selfishness beyond belief.
(This is not condoning the original link above or whatever it might stand for. It seems a little impossible to tell.)
> Excluding them from opportunity simply because they were born on the other side of some arbitrary, imaginary line is cruelty and selfishness beyond belief.
National borders are not arbitrary, imaginary lines. One of the fundamental attributes of a sovereign entity is the ability to define "inside" and "outside" and control the flow between "inside" and "outside" just as that is one of the fundamental attributes of a organism.
People everywhere are not the same. Those in your country are bound together with you in the social compact. Now, it's good and necessary to allow immigration to a certain extent, but in doing so the only consideration should be what maximizes the prosperity of those who are already part of the community. Anything else undermines the social compact, and those who lobby to systematically undermine the social compact in this way to depress wages and boost corporate profits verge on sociopathy.
> Those in your country are bound together with you in the social compact. Now, it's good and necessary to allow immigration to a certain extent, but in doing so the only consideration should be what maximizes the prosperity of those who are already part of the community. Anything else undermines the social compact
Please keep in mind that what you're writing bears strong similarity to America's long history of nativist sentiment. At various points in our history it has been very popular to try to keep out French, Irish, Jewish, Chinese, and all sorts of other immigrant groups. "They're not the same as us" and "How do we benefit from them coming here?" often have strong appeal in the moment and end up looking foolish and small-minded in hindsight. I think that "Give me your tired, your poor" is a perfectly fine immigration policy, not just for feel-good sentimentality but also because eking out perceived benefits for the existing members of our "social compact" might be at odds with both ethics and what's healthy for the future of the country.
That has nothing to do with what is happening now which in The middle of an unemployment crisis Americans are losing jobs, wages, and befits to foreigners so a handful of people can't get richer. Wake up.
Of course, if those people came to America, they would then consume goods and services of their own, which would provide opportunities to other Americans.
There is a long history of cycles in immigration to the US. There were discrete periods of high immigration, followed by resulting social stress and unrest, and then long periods of zero net immigration. From the 1880s through the 1910s there was mass immigration and near the end of that period something like one in five native born supported the KKK. It was too much, too fast, and immigration was shut down. From 1924 to the late 1960s net immigration was zero and this was a period of improving social cohesion, and great economic progress.
We are in the midst of an immigration wave unprecedented in length and volume. The number of people who have come here since the late 1960s and their more pronounced differences from historical immigrants do not compare. An immigration time out is clearly called for, as it was in 1924.
I also can't wrap my head around people being OK with the idea of the US population growing to over 500 million. Why are folks in a hurry to turn this place into India?
>We are in the midst of an immigration wave unprecedented in length and volume. The number of people who have come here since the late 1960s and their more pronounced differences from historical immigrants do not compare.
What percentage of the population is currently foreign-born, something like 10%? Is the late 1800s it got up to almost 15%, so this certainly isn't "unprecedented".
>I also can't wrap my head around people being OK with the idea of the US population growing to over 500 million. Why are folks in a hurry to turn this place into India?
Without even considering the differences in infrastructure, we have more than 3X the land area with about a quarter of the population...I think we'll be fine!
I am an American living in Italy, and I'm confused by all the nationalistic blah blah. I have friends here who are a lot more important to me than people in the US. Am I supposed to consider people who happen to be born in the same country somehow more important? I can't manage that, sorry.
It's not a matter of asking you individually to consider a random American more important than your friend in Italy. Rather, it's about what should be the priority of national immigration policy. When a people get together and form a social compact and a government to secure their interests, the guiding policy of that government must be whatever maximizes the interest of its constituency.
That's why the open borders/free trade talk is often deeply troubling. It's one thing to argue that these policies will ultimately maximize American prosperity. You can argue that stealing away the brightest people from other countries will ultimately benefit the U.S. in the long run, etc. The problem arises when the arguments loose that utilitarian mooring and end up arguing that American policy should be concerned with lifting up Indians and Chinese in a way that doesn't necessarily maximize the prosperity of those Americans who are already here. The American government has no business caring about the "huddled masses" elsewhere. At one time it was in our interest to accept anyone and everyone, by virtue of the fact that we had a huge relatively unpopulated country, but that incentive changed as we became a mature, populous society.
Rich countries don't lift other countries out of altruism. They do it because it's in their own strategic interest. Take a look at what's going on in Europe for a few clues about what happens when too many of your neighbors go too far out of whack.
we had a huge relatively unpopulated country, but that incentive changed as we became a mature, populous society.
Sorry but you still are a huge, relatively unpopulated country[1].
> Favoring those "in your tribe" over those "outside your tribe" is a classical, deeply embedded social norm.
Some of us dream of a world where we rise above some of our baser monkey instincts.
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification; one day right there in Alabama, little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers."
In any case, my tribe is not defined by where I happened to be born.
> In any case, my tribe is not defined by where I happened to be born.
When push comes to shove and your security is threatened, it'll be Iowans and Nebraskans that go to war to fight for your security, not Indians or Chinese...
(Not that an Indian or Chinese person cannot be an Iowan or Nebraskan, obviously).
The problem with people like you is you're just as bad as the people you're complaining about. The world isn't black and white and such mechanisms can both be sought out based on greed and yet still have positive consequences. Indeed I agree with you on some level, the greater good is about everybody, not just the people living in your local vicinity, but are you sure that's what this is?
You really think you're doing the greater good by stealing the best and brightest from countries that probably need them quite a bit more than your own, while ignoring the locals who just want a fair shake at a decent life? All of this in order that some have so much money that it has long become meaningless? That sounds a lot more like keeping the other countries down while lowering your own standard of living, which seems to match the ever growing rich / poor divide.
I can't say I have a lot of experience working with H1B visas, but I have a wealth of experience working with immigrants in Britian from similar counties, and those people are almost exclusively middle class+ in order to have recieved the type of education that is desirable within the US. This may not offer quite the same quality of life that it does in the west, but they're hardly from a poverty stricken background.
I don't know how to make the world a better place, but I doubt helping the likes of multi-billionaires become ever richer while they sit on that money until the end of time is really the way forward. The schemes are almost certainly abused to hire cheaper workers. The ridiculously unfulfillable adverts have been proving this for years.
I'm an open-borders type, and I think it's designed to drive labor costs down too. I think the tell here is the desire to expand the H-1B program, which I believe tends to lock people into one job and reduce their negotiating power.
Is there a "grace period" or is an immediate deportation? (Obviously, I have not personally dealt with these issues so any information is greatly appreciated.)
Apparently, there is a process to qualify for a grace period (if the loss of employment can be anticipated in advance) but if a H1B worker is terminated, they face immediate deportation under the law.
There is a flip-side to your argument you have failed to realize the existence of.
The US is indisputably the most powerful nation on earth, with an elite workforce that combats any other's. Don't you think smart people in India are more needed by India itself, to take care of serious problems in India, than to optimize ad-serving algorithms in America?
The thing is, and I apologize in advance for being blunt, it doesn't matter what you think. It does matter what the Indians think that they ought to do with their lives. Some of them might think that optimizing Advertising algos to make money makes them happy, others might find the challenge of solving real social problems exciting. That choice is theirs, individually, to make. I have friends who emigrated to the States and became wealthy doing quite routine work, but their children are now back in India, volunteering for social work. I'm not saying that's always the case, but it's not something we can (or should) force anyone to do.
Don't you think the people in question ought to have some say in the matter of where they would like to live and work? Or do you think their respective governments "know best"?
What is the non-Asian minority percentage of the area where you live and raise your family?
If you live in a city with a high non-Asian minority population (ie., lots of blacks and Hispanics), then I respect your opinion (though I disagree). You aren't asking anyone to put up with anything that you won't accept yourself.
I know the issues around this, including brain drain from elite education, losing American dominance in the tech sphere, and the broad abuse that has been caused by the current set of regulations. I even have a colleague caught in an immigration snafu with his H1B right now, for leaving the country to visit his extended family. I fully agree with this program!
Still, the optics of this campaign in particular are terrible. The headline and lede on all of the articles isn't anything wrong with the current system - it's that Zuck has signed on with it. The splash page is a shot of 19th century america, and then you can scroll down to see a list of billionaires. If the page was literally intended to produce a conspiracy focused follow-the-money response it wouldn't look much different.
Driving down labor costs is evil until we transition to a post-scarcity economy where profits from reducing labor inputs aren't strictly returned to Capital.
Please, what are we the biggest fools on the planet? This sounds like the people who'd get on the news and play some liberal middle class melodrama about why the U.S. needs to free the Iraqis.
This is a naked power grab by billionaires and VCs and such. It is about as bare a naked power grab as can be imagined. Please take your mawkish nonsense somewhere else. "Cruelty and selfishness beyond belief". Yes break out the violins, some IIT graduate not being able to get an H1-B is the cruelest fate imaginable in the world. I'm glad Rabois, fresh from (accusations of) sexually harassing his underlings at Square, and Pincus, fresh from robbing his employees of their options have become such humanitarians.
A bunch of billionaires make a power grab to fill their pockets with money, and you make a desperate, mawkish comment such as this. "Anyone who who dare question these billionaires humanitarian motives...are conspiracy theorists thinking its an 'evil plot'...'I can't over emphasize my absolute disgust'....barf.
Could you explain why, in 2013, we need more physical immigration when we have remote work solutions like VOIP, instant messaging, e-mail, and video-conferencing? I'm a US citizen and I use these tools with my US company daily - why can't people in other countries use them too? Why MUST they come to the US?
People are not being denied opportunity. It is not our fault that Facebook et all can't be bothered to recruit or recruit well in foreign countries. The opportunity to work for Facebook is still alive and well. Facebook could say "Hey Bill in India, we want to hire you. You can work at our India office." but for whatever reason Facebook would rather have Bill relocate to the USA. Why can't Facebook open an India office, scout for talent in India, and move them all to their India office?
I scoff at your line about competing with the middle class. This has been happening for years: call it outsourcing, offshoring, whatever you like but it's been a thing for over a decade now. I KNOW I'm not privileged because I've watched big chunks of my company get outsourced so I understand I need to do my very best to keep my job.
You can harp on "selfishness" all you want but that's the way the real world works. If you want to be the selfless one post your position, your salary, open it up for bids and see how long it takes for someone (US citizen or otherwise) to do your job for less.
So what part of India are you from bhb916? Because that's the only way you think it is ok for Americans to suffer so people from other countries can take their jobs.
Most of the visas go to consulting companies like Tata not individuals and American corporations are happy to let Americans suffer if their costs are cheaper. That is what this front group is about. If you are an American you should be ashamed of your comments.
Where do these assholes get off on speaking for the entire "tech community"? As far as I can tell there are a few website developers and vc partners on the founder list.
Agreed. I'm in favor of some immigration changes (call it "reform" if you wish) but my idea of what that means might very well be different than what yours or theirs is. I'm not that interested in getting involved in a group whose beliefs do not align with mine.
My guess is they have really narrow elitist concerns about bringing high skilled foreigners into Silicon Valley, but they figured out they can't pursue that goal stand-alone. So they're hitching up with the broader suite of treason-lobby mass immigration and amnesty interests.
It's surprising that most commenters are concerned about immigrants from India who are taking away jobs from Americans at artificially low wages.
What about skilled engineers from a less represented region such as Europe? There's plenty of us who are gladly hired/sponsored by Silicon Valley start-ups and paid the same wage as the American employees. In the current climate it feels that start-ups are hiring every skilled person they can find, no matter if US citizen or not. I, personally, really don't feel like I'm taking away anyone's job. Yet, we still have to compete for visas with the huge corporations that "import" cheap labor from elsewhere.
Merely increasing the number of visa wouldn't help - the big corporations would just flood USCIS with even more applications.
I think an H1B reform is absolutely necessary, but maybe in the form of a quota. Either on a per-country basis (such as the diversity greencard lottery) or, better perhaps, on a per-company basis so that only a certain proportion of visas can be allocated to a single company.
Whoever thinks this will open the floodgates to cheap labor has got it backwards: the current situation is creating a class of employees who are one step above indentured servitude.
Not all H1Bs are created equal either. Some don't allow multiple reentry (or reentry beyond a 6-24 month period) due to some arcane reciprocity issue. So once here it can be a risk for many to even visit other countries and in the very least it's a hassle.
Many come to the US with the intent of moving here permanently if they're able to. Frankly, considering some of the countries they come from, I can't really blame them. They simply want a better life for themselves and their families. In doing so they may end up separating themselves from their families for a significant period of time.
The current process of getting a temporary wrok visa (specifically, an H1B) just creates artificial hoops to jump through of "proving" you can't find someone locally. This system is already completely compromised and has been thoroughly gamed. Now it simply enrichens lawyers who specialize in it.
But the payoff for many temporary workers is immigration and here is where the indentured servitude comes in. For high-demand countries (China, India, Mexico and the Phillipines IIRC) the delay between making an application and getting approved is years. 6+ on EB3, 4+ years on EB2.
The problem is that employers know this and can (and do) hold people hostage with artificially low wages (because the "prevailing wage" is far removed from reality) and those workers simply have to put up with it.
I suspect most of these employers aren't startups but are corporate bodyshops who don't really care about the quality of their employees. They simply want someone to fill a seat because, hey, charging a huge markup on their labor to some contractor further up the line anyway. Large corporate outsourcing and particularly outsourcing from the government seems to be the main cause for this particularly racket.
If someone is willing to employ them, then that largely should be the barrier that has to be met. It isn't quite that simple however as this could be used to bring people over with true indentured servitude much like what happens with illegal immigrants. People smugglers bring in people who then have to pay back the debt with much of their take home pay for years (this is how people smuggling into Australia works).
So you have to somehow verify that the employment is legitimate and the worker isn't being exploited. The simplest way to do this is:
1. Make work authorization easily transferable;
2. Make such transfers not reset the immigration process (the current system does this; the new employer has to start again); and
3. Make immigration automatic after some period of time, say 3-6 years so people can't be held hostage with it.
All this talk of "they're stealing our jobs" is horribly misguided and ill-informed about the reality of the incentives created by the current system.
Would you support a change in US immigration policy that would grant a green card to everyone who wishes to come here with good intentions (ie., with nothing but the desire for a better life for themselves and their families)?
The US does currently accept about 1.2 million immigrants legally into the country every year. Obviously, that's not enough to meet demand. Do you feel that 1.2 million is far too low? If so, how do you feel generally about the notion of an upper limit - or would you support unlimited immigration to the US?
> the current situation is creating a class of employees who are one step above indentured servitude.
Hear, hear.
Because permanent status is years away (or not attainable) your home and your health are in the hands of the employer. The step above is, above, but not by much.
Why is this on Hacker News. Who has a vested interest in more of our jobs going to cheap Indian labor? Do people really think we don't know that's what this is about? Who funds this organization?
Australia has both: point based PR program AND work visas that are similar to H1-B. However it does not help them - I have an Australian PR but still chose working in Silicon Valley on a work visa.
That is not exactly how it works in Australia. You get enough points, then you qualify for the visa, then some office worker arbitrarily decides if he feels like giving it to you.
You get points if you are skilled in a job the country needs, you have X years in your field, you have a bachelor's degree, you have a master's degree, you fit into certain age brackets, you have an Australian spouse, you have other family in Australia, you have a job offer, etc.
