Feds Consider H-1B Changes After Uncovering Fraud

CWmike writes "A Citizenship and Immigration Services spokesman said today that the agency is weighing a series of reforms to the H-1B application process, including the use of 'independent open-source data' to obtain information about visa seekers or the companies that file the petitions on their behalf. The move follows a report by the agency that found widespread problems and evidence of fraud in the nation's H-1B program, including forged documents, fake degrees and shell companies being used in H-1B applications. It also comes after the controversy caused by changes to the H-1B rules earlier this year."

Comments

H1-B fraud? Tell me it ain't do!

[kimvette]

H1-B fraud? Shell companies? Fake degrees? You mean it really does come down to cheap labor?

I'm shocked. SHOCKED!

Well, not that shocked.

Re:H1-B fraud? Tell me it ain't do!

[inotocracy]

Holy gee willickers, a whole hyphen misplaced! Lynch him!

Re:H1-B fraud? Tell me it ain't do!

[hairyfeet]

Yes because corporate lawyers who put out videos like this one were all just telling lies. LIES! Seriously though,who DIDN'T know that the H1-B was being used to turn a college education into a McJob?

I personally loved how they told everyone "Get a tech education! All the manufacturing jobs will be shipped overseas so you need a degree!" and then once folks graduating high school did just that they bring in the H1-Bs who can work the same job for peanuts. I'd love to see one of those congress critters look the camera in the face and try to explain how someone who has to pay 60-100K for a degree is supposed to compete with someone who pays 25K or less.

Re:H1-B fraud? Tell me it ain't do!

[TheRaven64]

I'd love to see one of those congress critters look the camera in the face and try to explain how someone who has to pay 60-100K for a degree is supposed to compete with someone who pays 25K or less

I'd love to see who pays 100K (presumably US dollars?) for a degree and thinks it's actually worth it, in any subject. Even counting living costs, $25K seems quite high for a bachelors' degree (and a PhD is usually funded by grants, so doesn't cost the recipient anything).

Re:H1-B fraud? Tell me it ain't do!

[emailandthings]

and you are judging Americans by a few comments on slashdot?

Re:H1-B fraud? Tell me it ain't do!

[konohitowa]

I assumed he was talking yen or pesos.

Re:H1-B fraud? Tell me it ain't do!

[konohitowa]

"Judging" might be too strong. I think "trolling" would be a better fit.

Re:H1-B fraud? Tell me it ain't do!

[ximenes]

I don't know what you think universities cost today, but $40,000 per year is not uncommon. Whether or not it is worth it is another matter, but you can find somewhere willing to charge in that range easily.

The university that I went to is now up to $46,000 per year, although only $34,000 of that is for tuition and another $1,000 in required fees.

Re:H1-B fraud? Tell me it ain't do!

[Beetle B.]

I'd love to see one of those congress critters look the camera in the face and try to explain how someone who has to pay 60-100K for a degree is supposed to compete with someone who pays 25K or less.

The solution isn't limiting H-1, but reducing tuition fees.

Tuition rates in public universities are too high. And most university funding doesn't even come from it.

Re:H1-B fraud? Tell me it ain't do!

[delt0r]

Wow, I paid 4000 NZD or about 2000US per year and thought I was getting a bad deal. My father paid $200.

Re:H1-B fraud? Tell me it ain't do!

[TheRaven64]

Well, I work (intermittently) in a university, and tuition fees recently went up to £3000 per year ($5,150). On top of that, students have to pay around £25 ($43) for course notes (they aren't expected to buy textbooks, and all of the recommended course texts are in the library). When I was a student, tuition cost £1025, and a few years before that it was free - putting it up to £3000 caused a lot of complaints and it's unlikely to go up any more because of concerns that it's excluding poorer people from university (and it's relatively easy to get grants to cover a lot of this if your parents aren't able to afford it. I only paid around £200 per year in tuition fees). My living costs as a student, including rent, were around £300-400 per month, say £3000 per year academic year - low enough that working over the summer months can fund the rest of the time. Even with the tuition fees on top of this, I'd expect the total cost of a degree to be around £18,000 ($30,000), including living expenses and tuition.

Do you get a better degree from a US university? I guess that's what you'd argue, but is it four times better? I started my PhD immediately after doing my first degree, and I was rarely impressed by papers delivered by US PhD students (although I often was by papers from professors at US universities).

Re:H1-B fraud? Tell me it ain't do!

[heck]

For those from overseas who are questioning the above cost: - most US private universities (or public where student lives outside of the state where the university is located and gets charged "out of state" tuition) are 30k to 50k - but most of the same universities then hand most students financial aid knocking the price back down So the sticker price is typically very high, but most students get grants, loans, scholarships, etc. to knock the price down to a more palatable price. Of those, loans must be repaid. The others may have other strings attached. its also not uncommon for a highly desired student to be charged "in state" tuition even thought they may live in another US state.

There's a surprise

[cs668]

Even if the H-1B program had no fraud it would push wages down in the US by artificially changing the demographic in the workplace.

Older experienced high tech workers are more likely to stay at home with their families. Younger recent graduates are more likely to travel for work/opportunity. They also earn less because they have less experience.

But, it doesn't surprise me that greed leads to fraud in a situation that already drove wages down.

Look at how greed is affecting the economy now. Greedy people want houses they cant afford, greedy bankers want to make money by giving risky loans and turning them over. Greedy companies want to reduce wage costs by defrauding the H-1B program.

It's just par for the course!!

Re:There's a surprise

[mikael]

There's nothing wrong with somebody wanting an extra room or two to start a family, a home business or private study.

The fault is entirely with the expectation that house prices will continuously rise, or that they should be traded like company shares. Banks were more than willing to provide "jumbo loans" going above a quarter of a million units of currency in the belief that they would get a return on the investment (money deposited after the sale of the property). Any newspaper will have stories about how prices of desirable properties have risen (6K in the 1960's, 90K in the 1980's, 250K in the 2000's). After so many boom years, people came to expect this growth to be normal, and then found themselves in

Re:There's a surprise

[nbert]

On the other hand lower wages make the US' economy more competitive, which could lead to a higher employment rate. So it's really a two-sided problem.

However, when it comes to real specialists I don't see how low entry barriers will affect wages, because those people will move to wherever they earn the most. If you look at wages for IT-specialists* in Europe for example they are not much lower in Poland than in the UK, even though the general population earns much less in Poland. The reason for this is that if the employers would offer less those IT workers would just move on to Germany, France, UK etc..


*Not talking about the guy who runs the Exchange server or fixes your printer problems.

Re:There's a surprise

[mikael]

negative equity once the market collapsed as in the 1980's.

Re:There's a surprise

[cs668]

You're right there is nothing wrong with someone wanting it. But, they shouldn't take a mortgage they can not afford to do it!!

The loans should also have never been offered to them.

Greed at the top greed at the bottom, everyone trying to get a little more.

Same with the H-1B.

Until people get some integrity this just goes on and on.

Re:There's a surprise

[William Robinson]

Some karma burning time for me.

In US it is easy to fire underperformers, but not in Canada.

With personal experience I can say that the kind of money we wasted^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hspent in hope to bring some morons in Canada to a level of a programmer, we could have easily built another Cisco, with the help of Indian programmers. I do that now, having learnt my lessons, and I am happy I did that. It is much easier to pick good skilled among those 1 billion people and bring them to our standards than risking my projects.

My 2 cents.

Re:There's a surprise

[TheLink]

Thing is, "everyone" was giving out those loans.

And "everyone" was betting via the CDS that the loans wouldn't all go poof at once (like they'd believe that was impossible, I mean just think about it).

And "everyone" was saying it was ok to do all that.

Because "everyone" doing all that got quite a bit of money for doing so - bonuses, commissions etc.

But when it all went "poof", _everyone_ has to pay for it.

Except the trouble is _everyone_ != "everyone".

Re:There's a surprise

[hedwards]

We don't need lower wages, we already beat the hell out of the rest of the world on efficiency. Wages are supposed to rise and efficiency rises. That held up pretty well until a few decades ago. I'm not sure when exactly, but it was sometime in the late 70s or early 80s that that started to go south.

Having an income gap isn't in and of itself a problem, but when you look at what the people at the bottom are having to put up with because they're not being paid enough, that's a problem. The numbers frequently stated for inflation are bogus, and only include portions of the cost of living.

I've seen people suggest that a 150k mortgage isn't appropriate for a family of four making 40k, but the reality is that in some parts of the country a family will be spending more than that just to rent. And yes that does include most of the additional costs of owning.

Re:There's a surprise

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

> Greedy people want houses they cant afford

Ordinary people know that if they want to be able to retire at 65 they need to own property and have their mortgage fully paid otherwise they won't be able to afford healthcare.

Re:There's a surprise

[Original Replica]

There's nothing wrong with somebody wanting an extra room or two to start a family, a home business or private study.

The other question is: Was there an option to buying a McMansion? Are there enough smaller affordable homes in non-shitty school districts to house the working class? No, but no builders wanted to build the affordable homes because they weren't as profitable as McMansions and the banks were willing to make the loans, so they were able to have potential customers for the oversized houses. The median price of any housing with under an hour commute time to NYC is $450K. The median income in NYC is about $48K, so that's ten years wages before tax for just somewhere to raise your family. Yet every new construction project I see is luxury apartments. Back in 2000 the median price was just $148K and the median income was about $40k. So housing was about 3.7 time annual income just eight years ago, and now it is 10 times annual income. The banks offered people the possibility to be in unimaginable debt, and people need somewhere to live, so they got in over their heads, because the only other option was to up root their young family and hope that life was affordable somewhere else. That's not always an option personally speaking, NYC is far and away the best paying play for the career my collage degree is in. I'm 33 and I make over twice the median annual income, yet the only housing I can afford to buy would be a 600 sq ft studio apt. A $300k studio costs $1750 a month mortgage plus a $650 maintaince fee, and would only be getting one room. Two bedroom apts start at about $500K, so now that's $2917 a month mortgage and an $800 maintaince fee, for 1100 sq ft that's a 45 min subway commute to midtown. So when people purchase homes that are more than they can afford, the question of why they did that isn't as simple as "greed" there is a large mount of "need" int there as well.

Re:There's a surprise

[TheLink]

There were other potential solutions to the problem, my guess is those other solutions wouldn't have made their friends/cronies as rich ;).

Re:There's a surprise

[Original Replica]

On the other hand lower wages make the US' economy more competitive, which could lead to a higher employment rate. So it's really a two-sided problem.

On the other hand lower wages make the US' economy more lopsided, which could lead to a higher amount of wealth concentration.
Sure the employment rate might be higher, but the employment rate on a slave plantation was 100%, that didn't make it a great place to work. High wages and lower wealth concentration make for a strong middle class; which leads to lower crime, better education, and better economic diversification. Take a look at life in countries or even US cities without a middle class, that's where "lower wages for economic competitiveness" leads. Sure maybe the GDP would go up, but if 90% of the population is getting less take home pay to make that happen, why is that touted as a good thing? Even the elites who profit more would have to live with higher crime and more social tension. If you want that move to Sao Paulo or Mexico City.

Re:There's a surprise

[cs668]

Exactly so they should buy a house they can afford or rent. I am sick and tired of people making excuses for "ordinary" people. The people who gave the loans suck, the ones who took ones they could not pay suck too.

If you can't afford to buy a home then rent an apartment. I rented for 6 years after college. Didn't want to, thought it was a waste of money. But, it's what I could afford. Then when I could afford to buy a home. I bought one that I could afford to make the payments on.

Everyone is looking for a get rich quick scheme. Or wants to look richer than they are by taking a negative interest mortgage and maxing out their credit cards rather than living within their means.

American financial habits have to change or the $ will eventually be worth nothing. The consumer culture has to change or we will all be broke.

Re:There's a surprise

[tempestdata]

Its called inflation and is a godsend for a debtor nation like the US. With household debt at 100% of GDP and over $10 trillion on national debt, the policies of this government will inevitably be geared towards inflation. The need to keep inflation numbers low for now is simply to sucker people into lending us money at a low interest rate. At some point in the future, the US will inflate its way out of its debt. (Do you really think we'll ever actually pay back what we've borrowed?) When that happens, those who own debts will benefit, those who hold cash will cry.

Re:There's a surprise

[cs668]

Sorry, but that's why I don't live in NY or LA or any of a million places that have a ridiculous cost of living.

But, continuing to stay in those places and trying to swing buying a house there you help to drive up demand and keep the price high.

Re:There's a surprise

[metlin]

Excellent comment.

If anything, Herr Chancellor Paulson is a firm believer in Keynesian economics. So, while a (small) portion of the bailout money maybe taxpayer money, the vast majority of it will be paid through good old fashioned inflation.

Re:There's a surprise

[j0nb0y]

Of course all the new apartments in NYC are luxury apartments. Anything built to be affordable will end up being rent controlled, at a huge loss to the landlord. Why take the risk? Either build luxury apartments or don't build at all.

Re:There's a surprise

[Nkwe]

So when people purchase homes that are more than they can afford, the question of why they did that isn't as simple as "greed" there is a large mount of "need" int there as well.

Perhaps you don't "need" to live in NYC.

NYC is far and away the best paying play for the career my collage degree is in.

Best paying is only the best paying if you include salary AND the cost of living.

A positive outcome for this credit crisis will eventually be that credit will not be given to those who cannot afford it. When this happens, the cost of housing and cost of living will eventually come into balance. One of three things will happen: Economic conditions will lower the cost of living; companies will pay their people more; or companies will move operations to places that are more affordable for their employees to live.

Re:There's a surprise

[cayenne8]

"There's nothing wrong with somebody wanting an extra room or two to start a family, a home business or private study.

The fault is entirely with the expectation that house prices will continuously rise, or that they should be traded like company shares. "

Nothing wrong with wanting extra room, etc. BUT...it has to be tempered with realistic expectations of income, and a realistic view of what ones means truly are, and to live within them!!

People over the past few years have gotten to assume they are entitled to a certain lifestyle, with all the latest gadgets and cars. They try to get a house way too large...hell, I've seen instances where people had a large house, and 2-3 nice cars...and bascially only had enough money to furnish the place with plastic lawn furniture. And, if someone is going to chose to raise a family? You'd better be prepared to cut down on what you expect your lifestyle to be....unless you are wealthy, raising children...even one is $$$, and will require sacrifice on your part. Sacrifice of time, money and personal growth if need be.

I hate to see all this crashing around us...but, perhaps people will learn the hard way not to live on credit, running up debts they'll never get out of, and living beyond their means.

And with housing...well, I'm guessing we'll go back to how it was before. Loans will only be given to people with proper credit history, who have worked and saved to be able to put down 20% on a home and be prepared for the extra costs of maintaining one. This will force people to live in a home they can afford.

Once upon a time...people used to save money for cars too....

Hey, I know everyone wants nice things, but, people need to learn like how in the old days, that you aren't entitled to all the shiny cool things out there...

Housing costs will come down to a more reasonable price, fiscally responsible people will save and purchase what's out on the market, and they will be a good credit risk.

Maybe lenders and customers will become more fiscally sensible.

Re:There's a surprise

[Original Replica]

Anything built to be affordable will end up being rent controlled, at a huge loss to the landlord. Why take the risk? Either build luxury apartments or don't build at all.

While that argument might hold water for someone building rental units, it is meaningless for building condos with the intent to sell, not rent. The financial crisis wasn't trigger by people failing to pay their rent, it's about an artificially high barrier to property ownership.

A word on the "evils" of rent control:
I'm renting a non-luxury non-rent controlled or stabilized apt right now. My last apt wasn't luxury or rent stabilized either, and my rent went up 48% in three years because my neighborhood gentrified. So I had to move (and pay a broker for the privilege). Rent control isn't the huge loss that landlord try to hack it up to be, if the building is turning a profit when they build it, it will be turning a profit ten years down the line even if the apts are rent controlled, because the landlord's mortgage didn't go up and the rent control with keep property taxes down, what the landlords are whining about is that they can't maximize their profits (and boot out long time tenets) with every neighborhood gentrification wave, there is a big difference between making a modest profit and taking a loss, and no landlords are actually taking a loss on buildings with rent controlled apts. Added to that,rent stabilization doesn't apply to anything built since '84.

Re:There's a surprise

[cs668]

And I'll say it. You guys rock!

If more Americans operated in this way we would be much better off.

Re:There's a surprise

[canuck57]

Its called inflation and is a godsend for a debtor nation like the US. With household debt at 100% of GDP and over $10 trillion on national debt, the policies of this government will inevitably be geared towards inflation. The need to keep inflation numbers low for now is simply to sucker people into lending us money at a low interest rate. At some point in the future, the US will inflate its way out of its debt. (Do you really think we'll ever actually pay back what we've borrowed?) When that happens, those who own debts will benefit, those who hold cash will cry.

Deserves repeating too. I am a firm believer that government coming up with $800 billion is geared towards making inflation happen. The stock market is on to this as in a 20% interest rate environment a 1% dividend makes no sense. In short, they are not telling us all the reasons the market is dropping. The required P/E for a good investment needs to be 5, no more.

Re:There's a surprise

[mikael]

That is the exact same situation in every popular city in the UK. All developers want to build are "luxury apartments" (used to be "retirement flats") and terraced "executive homes" (but smaller than 1970's builds) in whatever bit of greenbelt they can get planning permission for.

Anything "affordable" will usually be red-brick mock-georgian terraced housing with a communal car park.

The tradition used to be that the developers would build housing luxurious enough to attract the wealthy people out of their homes, and they could trade up while still making a profit, and free up the housing for other people on
lower incomes. But that has been broken. In London, the tradition was that
couples could buy a "fixer-up" home which would need modernising, but could
then be sold at a higher price. Private speculators jumped into that market and fixed-up every property they could buy and sell within three months.

Re:There's a surprise

[mikael]

People used to have to save to buy a refrigerator (The Exploding Metropolis - editors of Fortune magazine, 1950). The editors had the opinion that if people didn't want to own a refrigerator, they wouldn't need a suburban home, not need a car to drive to the supermarket, be able to remain in the city and buy from the local corner shop.

I knew a guy who at work who bought a SUV, his wife bought a jeep. They bought a condominium together, had stock options, and discovered they still didn't have enough to buy a house.

Re:There's a surprise

[mabhatter654]

there's an adage if you owe the bank $100,000 You are in trouble...if you owe the bank $10 million then the bank is in trouble.

That's exactly what happened here. The banks made MILLIONS of high risk home loans and LIED about the risk and invented "swapping" instruments to skirt securities and insurance laws. Only about 6% of even the high risk loans are failing... and that's an all time high (that's less than the unemployment rate!). Why did the bankers so mismanage their money that losing 6% crashes the whole system? Who is responsible for those BILLIONS and why are they not in jail for mismanagement?

Re:There's a surprise

[mabhatter654]

no, the BANKS are making it hard because they got out of the business of honest loans. The ARM rush was all about selling YOU on a 4% loan that was "too good to be true" and selling investors the "locked in" 7% loan that was a "sure thing". So much so that banks often refused "honest" loans simply to tag people for the ARM ones. Of course the banks want to "look busy" now, so they will punish the new home buyer because they can't deceive you or overcharge you... hence "honest" loans aren't as profitable anymore... that's what the FMs did when confronted about profits, they bought up "risky" "low income" paper (to get out of fines or jail) and tried to play it off as the home owner's faults when they lost billions. The scale of dishonest accounting is legendary and for the most part they got away with it... people should be broke and in jail... executives should have their entire salaries from the last 5 years seized but it won't happen.

Re:There's a surprise

[Foobar of Borg]

Its called inflation and is a godsend for a debtor nation like the US. With household debt at 100% of GDP and over $10 trillion on national debt, the policies of this government will inevitably be geared towards inflation. The need to keep inflation numbers low for now is simply to sucker people into lending us money at a low interest rate. At some point in the future, the US will inflate its way out of its debt. (Do you really think we'll ever actually pay back what we've borrowed?)

While it may make debts easier to pay, it ultimately makes the money worthless. Inflation by printing more money to pay off obligations is what the Weimar Republic did, and we all know how well *that* worked out. With Obama looking like he can win the Presidency, the fringe lunatic end of the Republican Party is showing its vile, racist hatred (*). I only hope we in the U.S. don't wind up having to go to the grocery store with our money in wheelbarrows and simply having it weighed to determine if it is enough to pay, along with outlawing the possession of Euros and other stable currencies.

(*) Yes, I realize plenty of Republicans are not racists, but there is a lunatic fringe of Republicans who are both racist and violent. If they think they have nothing to lose, who knows what could happen.

Re:There's a surprise

[TooMuchToDo]

Wow, I love a system that promotes people to spend wildly and irresponsibly while penalizing those such as myself who live within my means and save quite a bit.

Re:There's a surprise

[TooMuchToDo]

Or, wait for the government to step in and say "We're rent controlling everything now".

Don't laugh, governments have been known to do far more crazy things.

Re:There's a surprise

[Foobar of Borg]

High wages and lower wealth concentration make for a strong middle class; which leads to lower crime, better education, and better economic diversification.

That thar sounds like Commernist talk to me! You wanna be lynched like one o' them thar Commernists? If you don't like it, leave!

Re:There's a surprise

[TheLink]

There's a big difference in the situation.

Saudi Arabia does not sell oil in marks (go figure how much USD the world needs to buy that oil every day). Wheat, edible oil, microchips, etc is not traded in marks.

China and huge numbers of countries around the world do not hold reserves and bonds in marks.

So when the USA prints money, the US Gov gets richer, the US citizens get poorer AND the rest of the world get slightly poorer (or a lot poorer - depending on how much the USA owes them ;) ).

Whereas if a country like Zimbabwe printed money, the Zimbabwe gov gets richer than the Zimbabwe citizens, and the rest of the world just watch Zimbabwe fall apart.

Now the thing is naughty Iran is selling oil in Euros, and Iraq also switched to the euro until they got invaded by the USA ;).

In the past the USA could print money easily without suffering the usual consequences, nowadays as more and more people are trading in Euro, it gets harder.

Re:There's a surprise

[moosesocks]

The Dollar, the Euro, and the Pound have all been tanking over the past few months.

In fact, the dollar's considerably better off right now than it was a year ago versus those currencies.

There's a huge problem, there's no doubt. However, it seems that all of the western nations are being hit by it at once.

Re:There's a surprise

[sjames]

There's a strong negative network effect in play there. Once the banks convince enough people to get in way over their heads, there is no option left for those who know better.

The silver lining in all of this is that those who really did know better may be able to pick up a home at fire sale prices (if they can avoid enough of the generalized economic damage). Unfortunately, those who knew better but had no choice get screwed along with those who had no clue. Meanwhile, the big banks behind it all get bailed out at everyone's expense (but theirs). Meanwhile, the biggest winners at the biggest banks whine that they might have to cut back to only 3 summer homes and 2 yachts

Perhaps we should reduce food bills by serving rotisserie banker w/ dollar sauce.

Fraud involving cheap labor?

[teknopurge]

No! It can't be! paying a resource 10k USD/yr to replace a 70k/yr resource offers a lot of incentive to skirt the rules. You would have thought that the sub-standard work would have been outrageous enough, but companies keep offshoring.....

Re:Fraud involving cheap labor?

[jacobsm]

Some companies find it cheaper to outsource the programming offshore with the expectation that the local staff will have to "fix" the program when it gets back to the USA.

It is still cheaper for companies to pay 10% of the prevailing wage oversees for 90% of the desired result and have a few highly paid talented programmers clean up the mess that they receive.

I have visions in my head of hundreds of programmers chained to their desks with taskmasters standing above them with whips shouting "Faster, code faster".

Re:Fraud involving cheap labor?

[CodeBuster]

I have visions in my head of hundreds of programmers chained to their desks with taskmasters standing above them with whips shouting "Faster, code faster".

The galley scene in Ben-Hur comes to mind...

Re:Fraud involving cheap labor?

[jacobsm]

Yep. The same scene comes to my mind also.

Re:Fraud involving cheap labor?

[shutdown -p now]

What does H1-B have to do with offshoring, and what H1-B worker gets paid 10k/yr?

Re:Fraud involving cheap labor?

[jacobsm]

Directly nothing, but it is the other side of the same coin. It is rational for a company to attempt to reduce the cost of doing business by hiring the cheapest labor possible.

However in the global race to the bottom the workers generally will suffer and the only winners will be those that already have most of the marbles.

Re:Fraud involving cheap labor?

[sauge]

It's not code faster...

It's "Work Harder! Work Longer! Work Faster!"

(Especially effective if said in Japanese accent.)

Why reform?

[plopez]

Just get rid of it.

There is no labor shortage to begin with in the first place:

http://www.cs.ucdavis.edu/~matloff/itaa.real.html

http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/85/essay.html

http://www.upenn.edu/researchatpenn/article.php?708&bus

http://techtoil.org/wiki/doku.php?id=articles:shortage_myth

Re:Why reform?

[visualight]

Troll? Do bad moderators suffer any consequences for blatant crap like this? A 'no mod points for you' list? Just curious.

Maybe someone will answer before I'm modded down offtopic :)

Re:Why reform?

[abigor]

Those are some excellent links, thanks for posting them. Why has the parent post been modded as a troll?

Re:Why reform?

[dkleinsc]

You may be modded down as off-topic, but the official answer to your question is found at http://slashdot.org/faq/metamod.shtml.

Re:Why reform?

[achacha]

Because some mod with an H1B fears the truth...

I always wondered...

[toby]

What those fake Internet diplomas were good for.

Re:I always wondered...

[CrazyJim1]

You all went to Hollywood Upstairs Medical College too?

Re:I always wondered...

[fartrader]

Phone Dr. Nick on 1-800-DOCTORB... The "B" is for bargain!

h1b and L1

[slmdmd]

People often mistake L1 to be H1. L1 is a visa for inter company transfer. It means any one can be employed at India/China office and then will be transferred to work in usa office. The Embassy interview for L1 is just a formality. There is virtually no educational qualification criteria/check for L1. So even a 12th pass guy comes in on L1 visa then he is posted at various clients. There is no limit on number of L1 visas. H1b's have a 65000 yearly limit. H1B embassy visa process is tough, education qualification is 16 years education plus experience. While we all are crying about h1b, the companies recruit any one with ok english in india, after working for 1 year in india they are sent here on L1. I have not heard of any rejections in L1 applications.

L1 is the loop hole. It is the top secret one. I agree that there are about 30% h1bs who fake their experience(h1b criteria is 16yr edu + 3 years minimum work exp or 15 yr edu + 6 years work, 1 year education = 3 year work). 90% people on L1 have 15 year education or less and just 1 year exp. In any economy downturn h1bs are the first to be fired because 90% of them work on corp to corp contracts which are very expensive. Example for a unix admin - 100+ per hour is paid by company A to vendor V, V keeps 35% and gives 65 to H1B holding company H, H pays about 30 to the employee who is new in USA or 40 if he is more than 2 years old in usa. H1b end up getting exploited till GC(6 to 8 years). L1s too get exploited but they are happy because they are rotated every year. So they have less expenses(no need to buy car or family home) in usa and carry all money as savings to india/china.
Since h1b corp to corp is expensive, candidate has to be really skilled, but some do manage by changing clients(A) every 3 to 6 months by slipping through a phone interview(some one else giving the phone int in their name). On being found out they are fired in 3 to 6 months. Yet they manage to settle in low tech areas like managing remedy tickets etc in about 2 years of hire-fire cycle. So in downturn, h1bs are fired first, then the citizen employee and are replaced by L1. L1's don't get overtime pay. They get about 3 to 4 k per month and yet that is a very good money because in india they get max 1k per month for 1+ year experience.

Re:h1b and L1

[infinite9]

Example for a unix admin - 100+ per hour is paid by company A to vendor V, V keeps 35% and gives 65 to H1B holding company H, H pays about 30 to the employee who is new in USA or 40 if he is more than 2 years old in usa. H1b end up getting exploited till GC(6 to 8 years). L1s too get exploited but they are happy because they are rotated every year. So they have less expenses(no need to buy car or family home) in usa and carry all money as savings to india/china.
Since h1b corp to corp is expensive, candidate has to be really skilled, but some do manage by changing clients(A) every 3 to 6 months by slipping through a phone interview(some one else giving the phone int in their name). On being found out they are fired in 3 to 6 months. Yet they manage to settle in low tech areas like managing remedy tickets etc in about 2 years of hire-fire cycle. So in downturn, h1bs are fired first, then the citizen employee and are replaced by L1. L1's don't get overtime pay. They get about 3 to 4 k per month and yet that is a very good money because in india they get max 1k per month for 1+ year experience.

None of this sounds right to me. I'm a 17 year IT consultant in chicago. What I've seen is that the majority of H1s can't find their ass. Typically two or three are needed to replace the american being fired. Obviously there are exceptions. But the vast majority are really quite useless. They're hired because upper management thinks IT workers are lego bricks. You can just unplug one and plug in another with no intangible cost to the company. Gardner told them so.

Also, the bill rate numbers you quote are way off. I've never seen an H1 anywhere hired for $100 an hour. I'd say $60 is pretty much max. Otherwise, why wouldn't the end client just hire an american? There's a financial incentive for the client to hire an H1.

Usually, there's no extra middleman for H1s. The consulting firm billing them out is host for the visa.

I agree that L1s are a huge loophole. But usually, they come in when an indian corporation like TCS (tata) comes in an takes over an entire IT department. Then they can place an army of indians at the client because the project manager probably works for TCS also. I seriously doubt consultants on L1 visas get sent alone to a client.

Re:h1b and L1

[slmdmd]

I've never seen an H1 anywhere hired for $100 an hour. I'd say $60 is pretty much max.

you are 17, that explains the above.

Lower wages

[wfstanle]

"On the other hand lower wages make the US' economy more competitive"

If this is true, why don't the CEO's set the trend by taking less? I'm not asking for a lot, just limit you total compensation (salary & bonuses) to something reasonable like a million dollars per year. A million dollars is an amount that many people can't achieve in a lifetime but some CEOs get more than 100 million each year.

Re:Lower wages

[CodeBuster]

In a private company the owners or the stock holders decide, directly or indirectly via the board of directors, how much the CEO is paid and it is not just a matter of how much more the CEO is paid than the workers but rather what is best for the company. Someone has to be in charge or lead and you don't want that person to make bad decisions that loose value. So if the corporation has revenues of hundreds of millions of dollars per year what is 20 million to ensure that the most talented CEO available makes the best decisions possible? The difference between a good CEO and a bad one is many times the CEO's salary in revenue to the company. Now I agree that bad performance should not be rewarded, but as a shareholder I want the best possible return and if that means that the CEO has to be paid 20 or even 50 million, dependent upon revenue and performance, then so be it.

Re:Lower wages

[nicolas.kassis]

Yes because every CEO is a criminal. If they did commit fraud they should be prosecuted. Putting a limit on their earning is stupidity that won't resolve fraud. In fact if they get paid less their incentive to be thieves increases.

Re:Lower wages

[Z34107]

If this is true, why don't the CEO's set the trend by taking less?

Because CEOs are important. No board of directors wants to skimp on the CEO offerings, let they get a "cheap" one that runs their company in the ground.

But, there have to be some limits. While paying $dirt means you won't get a good CEO (even for large values of $dirt), paying $bucks doesn't guarantee you a good one, either. The idea is to pay CEOs for their performance, just like any other employee.

Problem is, how do you measure a CEOs performance? If a company has a great year, was it just because of a good economy? Would that year have been just as great if the CEO did nothing? How about if the company has a bad year? Is it the CEO's fault if oil prices quadruple and the financial markets tank? Do you just measure "attendance" and say "thanks for showing up - here's a check?"

Boards are getting better at this. CEO turnover is high, and the anti-"golden parachute" clause in the bailout bill has encouraged a lot of boards to axe those clauses. Even if they aren't subject to conditions of that bailout, they want to be seen as proactive so as to avoid more government intervention.

Re:Lower wages

[publiclurker]

You forgot to add the part where the board is usually composed of other CEO's and friends of the CEO, who happens, strangely enough, to be on the boards of these other CEO's companies. I personally wouldn't mind it so much that these guys were allowed to have their friends choose their salaries if the people who actually do the work had the same luxury.

Re:Lower wages

[Z34107]

As opposed to the expensive ones who have done the same?

Well, as I said, "paying $bucks doesn't guarantee you a good one, either." Boards have always been looking at pay-for-performance, but getting the "pay" part down better than the "performance" part.

But, if you pay dirt, you will get a bad CEO. If you overpay, you may get a bad CEO. The solution is high turnover, which is why boards are eager to get rid of "golden parachute" packages, especially with how the bailout bill was worded.

Re:Lower wages

[wfstanle]

"But, if you pay dirt, you will get a bad CEO. "

Who says so? I'm not saying pay them dirt (which is what the janitor gets) just pay them reasonably. 100 million does not guarantee that you will get a good CEO. Conversely, paying 1 million may get you a good one because you might get one that looks at things differently. Often the amount paid for someone (or something) is not related to the price you pay.

Re:Lower wages

[Mieckowski]

But, if you pay dirt, you will get a bad CEO.

I don't think anyone is talking about paying CEOs dirt here. Just, you know, moving it back closer to where it has been for years and years (and what it is still like in many other countries).

Is the best guy always going to say: "I'll do this job for $3 million a year, but if you pay me $2 million a year I'll walk away." Do you really want a guy that is so greedy that he would forget all his co-workers and probably move his family just so they could live in a $20 million dollar house (as opposed to a $10 million dollar house)? Someone to whom making as many $ for themselves in their overriding concern?

Or is he just asking his friends on the board of directors for a raise because another CEO is paid X and hey, it's free money?

I just can't believe that there wouldn't any competent people willing to do the job for reasonable pay.

Re:Lower wages

[TheRaven64]

Hell, I'd take a CEO job for under $1m[1], and there's no way I could do a worse job than, say, Carly Fiorina, and she got a $21m golden parachute (with HP's share price jumping 7% when it was announced that she was leaving).

[1] Actually, I'm not sure what I'd do with $1m - I don't seem to spend most of the money I earn even at the moment, but I'd take the job if it looked interesting.

Re:Lower wages

[CodeBuster]

The income which allows them to do those things comes from private sources or at least it should, although that is sadly not always the case for reasons which cannot be blamed entirely on the free market, so if you don't like the salary arrangements or those policies then don't invest in those companies and don't buy their products. Vote with your wallet if you must, be beware of the seductive promises of politicians to "punish" those in the private sector whom the public perceives as "evil doers" (i.e. class warfare). The first step towards tyranny is granting the government arbitrary power to "punish" those individuals who are unpopular amongst "the people". Today it might be the "right" person (the CEO who presided over the failing company), but tomorrow it might be you or someone you know who made a politically powerful enemy.

Re:Lower wages

[nabsltd]

Problem is, how do you measure a CEOs performance? If a company has a great year, was it just because of a good economy? Would that year have been just as great if the CEO did nothing? How about if the company has a bad year? Is it the CEO's fault if oil prices quadruple and the financial markets tank?

As for "what if the market tanks?", well, you are paying a good CEO to be in front of such things, and allowing the company to continue its success.

Although measuring performance in meaningful ways might be difficult, there are obviously ways like profit, etc. But, there really isn't any need to be accurate if you demand true accountability for anything that happened on during the tenure of the CEO. So, if Joe in shipping screwed up and lost the company a boatload of money, the CEO is ultimately to blame, because it happened on his watch. Likewise, if the company succeeds by some measure (whatever that may be), the CEO should get the benefit.

If you start CEOs with "living wages" (i.e., anywhere from $200-300K up to at most 1% of the company net profit) but have incentives that can give them something to shoot for, you end up with better performance. In addition, you have to tie the performance to long-term viability of the company, so awarding stock options is good, but those "performance" options need to have a significant portion vest quite a few years out, so that if the CEO tries to pull stunts that raise the stock price for now but hurt the company in the long run, they don't benefit.

Re:Lower wages

[Achromatic1978]

AIG's CEO, even as we we were bailing them out to the tune of $85B, went to the compensation committee, and asked for "performance bonuses" for several key execs, including $5M for himself, and was given it. Not exactly sure what the performance was, other than "successfully persuading the government to dig us out of the clusterfuck we got into"...

Re:Lower wages

[Achromatic1978]

Nice, fanboy. "Pay" != "Salary". How's that private jet that they gave Steve working out? I'm sure that wasn't free.

Re:Lower wages

[kadehje]

American Express has an idea where certain incentives in the CEO's pay package don't kick in unless the company outperforms its competitors or the market as a whole. That way, if good times flush the entire industry with cash and American Express is just along for the ride, the executives don't get a windfall bonus (though the base compensation is still at levels most of us on Slashdot can only dream about). If American Express turns a small profit (relative to what the company has posted in rich times) during this upcoming recession as the rest of the industry gets flooded in red ink, he'll be paid for his superior performance.

Most people won't begrudge a truly innovative CEO that provided long-term growth in shareholder value getting paid tens of millions for his performance. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs are prime examples of being handsomely rewarded for creating billions of dollars of shareholder value and in the latter case returning Apple to profitability after years of what seemed to be a death spiral. What pisses people off and what capitalism is supposed to discourage is getting paid that kind of money for poor performance as a CEO's company gets clobbered by competitors and kareens towards bankruptcy. An untrained monkey probably could have run Countrywide better than Angelo Mozilo in the past five years. Yet he walked away with over $100 million in stock sales. Countrywide just happened to be in the right place at the right time and when the party ended the company was forced to sell itself at a steep discount to its onetime value under threat of bankruptcy. And was Bob Nardelli really worth almost a quarter billion for having Home Depot have its market share raided by Lowe's and others? The fact that pay packages have continued to grow almost incessantly for decades with little correlation to corporate performance seems to indicate that the invisible hand of capitalism isn't influencing executive compensation committees like it's impacted almost the entire rest of the economy.

American Express' approach may not be perfect, but at least it seems to be a good-faith effort to tie its CEO's pay to quantitative measures of long-term growth. Hopefully they prove to be a model for the rest of corporate America in terms of how and for what a CEO gets paid.

Re:Lower wages

[Antique Geekmeister]

Unfortunately, the boards of directors of many multi-nationals have formed interlocking directorates, and divorced their memberships and selection of leadership from the rest of the stockholders. The result is a pyramid scheme of executive salaries, run by the privileged few jumping from golden parachute to golden parachute, and being told by their peers at that level that they are well worth it. And no, the difference between a CEO paid $1,000,000/year at a big company, and one paid $20,000,000/year, is usually nowhere near that large.

Re:Lower wages

[rtb61]

That statement is clearly untrue. As is always the nature with greed, it is insatiable. No matter how much they get paid they will always, I repeat, always want more and more and more. The biggest lie of all is that somehow paying a greedy person enough means they wont steal and that flies in the face of reality. If a persons sole motivation is greed, then logically not only will the work 24/7/365 to increase their salary by what ever means possible but they will also spend every free moment coming up with additional ways of lining their own pockets at the expense of the company, it's shareholders, it's employees and, it's customers.

So what you are really after is a person who takes pride in the quality of their work, who demonstrates a clear record of honour and integrity and who has the requisite skills, knowledge and experience. Here is a hint for hiring executives, any CEO etc. who is willing to rip off the customers to inflate the profits of their company is even more willing to rip off their company in their own favour and, if for a second you don't believe that to be true then you are allowing greed to blind good judgement.

In fact logically speaking keeping the salary of executives as low as possible whilst maintaining a strict review of qualifications and experience means you are more likely to attract executives who want to pursue the position for reason other than greed ie. job satisfaction, job challenge, they choose to in part define themselves by the qualities of the company they are a part of and in part pride of placement.

In fact greed is about the very worst motivation that you could use to attract a corporate executive, unless of course you are an existing company director specifically seeking executive officers who will assist you in stealing as much as possible from the shareholders and customers and how many times has that and is that happening, we all know the answer to that, all far to often.

Re:Lower wages

[mabhatter654]

this is the one reason why these banks should have failed... because when bankruptcy hits, executives get paid last... the bail out only prevents the very people that should be losing salary and stocks from losing.

Re:Lower wages

[publiclurker]

And if I'm opposed to slavery, I imagine you response is simply to not own any, but don't say anything to offend those that do. My wallet is currently being raided to pay for the greed and moral bankruptcy of your friends. As long as such ethically lacking individuals continue to wreck the lives of others, it is the duty of those others to reign them in. Just because you've deluded yourself into thinking you'll be one of the screwers instead of the screwed doesn't mean you will come out on the right side, and I really don't feel like having to bail out any additional Darwin candidates.

Re:Lower wages

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Hey, getting the company bailed out is pretty valuable.

Re:Lower wages

[ShakaUVM]

>>Do you really want a guy that is so greedy that he would forget all his co-workers and probably move his family just so they could live in a $20 million dollar house (as opposed to a $10 million dollar house)?

What you don't understand is that CEO salary pricing follows the superstar effect. Essentially, when there's a limited pool that people bid money on, the top end of that pool gets exponentially greater amounts of money. This is true for sports, musicians, CEOs, etc.

Besides, if a CEO can turn General Motors around (down 75% in the last couple years and in danger of being delisted from the Dow), isn't that worth $20M a year? Don't you want to hire the best guy possible with the greatest chance of achieving such a turnaround?

The problem is, Ford might want to hire the same guy, so his salary increases faster than what m naive people would expect.

Re:Lower wages

[CodeBuster]

Then don't bail them out and see what happens. I would be the first one to argue that our current debt based fiat money system is flawed in that it relies ultimately, for its security and stability, upon the competence and good will of men which history has shown to be in perpetual short supply. Unless you are advocating a replay of the Great Depression or worse then a bailout is inevitable as a consequence of the way that we have structured our present financial system. I understand your anger, truly I do, and I believe that much of the anger that you and our fellow Americans feels is due to incomplete understanding about how fiat money and debt actually works (it seems grossly unfair at first glance until one considers the alternatives which can be even more perverse and even less fair). Perhaps you disagree completely with founding principles of the present financial system and that is a legitimate, if minority, position in finance and economics, but blaming me and my friends for all your financial troubles misses the larger point that all men are imperfect and every financial system constructed by man is also by definition imperfect because it involves the men who created it. We didn't invent the game, but we are forced to play it along with everyone else. It is either that our we all pull out the swords again and settle it like our ancestors did, but I don't think that anyone really wants that.

Re:Lower wages

[CodeBuster]

Investors still have the power to effect or at least punish corporate boards, Carl Ichan specializes in reigning in out of control boards for example, but I agree that it can be difficult. As a small investor, without the sort of bankroll that would catch the attention of the board, I can only try to eek out the best return that I can and hope for the best. I do vote my proxies even though I suspect that it makes little difference, except perhaps when someone like Carl Ichan organizes an army of small investors to vote as a block with him at the shareholder meeting as Roy Disney did in an ultimately successful bid to force Michael Eisner to step down as CEO of the Walt Disney Corporation for example. If shareholders were better organized and took more responsibility for their investments then we wouldn't have so many problems without out of control boards and over the top executive compensation. The situation often gets out of control because the shareholders let it, not because the board can ultimately trump the shareholders.

Re:Lower wages

[sjames]

The companies DO have to be bailed out because we've allowed the economy to be too dependent on them. That doesn't mean we can't send the bill (and indictments) to the people who made huge profits at the expense of the country and it's citizens. It also need not be a cash grant, it can be a loan that will one day be called in with interest.

Re:Lower wages

[sjames]

Problem is, how do you measure a CEOs performance? If a company has a great year, was it just because of a good economy? Would that year have been just as great if the CEO did nothing? How about if the company has a bad year? Is it the CEO's fault if oil prices quadruple and the financial markets tank? Do you just measure "attendance" and say "thanks for showing up - here's a check?"

It's certainly not the workers' faults if the price of oil quadruples, but when they get their pink slip, they certainly do not get a golden parachute that could support a middle class family for life. Often, they don't get enough to support them even half decently while they look for work.

CEO is a big job (but not with nearly the big responsibility it's cracked up to have, the golden parachute sees to that as long as they don't break the law). However, it's NOT 200 times the job of anyone else (who if they mess up will be fired for cause and get no parachute at all. They'll be lucky to get their last paycheck on time).

I found it interesting that in the '80s all the directors and big finance people became Al "Chainsaw" Dunlap fanbois. The articles in the financial rags gushed over him like teen girl magazines writing about the latest boy band. They just didn't see that his bonus exceeded the savings after his HUGE payroll cuts and massive layoffs. They also didn't notice the series of companies that crumbled into ruin shortly after he deployed his golden parachute and raided the next employer. NOW they notice the financial shenanigans like stuffing the channels and booking the profits immediately only to have the massive overstock (and resulting non-existent sales) tank the company AFTER he's gone.

So naturally, after defrauding formerly large corporations like Sunbeam he's languishing ion some ghetto somewhere like the people he canned (er, um, laid off) right? WRONG. He's set for life. When he was finally caught, he had to fork over a tiny fraction of his take to buy a get out of jail free card, but that left him with PLENTY.

When Carly left HP, they were literally partying in the aisles but she had her next job lined up and ready to go.

So where do *I* sign up to work very hard for a year, then retire comfortably no matter how poorly I perform?

Re: Lower wages

[NickGnome]

"In a private company the owners or the stock holders decide, directly or indirectly via the board of directors, how much the CEO" Actually, if you'd watched the news over the last 8 years of so you'd known that nearly all of the C*Os and directors have thrown up barriers to stock-owners having any say in executive compensation. Yet, the stock-owners are nominally the owners of the corporation and should be determining the executives' compensation packages. Several academic studies have concluded that there is not a competitive market when it comes to executive compensation. Instead, it's a good ole boy network that log-rolls compensation packages ever higher, regardless of actual personal performance.

Re:Lower wages

[Antique Geekmeister]

Well, yes. Just as voters, journalists, and juries can affect law and government, investors can affect corporate fates. But the level of centralizing power and, as in the case of Michael Eisner and Carly Fiorina (formerly of HP), fraud and internal empire building can help divest shareholders of such power. It's an ongoing problem.

Re:Republicriminals? No Way!

[Anonymous Coward]

And this is why the government is out of control. People would rather blame "the other side" than call a spade a spade.

Re:Interesting that Biometrics isn't in use.

[X0563511]

It's not intended to stop fraud, it's intended to (best case) help catch the terrorists, or (worst case) make it look like they are trying to catch the terrorists.

Nevermind that simply not doing what pisses the terrorist-inclined populations would be a cheaper and safer path.

sure

[snarkh]

Let's make the rules even more complicated. Nothing helps to combat fraud and "technical violations" like some extra 70-80 pages of documents.

I met a waiter on an H1-B

[YesIAmAScript]

In fact, he said several of the waiters at this (unnamed) establishment were on H1-Bs. I believed him, but maybe I was too gullible.

For those who say H1-Bs are an excuse to pay low wages, I've hired several foreigners on H1-Bs, and they make a ton of money. They make more than the Americans I've hired (because they're more qualified) and a lot more than the TN-1 employees we have.

Re:I met a waiter on an H1-B

[johndmartiniii]

And this is honestly the point, isn't it? The folks that you have hired on H-1B's were willing to relocate (for whatever reason) and here they are, well-qualified, doing the jobs that they were hired to do.

Re:I met a waiter on an H1-B

[SL Baur]

In fact, he said several of the waiters at this (unnamed) establishment were on H1-Bs. I believed him, but maybe I was too gullible.

Actually, I would believe it. I've talked to such people who told me of their plans to do it and I've heard too many other related stories of OFWs that corroborate to disbelieve them all.

I'll bet you anything that 1) they had to pay for their job[1] and 2) they are not making anything near minimum wage.

[1] It's typical for an OFW (Overseas Filipino Worker and that's an official term) to pay the first two months wages to the agency that arranged the employment.

Re:Interesting that Biometrics isn't in use.

[AmazingRuss]

That cat is long out of the bag. You piss off 3 or 4 generations, and you become eternal evil in their mythology.

stings

[nomadic]

What they should do is run a continuing sting program, where undercover INS agents apply to jobs that these companies apparently can't find American applicants to fill.

You are racist and divisive.

[www.sorehands.com]

Saying that people from India are breaking the law and saying that people from India are brown is racist and divisive. So is saying that people who come into the USA illegally are illegal aliens.

So when that recruiter looking for

[www.sorehands.com]

So when that recruiter called me in 1988 looking for someone with 10 years of DOS programming was really a company trying to justify an H1B? Say it ain't so.

Make them buy stocks!

[hemp]

The least they could do is require H1-Bs to buy a portfolio of stocks and keep it all until they leave the country. I'm sure Wall Street would approve of this plan!

Re:Make them buy stocks!

[Arkem Beta]

Actually there's a different US visa for people who own American stocks. The E-2 Investment Visa is for people who have significant US investments(usually more than US$100,000) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-2_visa The visa is a non-immigrant visa valid for 1 year, renewable until the holder divests himself of the investments.

I don't think they understand what open source is.

[zmjjmz]

"independent open-source data" sounds more like them trying to open up the source code behind H-1B than what they probably mean, which is "citizen gathered information". I know that the OSS model kinda includes it, but open-source is becoming a buzzword again and is apparently being used incorrectly to describe community efforts.

ALL YOUR GENIUSES ARE BELONG TO US!

[linhares]

America has forgotten that it built its success on the back of the geniuses that migrated there. The Manhattan project, for one, is an example of America's prodigious talent-attraction while Germany was burning people down. Here's a quote from a Lexington piece:

when it comes to immigration they [congress] are doing exactly the opposite--trying their best to keep the world's best and brightest from darkening America's doors.

Consider the annual April Fool's joke played on applicants for H1B visas, which allow companies to sponsor highly-educated foreigners to work in America for three years or so. The powers-that-be have set the number of visas so low--at 85,000--that the annual allotment is taken up as soon as applications open on April 1st. America then deals with the mismatch between supply and demand in the worst possible way, allocating the visas by lottery. The result is that hundreds of thousands of highly qualified people--entrepreneurs who want to start companies, doctors who want to save lives, scientists who want to explore the frontiers of knowledge--are kept waiting on the spin of a roulette wheel and then, more often than not, denied the chance to work in the United States.

This is a policy of national self-sabotage. America has always thrived by attracting talent from the world. Some 70 or so of the 300 Americans who have won Nobel prizes since 1901 were immigrants. Great American companies such as Sun Microsystems, Intel and Google had immigrants among their founders. Immigrants continue to make an outsized contribution to the American economy. About a quarter of information technology (IT) firms in Silicon Valley were founded by Chinese and Indians. Some 40% of American PhDs in science and engineering go to immigrants. A similar proportion of all the patents filed in America are filed by foreigners.

These bright foreigners bring benefits to the whole of society. The foreigner-friendly IT sector has accounted for more than half of America's overall productivity growth since 1995. Foreigner-friendly universities and hospitals have been responsible for saving countless American cities from collapse. Bill Gates calculates, and respectable economists agree, that every foreigner who is given an H1B visa creates jobs for five regular Americans.

There was a time when ambitious foreigners had little choice but to put up with America's restrictive ways. Europe was sclerotic and India and China were poor and highly restrictive. But these days the rest of the world is opening up at precisely the time when America seems to be closing down. The booming economies of the developing world are sucking back talent that was once America's for the asking. About a third of immigrants who hold high-tech jobs in America are considering returning home. America's rivals are also rejigging their immigration systems to attract global talent.

Canada and Australia operate a widely emulated system that gives immigrants "points" for their educational qualifications. New Zealand allows some companies to hand out work visas along with job offers. Britain gives graduates of the world's top 50 business schools an automatic right to work in the country for a year. The European Union is contemplating introducing a system of "blue cards" that will give talented people a fast track to EU citizenship.

The United States is already paying a price for its failure to adjust to the new world. Talent-challenged technology companies are already being forced to export jobs abroad. Microsoft opened a software development centre in Canada in part because Canada's more liberal laws make it easier to recruit qualified people from around the world. This problem is only going to get worse if America's immigration restrictions are not lifted. The Labour Department projects that by 2014 there will be more than 2m job openings in science, technology and engineering, while the number of Americans g

Re:ALL YOUR GENIUSES ARE BELONG TO US!

[flyingsquid]

I agree completely. Yes, immigration does have its downsides. Letting in an additional 10,000 foreigners to work in or immigrate to the U.S. should, in the short term, increase competition. But the long-term payoff is potentially huge. If just one of those immigrants turns around and helps found a major company like Google (co-founded by Sergei Brin, whose parents immigrated from Russia when he was six) the job creation by that company, and indirect job creation caused by economic benefit to other companies, will vastly outweigh the short-term losses.

Unfortunately, we're losing sight of that because of post 9-11 hysteria. Yes, some of those foreigners might want to blow up your house. But I'll bet that the vast majority just want to work hard and to see their kids do better than they did. Ivy League schools are just packed with the children of immigrants for that reason. And I'd be willing to bet that the people who legally arrive in this country are vastly less likely to cause problems than the average American. We have no shortage of home-grown murderers, drug dealers, serial killers, sexual predators, white collar criminals and domestic terrorists... it's arguable that a group of carefully screened legal immigrants is vastly less of a threat to the American way of life than a group of average Americans.

Re:ALL YOUR GENIUSES ARE BELONG TO US!

[Anonymous Coward]

Talent-challenged technology companies are already being forced to export jobs abroad.

That statement right there is the flaw in your rationale.

Re:ALL YOUR GENIUSES ARE BELONG TO US!

[Anonymous Coward]

I completely agree... if we turned down educated and hard working immigrants, it'll hurt us more in the long term. The next administration needs to take a close look at the legal immigration process and should make it easier for an highly skilled immigrant to get permanent residency

Re:ALL YOUR GENIUSES ARE BELONG TO US!

[PPH]

The Manhattan project, for one, is an example of America's prodigious talent-attraction while Germany was burning people down.

The people that came over to support the Manhattan Project came and stayed. The H-1B visa program brings them over for 3 years, trains them to build nuclear weapons and then sends them back home to live in mud huts. Where they are oppressed by the politics of their former employers and eventually lash out against them.
 

Re:ALL YOUR GENIUSES ARE BELONG TO US!

[linhares]

But the long-term payoff is potentially huge. If just one of those immigrants turns around and helps found a major company,

Yes, of course. This would only be possible by an immigrant.

There are plenty, plenty of geniuses in America. However, these are fueled by their ideas, and by ideas that they get from abroad. Shut down the idea pipe, and the probability of new American geniuses drops. Recent policies NOT ONLY make it close to impossible to get a green card, but also make it ridiculously humiliating to go to a conference or visit a university. In the short run, nothing happens. In the long run, this shit backfires immensely. There is a real rush today between countries to get the best scientific talent, wherever it may be. I for one am Brazilian (thanks for your sympathy).... did you know I can apply for grants to the EU scientific agencies? That's how competitive things are: America makes my life extremely hard, while the EU and others say: if you can push the frontiers, we'll be proud to have you aboard.

What part of legal immigration dont you understand?

Re:ALL YOUR GENIUSES ARE BELONG TO US!

[Tuoqui]

The unfortunate thing is that none of these companies seem to be using the H-1B visa program for its intended purpose. Recruiting highly skilled, highly intelligent professionals from abroad.

You know what happens when an individual abuses a right or privilege they've been given... They lose it. It's about time that companies lose the privilege of H-1B visas.

Re:ALL YOUR GENIUSES ARE BELONG TO US!

[TheRaven64]

How many people are there in the USA? How many people are there in the world? If you assume random distribution of geniuses then each one has a 4.5% probability of being in the USA. Even if you restrict your search to people likely to have received the kind of education needed to foster creativity, you're only looking at, maybe, a 20% chance of being in the USA.

If you want America to be home to the big corporations that benefit the economy then you want to get a significant number of the remaining 80% of these people in to the USA so that they form the start-ups that go on to become companies like Google there. Otherwise you're going to find it increasingly hard to keep consuming over 25% of the worlds resources...

Re:ALL YOUR GENIUSES ARE BELONG TO US!

[Antique Geekmeister]

Or stay in Pakistan, selling nuclear technologies to North Korea, Iran, and anyone else with the cash. This isn't a racist jibe, it recent technological history.

Re:ALL YOUR GENIUSES ARE BELONG TO US!

[walterbyrd]

America has forgotten that it built its success on the back of the geniuses that migrated there.

1) There are at least 24 different work visas in the USA. Some are geared towards allowing the truly exceptional to work in the USA, the H-1B is not such a visa. Most H-1B are average students, right out of college, who work cheaper than Americans.

2) A lot of H-1Bs have fake credentials. It's a fact, even India is aware of it.

3) The H-1B is classified as a non-immigration visa. H-1Bs are not immigrants.

Eliminating the H-1B visa would hardly deny the USA any "Geniuses."

Re:ALL YOUR GENIUSES ARE BELONG TO US!

[Foobar of Borg]

Or stay in Pakistan, selling nuclear technologies to North Korea, Iran, and anyone else with the cash. This isn't a racist jibe, it recent technological history.

KKKHHHAAAAANNNNNN!!!!!

Re:ALL YOUR GENIUSES ARE BELONG TO US!

[linhares]

Heil-fucking-Hitler, you fucking troll.

Re:ALL YOUR GENIUSES ARE BELONG TO US!

[Kelbear]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsien_Hsue-shen

In earlier slashdot discussions on H-1B visas I was referred to the link above: We had a genius in the field of rocket science already working for us, then we kicked him out of the country from fear of immigrants. So he revolutionized China's missile program instead since he wasn't allowed to work here anymore.

Re:ALL YOUR GENIUSES ARE BELONG TO US!

[PPH]

Yeahbut....where do you think these people get the technology to begin with?

In Pakistan's case, AQ Khan worked (for a time) in Europe. OK, so it wasn't on an H-1B visa, but the European equivalent.

Its important to learn from our mistakes....so we'll recognize them when we make them again and again.

Re:ALL YOUR GENIUSES ARE BELONG TO US!

[ScrewMaster]

America has forgotten that it built its success on the back of the geniuses that migrated there.

Those geniuses came here and became Americans, became a part of us, gave us the benefit of their intellect. They did not come here to simply to improve their career options, or to earn some extra cash to send back home to their families. They came here because America meant something more to them, because this country would help them achieve that which their nations of origin would not. And, because they were giants among men, they were capable of doing great things. And yes, they gave back far more than we can ever repay, no-one in their right minds would deny that.

But (and this is a very big BUT) that does not mean everyone who would very much like to move here is another genius, or would be of any benefit to the United States at all. In fact, the vast majority of people that are trying hard to get into this country, through legitimate channels or otherwise, are not people of any particular value. That's just the way it is: 99% of everything is crud, and that applies to people as well. What you want is for America to share everything that it has built with anyone who wants it, regardless of whether they have anything to offer. Does that make even a smidgen of sense to you?

In any event, you're comparing apples to oranges. If you're a proponent of a borderless society, for unlimited immigration, you really need to find a better argument. This one isn't working. Look, all immigrants are not towering intellects: not even a significant fraction of them are. Neither are most Americans, for that matter. What you seem to be saying is that, because we might find that one gem amongst the rough stones, we should just let everyone in.

That's a morally bankrupt position to take, and I think you know it.

Re:Republicriminals? No Way!

[budgenator]

Not conservatives but Neocons, personally i don't see much difference between being anally probed by big government, big religion or big business; at the end of the day I feel violated and am expected to kowtow to the fuedal lord du jour.

Make sure Grigsby & Cohen and such feel pain.

[sethstorm]

For law firms that have used immigration law against citizens, I hope they make it hard if not nearly impossible for them to do "requirements that exclude every citizen by design" anymore.

There's nothing wrong with *legal* immigration

[SL Baur]

America has forgotten that it built its success on the back of the geniuses that migrated there.

Not really. The real problem is that certain people are blurring the distinction between legal and illegal immigration.

What really pisses me off in the current public "debates" regarding immigration and housing loans is that the people who are getting screwed the hardest are the ones who have obeyed the law and applied common sense.

That's just wrong.

Re:There's nothing wrong with *legal* immigration

[line-bundle]

Mod parent up (pretty) please!! (with sugar and a cherry on top).

Re:There's nothing wrong with *legal* immigration

[ScrewMaster]

America has forgotten that it built its success on the back of the geniuses that migrated there.

Not really. The real problem is that certain people are blurring the distinction between legal and illegal immigration.

Correct. I would further note that when anyone tries to point this out, they're immediately hit with the "racist" label. It's not racist to speak out about trends and policies that have a negative impact on you and yours. However, in the U.S. a powerful method of attacking an opponent's credibility is to cry "racist", whether they are or not (or whether it's germane to the discussion or not.)

It's happened to me here on Slashdot on several occasions, even though I'm a white guy who's getting married to an African woman. She earned her citizenship the right way, followed the rules ... and honestly finds any talk of amnesty or granting citizenship to illegal immigrants offensive. She had to prove herself to us ... why should millions of others get a free pass?

The answer to that question is easy: they should not. Period, end-of-statement. But a lot of people have a very confused idea about what immigration truly means to any country: it does not mean that you open your borders to anyone who wants in.

Many people from other countries (yes, Mexico, I'm talking about you) perceive America as a candy store. It's not though: it's a sovereign nation. What I want to know is, when did we lose that sovereignty? When did we, as a society, lose the right to determine who lives among us? All other nations on this Earth reserve that right. Why is America an exception, and if it is ... what do we out of it?

Re:There's nothing wrong with *legal* immigration

[dodobh]

The US pushed Free Trade on the rest of the world. Trouble is, a large portion of the rest of the world thinks that labour is a trade component, and not an immigration component. Part of the free trade game is that you reduce trade barriers. You have goods to sell, I have services to sell. Hence, the US is expected to reduce barriers in trading services, instead of goods.

The US has all rights to determine immigration policy. Trade policy, OTOH, is to be handled by trade agreements, and H1B visas are trade issues, not immigration issues.

Re:There's nothing wrong with *legal* immigration

[ScrewMaster]

I got modded troll for expressing a reasonable opinion on how discussions about illegal immigration are handled by those who want it ... which, I might add, pretty clearly reinforces my point.

Re:There's nothing wrong with *legal* immigration

[ScrewMaster]

The US pushed Free Trade on the rest of the world.

Yeah. Our bad.

Re:There's nothing wrong with *legal* immigration

[dodobh]

Well, free trade was essentially allowing US consumer goods to be imported by third world countries for cheap, while the US would be free to get cheaper raw materials from them.

Now the US has outsourced manufacturing to China, and the third world has mostly figured out that services are exportable too. In the US, time is valuable, money is cheap. In the third world, money is valuable, time is cheap. So you can have a trade of both, according to the same rules.

The employer gets cheaper time, the third world employee gets money, and if good enough, might even find it worth immigrating. It should be a win-win, except for those who are being undercut. Boohoo, our parents were undercut in the manufacturing segment by more efficient US technology, we are simply asking the US to play by the same rules.

Re:There's nothing wrong with *legal* immigration

[ScrewMaster]

Boohoo, our parents were undercut in the manufacturing segment by more efficient US technology, we are simply asking the US to play by the same rules.

Well ... why should we? No-one else is playing "fair" (whatever that means in the modern world.) In essence, what you're really asking is that one nation allow itself to be decimated by others, just that some arbitrary standard of fairness and equality can be maintained, so that our standard of living can be reduced substantially while yours is improved somewhat.

Really, that's not how the world works, ever has worked, or is ever likely to work. Truth to tell, the U.S. has played fairer than most: we've shared our economic prowess with more foreign aid than any country in the history of the world.

The only reason that third-world countries are able to do to us what they're doing now, is because we were sold out by our own leaders and politicians. Of course, that happens to all major economic and military powers eventually: history is pretty clear on that subject. I just didn't think that our time would come so soon.

Re:There's nothing wrong with *legal* immigration

[dodobh]

The question is whether "labour" is a trade good. The US claims it isn't, developing nations claim that labour is a trade good on the same scale as physical goods, or consulting services.

look at history

[linhares]

So if Einstein, von Newmann, Szilard, and a HUGE HOST OF Others had decided to build the A-Bomb for the fuhrer, America would have been just as successful during the past decades? PLEASE.... A nazi Germany with A-Bombs would have taken over Russia and Britain easily. America would be farther geographically, but after some mushrooms in the sky morale would be so low that surrender would be inevitable. Of course, gladly, we will never know. But to imagine that it's good policy to keep out the most talented people in the globe is to repeat but one of Hitler's mistakes. Ok, I get the Goodwin prize today, I guess.

Re:look at history

[ScrewMaster]

That entire HUGE HOST of others that are speaking about would be dwarfed in terms of numbers by a single year's worth of H1B's. Your argument is specious: all the guest workers are not Einsteins. The whole point of this article is that many of them are not only not Einsteins, but nowhere near as educated and useful as they say they are.

Get a grip. This is about corporations wanting cheaper labor, and about corrupt politicians aiding and abetting them. It's not about immigration, not about improving our society by bringing in worthy people from other cultures and assimilating them into our own. Not by a long shot.

Furthermore, if it were about immigration, we'd be perfectly justified (by your own logic) in being selective as hell and only allowing the best and brightest of those people to work and live in our country. But we don't: we just want them cheap. Period. If they happen to be good, fine. If not ... why, that's fine too, so long as they work cheap enough to justify firing the domestic workforce. What, you think quality is an issue here? Are you blind?

You can't put a price on an Einstein, or a Tesla, or any of the other great men who came to this great nation and more than repaid our generosity. You can, however, put a price on yet another Unix server admin, database consultant or Web developer.

And that is what this is about. Don't try to make it any grander or more poetic than it is. It's down and dirty politics and money-grubbing, and none of your references to intellectually accomplished immigrants will ever change that.

Re:look at history

[Eli Gottlieb]

Einstein would never have helped build the a-bomb for the Fuhrer. The Fuhrer would have exterminated Einstein with all the other Jews.

Re:look at history

[sjames]

Note that they were not granted temporary visas to work here for a few years, they were granted full immigration. They came here to stay. (and they did stay).

It might not have worked so well if the offer had been come here for 4 years to work for less than you're worth and then out you go.

H-1B?

[Kennego]

If you're like me and have no idea what H-1B is, wikipedia has you covered:

"The H-1B is a non-immigrant visa in the United States... It allows U.S. employers to employ foreign guest workers in specialty occupations."

From an actual H1B holder

[MarkKnopfler]

I have been living in the US for less than a year now. I have been working for more than ten years. This is the first time that I have been living in the US. Here is what I think of the whole matter.

1. The H1B program, in spirit is a wonderful, clever thing. I have lived and worked in Europe, Japan and India. I love to travel and take in new experiences. Thanks to the H1 program, it allows for me to actually live and work here. In all honesty, it has been a great experience.

2. The H1B program allows for _american_ companies to actually fill in a labour gap as and when required.

3. Does the H1B program get abused as the article states ? Absolutely. I have seen it happen myself. There are huge number of shell companies ( called consultants ) out there who are absolutely flooding the H1B channels with applications for requirements which do not exist. The article is spot-on with its observations. The biggest victim of this whole thing however is the H1B program. Due to this channel-stuffing, legitimate american companies cannot actually recruit an employee when it is _really_ required since the quota has already been filled by fraudulent/redundant applications. These redundant and fraudulent applications really really need to be stopped for the H1B program to actually deliver what it actually set out to deliver.

4. There is a lot of talk about salaries and cost, and this is what I think. The H1B program is a cleverly crafted law in some ways. The H1 application belongs to the employee and and not the employer. The employee is free to change his employers as and when he or she wants to. If an employee thinks that he is being paid less than the market value, he or she is free to seek out an employer who will pay him as much as he or she deserves. The free market will, at the end of the day take care of it. Also if there is a company which pays its employees based on his legal status and not his skills and ability, please do not consider working for it, whatever might be your legal status.

5. In my professional career, I have worked with some of the biggest bozos and some of the most exquisitely talented engineers. Race or geographical location had absolutely nothing to do with their abilities. There are smart people and idiots everywhere. Supposing that a H1B worker to be inferior in terms of ability, is not a very clever viewpoint.

Re:From an actual H1B holder

[Skapare]

1. The H1B program, in spirit is a wonderful, clever thing. I have lived and worked in Europe, Japan and India. I love to travel and take in new experiences. Thanks to the H1 program, it allows for me to actually live and work here. In all honesty, it has been a great experience.

I think it's great you can travel around the world and work in different places.

2. The H1B program allows for _american_ companies to actually fill in a labour gap as and when required.

The problem here is that MOST of those hired via the H-1B program are not hired to fill a labour gap, per se. Instead, they are hired to fill in a gap of people who are willing to work for substandard pay levels, and work extreme workloads and longer hours.

3. Does the H1B program get abused as the article states ? Absolutely. I have seen it happen myself. There are huge number of shell companies ( called consultants ) out there who are absolutely flooding the H1B channels with applications for requirements which do not exist. The article is spot-on with its observations. The biggest victim of this whole thing however is the H1B program. Due to this channel-stuffing, legitimate american companies cannot actually recruit an employee when it is _really_ required since the quota has already been filled by fraudulent/redundant applications. These redundant and fraudulent applications really really need to be stopped for the H1B program to actually deliver what it actually set out to deliver.

Not all of the abuse is like this. In one case I know of in the past, a major american company primarily involved in high-technology engineering and manufacturing hired someone for a position as a Unix system administrator, despite a few dozen of them in that city being available for work (who were presumably US citizens). It turns out the person actually hired did have a graduate degree in a field unrelated to computers or engineering. She was then trained on Unix system administrator by that company, and she also sought out outside help to speed up her learning of Unix system administration. That's how I ended up meeting her.

The problem here is that this major company knew what they were doing. If they really had a true need for people in very specialized fields for which the supply of skilled and experienced people here had been exhausted, they would not have been trying to hire someone for a Unix system administrator job (which has an abundant supply of people available in large and small cities, and has for at least a decade).

4. There is a lot of talk about salaries and cost, and this is what I think. The H1B program is a cleverly crafted law in some ways. The H1 application belongs to the employee and and not the employer. The employee is free to change his employers as and when he or she wants to. If an employee thinks that he is being paid less than the market value, he or she is free to seek out an employer who will pay him as much as he or she deserves. The free market will, at the end of the day take care of it. Also if there is a company which pays its employees based on his legal status and not his skills and ability, please do not consider working for it, whatever might be your legal status.

This is not true. If someone with an H-1B visa is let go from their current job, they have a finite period of time to find a new employer who can sponsor them before their visa expires. The visa lets them in the country. The sponsorship is required for the visa to remain valid. Maybe they can work at any job for the month or two they are allowed to stay when losing sponsorship. But they must find that sponsorship by a deadline to keep the visa.

Apparently, part of the big picture of abuse is that the "recruiting companies" that they get their work through is carrying out some fraudulent practices to keep them here. The shell companies may be part of that. That fact is, the free mark

Re:From an actual H1B holder

[tempestdata]

You've hit the nail on the head. The people most affected by H-1B visa abuse are legitimate H-1B visa applicants.

Re:From an actual H1B holder

[Antique Geekmeister]

They're hit the worst, but I've seen several vendors using imported labor doing long hours and unpaid overtime that Americans would flat-out refuse because it would ruin the quality of the work. Their turnover of American personnel was amazing, and the fraud going on with second jobs done on company time by some of the H-1B owners was amazing, too. (As I understand it, H-1B workers are allowed only one job.)

Re:From an actual H1B holder

[gorbachev]

"When someone on an H1-B (I was, for 6 years) is laidoff, they are immediately "out of status" and technically required to pack up and leave. The 'visa' remains valid. So can go back to their home country, find another sponsor and return."

You're correct that H1-B visa holders are immediately out of status, if they lose the job they were sponsored for.

However, from what I can remember last time I looked into this, there is a USCIS memo about the grace period during which the H1-B visa holder can seek for other employment while still staying in the country. Basically it's saying that even though the law is black and white (and works the way you described it), actual policy by USCIS doesn't follow the law to the letter and does allow the H1-B visa holders to stay in the country for a short period of time while arranging for a transfer of the H1-B visa.

Another thing is that you don't technically need a brand new H1-B visa to switch jobs, if you've been laid off. You can get away with transferring the existing visa to another employer. The process is much faster than the actual application process and is not subject to the annual visa quotas. You're, however, still subject to the 3+3 year limit on the visa.

H-1B workers are NOT "immigrants"

[Tablizer]

There is a big flaw in your reasoning. H-1B workers are NOT "immigrants". They are "guest workers". Thus, your founder examples are misleading. If they were made immigrants, maybe companies would not treat them like indentured servants.

Further, even if visa workers benefit the average person in the US (perhaps disputable), it may still hurt those in *specific* careers. Foreign cars don't help factory workers in Detroit, for example, even if it benefited car consumers in general.
     

Re:H-1B workers are NOT "immigrants"

[fartrader]

You are correct, it's a non-immigrant visa, but it has the capability to lead to a green card with sponsorship which many other types do not have ... and just to correct you, it's a "specialist worker program" not "guest worker". Guest worker is a term typically applied to people who undertake non-specialist labor such as farm labor work at harvest time, these are not eligible to become immigrants. To have a H-1B you need a degree in the field relevant to the job you are applying for (or 12 years expertise).

Re:H-1B workers are NOT "immigrants"

[BBF_BBF]

There is a big flaw in your reasoning. H-1B workers are NOT "immigrants". They are "guest workers".

For somebody pointing out "flaws" in others logic you're quite ignorant about how the US employment sponsored Green Card (resident alien) process works.

Working in the US with a H-1B "guest worker" Visa is the first step in the process. It's strange that obtaining a "non-immigrant" Visa is the first step to getting "resident" status, but that's how the process set up by the US government works.

Once a worker has an H-1B, then a whole bunch of paper work and additional vetting needs to be done before he/she gets an Employment Authorization Card that replaces the H-1B work visa, then after another period and more vetting, he/she finally gets a Resident Alien Card (Green Card). After 5 years, that person can then apply for US Citizenship. (Note at any stage, the candidate can be rejected.)

Note that the path for residency through marriage is quite different and quite a bit easier and quicker.

Re:H-1B workers are NOT "immigrants"

[p0tat03]

And this is where the USA is reaping what is sows. By making the first-step a non-resident visa the government is simply encouraging companies to abuse their position as H-1B employers. As a soon-to-be H1-B (if all goes to plan) I dread the thought that my employer will be able to lord this over my head for 4-5 years before I get a Green Card and am "free".

The American government needs to offer a direct-to-PR track for skilled immigrants. While my employer seems to treat H-1Bs no differently than domestic employees, I know many companies that will work the employee like a dog while they can.

Re:H-1B workers are NOT "immigrants"

[Tablizer]

You are correct, it's a non-immigrant visa, but it has the capability to lead to a green card with sponsorship which many other types do not have

But if the point is to allow "in" more *entrepreneurs*, which seems to be what you were highlighting, there are better ways to go about it.
     

Re:H-1B workers are NOT "immigrants"

[Tablizer]

Guest worker is a term typically applied to people who undertake non-specialist labor...

I've heard it used in conjunction with H-1B's many times, and Google will confirm such. Whether its technically correct to do that or not, I don't know. It may not even have a formal/official definition. Many definitions are defined by usage, not a standards body.
     

Re:H-1B workers are NOT "immigrants"

[Beetle B.]

There is a big flaw in your reasoning. H-1B workers are NOT "immigrants". They are "guest workers". Thus, your founder examples are misleading. If they were made immigrants, maybe companies would not treat them like indentured servants.

Most become green card holders.

Re:H-1B workers are NOT "immigrants"

[Foobar of Borg]

There is a big flaw in your reasoning. H-1B workers are NOT "immigrants". They are "guest workers". Thus, your founder examples are misleading. If they were made immigrants, maybe companies would not treat them like indentured servants.

Very true. My friends from China who actually try to *stay* in America tend to get about the same wages that Americans do. It's the H-1B visa holders that are treated like disposable commodities.

McCain let me pull his finger. It came off.

:-p

Re:H-1B workers are NOT "immigrants"

[p0tat03]

There's no shortage of domestic labor, so why should they bother?

But there is. But even assuming that there isn't, the US is in a precarious position in the world right now. It is in genuine danger of being overshadowed by the likes of China and a reborn Russia. In order for the US to remain competitive in the long term, it is imperative that they steal all available talent from other countries. Would you rather have the smart coders working for you or for China?

I've seen the numbers before. The H-1B program does suffer a lot of abuse. About half of the people are paid below their American counterparts, and are imported by a handful of Indian companies (no discrimination intended, this is simply what the numbers say). I say we ban the H-1B privileges of such companies. I have worked with some VERY smart H-1Bs, who are getting paid very, very well, and treated like valued talent instead of cattle. This is the way the H-1B program should be.

Re:H-1B workers are NOT "immigrants"

[Fujisawa Sensei]

And this is where the USA is reaping what is sows. By making the first-step a non-resident visa the government is simply encouraging companies to abuse their position as H-1B employers. As a soon-to-be H1-B (if all goes to plan) I dread the thought that my employer will be able to lord this over my head for 4-5 years before I get a Green Card and am "free".

The American government needs to offer a direct-to-PR track for skilled immigrants. While my employer seems to treat H-1Bs no differently than domestic employees, I know many companies that will work the employee like a dog while they can.

But you are free. You are free to get on a plane and fly back home anytime you want to.

Re:H-1B workers are NOT "immigrants"

[sjames]

A great many of the abuses seen in the H-1B program would go away if instead, it was a green card (not just possibly leading to one). You can't tell me that there will be no abuses when a company can not only fire but effectively deport an employee that doesn't meet their every demand.

An immigrant is in a very different situation than an H-1B worker. The immigrant is working to build a life HERE and form ties HERE. He will not be willing to tough out an unsustainable living situation in order to take home (at the end of his employment) what will be a fairly large reward once the exchange rate and cost of living is factored in.

Re:H-1B workers are NOT "immigrants"

[p0tat03]

But you are free. You are free to get on a plane and fly back home anytime you want to.

Of course we are. But conditions back home are far worse than being treated like cattle in the US. Really, the *true* losers in the H-1B situation are Americans. Many H-1Bs will gladly be worked like a dog and be paid a pittance in exchange for the opportunity of raising their family in America... to them it's merely a price to be paid for opportunity.

This, of course, depresses wages, and results in worse working environments for domestic workers. But instead of being xenophobic idiots, there's a better way to solve this situation: make a direct-to-residence immigration track designed to import talent into the US. People who desire opportunity are now no longer chained to a single company for 4-5 years, and employers have more incentive to treat their foreign workers with some respect and dignity.

Or... we can just get rid of the H-1B program and let the USA sink into obscurity. Do you even know *how* many insanely smart people China is graduating every year? Do you comprehend how dire of a situation the US is in with regards to global competitiveness? The survival and continued prosperity of the US *hinges* upon the mass importation of talent, not only to bolster its own strength, but to weaken its competitors.

Re:H-1B workers are NOT "immigrants"

[NickGnome]

"You are correct, it's a non-immigrant visa, but it has the capability to lead to a green card with sponsorship"

This was not always the case, and serves as a good example of the creeping worsening of the H-1B visa program. At first, applicants were required to show that they owned property or had other anchors to their nation of origin, and were required to swear or affirm that they had no intention of immigrating.

Now, they're "dual intent", meaning that you can apply for a green card.

But only a tiny fraction of H-1B guest-workers are sponsored for green cards... and even they are under-paid and generally far short of "best and brightest".

Right, ain't NO SHORTAGE

[Tablizer]

Amen! Mod parent up to the clouds. There is no objective evidence of a "shortage". It is a lobbyist gimmick for cheap labor pure and simple.

Sure, some companies complain about finding an exact fit, but that's because they are unrealistically expecting an exact fit. Pay for somebody smart and flexible enough to adapt.

Re:Right, ain't NO SHORTAGE

[Dusty101]

And widespread thinking like the parent post is why America's losing the high ground globally. You'd be throwing out the baby with the bathwater, unless you're prepared to start offering naturalization or a fast-tracked green card from the get-go as an alternative. Not that either of those options would ever be similarly abused, of course...

I am currently on an H-1B, hired for a scientific research & facility operations position requiring a lot of particularly specialized skills (I have a Ph.D. & came into the job with more than 5 years' postdoctoral experience). I beat out a bunch of US nationals fair & square (I know, because I met several of the shortlisted ones during the interview process). My employers deemed me to be the best-suited applicant in a standard interview process, so I got the job, paid at the same going rate as any US citizen. In practice, hiring me probably actually cost the employer MORE than a US citizen, due to the need to pay the extra fast-tracking fees for the H-1B visa & so on.

So, while I've no doubt that there are some companies & individuals abusing the system, I take issue with the ill-founded assumption that just because I'm on an H-1B, I was hired as "cheap labor".

Re:Right, ain't NO SHORTAGE

[visualight]

After a few years of paying attention, I've met H-1B's that I know were brilliant and (I assume) expensive. I've also met some that were clearly cheaper skilled labor. I expect that most people who are looking will have the same experience, and I expect that most people who know enough to look are also smart enough to know that their own singular observations are not sufficient to conclude there is a majority of one kind or the other.

It may be that those who merely read a headline and draw a conclusion have an unfounded bias, but really most people posting on slashdot are working "in the industry" so they should be...

nevermind.

Re:Right, ain't NO SHORTAGE

[Tablizer]

I think you are missing the point. The concept is sold to Congress and American voters as a solution to a "shortage". This is the reason its allowed to exist. However, there are very few safeguards to guarantee it is actually being used for such. I've seen it being abused (used outside of purpose) with my own eyes, so I know it happens.

The H-1B-using companies may be shooting themselves in the foot by permitting misuse, giving the whole kitten kabootal a bad name.
     

Re:Right, ain't NO SHORTAGE

[mrchaotica]

I guess your Ph.D. wasn't in statistics, because otherwise you'd understand that you are the EXCEPTION, not the rule!

You can get a degree in collage?

[janrinok]

....for the career my collage degree is in....

Look, I can accept a degree in art, but one which covers only collage seems to be rather limited. Does it include the use of different adhesives to stick the pictures to your chosen background? Do you study the pros and cons of using dried leaves as opposed to, say, petals or seed pods?

OK, I'm sorry, but it just made me chuckle to read what you had written.

Re:Dunno about your intentions on posting, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey seth: you are a bigot.

Re:Grrr! Stop stereotyping!

[cs668]

With your masters you should be smart enough to know that not everyone falls within the standard deviation....

Your not typical and if you think you are your not being honest with yourself. There are some older, experienced, legitimate H-1B workers. I never said there were not. But, the vast majority of them are fresh from school and drive down the prevailing wage.

Doing the math for fines

[Skapare]

97000 applications times 21 percent comes to 20370 cases that businesses need to be fined. Now I'll pick a totally random number of 700 billion dollars, and divide it by 20370. Each business involved should be fined 34,364,261 dollars and 18 cents per bad application.

Re:Doing the math for fines

[xero314]

Nice governmental bailout plan, I totally support it. But you are only taking into account one year of H-1Bs and this has been happening since the H-1B program was started. So my totally random guess would be that we can make this a lot cheaper of the businesses committing fraud, maybe even as low as a few thousand per violation. If they share the fines with the recruiters, and legal firms helping to perpetuate the fraud and it should a reasonable fine. But alas, the chance of some major corporate in the US being fined for fraudulent activity is pretty slim.

Re:Grrr! Stop stereotyping!

[megaditto]

The bottom line is, there are US citizens who can do your job. Get the fuck out and go back to your socialist paradise.

Right, and people that can do his job already have a job.

You might be confusing employment with entitlement. Personally, I already pay more in taxes than an average person earns a year; I don't owe you a job on top.

The Crimson Permenant IT Job Shop.

[HornWumpus]

AKA EDS

Re:Dunno about your intentions on posting, but...

[fartrader]

When citizenship is no longer burdened by labor consultants that abuse this, then immigration can be considered. Otherwise:

Stay Home.

Naaah. I graduated out of the H-1B program, got a green card, applied for citizenship and married an American. I intend to take over your population with hybrid half UK/US citizens. My invincible army is already TWO strong. We'll own all your jobs, and fill your TV channels with cricket and endless re-runs of "Are You Being Served".

Re:Grrr! Stop stereotyping!

[KGIII]

Your post doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

First you say it is a crappy salary.

You then say that there are citizens who can do the job.

The question is, will they do the job for that salary? The answer is no.

Looking for the largest profit margin (not doing the Right Thing®) is what businesses do generally. H-1B, fraud notwithstanding, doesn't mean that the importing of talent is unacceptable.

Re:Dunno about your intentions on posting, but...

[KudyardRipling]

What else? Make the land-line telephones go RING-RING....RING-RING...RING-RING...? Farce us to watch Coronation Street? Drive on the left side of the road? Install more surveillance cameras?

I can hear it now: "I for one welcome our stiff upper lipped overlords!"

Misuse of "open source"

[ajs]

I very much doubt that this is a correct use of "open source". The government refers to purchasing large numbers of something (or a contracted service) as "sourcing," so I suspect that what they mean is that they'll buy information from whoever's selling it, not that they're opening the process to the public in a way that could be likened to the open source development model.

Re:Dunno about your intentions on posting, but...

[thelexx]

Hey Anon, you're an idiot.

Why bother now?

[Wansu]

After almost 2 decades of ignoring the problems caused by the H1-B program, now they decide there's fraud and abuse. Oh well, better late than never but the damage is done. They're shutting the barn door after the horse has run off.

Is it safe...?

[OldHawk777]

Do you feel safe?
Are we safe yet?
I am not safe?

Damn, is "SAFE" a four letter word, or politician PC acronym speak?

Global businesses in the USA need "Save American Foreign Employees (SAFE)" H-1B visas for affordable Home Land Security contracts.

In other news

[billcopc]

Stay tuned to WFUK News for a tonight's breaking story: Government officials find air in the sky!

I'm Kent Brockman, and that's news to me!

How about real abusers like Wipro, Infosys etc?

[alexmin]

Being former H1B holder myself I believe that on average the program is benefiting U.S. Sure, there are well known problems but the program largely fulfills it's purpose - to bring smart and energetic young people to America (unlike visitor visa H1B DOES imply immigration intent.) Think of billions saved on their education for starters.

However some big outsourcing companies have been subverting the program for years. They fill tens of thousand application only to bring their overseas employees temporarily, pick up brains and send them back after a year or two. Not only this violates spirit of H1B program but also denies other businesses a chance to hire overseas talent. That's what in fact brought about recent student visa extension.

P.S. Europe currently getting close to cloning H1B with their "Blue card" program. Probably because H1B suck so much? ?-/

Re:Dunno about your intentions on posting, but...

[billcopc]

So Seth, would you care to share your family tree with us so we can point out exactly where your lineage comes from and the date on which they emigrated to the USA ?

Unless you run around with a feather in your hair and an axe in your hand, you're as much a foreigner as all of us. Or would you rather be living under the British Monarchy ?

The H-1B program is screwed up, there's no doubt about it. Don't blame the workers, blame the government, and when you're doing whining, try to think of things you can do about it, like writing letters to your MP, or setting up a support group for foreign workers so they don't let themselves be used and abused by the system.

You know, constructive things.

Immigrants once came to the US for opportunity

[stbill79]

though now, I'm willing to bet that bright Americans may be looking to do the same and flee the US for better opportunites in Europe, Asia, and Latin America. Anyone with a feel for numbers need only look at the debt being hoisted onto young Americans via Social Security, Medicare, etc. The system is nothing more than a huge pyramid, and the sucker on the bottom (Gen x, y, millenials) will be the ones left to pay. Add on a few trillion more to bail out Wall Street, foreign wars and other adventures, defecits, etc. and the average young worker in the US starts their career out already in the hole for half a million dollars.

One needs only look to other countries (e.g. Chile, Argentina, Russia) that have had this same problem recently, and the conclusion is that those that are bright will see the writing on the wall and look for greener pastures abroad.

The ironic thing is that the typical American loves to spout the mantra about how immigrants left their facist and corrupt homelands in 'Old Europe' in exchange for the freedom and liberty of America. Work hard and you'll do better here was how the story was sold. Of course, when young Americans realize they've been sold out and decide to do the same thing, they'll be labeled terrorists and traitors by the Boomers who need them to support their retirements...

Re:Immigrants once came to the US for opportunity

[alexmin]

"... look for greener pastures abroad" - and that would be where?

Baby boomers have nothing to fear. Not now at least. That's why we are getting saddled with all that debt.

It is called sarcasm.

[www.sorehands.com]

The illegal alien supporters commonly use these arguments. Of course, the commonly use the term "undocumented immigrant" and other such crap. Or saying that a majority of illegal aliens are Mexican is racist. What I think is funny is Fox railing against the USA enforcing the borders, where Mexico, while under his rule was much more strict when it came to enforcement.

We need free trade in labor!!

[EccentricAnomaly]

I want to be able to open up the doors on the messed-up US immigration system and bring more talent into the US. Because that talent creates wealth, here in the US, where I live. I also want to open it up to unskilled laborers because hard work creates wealth too.

But on the other side I want to be able to move to other countries and have rights to own properties and have the same legal rights as natives there. I want to be entitled to basic human rights and rights to the property that I bring with me. In return, I'll bring money with me, when I retire, to places like Mexico. Or maybe I'll work from home and move south from LA to Baja and make my money go further. And I'll take that money that I bring with me, and I'll spend it. And if other Americans come with me, that will pump lots of money into depressed areas.

If we have free trade in goods with NAFTA, why can't we have free trade in labor??

Cost of living

[phorm]

At some point though, with the rise of housing costs, getting a barely-affordable loan VS renting becomes almost academic. In a lot of places housing became a seller's market. That in turn led to massive price inflation. Price inflation of purchases led to price inflation of rentals. So in some cases, you can barely afford to rent, you can barely afford to buy, and you go with buy because at least in that case you're hoping to end up with something tangible.

Re:Cost of living

[cs668]

Not in Minnesota.

Rent has not increased in years. Actually now that housing starts are down rent is slowly starting to creep up.

Try Canada

[phorm]

OK, so I'm Canadian. I'm not really sure how things compared between Canada and the US, but I'd imagine that there's some relation.

First of all, my girlfriend is from China, but carries a strong education and multiple (non basket-weaving) degrees. She was able to come over without the usual wait-periods, and should hopefully be able to pick up a good job.

However, among many people I know through her, few of the immigrants have much of an education. Many have been around long enough to be landed, but they've little useful education, and thus are not working (rather they're now existing on student loans). In other cases they're working, but likely doing so "under the table" and thus not paying taxes. From what I've seen in the last several years, this happens *A LOT*

So for all of us paying taxes, how many have moved to Canada and are now living off of loans or untaxed income. How is that helpful to the country.

So with the above, the taxpayers are getting screwed...

Next...

My girlfriend has had issues finding a decent job. After upgrading her english courses, her english is good, but "booky" so in the initial stages it was like she was reciting from a text and getting the inflections or some pronunciation wrong (better than I could likely hope for learning Chinese though...). It's definitely good enough for her to work though, as one of her primary areas of expertise is accounting. OK, so what has she found so far. Well, people don't want to hire permanent immigrants because they'd have to pay them more. In fact, where she's working now, they're paying her zilch, but she's already been moved into *training* their staff on an accounting system. So here the immigrants with actual job skills are getting screwed as well.

So the system is broken. The only immigrants that get work are the ones that are cheap labour. Many choose to thus do work under the table because at least they can skip the taxes and still get gov't assistance, etc (taxpayers screwed). The others can't find decent jobs because, well, nobody wants to hire them at a decent wage, and they don't understand "the system" - and hell, neither do I - well enough to avoid being screwed (immigrants screwed).

I think the whole situation needs to be overhauled everywhere, because from what I can see, it DOESN'T work.

65,000 "Geniuses" is More Than Enough!

[littlewink]

Sure America has gained from it's immigrant population. But now America accepts anyone, even barbers, manicurists, and students for hair-salon schools. These are merely cheaper workers and we don't need them.

Few immigrants are geniuses. Their primary qualification seems to be having enough money to apply and persist until accepted. No difference if we take only the best 4,000 of these people or all 65,000.

Limit the "geniuses" on the basis of their income and IQ and limit their numbers to something reasonable, certainly something an order of magnitude less than 65K.

Re:65,000 "Geniuses" is More Than Enough!

[ScrewMaster]

Hardly. In the end, being a little more selective in who we let in, and raising the standards at home will save us. The rest of the world is not entitled to a share in our wealth and knowledge (such as it is at this point) not matter how much they think they are.

Likelier To Turn Criminal Than Create a "Google"

[littlewink]

If just one of those immigrants turns around and helps found a major company like Google...

The probability of this happening is zero: Google is a "Black Swan".

In contrast, the probability of hundreds of these immigrants committing criminal acts, welching on welfare and food stamps, and lowering our standard of living is, in contrast, 1.0, certainty. Sometimes the truth hurts.

Re:Dunno about your intentions on posting, but...

[gorbachev]

This is my comment to you Seth.

Fuck off.

And anyone who modded that "insightful", that goes for you too.

Lack of oversight

[gorbachev]

It really is incredible how none of the Governmental programs in this country have ANY oversight whatsoever.

The H1-B program has all the safeguards that would make it work just fine in the program regulations, but nobody is enforcing them. No wonder companies (both on the buy and sell side) are abusing it then.

Small Government makes all things right, eh?

Re:Lack of oversight

[justinlee37]

Small Government makes all things right, eh?

"Small Government" would be not having an H1-B visa program at all, and letting the international labor market work itself out. What we have here is an example of big, irresponsible government.

H-1B abuses have been well know for many years

[walterbyrd]

We might like to think that, now that the abuses are known, the problems with the program will be fixed.

Sorry folks, but it looks like these abuses have been well known for many years.

September 2000
Silicon Valley Uses Immigrant Engineers to Keep Salaries
> High-skilled immigrant workers in Silicon Valley are being exploited by employers. Existing immigration law sets a cap on the number the H1-B visas the industry can use to hire immigrant engineers, so this year Silicon Valley electronics giants have been pushing for more Hl-B workers. While H1-B status laborers boost corporate bottom lines, there is a devastating effect on the workers themselves.
http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/10-silicon-valley-uses-immigrant-engineers-to-keep-salaries/

2002
Enron and the H-1B American Worker Replacement Program
> H-1B visa holders are often compared to indentured servants for U.S. corporations.
http://www.americanreformation.org/Articles/GlennJackson/EnronandH1BVisas.htm

February 2003
Is Anybody Out There? Is Anyone Listening?
The H-1B recipients are often put in an exploitable position because if they lose their job, they are then deported back to their country of origin.
http://www.rense.com/general35/wakeupNHwakeup.htm

Re:Dunno about your intentions on posting, but...

[Foobar of Borg]

We'll own all your jobs, and fill your TV channels with cricket

You would force cricket on a population by force? That's not cricket, old boy!

Re:Dunno about your intentions on posting, but...

[Builder]

Uh, why do you think he emigrated? Probably mainly BECAUSE of the food here ;)

The Feds FINALLY figured out what we already knew

[gabrieltss]

I knew these problems existed as early as 1993 - 1995. The consulting company I worked for brought lots of H1-B's from India (becuse they could pay them 1/3 - 1/2 what they paid us) and 90% of them didn't know a darn thing. They all had forged resumes, had lied about degrees, etc... They would get to a cleint site and sit and stare at a screen they aks thousands of questions on how to do the job they wre hired for.

What they also won't tell you is most - not all - but most people in india have TWO birthday's. Their REAL one and the one they put on all documents (the lie birthday). They use this so they can try to get into school earlier and use it for other ways to "sneak ahead". I know for a fact this goes on from having worked with many people from India. One gal slipped one day and mentioned about her "real" birthday and when I caught her on it I made her explain why she had TWO birthdays. That is how I found out about it.

Granted I have worked with a few that really did know their head from their @$$. But precentage wise I would say only 1 in 1000 really know their head from their @$$.

Re:some just worked harder

[cs668]

I'm sorry. That is harsh and it would be nice if that never happened to anyone.

But, there will always be individual horror stories those don't explain the problem they are the exception not the rule.

"Your new programmers, sir"

[Peter Simpson]

Big surprise, huh? Companies were pulling a fast one to save a bit on salaries and benefits...and to get employees who would be "easier to manage" (i.e.: scared to complain, lest they lose their job and have to return home).

Color me surprised...not.

My Old Idea

[kcdoodle]

Lets go to New Delhi, India and pick the first 550 or so people off of the street, give them each H1-B VISAs and replace all of congress (House and Senate) with them. I bet we would get more work for less pay, better ethics, and even better family values (whatever that means). Let out present congressmen can find jobs overseas -- if anyone will have them.

Re:some just worked harder

[Knara]

It's probably not PC to say, but your experience is not typical. Particularly the housing problems that led to the current financial crisis. The vast majority of those folks simply didn't do their homework and bought more house than they could afford.

Re:Dunno about your intentions on posting, but...

[sethstorm]

As long as we get to send the Palins over there for getting the Thatchers over here, fine.

As for "invading", you're a bit late for that side of the pond with respect to the French. Not all of them left for the United States.