Slashdot Mirror


Ask Slashdot: Reasonable Immigration Policy For Highly-Trained Workers?

davidwr writes "What are a reasonable temporary-worker or immigration-visa rules to apply to workers whose skills would quickly net them a 'top 20th percentile wages' job (about $100,000) in the American workplace, if they were allowed to work in the country? Should the visa length be time-limited? Should it provide for a path to permanent residency? Should the number be limited, and if so, how should we decide what the limit should be? The people affected are already likely eligible for special work-permit programs, but these programs may have quotas, time limits, prior-job-offer-requirements, and other restrictions. I'm asking what Slashdotters think the limits and restrictions, if any, should be. (Let's assume any policy to keep out criminals and spies remains as-is.)"

357 comments

  1. Are the hars working and honest? by geekoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    let them stay. Educated immigrants are more likely to start their own business. So where do you want that business to be?

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:Are the hars working and honest? by geekoid · · Score: 2, Funny

      More importantly, can they spell?

      "Hars working", sheeesh.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Are the hars working and honest? by Ichijo · · Score: 2

      Educated immigrants are more likely to start their own business. So where do you want that business to be?

      If they're going to pay their workers generously, let them stay.

      If they're planning to pay their workers as little as possible (market wages), then it doesn't matter so much where they set up their business.

      Remember, it takes two people to create a job, and each side always tries to take advantage of the other. Business owners aren't as saintly as some would make them out to be.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    3. Re:Are the hars working and honest? by jd · · Score: 2

      It's not their fault, the Queen's English committee folded yesterday due to the severe apathy towards actually communicating with people.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    4. Re:Are the hars working and honest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The list of issues I've seen is:

      On one side, there's people thinking the alien residents will get their job. Even though many of these skilled workers are doing research and PhDs in American universities because, well, Americans normally: either go to TOP (very top) universities for that matter or just don't go to graduate school (even though there may be plenty of scholarships waiting for them).
      But still, there's the group of Americans pissed at aliens for taking opportunities they don't.
      These however, are the OPT/EAD/H1-B visas which eventually can apply for residency (green card).


      On the other hand, there's the visa lottery, which can bring anyone from any country (given the country in question hasn't filled their quota through other means).

      So on one side, there's the possibly unskilled labor coming from the lottery, and the high skilled labor coming from graduate programs in the US.


      My problem is that _some_ Americans don't want the unskilled to get their "easy" low pay jobs (which they don't want to do anyways), and don't want the skilled to get their "dream" highly technical jobs (which they don't have the skill set yet to perform). On the skilled side, there's some group in the middle that are getting Masters or Bachelors, but those immigrants get a harder time providing evidence that there's no American capable of doing their job (this is required by US law to obtain residency).

      So you pick!

    5. Re:Are the hars working and honest? by Kergan · · Score: 1

      If they're planning to pay their workers as little as possible (market wages), then it doesn't matter so much where they set up their business.

      You'd rather the job be created elsewhere while you're left paying for unemployment benefits? (Or prison warden salaries, if the unemployeds' lack of welfare is such that they turn to crime to eat?)

    6. Re:Are the hars working and honest? by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      Unemployed, or underpaid? Tough choice...

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    7. Re:Are the hars working and honest? by yurtinus · · Score: 2

      Right, because nothing is better than something if that something isn't as much as you wanted. Unemployment benefits do eventually run out y'know...

      --
      +1 Disagree
    8. Re:Are the hars working and honest? by atriusofbricia · · Score: 0

      Unemployed, or underpaid? Tough choice...

      Only if you're cool with living off others. Otherwise, it's underpaid or sucking off others. Whatever floats your boat though...

      --
      I was raised on the command line, bitch

      "Nemo me impune lacesset"

    9. Re:Are the hars working and honest? by WaywardGeek · · Score: 1

      There's too little time and space to educate slashdotters here, but "cactus sucker theory" covers all this and makes the answers clear. Unemployed is better than underpaid, in that unemployed is hopefully a temporary state between decent jobs, while underpaid is a job that creates a cactus sucker. Don't let the cactus suckers ruin the country! Chop down the damned cacti!

      --
      Celebrate failure, and then learn from it - Nolan Bushnell
    10. Re:Are the hars working and honest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Should the decision to live someplace be in the hands of those other than the landowner and the tenant? Should the decision to work someplace be in the hands of those other than employer and employee?

      If you answer yes, you contradict yourself in quite a few ways, chief among them being in the affirmation of positive obligation which leads to necessary acceptance of initiation of violence against innocent people and in turn requires at the same time both aggressors and victems/resistors of that violence(thus the contradiction).

      All these euphemisms and misleading arbitrary made up rules are simple nonsense. Immigration policy rooted in made up laws by corrupt politicians and lobbyists do not adhere to rational methodology grounded in the universal preference for truth. It is a bunch of fiction.

    11. Re:Are the hars working and honest? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Depends where you live. In the UK it is currently possible to be worse off being employed than by being on benefits if the employer is really, really bad. For example not being offered enough hours some weeks to earn what you need to live, or working conditions that cause a deterioration of your health.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    12. Re:Are the hars working and honest? by flyneye · · Score: 1

      Let them stay, if they complete the requirements for citizenship, just like everybody else.
      Frankly, importing competition to the people who live here sounds more like a cartoon land reward for being smart. Sure, why not shoot one of "we the people" in the foot to give an immigrant an edge over him? Don't give me some bullshit about providing jobs, when domestic talent will do the same. I can't manage to paint it the fantasyland colors you do and must resort to "reality" wallpaper.
      We don't give special rights for special talents, we recognize that all men are created equal and must fill out equal paperwork and jump through equal hoops.
      Educated immigrants should have less trouble with this and provides and edge over the uneducated immigrants in direct ratio to the problem at hand.
      Make him work for his business just like everyone else. No fast tracks.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    13. Re:Are the hars working and honest? by multicoregeneral · · Score: 1

      I think countries around the world should let these people travel and reside without a requirement for a visa. Countries should compete for these workers. When that happens, the workers will go to the countries that have the most amenable conditions. Ie: the best schools, best cost of living, etc. In exchange, they get the tax dollars or the reasonably paid. This would create a world wide middle class that could move wherever it wants. I fail to see the downside.

      --
      This signature intentionally left blank.
    14. Re:Are the hars working and honest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like a great idea. Perhaps there should be some way to rank schools internationally and certify those professionals. As a Colombian holding a PhD. in Engineering, you may figure the Colombian status precedes the PhD. in Engineering.

      I didn't pick where I was born, but I picked what I wanted to be. Immigration, however, always judges me for my status of Colombian, not my education or work status. And I'm required to have visa to travel almost anywhere. And we don't have many R&D companies investing in our country, and it's certainly hard to compete (start your own), against massive corporations from protectionist countries.

    15. Re:Are the hars working and honest? by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

      Even though the immigrants are highly skilled, working in the USA will give them additional skills -- cultural and technological.

      And since the skills are valuable in two ways -- for the individual and for the country. They should be encouraged to remain.
                However, many are keen to return home for reasons that are not obvious to Americans. -- Family (uncles, aunts, cousins, brothers, sisters, cousins etc).
                A better job back home for having returned with greater experience.
                A way to start a business with a lower overhead cost. Probably the cost of starting up in the USA is very very high, and only a few get venture capital.

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
    16. Re:Are the hars working and honest? by pegasustonans · · Score: 0

      More importantly, can they spell?

      "Hars working", sheeesh.

      Come sir, you can't stuff up the blunderbuss unless the hars are working.

      He's clearly using a Middle English approximation for 'Hussar' adapted to the modern verbiage, thus 'Har.' Everyone knows Hussars are the best for your blunderbuss, and the economy runs on blunderbusses and butter (butyrum, if you're the loquacious grandparent).

      --
      And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. --Will
    17. Re:Are the hars working and honest? by GusBremmer · · Score: 1

      Africa for the Africans,Asia for the Asians,white countries for EVERYBODY! Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries. The Netherlands and Belgium are just as crowded as Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them. Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites. What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries? How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem? And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this? But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews. They say they are anti-racist.What they are is anti-white. Anti-racist is a codeword for anti-white.

    18. Re:Are the hars working and honest? by pegasustonans · · Score: 1

      Tough crowd here, should have expected as much. Hope it was worth wasting a mod point on, whoever you are.

      --
      And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. --Will
  2. I wasn't aware it was hard for them getting in by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

    Assuming you're not from a country where security issues might be a concern.

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    1. Re:I wasn't aware it was hard for them getting in by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 4, Informative

      I was fortunate enough to have a company sponsor me on a H1B. It took me six years of waiting and thousands of dollars in lawyer's fees to adjust my status, i.e. go from H1B to Green Card. It's not that easy. The people on the Mayflower would be turned back if they made that trip today.

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
    2. Re:I wasn't aware it was hard for them getting in by dreamchaser · · Score: 2

      I was fortunate enough to have a company sponsor me on a H1B. It took me six years of waiting and thousands of dollars in lawyer's fees to adjust my status, i.e. go from H1B to Green Card. It's not that easy. The people on the Mayflower would be turned back if they made that trip today.

      I was with you until your hyperbolic Mayflower comment. Half of them died before the first winter was over, and the second half of the trip across the sea was in a relatively small ship fighting gales and nasty seas. You had it easy.

    3. Re:I wasn't aware it was hard for them getting in by daremonai · · Score: 4, Funny

      I was with you until your hyperbolic Mayflower comment. Half of them died before the first winter was over ...

      Obviously, they did not have the appropriate skill set. They should have been turned back.

    4. Re:I wasn't aware it was hard for them getting in by readin · · Score: 2

      I was fortunate enough to have a company sponsor me on a H1B. It took me six years of waiting and thousands of dollars in lawyer's fees to adjust my status, i.e. go from H1B to Green Card. It's not that easy. The people on the Mayflower would be turned back if they made that trip today.

      The American Indians wouldn't have suffered as much genocide had they been able to enact and enforce a meaningful immigration policy.

      --
      I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
    5. Re:I wasn't aware it was hard for them getting in by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      >>>The people on the Mayflower would be turned back if they made that trip today.

      And America would still be controlled by the Indians. Lax immigration policy is never a good idea, because the people you greet as friends, will then go all-out war against you in the 1800s, and force you into reservations.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    6. Re:I wasn't aware it was hard for them getting in by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1

      I was fortunate enough to have a company sponsor me on a H1B. It took me six years of waiting and thousands of dollars in lawyer's fees to adjust my status, i.e. go from H1B to Green Card. It's not that easy. The people on the Mayflower would be turned back if they made that trip today.

      The American Indians wouldn't have suffered as much genocide had they been able to enact and enforce a meaningful immigration policy.

      They were doing pretty well at "enforcing immigration policy" when the Vikings tried to move on from Greenland and settle North America. It was disease that reduced their numbers later and made them vulnerable to the bible thumpers.

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
    7. Re:I wasn't aware it was hard for them getting in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You try enforcing any policy while you're rapidly dying of diseases you have no immunity for.

    8. Re:I wasn't aware it was hard for them getting in by AK+Marc · · Score: 0

      There are piles of immigrants hiding in crates and containers, many not making it to the US. Would that be a better analogy? The Mayflower immigrants didn't last the winter because they didn't plan. Granted, there was little information about the New World to plan on, but they didn't even have a bad plan, other than go and hope God provided. The US was founded by ignorant religiously intolerant bigots (they didn't come here for freedom of religion, but freedom for their and only their religion) who form no plans and can't even follow good plans when handed to them on a silver platter. Oh wait, that's what we still have.

    9. Re:I wasn't aware it was hard for them getting in by tompaulco · · Score: 3, Informative

      It took me six years of waiting and thousands of dollars in lawyer's fees to adjust my status
      Too little too late but you could have just done 6 years of waiting and zero dollars of lawyer's fees. The information on the process is all out there and free. There are filing fees and waiting periods, but the lawyer, despite what they might tell you, doesn't get it done any faster or better.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    10. Re:I wasn't aware it was hard for them getting in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Mod parent up. The notion that some people on Slashdot portray of an easy life for H1B workers is a complete falsehood.

      Unless you have a masters degree (or equivalent), you will most likely be in the system as H1B status for years. This means that:
      * You need somewhat of a life here, but if you lose your job for any reason you need to leave in ~10 days, which may involve selling property (cars), and ending lease agreements. If you take too long to leave you may be barred from re-entry. Technically the 10 days is not legally granted to you, but generally overlooked.

      * If you manage to/have to change job and were in the middle of a green card process, you will have to start over again. Changing jobs isn't easy, you have a very limited set of options if you need to do this.

      * You probably won't see any family for a while. You're unlikely to get time off any time soon to return home, and when you do you may very well need to spend part of that time traveling to embassies for visa interviews that are not necessarily anywhere near your home, even if your status was fine before your travel.

      * Depending on your home country, tax situations can be complex

    11. Re:I wasn't aware it was hard for them getting in by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      The US was founded by ignorant religiously intolerant bigots (they didn't come here for freedom of religion, but freedom for their and only their religion) who form no plans and can't even follow good plans when handed to them on a silver platter.

      You paint the entirety of settlement of the US by one colony. Sorry, but some colonies were most certainly founded under the auspices of religious freedom, having it their original charter.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    12. Re:I wasn't aware it was hard for them getting in by readin · · Score: 1

      The American Indians wouldn't have suffered as much genocide had they been able to enact and enforce a meaningful immigration policy.

      They were doing pretty well at "enforcing immigration policy" when the Vikings tried to move on from Greenland and settle North America. It was disease that reduced their numbers later and made them vulnerable to the bible thumpers.

      My guess is that the American Indians would have been better off letting a few more Vikings in (but not too many). A small permanent settlement in the colder less populated far north would have allowed the slower introduction of both technology and disease for a while before getting hit with all of the new technologies and diseases at once.

      --
      I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
    13. Re:I wasn't aware it was hard for them getting in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The pilgrims may be turned back intoday's environment, but I was refused permanent work by 2 different companies, because I wanted a salary around 90K, and have 2 master's of Science. One From Stanford in Chem Engr, and one from UC DAvis in Applied MAth. My livelihood is in Programming Windows, at the App Level and I am an expert in Image Processing and DCMTK. I worked at Intel Folsom, where easily 75 - 80 % of the BLue Badge Permanent employees are non US Citizens, while the Contigent workers, are approx 50 - 75% US Citizens. So every time some one tells me that H1-B Visas are limited, I tell them about my experiences, and let them make their own decisions. AS far as I am concerned US citizens should be re-trained FIRST, then invite others to come in. While my Grandparents were immigrants, UK, German, etc that was over 150 years ago. I go to Silicon Valley, and other high technology areas, and weep for my fellow americans who can no longer compete, because of lack of drive, or no opportunities. the US waste so much home grown talent it is just shameful.

    14. Re:I wasn't aware it was hard for them getting in by Ryanrule · · Score: 0

      No one says it is easy. No one cares, actually. We care about stopping corps from destroying wages.

    15. Re:I wasn't aware it was hard for them getting in by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      Might need a bit more historical data to back that up... It's pretty well known that Vikings did come to the new world, but I haven't seen anything yet to suggest they were pushed out by the natives.

      I'm not even saying you're wrong, just that I haven't heard about it (and would find it fascinating...)

      --
      +1 Disagree
    16. Re:I wasn't aware it was hard for them getting in by yurtinus · · Score: 2

      Agreed - let them in, make them citizens. Put them on the same pay and benefits scale as everybody else.

      --
      +1 Disagree
    17. Re:I wasn't aware it was hard for them getting in by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      The Mayflower comparison was definitely a hyperbole. He should have rather compared it to what immigration laws were like before 1870 or thereabouts. Which is basically: come anytime, no visas to bother with. Reside in some state and pay taxes there for a year (some states wanted two years, some only asked for six months). Congratulations, you're a citizen.

    18. Re:I wasn't aware it was hard for them getting in by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 4, Informative

      Might need a bit more historical data to back that up... It's pretty well known that Vikings did come to the new world, but I haven't seen anything yet to suggest they were pushed out by the natives.

      I'm not even saying you're wrong, just that I haven't heard about it (and would find it fascinating...)

      I only learned about this lately myself. Have a shuftie at this:

      The Myth:

      Our history books don't really go into a ton of detail about how the Indians became an endangered species. Some warring, some smallpox blankets and ... death by broken heart?

      When American Indians show up in movies made by conscientious white people like Oliver Stone, they usually lament having their land taken from them. The implication is that Native Americans died off like a species of tree-burrowing owl that couldn't hack it once their natural habitat was paved over.
      But if we had to put the whole Cowboys and Indians battle in a Hollywood log line, we'd say the Indians put up a good fight, but were no match for the white man's superior technology. As surely as scissors cuts paper and rock smashes scissors, gun beats arrow. That's just how it works.

      The Truth:

      There's a pretty important detail our movies and textbooks left out of the handoff from Native Americans to white European settlers: It begins in the immediate aftermath of a full-blown apocalypse. In the decades between Columbus' discovery of America and the Mayflower landing at Plymouth Rock, the most devastating plague in human history raced up the East Coast of America. Just two years before the pilgrims started the tape recorder on New England's written history, the plague wiped out about 96 percent of the Indians in Massachusetts.

      In the years before the plague turned America into The Stand, a sailor named Giovanni da Verrazzano sailed up the East Coast and described it as "densely populated" and so "smoky with Indian bonfires" that you could smell them burning hundreds of miles out at sea. Using your history books to understand what America was like in the 100 years after Columbus landed there is like trying to understand what modern day Manhattan is like based on the post-apocalyptic scenes from I Am Legend.

      Historians estimate that before the plague, America's population was anywhere between 20 and 100 million (Europe's at the time was 70 million). The plague would eventually sweep West, killing at least 90 percent of the native population. For comparison's sake, the Black Plague killed off between 30 and 60 percent of Europe's population.

      While this all might seem like some heavy shit to lay on a bunch of second graders, your high school and college history books weren't exactly in a hurry to tell you the full story. Which is strange, because many historians believe it is the single most important event in American history. But it's just more fun to believe that your ancestors won the land by being the superior culture.

      European settlers had a hard enough time defeating the Mad Max-style stragglers of the once huge Native American population, even with superior technology. You have to assume that the Native Americans at full strength would have made shit powerfully real for any pale faces trying to settle the country they had already settled. Of course, we don't really need to assume anything about how real the American Indians kept it, thanks to the many people who came before the pilgrims. For instance, if you liked playing cowboys and Indians as a kid, you should know that you could have been playing vikings and Indians, because that shit actually happened. But before we get to how they kicked Viking ass, you probably need to know that ...

      More...

      I haven't done a huge amount of research into this, but if it's true then it sounds to me like someone needs to get busy digging deeper into American history and bringing Hollywood up to speed on it.

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
    19. Re:I wasn't aware it was hard for them getting in by AK+Marc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      RI, and arguably CT are the only 2 of 13 that were set up that way. Most that specified "religious freedom" named the one and only one religion to be granted freedom. The US was founded on religious persecution more than religious freedom. What, they don't teach history in school anymore because it's inconvenient? The Constitution banned the establishment of a religion because it was expected that if they didn't, there would be religious fighting (verbal more than physical, but who knows for sure of alternate pasts?) over whether to formalize the US as Puritan, Quaker, or other.

      "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

      The first thing in the Bill of Rights was preventing establishment of a religion (followed by free exercise thereof). The first thing to do is to ban a state religion. After that, they address the issue of exercising ones personal religion. The reason being that so many of the colonies were explicitly religious, with explicit official religions that having them fight for religious control of the country would cause a civil war.

    20. Re:I wasn't aware it was hard for them getting in by WaywardGeek · · Score: 1

      I think we should give some credit to Thomas Jefferson, who wrote that line in the Constitution you quoted. Out of all the accomplishments of his life, he only wanted three on his tombstone:

      Author of the Declaration of American Independence
      of the Statute of Virginia for religious freedom
      Father of the University of Virginia

      Thomas Jefferson's famous friend and mentor, Ben Franklin, said:

      "Even if the Mufti [chief jurist] of Constantinople [from the Muslim Ottoman Empire] were to send a missionary to preach Mohammedanism to us, he would find a pulpit at his service."

      You don't get freedom without a struggle. Our nation's founding fathers fought it for us, and it's up to us to preserve the legacy.

      --
      Celebrate failure, and then learn from it - Nolan Bushnell
    21. Re:I wasn't aware it was hard for them getting in by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 2

      It can be very hard, unless you have enough cash to start a significant business. I think $5MM is the number that I have seen for a few countries. I looked in Thailand and Australia about 10 years ago: Australia wasn't too hard as long as you were young and upwardly mobile, but Thailand was the opposite. They didn't want to let people in that would become the new elite. They set it up to milk 90% of the people that come in-- between lawyers fees and accountants, you would be spending at least $10k per year just to have a business without any revenue.

      I don't think any country can handle immigration policies that can have a significant impact on demographics. You see it in Sweden with middle-eastern immigrants just as much as you see it in a US software company with Indians. It is no different in rural Thailand with "rich" farang. Malaysia tried to open their doors back around 2005, and that had a huge backlash as well.

      In practical terms, if you want to migrate somewhere, you have to find a way to make it work. It is hard and sometimes you have to break the law... but it sure as hell can be personally rewarding. (When it ceases to be so... leave. You have to maintain that flexibility.) If everything goes well, it should work out in the end.

    22. Re:I wasn't aware it was hard for them getting in by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Why not simplify everything with a global immigration policy. One for one swaps with other countries and the best of those apply up to the available slots get through calculated quarterly. Lets stick to the capitalist supply and demand rules, screw the greedy shit heads at the top (there is no polite way to put it). You simply pay more for workers when their skills are in demand no immigrant cheating. Want farm workers, then keep paying more until you attract them no lying, cheating and stealing. Companies are allowed to charge as much profit as they can get away with, workers should be allowed to charge as much as their labour is worth without employers conspiring with government to undercut their wages by bringing in immigrants and artificially reducing demand.

      So straight up global immigration policy based upon 1 for 1 swaps ie for each Australian willing to immigrate to the US, one US citizen can immigrate to Australia, where there is an imbalance in the numbers the best of those who apply get in. Outside of that there is no real reason for population migration any more.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    23. Re:I wasn't aware it was hard for them getting in by jedidiah · · Score: 2

      Even "after the apocalypse" tribes like the Comanche made moving westward or northward (if you are Mexican) difficult. It took a fairly industrialized US Army to dislodge some of the tribes in the interior regardless of what other apocalypse scenarios were going on.

      Also, plagues tend to hit "civilized" societies hardest. Densely populated urban areas are much more likely to be impacted. You still see this today with Africa and malaria.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    24. Re:I wasn't aware it was hard for them getting in by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      Many people screw it up.

      A lot of that money is fees.

      Plus, the Feds will gladly take your money even if your paperwork is crap. So it pays to do it right the first time.

      It's not quite all "those evil lawyers are gouging" us.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    25. Re:I wasn't aware it was hard for them getting in by jedidiah · · Score: 2

      Some of my favorite colleagues have been H1-B's but they had real talent. They weren't just IT scabs. They made less than I did despite the fact that they were clearly more qualified. They were in a weak bargaining position with a company willing to take advantage of them.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    26. Re:I wasn't aware it was hard for them getting in by zill · · Score: 1

      Parts of that article is highly suspect[http://www.jasoncolavito.com/1/post/2012/05/the-truth-behind-the-native-american-discovery-of-america-in-60-bce.html]. Read it with caution.

      The part about the plague mostly agree with the Wikipedia version, albeit with added sentimentalization and exaggeration: "possibly in excess of 90% of the population in the hardest hit areas" was changed to "killing at least 90 percent of the native population".

    27. Re:I wasn't aware it was hard for them getting in by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      RI, and arguably CT are the only 2 of 13 that were set up that way. Most that specified "religious freedom" named the one and only one religion to be granted freedom.

      You are missing at least one. 'Trinitarian' covers a great deal of ground. I'm not going to do your homework for you and point out the history of Jewish religious freedom/tolerance in MD either.

      Given the thinking of the time and the attitudes of Europe from which most settlers came, even having more than a single proscribed, protected religion was a big deal.

      I'm also not going to waste a great deal of time arguing against your historical revisionism that seems to delight in viewing actions of ~350 years ago through a modern lens. Wasted too much time doing that in college.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    28. Re:I wasn't aware it was hard for them getting in by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I'm not going to do your homework for you and point out the history of Jewish religious freedom/tolerance in MD either.

      If they had to pass a law granting the freedom, then you've proven my point that they weren't founded on such principles, even if such laws were eventually passed (then repealed).

      I'm also not going to waste a great deal of time arguing against your historical revisionism that seems to delight in viewing actions of ~350 years ago through a modern lens. Wasted too much time doing that in college.

      I was reading colonial charters in elemtary school. Perhaps the problem is that you dutifully memorized what you were told to and didn't think for yourself until college, and then only to argue in defense of your spoonfed notions. I'm looking at what was said and done 350 years ago.

      P.S. burning witches isn't a sign of tolerance, and is pretty representative of what the colonists thought of those with different religious views.

    29. Re:I wasn't aware it was hard for them getting in by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      Our nation's founding fathers fought it for us, and it's up to us to preserve the legacy.

      We lost that battle when we didn't listen to George Washington's farewell address when he warned us of the evils of partisanship. A thousand little failures since then gave us what we have now, which is not what the founders had in mind at all.

    30. Re:I wasn't aware it was hard for them getting in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wish you weren't here. Don't take it personally, it isn't .. but we don't need more Oracle DBAs, Java Programmers, network engineers etc.etc. The immigration programs should be used to attract professionals we do not have readily in supply. Yes, who wants to compete with the world, why should we have to put up with it and how would you like me to come to your country and do the same thing to you? The way it should have worked is you should have had to get a Green Card first before coming here. I admit chances are you wouldn't be here that way but you're not a brain surgeon obviously if you're hanging out on /. But also to be fair, it shouldn't have cost you thousands of dollars in fees either, just a nominal fee for entering the lottery and processing.

    31. Re:I wasn't aware it was hard for them getting in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry I call bull on this, EB-2 or EB-3 green cards applications that require PERM are a minefield if you don't have a lawyer handling it for you. Family-based green cards are much easier and can be done without a lawyer.

    32. Re:I wasn't aware it was hard for them getting in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You obviously have some sort of axe to grind, but I think you need to read what you quoted a little more closely before you continue ranting:

      "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

      Sounds pretty fair to me. There will be no religion everyone must adopt, nor will anyone be discriminated against for practicing their beliefs.

      There's also separation of church and state: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
      This is hardly the act of a "country founded by intolerant religious bigots" as you claim above.

      Finally, if you think the U.S. is particularly intolerant of "other religions", you really need to get out more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians#Current_situation_.281989_to_present.29

    33. Re:I wasn't aware it was hard for them getting in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can do it without the lawyer, but lets not pretend you can do it for free. Maybe for half the cost. The application fees that go along with some of the documents are in the thousand dollar range.

    34. Re:I wasn't aware it was hard for them getting in by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      fact checking wickipedia - GOOD

      using wikipedia to fact check - DUBIOUS

    35. Re:I wasn't aware it was hard for them getting in by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Most of the colonies were founded without religious protections, some with explicit official religions.

      If you think the US is tolerant of other religions, just look at the presidents. There has been what, one and only one non-protestant president? And even then there were campaigns to vote against JFK because a vote for him was a vote for the Pope. And with a recent candidate who claimed to be Christian, there were campaigns to vote against him because he was really Islamic, and we wouldn't want a follower of Islam as president. And you claim such open bigotry is proof we are tolerant?

    36. Re:I wasn't aware it was hard for them getting in by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1

      I wish you weren't here. Don't take it personally, it isn't .. but we don't need more Oracle DBAs, Java Programmers, network engineers etc.etc. The immigration programs should be used to attract professionals we do not have readily in supply. Yes, who wants to compete with the world, why should we have to put up with it and how would you like me to come to your country and do the same thing to you? The way it should have worked is you should have had to get a Green Card first before coming here. I admit chances are you wouldn't be here that way but you're not a brain surgeon obviously if you're hanging out on /. But also to be fair, it shouldn't have cost you thousands of dollars in fees either, just a nominal fee for entering the lottery and processing.

      Fuck you too, you amusingly stupid mucksavage.

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
    37. Re:I wasn't aware it was hard for them getting in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bad example. The Mayflower people took over and instituted their own laws, churches, schools, etc.

    38. Re:I wasn't aware it was hard for them getting in by NickGnome · · Score: 1
      "It took me six years of waiting and thousands of dollars in lawyer's fees to adjust my status, i.e. go from H1B to Green Card."

      ...

      So, it was too cheap and too easy.

      You never paid for or underwent, let alone passed, a proper background investigation (which, adjusting for inflation, could run from $20K to $50K or more).

      It only took you a little more time than it takes many 5th or 6th or 7th or 8th-generation native US citizens to get a passport.

      You never had to undergo a blind competition with US job applicants (one where the person(s) filtering the job applicants did not know whether you or any of the other applicants were US citizens or non-citizens).

      You never had to make a case that you were in the top half-percentile, or even the top 10% or top 20% (to borrow the unfounded assertion of the original poster) or top 50% (i.e. merely above average) in order to gain entry to the USA.

      A visa to enter or work in the USA (or any other country) is a privilege.

    39. Re:I wasn't aware it was hard for them getting in by NickGnome · · Score: 1
      "Assuming you're not from a country where security issues might be a concern."

      .

      Huh?

      Everyone is a "security concern" until and unless they've passed a background investigation. Whether they came from or through YorkShire or Bangalore or Pakistan or Saudi Arabia or Mexico or Montreal or Tokyo or Rome or Geneva is irrelevant.

      Whether that individual met with gangsters or terrorists or other associates of gangsters or terrorists, at his origin or along the way, is a concern. Whether that individual had already committed crimes is a concern.

      (This clumsy, kludgey, slow discussion interface is frustrating!)

    40. Re:I wasn't aware it was hard for them getting in by NickGnome · · Score: 1
      "some people on Slashdot portray of an easy life for H1B workers"

      .

      More likely it is a disagreement over what constitutes "easy" or "difficult"... especially when compared with the difficulties the lax and excessive E-3, F+OPT, H-1B, J, L and green card programs create for bright, creative, industrious, experienced US citizens in the top 5 percentile or even the top percentile for intelligence or academic achievement or autodidactically obtained knowledge in STEM fields.

    41. Re:I wasn't aware it was hard for them getting in by Prien715 · · Score: 1

      IIRC the US was mostly founded to make a profit giving people cancer, as the first permanent settlement (Jamestown) was in the business of growing tobacco. But labor costs were too high, so we found a continent where labor costs were lower and gave those workers "a deal they couldn't refuse".

      Also, just because there is an official "state religion" it does not follow that one must have religious persecution. Take PA for example. Anyone remember the great war between the Amish and the Quakers? Good. Cause I don't either. Or really, any armed conflict involving either.

      --
      -- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
    42. Re:I wasn't aware it was hard for them getting in by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Or maybe go on and let them in - but charge the company importing the worker a cool $30k per year in taxes. That way, if the company says they really couldn't find an American to do the job and had to find someone from outside the country, they would be telling the truth. As opposed to blowing some smoke up our asses while they depress wages.

  3. A few thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We should favor workers who are looking for permanent residency. They are good for the economy and the community.

    We should make sure it costs no less to hire a foreign worker to work in the US than it costs to hire an existing resident.

    We should not be using foreign worker visas to train people as a prelude to off-shoring.

    I'm wondering if an auction system for tech visas would work out.

    1. Re:A few thoughts by mikael_j · · Score: 1

      The tech worker visa auction thing just might work. The trick would be to keep the cost of a visa at a level that just barely makes it unprofitable to screw with the system (to bring in lower-paid foreign workers or as you said, just bring them in as step one of an outsourcing plan) while still being affordable enough that any company seriously looking to hire someone from another country could easily stomach paying for the visa.

      --
      Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
    2. Re:A few thoughts by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      Your second bullet point there I think is key. It really should cost a company more money to hire a foreign worker than a local worker. Honestly, I'd prefer they just be eligible to immigrate, but in that interim time (or if the individual is working a short term job and doesn't want to immigrate) it *needs* to cost the company more money to hire overseas talent than it would to hire local talent. Get rid of the financial incentive to bring in overseas talent and *then* see how much tech companies really need those H1B visas.

      --
      +1 Disagree
  4. So Basically What You're Asking Is by eldavojohn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Give me your tired, your poor,
    Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
    The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
    Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
    I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

    Should now read:

    "Give me your inventors, your geniuses,
    Your bored singletons yearning to spur economic growth,
    The fertile intellects left from your teeming chaff.
    Send these, the able, patent-ers to me,
    I lift my GDP beside the golden door!"

    Let's face it, work visas are handed out like bouncers controlling admission to a club. You are asking these questions that sound like they treat people with respect and offer them opportunity but what I hear is basically: Are you going to be a net positive for the United States? And how do we accurately measure the Nikola Teslas and Yao Mings from the Dr. Nasser al-Aulaqis (Fullbright Scholar and father of Anwar al-Awlaki).

    You know what? It's a dirty business and I don't want any part of it. In my own humble opinion, it's unethical. Your questions sound like "Can we implement a brain drain on the rest of the world with little or no risk?" I think it should be all law-abiding individuals or none and, despite 9/11 and the Mariel Boatlift that consisted of criminals and mental patients, I personally lean toward letting everyone in unless they are known to have committed or been convicted of crimes in their country of origin that are 1) credible sentences and 2) also misdemeanors or higher in the United States.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:So Basically What You're Asking Is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      a 'top 20th percentile wages' job (about $100,000) in the American workplace, if they were allowed to work in the country? Should the visa length be time-limited? Should it provide for a path to permanent residency? Should the number be limited, and if so, how should we decide what the limit should be?

      And while we're at it:

      "A top-20th-percentile wage" sounds an awful lot like "prevailing wage" for someone in the tech industry, which is a requirement of the H-1B programme. "A limited time", "A path to permanent residency", and "a limit on the number who can apply under it", are also all part of the H-1B programme.

      In other words, if you "hate dem cheap H-1B immigrants pushin' down are US programmin' jerbs and wages", but you would answer "yes" to all four requirements, you do support H-1B (or something very much like it), you just don't know it yet.

    2. Re:So Basically What You're Asking Is by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      America wasn't founded by god damn law abiders.

      We should look at the 'crime' and decide if they were breaking a 'stupid law', if so they are in.

      For example: We don't want to reject someone just because they are ambitious enough to build and operate a still. I'd go so far as to reject anyone from a dry (e.g. saudi) or overtaxed (e.g. all of Scandinavia) country that didn't have a conviction for bootlegging. I'd accept them only if they could prove they had 'got away with it'.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    3. Re:So Basically What You're Asking Is by mapsjanhere · · Score: 1

      It's not only a brain drain, it's a huge drain on the original country's economy. Typically you siphon off someone with a bachelor's degree, who's gotten 13 years of primary education and 4 years of college paid by the economy of the original country. The US throws in a couple of years of grad school and gets a highly productive part of the economy at lowest cost. Spoken as a guy who came to the US for a one year post-doc and somehow got stuck...

      --
      I'm aging rapidly, I bought a new game and had no idea if my machine was good for it.
    4. Re:So Basically What You're Asking Is by ZeroSumHappiness · · Score: 1

      I don't think "Give me your tired, your poor..." was ever said out of the goodness of the nation's collective heart. It was said at a time where we had factories that needed workers. Now we have workers that need factories.

    5. Re:So Basically What You're Asking Is by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      the Mariel Boatlift that consisted of criminals and mental patients,

      But the criminals were often political prisoners, who weren't in for violent crimes, and a large percentage of the asylum inmates were committed due to "mental illnesses" such as homosexuality. It would be like getting sent criminals and committed from the USSR and getting Alexander Solzhenitsyn.

    6. Re:So Basically What You're Asking Is by alexander_686 · · Score: 1

      On the flip side

      You have somebody who send back remittances
      Make come back and bring additional skills.
      Creates demand and excitement for education, encouraging more people to enter the field.

      IIRC, in the field of nursing, the tipping point is 20%. There have been studies trying to figure out if educating nurses for oversea work helps the local economy. If less then 20% of the nurses head overseas, then the county has more nurses then it would normally have.

      As Gandhi (?) said – Better a brain drain then a brain in the drain.

    7. Re:So Basically What You're Asking Is by Red+Flayer · · Score: 2

      I don't think "Give me your tired, your poor..." was ever said out of the goodness of the nation's collective heart. It was said at a time where we had factories that needed workers.

      Good point.

      Now we have workers that need factories.

      True. So let's bring in people who will eventually contribute to the consumer demand that will make building more factories (or service industry places of employment) here profitable.

      Furthermore, don't make it short-term. If we limit them to a short period of time here, they will send all their money to their home country, and then go back. Instead, make a work visa here conditional on applying for citizenship. Sure, they may send a lot of cash back to their country of origin... but their kids probably won't.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    8. Re:So Basically What You're Asking Is by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Well, it is not like that was our national motto or something. It was just an exerpt from a poem that ended up getting emplazoned in bronze and posted inside the statue of liberty. The poem was by Emma Lazarus who was quite wealthy, incidentally.
      I'm not sure why the U.S. gets all the flak for not accepting every person that comes knocking. Somehow we seem to be held to a higher standard than everybody else.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    9. Re:So Basically What You're Asking Is by asliarun · · Score: 1

      Let's face it, work visas are handed out like bouncers controlling admission to a club. You are asking these questions that sound like they treat people with respect and offer them opportunity but what I hear is basically: Are you going to be a net positive for the United States? And how do we accurately measure the Nikola Teslas and Yao Mings from the Dr. Nasser al-Aulaqis (Fullbright Scholar and father of Anwar al-Awlaki).

      You know what? It's a dirty business and I don't want any part of it. In my own humble opinion, it's unethical. Your questions sound like "Can we implement a brain drain on the rest of the world with little or no risk?" I think it should be all law-abiding individuals or none and, despite 9/11 and the Mariel Boatlift that consisted of criminals and mental patients, I personally lean toward letting everyone in unless they are known to have committed or been convicted of crimes in their country of origin that are 1) credible sentences and 2) also misdemeanors or higher in the United States.

      +5 Insightful.

      In a way, I see a parallel between how open a country should be with how open software should be. The fundamental philosophy behind the two things is the same, in my humble opinion. Just like software, a country, especially the USA, will NOT go bankrupt or even lose its income earning potential if it recognizes that intellect and intellectual property should be nurtured and left free, not be caged and locked away. I may sound over the top while making this comment, but there are very few countries that can pull this off, and the USA is probably one of the very few. Look at any country that has a static population that doesn't travel much or even one that is from the old world, and you will see all the negative things amplify over time - corruption, narrow mindedness, bureaucracy, laziness, to name a few.

      If a society does not embrace change or becomes too insular, it will die or will become slow and sluggish to a point of no return. This has happened to societies time and again - look at China and India or even many of the European countries that are slowly sliding down the slope such as Greece. They were once great nations only because they actively traveled and traded and moved about freely - over time, when they stopped doing so, their societies rotted to the point where other puny nations and kingdoms walked all over them. Even after countless wars etc, the seeds they left in the form of systemic corruption, bureaucracy, etc. sustain themselves for thousands of years.

      It is sad to see that so many countries still fail to see the danger of insulating themselves from immigrants or from other cultures. At the end of the day, the intelligent, the dynamic, the risk takers, the people who keep a society alive, will get what they want one way or the other. They are also the ones who have the gumption to leave behind everything they know and that is comfortable into an unknown culture. I've often wondered why countries are brain dead enough to not see this obvious fact.

    10. Re:So Basically What You're Asking Is by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      You'd be pretty stupid to try to make the case the US immigration law is an example of a 'stupid law' (though it may be true) while applying for immigration.

      But there are a few cultures in the world that are infected with excessive respect for authority (Basically Asia and much of N. Europe IMHO). All immigrants should be filtered to keep the 'snitch out your neighbors' type law abiders out. Use culturally appropriate tests. e.g. reject any Swedes that have reported a neighbor for illegal parking, reject Finns that buy taxed Vodka, reject Englishmen that don't own illegal (in England) guns etc etc.

      We are Americans. We've got to keep up our standards.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    11. Re:So Basically What You're Asking Is by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      what I hear is basically: Are you going to be a net positive for the United States? ... Can we implement a brain drain on the rest of the world with little or no risk?

      As an immigrant, I don't see why it wouldn't be that way. If you want to join the consumerism party, you bring something to the table. If other countries want to "brain drain" the US, they can throw up a party of their own and try to make it more enticing. Indeed, some do. Such is the way of life.

      On the other hand, if you bring down all barriers to immigration, you're going to be a nation of Chinese in a couple decades. Which might not be a problem in and of itself, except that a vast influx of immigrants from a different culture will cause that culture to subsume the one of the destination country - you'll be melted in your own melting pot. And that means stuff like democracy and individual freedom, as well. Are you looking forward to a society where things are banned and censored for the sake of "social harmony"?

      Even from a purely altruistic ethical perspective, the point of controlling immigration is to ensure that all immigrants can properly assimilate - because if they don't, it'll be bad for them as well, or at least for those who actually wanted to assimilate. I left my country for a better place - I don't want that better place to quickly become like my country...

    12. Re:So Basically What You're Asking Is by slew · · Score: 2

      I don't think "Give me your tired, your poor..." was ever said out of the goodness of the nation's collective heart. It was said at a time where we had factories that needed workers. Now we have workers that need factories.

      Actually, the phrase "Give me your tired, your poor..." is from a poem (The New Colossus written by Emma Lazarus in 1883) which was inspired by about the US experience of poor Jewish immigrants escaping persecution in Eastern Europe.

      As for the US immigration policies of the 1900's, there were certainly lots of factories that needed workers and eastern and southern Europe had people that wanted to work resulting in immigration of about ~700K/year (out of 1M/year total or ~1%/year) per year from those countries. However, this level of immigration didn't last long as in the 1920's there was an immigrant backlash and the government eventually put tight restrictions and quotas on immigrations. The immigration rate didn't recover to the 1900's levels until the 1990's (of course the US was much bigger by then, so the percentage was much lower ~0.30%/year).

      During 1950-1960 was still another period in US history where we needed lots of factory workers, but immigration was much lower during those times (250K/year or 0.15%/year) than it was in 1970's and 1980's (450K/year or ~0.20%/year) which saw the current decline of factory jobs and even today (950K/year or ~0.35%/year) when we don't have factory jobs.

      My conclusion: immigration restrictions by the US seem to be more related to cultural immigrant backlash than economic issues like the availability of factory jobs, but generally, the US has been quite open to immigration historically.

      Of course no country participates in immigration by doing it totally out of the goodness of the nation's collective hearts, most countries do it for the net economic benefits (more younger workers, net economic growth, even though the immigrants that come are poor)... Historically, the US seems to do immigration better than most countries, though (except maybe Canada) and right now the US is pretty much in the middle of the pack immigration population percentage-wize (leading europe by 2:1, but Canada and Australia are currently kicking US's butt). However simple explanations like number of available factory jobs and current economic conditions don't explain these things very well.

    13. Re:So Basically What You're Asking Is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better than using the other nations tired masses as a way to attack the middle and lower classes here. I honestly would LOVE and support any such program where the visa workers were required to be paid over 100k a year. THAT program was meant to get SKILLED labor from other areas. Not to get cheap labor from other areas to avoid paying prevailing wages locally.

      The companies want cheap labor, too bad. I want a job that pays $1,000,000 an hour and only has me work 1 hour a week but it's not going to happen nor should it. Cause neither of them is fair to the other party involved (Unless I was actor or pro-athlete I guess).

      They want to import labor, let them PAY to have them brought here as a CITIZEN and watch how long they stay at that $18 an hour job while only getting paid $8 an hour, or that $10 an hour job making so little they need 5 people to live in a 1 bed room apartment. Sorry, they shouldn't be able to hire for a job that should pay $120k a year while only offering $30k a year and then import people with visa's when no one is willing to apply locally for that pay.

    14. Re:So Basically What You're Asking Is by goodmanj · · Score: 1

      Lemme just back your statement up 150 years. "If you bring down all barriers to immigration, you're going to be a nation of Italians and Irish in a couple decades.... are you looking forward to a society full of Catholic drunks and criminals?"

      The mass migrations of the 19th century proved that immigrants, no matter where they come from, do not spell the doom of American values: in fact, they strengthen them. Your average immigrant to the U.S. knows much more about what democracy and freedom really mean than someone who was born here.
      As for the Chinese in particular, the reason the US isn't packed to the gills with 'em isn't just that we won't let them in: it's that their own country makes it difficult to get *out*. I think anyone who runs that gauntlet is going to have a very good understanding of the value of liberty.

      Have some faith in your fellow immigrants. They value the American ideal, just as you do, and they have no intention of turning the US into the country they left. After all, just like you, they left for a reason.

    15. Re:So Basically What You're Asking Is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lemme just back your statement up 150 years. "If you bring down all barriers to immigration, you're going to be a nation of Italians and Irish in a couple decades.... are you looking forward to a society full of Catholic drunks and criminals?"

      There is considerable difference between the world 150 years ago and one today. In particular, 150 years ago, moving countries was a much more complicated and expensive affair, which inherently regulated the inflow to an extent. Furthermore, those countries where immigration primarily originated were themselves not all that large, population-wise. Perhaps even more important, their culture was pretty similar, for all the animosity between the original, mostly Protestant population, and later Catholic immigrants.

      Your average immigrant to the U.S. knows much more about what democracy and freedom really mean than someone who was born here.

      That depends. Not everyone moves to US and other Western countries to enjoy civil liberties. If that were the case, you wouldn't see people campaigning for sharia law, honor killings, and other such weirdness. Even for my own country, I personally know at least one guy who bluntly stated that his sole reason of immigrating is to get more money (and, generally, live better in material terms), and he'd return in a heartbeat if the grass grew greener back there; he doesn't care about politics for the most part, and to the extent where he does, let's just say that he thinks Stalin was a guy with the right ideas. Of course, here he's just a lone nutcase; back there, he'd join the 30% that voted Stalin for "man of the century".

    16. Re:So Basically What You're Asking Is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think "Give me your tired, your poor..." was ever said out of the goodness of the nation's collective heart. It was said at a time where we had factories that needed workers. Now we have workers that need factories.

      Time to turn the tide?

      "Take my tired, my poor,
      My huddled masses yearning to eat free,
      The wretched refuse of my teeming shore.
      Take these, the homeless, tempest-tost from me,
      I lift my whip beside the golden door!"

    17. Re:So Basically What You're Asking Is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was my thought exactly when I started reading the (sad saaaad) comments here..

        What happened to you America? If you don't stop re-writing your history every week you're going to loose your soul.

    18. Re:So Basically What You're Asking Is by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The demand is already there, you just moved all the manufacturing to the Far East and Europe. You just need to be more like Germany and Japan, high tech first world countries who still make a lot of stuff.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    19. Re:So Basically What You're Asking Is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know what? It's a dirty business and I don't want any part of it. In my own humble opinion, it's unethical. Your questions sound like "Can we implement a brain drain on the rest of the world with little or no risk?"

      I guess I looked at the question from the viewpoint of, once we get these educated people here (for example because they went to college and got advanced degrees here) should we allow or even encourage them to stay permanently? For me the answer to that question is a resounding YES! What sense does it make to train intelligent, motivated people, and then make it difficult for them to stay here and benefit the US economy? Instead we practically force them to return to their home countries, where their expertise and energy goes into economic or government programs for countries who compete with the US.

  5. Protectionist employment policies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about the country (and others) stop with protectionist employment policies? We all want good developers and good workers, right?

    If you're worried about them coming in and undercutting you on quality and price then consider what happens if the good developers stay in their own countries and entire industries shift to another country because they're better and even cheaper than if they were in your country.

    Competition is good.

    1. Re:Protectionist employment policies by Fallen+Kell · · Score: 1

      Competition is good

      Only if the competition is fair. Are they paying the same taxes? Are they living in the same area with the same cost index?

      I could live like a king in many places on my wages, but not in the northeast USA, or on the Pacific coast, and then take a look at other places around the world, and the difference is even greater. Sure if my living costs were lower I could see dealing with the cut in pay.

      So I iterate again, Competition is good only when competition is fair.

      --
      We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
    2. Re:Protectionist employment policies by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

      Competition is good

      Only if the competition is fair. Are they paying the same taxes? Are they living in the same area with the same cost index?

      If they are living among us as US citizens or permanent residents, they do.

  6. Why should wage matter? by wisnoskij · · Score: 2

    It seems any system that differentiates based on wage is inherently flawed.
    Most try to differentiate based on skill and if that skill can be found locally.

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    1. Re:Why should wage matter? by jd · · Score: 1

      Wage should be -a- factor, since higher wages for the middle class means a stronger economy. At present, all the money is at the extreme end of the food chain, so there's no fiscal circulation, which in turns means stagnation.

      But it should not be the only factor. Capacity to -generate- wealth should be more important than capacity to earn it, where you need to ignore all right-wing dogma over who actually generates wealth. Inventors generate wealth. Discoverers generate wealth. Engineers of pretty well any walk of life generate wealth. Businesspeople do NOT.

      It might be better to arrange a system in which skills are exchanged - we get the real drivers of the economy, they get all of our MBAs and executives. Permanently, with no possibility of return once the overseas nation realizes we've destroyed their nation with the useless third of the world's population.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    2. Re:Why should wage matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, just send the MBAs, executives and lawyers to Tasmania.

    3. Re:Why should wage matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Swap engineers for OWS supporters. Win-Win for the US, but nobody would want to make that trade.

    4. Re:Why should wage matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look I know this is slashdot where engineers and coders are cool and MBAs are lame, but seriously?

      I have an MBA. Half the people in my MBA class were from IT or Finance. Do you know why we took MBAs? Because having only technical skills doesn't cut it in the long term unless you want to be stuck locked in the basement and not allowed to deal with people. Maybe there is some nerd glory in the BOFH scenario, but realistically most IT is used to drive society and business. Understanding business is important to be able to use IT effectively. Even if you are an independent inventor looking to invent stuff to sell to home consumers, having business skills will help you market and sell your own goods, plan prices, and to not get ripped off in general.

    5. Re:Why should wage matter? by jd · · Score: 1

      How could you?! The Tasmanian Devil has done NOTHING to deserve such cruelty!

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    6. Re:Why should wage matter? by jd · · Score: 1

      But you don't communicate. The only successful MBA-driven businesses have relied on FUD and hard-sell. That's not communication, that's emotional abuse. And what have they produced? What has Randall Stevenson (CEO AT&T) actually MADE that is worth hard cash? No, not the geeks he employs, what has HE produced?

      And what of the legends in the business world? I despise the very ground Bill Gates walks on, but he SOLD people HIS work and I have some respect for that. It was crap work, but it WAS work. I regard Sir Clive Sinclair with unmuted disgust, but he too SOLD people HIS work. He achieved glory (and infamy) precisely BECAUSE he was a geek. It is BECAUSE he was a geek that he COULD speak to people. It is NOT the geeks who have difficulty, it is the business folk.

      Fred Hoyle - GEEK. Stephen Hawking - BLOODY GREAT GEEK. Linus Torvalds - GEEK. Plato - GREEK GEEK. Homer - GEEK. Shakespere - GEEK. Andrew Lloyd Webber - GEEK. Biran May - DR GEEK. Alan Turing - GEEK. The Bad Piper - GEEK. Rolf Harris - GEEK. Prince Charles - Pointy-Eared GEEK. (The architects who slam him but also produce crap buildings - MBAers.) Bruce Dickenson - BLOODY LOUD GEEK. Enzo Ferrari - GEEK. Do you see a pattern here or do I have to clobber you over the head with a 2x4?!

      What do Wall Street investors make? I'm not talking about what they make in their paycheck, I'm asking about what their product is. What value they've added to the raw product they work with. An aggregator that took all invested cash and provided it as a loan to the company in question would be value-added, there would be a definite input of raw material and a definite output, a definite product. What product do day-traders make? What's their value-added? Or, instead of adding value, are they not really sponges SUBTRACTING value from industry? Isn't the whole point of their work to get profit NOW and not later through any REAL investment?

      Patent trolling companies are an MBA's wet dream - all money and no product. It's all paper-shuffling. What great new revolution will we see from that? What shell company can you name that will produce actual material goods? And if they make nothing and do nothing, what the hell good are they?

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  7. Opinion != news by SirGarlon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Trolling for opinions on immigration is not "news for nerds." Believe it or not, I come here to get informed, not to get drawn into pointless flame-wars.

    --
    [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
    1. Re:Opinion != news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your UID is low enough that you should understand what ask /. is... And if you come into one on a subject you don't care about to "become informed" more the fool you.

    2. Re:Opinion != news by BadPirate · · Score: 1

      Thus the "Ask Slashdot:" category... News organizations can dabble in opinion, and Slashdot is only roughly similar to a "News Organization".

      --
      - Holy crap, I've got MOD points! Who thought that was a good idea.
    3. Re:Opinion != news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trolling for opinions on immigration is not "news for nerds." Believe it or not, I come here to get informed, not to get drawn into pointless flame-wars.

      Nobody is "drawn". You are here, reading and commenting, of your own volition.

      I have no problem with "Ask Slashdot" and if I'm not interested in a topic, I don't read it.

      Thank you Slashdot for being Slashdot!

    4. Re:Opinion != news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're less starved for entertainment than I

  8. Y'all Come Policy: Bring Em under the Tent by retroworks · · Score: 1

    Top 20% creates jobs for the people in the bottom 80%. The myth of immigrant labor taking jobs is pretty much busted. Wall St Journal reported last month that Mexico is a NET EMMIGRATION country since 2006. If you add up all the "lost jobs" since they started broadcasting the "lost jobs" statistic, the developing world would be an empty desert. The jobs that are lost are not jobs we want. What we want are the top 20%, and we want those companies to excel with the best workforce possible. http://retroworks.blogspot.com/2012/04/mexican-immigration-solved.html

    --
    Gently reply
  9. I know it says "Give us your tired, your poor..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But surely the Statue of Liberty is there for the smart and the strong? Let in the bright people who want to come to this country, and they will do a lot more for the economy than the average minimum-wage worker.

  10. This is easy. by nurb432 · · Score: 0

    Don't let them in.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  11. Same by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What are a reasonable temporary-worker or immigration-visa rules to apply to workers whose skills would quickly net them a 'top 20th percentile wages' job (about $100,000) in the American workplace, if they were allowed to work in the country?

    Same as any other visa, whatever that policy happens to be. Why would/should wages be a factor?

    1. Re:Same by ZeroSumHappiness · · Score: 1

      The theory is that we have plenty of talent to fill the 20k-90k/yr jobs and don't want to dilute that market for current residents and citizens.

    2. Re:Same by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the problem is that employers would rather pay the foreigner LESS (and in many cases, it's substantially less) than what an equally qualified american would get for the same job... and there is no shortage in any job or industry in this country. the workers are there, employers are to fucking cheap.. every visa-holding employee could be replaced by a citizen if the employer was willing to pay the prevailing wage for the job.

    3. Re:Same by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      The theory is that we have plenty of talent to fill the 20k-90k/yr jobs and don't want to dilute that market for current residents and citizens.
      I would argue that the theory is exactly backwards. We should only be allowing people to immigrate who have specialized skills that are not available in the current labor pool in the United States. Thus, those jobs should also be the highest paying jobs. Instead, what we have turned the immigration policy into is a way to bring in people to perform the middle class jobs for which we have many, many existing people with the skill and desire to perform. So instead of filling a specific gap in labor we are just undercutting the cost of an already existing and well-balanced labor pool.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  12. All based on what you are trying to accomplish. by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

    Personally, I have my doubts that immigration is logical in a democracy.
    But if you are a capitalist and are coming from a standpoint of increasing the economy, then allowing anyone who wants to come and work on whatever is the only logical policy.

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    1. Re:All based on what you are trying to accomplish. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Why would immigration be illogical in a democracy?

      (I can understand why unrestricted immigration would be, but there are certainly ways to control immigration such that it doesn't adversely affects the politics of your country)

    2. Re:All based on what you are trying to accomplish. by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      Politics, and culture. Every culture has it own opinions.
      Someone who grew up in another culture will invariably have different opinions, and when you allow someone to immigrate you not only give them a vote in your future but their future children as well, who depending on the situation could retain a large part of the original foreign culture.

      You seem to be implying screening people to make sure they have the correct opinions. Well that has many limitations. First off, I have my doubts that it is possibly to be from another culture and not share its opinions and therefore disagree with the one you are immigrating to; It would just become a test at memorizing the correct responses; And who is to say that the correct opinions are, most people in any country would have a different opinion on that and they change all the time.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    3. Re:All based on what you are trying to accomplish. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      You seem to be implying screening people to make sure they have the correct opinions. Well that has many limitations. First off, I have my doubts that it is possibly to be from another culture and not share its opinions and therefore disagree with the one you are immigrating to

      You make an implied assertion here that someone from another culture who shares its opinions will necessarily disagree with yours. That is not the case - there are plenty of mutually compatible cultures out there that agree on the fundamentals, especially those that share common roots. I doubt you'd find many important points to disagree upon with a Canadian, say. Or even a Pole, for that matter.

      It would just become a test at memorizing the correct responses

      Not all tests are about asking questions. Sometimes you just watch the reaction. One can train for that, too, but it's much harder, and it may be unfeasible for the applicant for ideological reasons (which is precisely what you're screening for).

      And who is to say that the correct opinions are, most people in any country would have a different opinion on that and they change all the time.

      That is kind of a counter-argument to your original point, don't you think? If they change all the time on their own, then surely it's no big deal?

      But of course it's not that simple. There are things that change all the time, and then there are things that are relatively constant (or at least change much slowly). Those latter things are also, coincidentally, those on which there's a broad consensus in society, and they also tend to be enshrined formally as part of social contract, e.g. in a constitution of the state. So that's a good starting point to decide what the "correct" opinion is. If someone fundamentally disagrees with freedom of religion or freedom of speech, for example, they're certainly not qualified; etc.

    4. Re:All based on what you are trying to accomplish. by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      Starting on your last points, first I cannot disagree more. If we were to pick the law as the correct opinion then it would retard the cultural change and for example might very well have extended slavery.

      I also disagree that broad consensus are necessarily enshrined in law or are largely immutable and that change of opinion is a counter-argument. Culture changing is a fact, but that does not make unnatural culture change a good thing at all. Even a culture being influenced from afar has its downsides, not that complete isolation is a good alternative. But my original point was not that cultural contamination was bad but that inserting another culture into a country can create laws and rulings that are contrary to the original founding culture. If I am in a country that has a 60% pro abortion opinion rate and I am happy with that (which might correspond to: it is legal but considered immoral and unacceptable in normal circumstances) then why would I want to allow in a bunch of people who are of a different opinion and might push and be successful in outlawing it?

      "You make an implied assertion here that someone from another culture who shares its opinions will necessarily disagree with yours. That is not the case - there are plenty of mutually compatible cultures out there that agree on the fundamentals, especially those that share common roots. I doubt you'd find many important points to disagree upon with a Canadian, say. Or even a Pole, for that matter."
      As a Canadian I would say that I absolutely would not want this country to become any more American. Of all the nationalities to let in I think I would choose anyone except the US, our philosophies are almost complete opposites IMO in all important matters (especially the political ones).

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    5. Re:All based on what you are trying to accomplish. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Starting on your last points, first I cannot disagree more. If we were to pick the law as the correct opinion then it would retard the cultural change and for example might very well have extended slavery.

      Hence why I referred to the basic law, such as the Constitution.

      Also, I was not talking about upholding it as the "correct opinion" for eternity, but rather using it as a practical gauge for what kind of people you're willing to let into the country.

      I also disagree that broad consensus are necessarily enshrined in law or are largely immutable and that change of opinion is a counter-argument. Culture changing is a fact, but that does not make unnatural culture change a good thing at all. Even a culture being influenced from afar has its downsides, not that complete isolation is a good alternative. But my original point was not that cultural contamination was bad but that inserting another culture into a country can create laws and rulings that are contrary to the original founding culture. If I am in a country that has a 60% pro abortion opinion rate and I am happy with that (which might correspond to: it is legal but considered immoral and unacceptable in normal circumstances) then why would I want to allow in a bunch of people who are of a different opinion and might push and be successful in outlawing it?

      Try to look at it more broadly than specific issues such as abortion (as a side note, it seems to be a really effective tactics in US politics to distract voters from the big picture by making them focus on highly emotional but very narrow issues). In your example, the people who'd want to make abortion illegal would almost universally be highly religious people who believe that their religious commandments extends to others - i.e. they would not respect freedom of religion (I know there are secularists opposing abortion as well, but they are a tiny minority).

      As a Canadian I would say that I absolutely would not want this country to become any more American. Of all the nationalities to let in I think I would choose anyone except the US, our philosophies are almost complete opposites IMO in all important matters (especially the political ones).

      Would you seriously prefer to deal with someone with a mindset corresponding to the stereotypical, say, Saudi Arabian or Chinese culture, over American one?

      As an outsider (I'm neither American nor Canadian citizen, though I am a Canadian permanent resident), the basics of your cultures are very close - they're both highly individualistic compared to world average, politically are focused on individual human rights and freedoms, and economically on property rights (this, by the way, is true of all Western countries). If you read the Charter of Rights and the Bill of Rights side by side, they agree on far more points that they disagree.

      Besides, it's frankly rather pointless to consider US as a single monolithic entity. The culture of Pacific Northwest, for example, is pretty close to its Canadian counterpart across the border, while Alabama or Mississippi are worlds apart. Canada is pretty varied, as well - just compare Quebec and Alberta.

    6. Re:All based on what you are trying to accomplish. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... as a side note, it's really strange to see a Canadian arguing against immigration on the grounds of culture protection. Your present culture is actually shaped by immigration far more than American one is - for all their talk about "giving your tired, your poor", Canada did far more of that in the last century or so. And it was certainly much more disproportionate to the amount of people you've already had, so the "melting pot" didn't melt it anywhere near as well as it did south of the border.

  13. Re:With unemployment where it is at, send them hom by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1

    We have lots of citizens who need jobs. Send the foreigners home. Locals may need training, but let's get them working again.

    Read my lips. No amount of training is going to bridge the shortage of skilled workers in the USA. Until something is done that actually addresses the problems in your education system this is always going to be an issue.

    Oh, and there's plenty of work available in the fields picking fruit, but only foreign workers will do it.

    --
    Drill baby drill - on Mars
  14. Skewed perspective. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    100k is the top 5% of individuals and the top 15% of households.

  15. Honest Questions.... by BigDaveyL · · Score: 1

    At the risk of sounding Xenophobic...

    Why do we need to bring in labor when we have 8.2% unemployment, not counting those who quit looking and underemployment? Are companies not willing to invest in its own workforce or in schools to develop these people? Or do they want them shipped over on a gold platter?

    1. Re:Honest Questions.... by the_B0fh · · Score: 1

      Because we really can't find qualified people? We're a large company, and in this region, to find someone with the skillsets I'm looking for is nearly impossible, and we're paying top $$.

      Training? I provide additional training, but if you don't come in knowing your shit, why the hell should I pay you $100k just for the privilege of teaching you all the crap you should know for this position?

    2. Re:Honest Questions.... by BigDaveyL · · Score: 1

      I'm not even talking $100K salaries. Why not hire people out of college at $42K (who have 3.0+ GPA in STEM degrees for example) and help tie off the loose ends?

      If you provide necessary training, then you're the exception to the rule. The "issue" is that our educational system/corporations have fallen short in some regards - they want skill sets that are rare, but have been unwilling to develop employees. Now they are reaping what they have planted.

    3. Re:Honest Questions.... by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

      Prove it.

      Post the job, post the location, post what you are offering as pay.

      I am guessing the job is like 3 positions combined, with a laundry list of requirements, and make 50k, tops? And you are located in some stupid suburban office wart, with mcmansions all around for the execs, and a 5 minut drive to one of 3 golf courses?

    4. Re:Honest Questions.... by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      We're a large company, and in this region, to find someone with the skillsets I'm looking for is nearly impossible, and we're paying top $$.
      Sounds like you are not paying top dollar enough or you would find somebody. Or perhaps the needs are too specific. I just hired a guy with lots of technical background in various languages, but no experience in language X to be a programmer for me in language X.
      On the other hand, we also recently tried to hire some entry level programmers, and we didn't get very many exciting applicants. But then, the pay range that my company was willing to pay for entry level was below what most entry level programmers would be willing to take. There was one guy that we looked at that I would have paid $50k for, and probably another company would have, but the company only wanted to pay $39k. Unfortunately, that is not on par with entry level programmer wages. The department hiring for that position figured there are no programmers available in our area. In fact, if they offered $50k, I'm sure they would find many qualified applicants (and many more unqualified ones).

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    5. Re:Honest Questions.... by the_B0fh · · Score: 1

      Because I'm not hiring for a junior position. Is that really a difficult concept?

    6. Re:Honest Questions.... by the_B0fh · · Score: 1

      I've moved on beyond proving shit to random idiots on the Internet. While I have personally consolidated 3 positions into one (and my boss doubled my pay for doing that) this is not one of those times.

      You've just shown that you're a fucking idiot with a chip on your shoulder, no wonder you can't make more than $50k, tops.

    7. Re:Honest Questions.... by the_B0fh · · Score: 1

      We're a large company, and in this region, to find someone with the skillsets I'm looking for is nearly impossible, and we're paying top $$.

      Sounds like you are not paying top dollar enough or you would find somebody. Or perhaps the needs are too specific. I just hired a guy with lots of technical background in various languages, but no experience in language X to be a programmer for me in language X.

      Could very well be. But $100k to $120k, and not in NYC or SF should bring in a decent selection of candidates at the very least. But I'm in one of those rare fields where there very low or near zero unemployment, unfortunately.

    8. Re:Honest Questions.... by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Could very well be. But $100k to $120k, and not in NYC or SF should bring in a decent selection of candidates at the very least. But I'm in one of those rare fields where there very low or near zero unemployment, unfortunately.
      And if that is the case, then in fact that is what the H1B program was designed for, and back in the 70s that is what it did. Now it is used to bring in entry and mid-level developers, which we already have in spades, in an attempt to artificially lower the cost of labor and destroy the middle class.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    9. Re:Honest Questions.... by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

      So you can't prove it.

      "While I have personally consolidated 3 positions into one (and my boss doubled my pay for doing that) this is not one of those times."

      And you are an asshole.

      MBA?

      Actually I do earn over 50k, but I am young.

    10. Re:Honest Questions.... by the_B0fh · · Score: 1

      So you can't prove it.

      "While I have personally consolidated 3 positions into one (and my boss doubled my pay for doing that) this is not one of those times."

      And you are an asshole.

      When I need to be, yes. Why, this is "kiss your ass day" at your company is it?

      By the way, when I consolidated 3 positions into one, that is *ME* taking on additional responsibilities when those people left. So my boss was happy to double my pay. And ultimately I ended up working only 3 hours a day, and playing starcraft the rest of the time. And my boss was happy about that, because I tripled the entire team's productivity *AND* improved their skillsets.

      And I did hire a junior to be my backup, and made sure he was well trained when I left.

    11. Re:Honest Questions.... by the_B0fh · · Score: 1

      Honestly, I prefer to hire locally, but my peer managers have had trouble finding qualified people as well. It's a freaking pain to do a H1-B. I would go through the pain and hassle for the right candidate, but, damn, surely there're some good people who learnt these kinds of shit on their own.

      I did...

    12. Re:Honest Questions.... by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

      So you are overpaid then? Trim your salary a bit, maybe you can find the numbers to hire the worker you need.

      And you neglected my other points, but that is ok.

    13. Re:Honest Questions.... by the_B0fh · · Score: 1

      Again you prove your lack of comprehension.

      this is not one of those times

      That was over 10 years ago. Why the fuck should I go back and give up my salary? And even if this was happening today, why the hell should I give up my salary to hire a junior guy when I'm trying to hire a senior level position? Read the other parts I just posted again. I'm paying $100k to $120k. This is not a fucking junior level position. At the risk of repeating myself - THIS IS NOT A FUCKING JUNIOR LEVEL POSITION

      This shows why it is so difficult to hire qualified help. Lack of comprehension and tremendous level of self importance.

      Your other points are irrelevant. An MBA is irrelevant to this discussion. If you think it is, this is more evidence you are an idiot.

    14. Re:Honest Questions.... by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "Because I'm not hiring for a junior position. Is that really a difficult concept?"

      You don't nurture your workforce and then you don't get the seniors you need. Is that really a difficult concept?

    15. Re:Honest Questions.... by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

      Thank you for making my point.

    16. Re:Honest Questions.... by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "But $100k to $120k, and not in NYC or SF should bring in a decent selection of candidates at the very least. But I'm in one of those rare fields where there very low or near zero unemployment"

      So that means there *are* candidates it's only they are already happily employed anywhere else and as the very facts demontrate, well, no, 100k to 120k is not enough to bring you a decent selection of candidates.

      In other words: they are already being payed what they consider to be their fair share and you want to get them out of their comfort... by paying about the same!?

      I think some Mr Adam Smith already said something on that kind of situations about 250 years ago -time more than enough for you to notice. Supply and demand, or something like that... humm, yeah, I think that was the concept.

      I'll save you the effort to go after Smith's book and I'll tell you his recipy: rise your offer.

    17. Re:Honest Questions.... by the_B0fh · · Score: 1

      Just because you wish it so doesn't make it so.

    18. Re:Honest Questions.... by the_B0fh · · Score: 1

      In a team of 30, you appear to think that everyone will be a junior, and lovingly groomed over the next 5, 10 or 20 years into a senior or a lead, right?

      Half my team has been with the company for 10 or more years, a few over 25. If they were capable of doing what I need, do you think I'd go out hunting for new people?

      You are indeed, a mucking foron.

    19. Re:Honest Questions.... by the_B0fh · · Score: 1

      "But $100k to $120k, and not in NYC or SF should bring in a decent selection of candidates at the very least. But I'm in one of those rare fields where there very low or near zero unemployment"

      So that means there *are* candidates it's only they are already happily employed anywhere else and as the very facts demontrate, well, no, 100k to 120k is not enough to bring you a decent selection of candidates.

      No, you below grade level reading comprehension idiot. When you are in a field with near zero unemployment, offering wages that are above market rates still don't bring in a decent selection of candidates. See, if people are happy with where they are at currently, they don't go out and look for jobs. This means even if you pay a premium, you still won't get the better candidates. This is one of the effects of zero unemployment.

      I know it's a difficult concept to understand, but try to struggle through it. It will benefit you in the long run.

      In other words: they are already being payed what they consider to be their fair share and you want to get them out of their comfort... by paying about the same!?

      You must have some comprehension problems. Since when did I say I was paying them the same? Seriously, reading comprehension really is a useful skill. Try it sometimes.

    20. Re:Honest Questions.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem in the west is that more and more NOBODY is the junior who is groomed over the next 5,10 or 20 years.
      This is not only in computing but in other trades.

  16. It kinda is by cannonm · · Score: 1

    Even from a company like Ireland or Canada, there are quotas. The quotas change from year to year (by country) based upon greater need. It's a logistical nightmare that pays terribly because it can cost you quite a bit of money in government paper pushing just for a chance to get on a list only to not get the spot.

    --
    Test -MC
    1. Re:It kinda is by Kergan · · Score: 2

      Even from a company like Ireland or Canada, there are quotas.

      Ireland and Canada are companies?

    2. Re:It kinda is by cannonm · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but I don't blame you. They don't even show up in the Forbes 100. Typos abound today!

      --
      Test -MC
  17. Reciprocity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I think the policy should be dictated by the immigrants home-policy. That is, if its impossible for
    a US national to get a job THERE, it should be hard to get a job for the foreign national HERE.
    This would level the playing field for US national scientists and engineers quickly.

    1. Re:Reciprocity by BeardsmoreA · · Score: 1

      I think you would find that on the whole it is far easier to move from the US to X than from X to the US, so that would be close to opening your doors. Sounds very reasonable to me, since I think the whole idea of stopping free movement is revolting, but you guys seem to really like 'protecting your borders'. You know we all get mugshotted and fingerprinted if we dare even visit for a holiday, right?

  18. education system what on the job skills that can't by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    Education system what on the job skills that can't be done in the class room or the lack of entry level jobs so people can work there way up.

    shortage of skilled workers some times comes from people what a overload of skills that NO one has.

  19. Let's have an exchange program by CityZen · · Score: 2

    For any bright person that wants to immigrate here, they should sponsor someone in the US who is currently unemployed to immigrate into their home country.

    Maybe the idea is half-baked: what additional cooking do you suggest?

    1. Re:Let's have an exchange program by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For any bright person that wants to immigrate here, they should sponsor someone in the US who is currently unemployed to immigrate into their home country.

      Yes, because bright people want to immigrate here for the culture and not because their source country has either higher unemployment much lower salaries or both.
      Also, there is a certain issue with language asymmetry. Most incoming people would know English, but few Americans speak anything but English.

    2. Re:Let's have an exchange program by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Yes, because bright people want to immigrate here for the culture and not because their source country has either higher unemployment much lower salaries or both.

      That's the beauty of it. The unemployed American won't have to suffer any employment. (Unless they want to eat, that is. A bonus: weight reduction!)

      > Most incoming people would know English, but few Americans speak anything but English.

      Consider it a program to help solve that problem.

      Think about it. This could solve all kinds of problems! We could tackle both the problems of overpopulated (domestic) prisons and (domestic) homelessness as well! It's a new step in globalization!

  20. michio kaku discusses this thread by somethingtoremember · · Score: 0

    This video is highly relevant to this discussion https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK0Y9j_CGgM

  21. more apprenticeships are needed college for all is by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    more apprenticeships are needed college for all is a issue with the system as is.

  22. Too many steps? by readin · · Score: 1

    1. Build a wall and take other border security measures to prevent the bringing in of illegal aliens, illegal drugs, illegal weapons, and whatever else we want to keep out of our country.
    2. When the border is secure - really secure - amnesty current illegal trespassers so we can end the situation of having two classes of people in the country and can stop having to show our papers any time we want to do a little bit of work.
    3. Give out plenty of visas to software engineers because the cost of shipping software is next to nothing and I would rather compete against an Indian making an American salary than an Indian making an Indian salary.
    4. . . . ?
    5. Profit!

    --
    I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
  23. Let them all in by alexander_686 · · Score: 2

    I can empathize form where you are coming from, but you are ask subjective question where people give the wrong answers.

      Even the simple one on permanent residence. I worked on a study on Scandinavian immigrants to the US in the late 19th century. Over ½ said they were going to return. Almost none did. The predictive power just was not there. I am going to rely on antidotal evidence but I still think it holds true. People come to the US with plans and after 5 years those plans almost always gets turned around.

    Then you start asking the tougher subjective questions – Are these people going to take away “Native” American jobs away from us – or at least lower our pay. The answer is always going to be yes. That being said, we are a nation of immigrants – it is one of the ways we constantly reinvent ourselves to meet the new challenges of tomorrow. I can’t imagine an immigration bureaucrat being able to guess who will kick off the next great revolution.

    If somebody can earn 100k I would rather have them work in the US and have them shave 5k in salaries for a “Native”. They will pay taxes and add vigor. The other option is to let them stay where they are – and let them invent the next big idea outside of America.

    1. Re:Let them all in by AK+Marc · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Shaving $5k off "native" pay isn't a bad thing. I'd vote for eliminating all quotas over a 5 year period (giving the market some time to absorb any change in immigration).
      Rules:
      1) must have an advanced degree capable of pulling in $100,000 or more per year in the US market.
      2) No violent convictions.
      3) No pre-existing medical conditions (TB, AIDS, smoking, cancer).

      They are issued two 6-month visas and four 1-year visas (not at the same time, but sequentially), where they must be employed at $100,000 or more and have no criminal convictions of any kind (I used to have to put in "other than minor traffic tickets" but Texas finally decriminalized traffic tickets sometime after 2001, when I moved away, and I think they were the last where 1 mph over the limit and such was a criminal misdemeanor).

      At the end of those 5 years, give them a green card or citizenship or something like that. It would suck for those who would make $102,000 in today's market, but $95,000 in a market filled with others like them so that a quota would help them, but the real effect is that the $110,000 per year jobs would settle in around $100,000 per year, and immigrants looking to move to the US would aim for the $150,000+ jobs for the extra cushion.

      If 1,000,000 can get in after 5 years (no quotas), then let them all in, they'll make $100,000,000,000 minimum (taxes and economic value).

      My "fix" for H1-B was always to charge the same for the visa (to the sponsoring company) as it would take to train someone into the position. Then train someone into that position and revoke the H1-B visa. I'm not sure it would have the effect I'm desiring, that companies would begin training themselves, rather than outsourcing the training to the US government, but I'm sure someone smarter than me could fix that.

    2. Re:Let them all in by houghi · · Score: 1

      People come to the US with plans and after 5 years those plans almost always gets turned around.

      I know many people for whom it is the other way around. They wanted to stay and left for another country anyway.

      Same reason: things change and shit happens.

      When you look at inner country moving. Some people move around all the time, others will die in the house they were born in.

      If you go from Kansas to Silicon Valley, are you not taking away the job of one of the locals?

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    3. Re:Let them all in by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      surely the pre-existing medical condition is a bonus if they're paying for health care themselves. Got to keep the American medical industry thriving, how else can you afford to hire foreign doctors on exorbitant salaries?

    4. Re:Let them all in by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Paying for your own care isn't sustainable. You might be able to pay for it from savings, but few (read as "none" for all practical purposes) can pay for such medical care from income.

    5. Re:Let them all in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fix is simple-remove the tie between the company H1-B recipient. Give H1-B visas to the individual.

      Companies lobby hard to keep the worker like an indentured servant.

    6. Re:Let them all in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People have illusion about these H1B people. Most of them have graduate degree from Asia but not that the best in their field and can not create new industries etc. If you find the statistics, less than 1% have achieved what they could not do in their native countries with their superior talents and skills. Rest of them are economic middle class refuges but with no significant contribution to make or create new industries or skill sets. They have the same "me best" attitude rather than learning new skills. They don't change their behaviour except to imitate some cosmetic reflections. If we give scholarships/fellowships to the top 1% of students in the USA and pay all their education debts, we can create the same type but best workers and who will be loyal to USA than these H1B guys. Most of these outsiders get their degrees by hook or crook and their parents have made tons of money either not paying taxes or through bribe. Most bring the same attitude to the USA. So, give them 1 yr temp visa and if they are not doing routine jobs and found to be the best, then let them go back. You can always get a new batch of better skilled scientists and engineers etc. You don't want highly "paper" qualified immigrants in the USA. They come with lots of mental problems and some kill their children because of their religious or other 10th century ideas. If the immigrants are top notch, welcome them, otherwise treat the am 1 year guest and send them back. Most refuse to go for further US training in new areas. Since they had not paid taxes in the USA before they came to enjoy the current benefits of this country. They can better serve their own country. Salary of 100K or more should not be the criteria for immigration, rather their long term contribution to this country. You can not go back to history, but can prevent future tragedies.

    7. Re:Let them all in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So true, less that 1% have guts to leave their home towns **worldwide**, yet they create a huge percentage of the worlds economic growth, through so may mechanisms its crazy.

      The real 1% are the cross pollinaters of our information age, H1B, Green Cards are just out dated slowing processes that individuals pay for in the same way as our economy.

      As for Chuck "Bandwagon" Schumers, don't bother running for president in 2016, we have your number clocked.

    8. Re:Let them all in by Beetle+B. · · Score: 1

      They are issued two 6-month visas and four 1-year visas (not at the same time, but sequentially), where they must be employed at $100,000 or more and have no criminal convictions of any kind

      If I were from another part of the world with the skills needed to earn over $100,000, then there's no way I'd accept this kind of deal. Trust me - the US is not the only good place to live that has good jobs. Other countries would give me better deals than 6-month/1-year visas.

      I mean, really - you're saying make sure they live with those visas for 5 years and if they maintain all that, they get green cards. So highly qualified workers more or less must "suspend" their life for 5 years just for a green card? Because with one year visas, with the fear that it won't get renewed because someone decided the prevailing salary should be $98,000, no one is going to make any kind of long term investment. Have kids? Well, why should we move to the US and put them in a school where they may quickly get uprooted? Want to buy a house? Bad idea. I may get kicked out in 6 months.

      but the real effect is that the $110,000 per year jobs would settle in around $100,000 per year, and immigrants looking to move to the US would aim for the $150,000+ jobs for the extra cushion.

      That only emphasizes my point. I defy you to find someone who can thinks he/she can earn $150,000 and is willing to move to another country on a measly one year visa. Heck, if I'm worth that much to you, you better get me a green card in 1 year. Me? If I thought I could earn that much, I'd rather go to Australia, earn $120,000, and am almost guaranteed a permanent residency in 1.5 years than deal with snobby Americans and have the "privilege" of becoming a permanent resident. The Australians probably have better health care, too.

      I just made up Australia. If not them, I don't doubt there would still be better options.

      --
      Beetle B.
    9. Re:Let them all in by reason · · Score: 1

      Don't forget that lots of highly skilled people want to work in another country for a while, but have no intention of living there permanently.

      My brother in law worked happily in the US for a few years on well over $150K/year, but after he and his wife had a daughter, they wanted to move back to NZ to bring her up. He found a job back home (at a considerable paycut) and left the US after 4 years, 10 months. His US colleagues thought he was mad to leave a good job so close to getting a green card, but he had no interest in a green card. Living in the US forever had never been in his plan.

      I have several other friends who have worked in the US for a year or three after getting their PhDs, just for some overseas experience before heading home. It's pretty common among younger, highly educated people.

    10. Re:Let them all in by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      If I thought I could earn that much, I'd rather go to Australia, earn $120,000, and am almost guaranteed a permanent residency in 1.5 years than deal with snobby Americans and have the "privilege" of becoming a permanent resident. The Australians probably have better health care, too.

      Australia has a points system where you could be a permanent resident before ever setting foot there. The UK had one too, but it was suspended indefinitely within the past year.

      So highly qualified workers more or less must "suspend" their life for 5 years just for a green card?

      Yeah. The only people who wouldn't like it are the ones not willing to work for it. Besides, it's so easily gamed that I expected many to game it in responses. Set up a dummy corporation and pay yourself $100,001 per year. You'd need $500,005 cash (plus living expenses) when moving here, but it would guarantee you sufficient pay to become permanent. No risk involved.

    11. Re:Let them all in by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      You assume that the $5k off would be a one time value, it would not.

      Each wave of incoming immigrants would have at least that much of an effect and the cumulative salary impact of bringing in an unlimited (1,000,000 in your example in only five years) would completely flood the industry / industries and devalue labor rates to a point where people who would have been making 110,000 in your example would be making 30-40k if they were lucky enough to still have work.

      I'm all for immigration but you have to restrict the inflow such that it doesn't impact the labor market.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    12. Re:Let them all in by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      He moved to the US to make the nesting cash? That's just silly, everyone from NZ doing that goes to OZ. I'm in NZ, and had permanent residency before setting foot (well, not strictly, I visited once in the '90s, but the wife and kid had never been before they were permanent residents). At least when my kids grow up, they can stay in the US as long as they like, no visas needed. The youngest is a NZ citizen, and the rest of us will be in about 2 years. NZ is a much better place to raise a family than the US.

      Though I wish more Kiwis would get good overseas experiences, and maybe that would cut down on the "it'll be 'right" attitude that has taken down two of the companies I've worked for, but now I'm at a NZX 50 company, so no more worries about the CEO/owners being so lax the company goes under.

    13. Re:Let them all in by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The restriction is the $100,000 minimum. So many come in that it floods the market, and they'll all be sent home. So your guess is provably wrong. 1,000,000 people that must get paid $100,000 or they leave can't put pressure on the labor rates to push them to $30k. I can't believe anything else you say when you are so interested in proving me wrong you don't even bother to look at the issue, or are incapable of understanding it.

    14. Re:Let them all in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know. I'm an American living in Europe and I don't see a way to make the high salaries that are available in the USA. In software development USA pays about 30% more, and the cost of living is less, taxes especially.

    15. Re:Let them all in by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      My 'guess' is provably wrong? I don't see that you have 'proven' anything at all other than that you don't understand economics and that, like so many people on /. you can be offensive for no good reason whatsoever.

      You stated "must have an advanced degree capable of pulling in $100,000 or more per year in the US market.". You did not state this as a requirement for staying in the country but okay, let's run with it.

      You're saying now that anyone not making 100k minimum would be sent home. You can only hold true to that until they qualify as US citizens and are able to stay without any limitation which nullifies your attempt to keep labor rates high over time. Even if it were true, you would end up sending so many of them home as to completely negate your proposal to start with.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    16. Re:Let them all in by parkinglot777 · · Score: 1

      Yeah. The only people who wouldn't like it are the ones not willing to work for it.

      There are many reasons/factors for them not willing to work for it because each person comes from different part of the world plus the person's current status. If the person comes from one of the 3rd world countries and is an average to lower social class of the country, the person would have higher motivation to stay in the better social condition (in the U.S.). If the person comes from one of the 3rd world countries and is already high in the country social status, there is a better chance that the person would go back home. However, a person who comes from a developed country (1st world) would incline to go back for different reasons -- just want only some abroad experiences, tired of the current social/political environment, get a better offer from the home country, etc -- because he/she does not gain much in the U.S. compared to his/her own country.

      Besides, it's so easily gamed that I expected many to game it in responses. Set up a dummy corporation and pay yourself $100,001 per year. You'd need $500,005 cash (plus living expenses) when moving here, but it would guarantee you sufficient pay to become permanent. No risk involved.

      Your assumption of setting up a dummy corporation and pay yourself is silly. You would need way more than just $500k to start up a company, operate it, salaries, etc. http://www.sba.gov/community/blogs/community-blogs/business-law-advisor/starting-business-us-foreign-national That doesn't include time spent. Oh, and I am not even sure that a foreign company could sponsor you to become a permanent resident. However, an entrepreneur can apply for a green card which is a different green card program.

      Besides, if one has that much money, why would one wants to spend it in the U.S. in order to get a green card; whereas, there are other options in other countries?

      All in all, you should not include everyone who is not interested to stay here as "not willing to work for" because it sounds too arrogant.

    17. Re:Let them all in by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      There is no means by which an infinite number of people willing to take a job at a minimum of $100,000 will flood a market to the point where the wage for that job will be $30,000. I consider that statement proof against your statement. I note you do not dispute my premise or logic, just my manner of presenting the truth and the fact that you don't like the truth.

      Perhaps the reason you find so many people offensive is that we don't have time for fools, and there are so many on the Internt, we treat them with the respect they deserve. None.

    18. Re:Let them all in by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Besides, if one has that much money, why would one wants to spend it in the U.S. in order to get a green card; whereas, there are other options in other countries?

      I don't know, and I don't care. If there are so many other options that are better and easier, why does it seem that the US is such a desirable destination?

      All in all, you should not include everyone who is not interested to stay here as "not willing to work for" because it sounds too arrogant.

      But I am arrogant, so it isn't wrong that it sounds that way. I guess I'm tired of dressing up my comments so idiots won't be offended by the bluntness of them. Especially when the idiots assume things I've never said (i.e. the implication that I'd abolish all other means of entry, otherwise, if you assume everything else is left alone and this is an additional program, nearly all your complaints are irrelevant).

    19. Re:Let them all in by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      Admittedly your logic is completely faulty in so many aspects that I must have missed a few. Your premise is what I've been dismissing with every word. That you think that you know the truth I can do nothing about, as people who don't know what they're talking about often think that they know the truth.

      You can introduce an infinite number of people at 100,000 but you cannot maintain that situation thus the salaries would drop in direct ratio of supply to demand.

      I'll say that if you vote for any such plan where the labor market is flooded with people that I sincerely hope that it affects your industry.

      I will not waste further time discussing fundamental and extremely basic economics with someone who is obviously unwilling or perhaps just plain incapable of understanding it.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    20. Re:Let them all in by reason · · Score: 1

      Ah but there's a danger in that. So many young men who move to OZ end up marrying Australians and never make it home. My husband is one of them :)

    21. Re:Let them all in by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      You can introduce an infinite number of people at 100,000 but you cannot maintain that situation thus the salaries would drop in direct ratio of supply to demand.

      And, since there are multiple renewals, if the market tanks, then all the immigrants will be ejected, making the market recover.

      I will not waste further time discussing fundamental and extremely basic economics with someone who is obviously unwilling or perhaps just plain incapable of understanding it.

      You don't speak about it like you've understood it. They have to make $100,000 a year for 5 years in a row. But no, the market will drop to $10 per year the moment any foreigners arrive, and stay that way, except for the foreigners, who will be paid $100,000+ per year until they are citizens, at which time they will be paid $10 per year. That's your assertion, and you claim I'm the one that doesn't understand economics.

    22. Re:Let them all in by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Maybe he'll get tired of her and move back ;)

  24. You're asking this... by Shoten · · Score: 1

    HERE? This is one of those topics that is guaranteed to garner intelligent discourse by a few amidst a horrifying see of flame from the majority. Why not look into studies on the impact of skilled workers joining a workforce, and the cultural effects of immigration instead? My take is that there should be minimal (but some) financial incentive on the short-term for employment of such workers (IMHO, H1-B is *too* much incentive) and incentives towards citizenship. I believe that immigration of good skilled workers is good for this nation. I've only ever learned from smarter and more educated people around me in the workplace, and have rarely been at their mercy. If a population of 100 grows to 101 because 1 person of a highly-skilled nature joins it, that's a good thing.

    Why not ask something more acceptable to the Slashdot community, like "I've just inherited a medium-sized business where everything runs on a mix of Linux and FreeBSD. Which Windows variant should I migrate them all to?"

    --

    For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
    1. Re:You're asking this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Which Windows variant should I migrate them all to?

      Well yeah, that's obviously a troll question. Nobody'd move an infrastructure from Linux / BSD to Windows.

      They'd go to iOS, because synergizing your mobile infrastructure allows you to leverage out of the box paradigm shifts using a follow-the-sun agile development methodology. This allows you to become a premiere partner for delivering world-class services that will delight and astound customers with their ease of use - "It just works."

    2. Re:You're asking this... by BigDaveyL · · Score: 1

      I agree that importing labor may be a good thing, but there is some merit to the flaming that happens in these topics.

      Ever look for an entry level position? Or even look to switch the type of programming or IT admin you like to do? Or you're a seasoned web developer and all the jobs want a guru but pay peanuts? The same companies will turn around and then say theres a shortage of educated workers, even though there are people out there who may need a little polish

  25. Highly trained workers by br00tus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    As has been pointed out before, the point of H1-B visas is to get rid of older American workers who with education and experience have become highly trained, and replace them with less trained, cheap foreign labor. In 2010, during record-high unemployment, 117,409 people came in on the H1-B visa. Which is just one of many visas that people come to the US and work on. Professor Norm Matloff has a web page about this.

    1. Re:Highly trained workers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly right. They can be paid MUCH less, fewer to no benefits, don't complain. The H1-B program is a scam paid for by corporate contributions to politicians.

    2. Re:Highly trained workers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My solution: Limit H1-B visas to only those provably over 35 or 40 years old. And actually stick to a 150,000 limit (no oops, we let in 50,000-200,000 too many).

    3. Re:Highly trained workers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'Highly trained' ? Highly trained workers need to be paid a salary that goes with the training. But why do you need a highly trained worker to do something that someone trained for 2 months can do ? Why pay $150K to have someone write some basic SQL code ?

      Anybody in the valley will tell you that they prefer younger to older for coding. Not because the younger are highly skilled, but they are more comfortable with the newer technologies and the 'highly trained' worker will be good at programming in general, but not at the newest languages.

      You have two and just two choices. Either get lower skilled workers to immigrate - or watch jobs flow to other countries.

    4. Re:Highly trained workers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As has been pointed out before, the point of H1-B visas is to get rid of older American workers who with education and experience have become highly trained, and replace them with less trained, cheap foreign labor. In 2010, during record-high unemployment, 117,409 people came in on the H1-B visa. Which is just one of many visas that people come to the US and work on. Professor Norm Matloff has a web page about this.

      The developing world, especially the countries heavily struck by a "brain drain" could make good use "of older American workers who with education and experience have become highly trained" to bring their own productivity and their technological level up. If I understand well, the position of these experts is often between rock and a hard place and many are struggling to make a living, so, following the market logic, they should be obtainable on a discounted price.

      I wonder what would it take to attract old overqualified Americans to work abroad as consultants, trainers, or start their own businesses? Is it matter of absolute amount of income, overall standards of living, political/freedom issues, taxes ... ?

      How should "debrained" countries market themselves to prospective ... brains?

    5. Re:Highly trained workers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only reason most developing countries would want Americans is if you are at the cutting edge of research - not some stupid MCSE or DBA or java or some other nonsense. We can learn that here pretty fast. If you gave us Visas.. we would happily completely replace your 40 yr olds who do programming with 25-30 yr olds.

      We want American gringo software folks for the skin color. Maybe we can use you in some conference meetings .. ?

  26. Re:With unemployment where it is at, send them hom by BigDaveyL · · Score: 1

    Read my lips. No amount of training is going to bridge the shortage of skilled workers in the USA. Until something is done that actually addresses the problems in your education system this is always going to be an issue.

    The education system is far from perfect, but there seems to be a lack of entry level positions that would help aleviate the problem. Basically Corporate America complains there is a "talent shortage" but then does nothing about it.

  27. No restrictions by Yoda222 · · Score: 1

    If you were born less than 13000 km from my birth place (in ECEF frame) and if you speaks flemish (just kidding, I'm from the other side of the language border), in my opinion you should be allowed to come to my country for any period of time and for any occupation, do whatever you want to do. If you are coming from further (or if the concept of birth don't applies to you) I have only one condition: just explain to everybody how to suppress the concept of "work".

  28. Get a friggin' immigration laywer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... I can't believe you're this cheap, asking advice from a bunch of dweebs who have their keyboards wrapped in plastic. Get a lawyer, dummy.

  29. De-extemporize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They should migrate to the XXI Century, instead of the XIX Century and its covered wagons - picturesque though they may be.

  30. Just my experience... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'm a Mexican national who has lived over half his life in the U.S. (19 out of 32 years). First it was through my father's work visa, then through my student visa, and currently under my G-4. After graduating from an American university, I found the options available to me very disappointing. I was offered most of the jobs I applied to, but the offers were quickly rescinded when I inquired about visa sponsorship after my OPT expired. At one point it seemed as if I would end up working as a bilingual school teacher since they were the only ones willing and able to sponsor me for the visa, and I believe they weren't subject to the caps imposed by INS. Fortunately I was able to find my current job where visa sponsorship is not an issue.

    As a foreigner with strong ties to this country and its people, it is very disheartening to see most of the pathways to permanent residence blocked off. Under my previous visas I never met the continuous presence requirements, and the G-4 does not have a path to residence. I'm not posting this to rant, but rather to share my experience and see what everybody's thoughts are. Unfortunately the U.S. currently finds itself with strong conflicts of interest when it comes to immigration and there is no easy answer.

  31. grrrr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is interesting to me, because I have 10 years in the field of computer science and I have a breathtaking list of accomplishments and I was born in the U.S. However, companies are turning me down right now on 100k+ jobs, the most they're willing to offer me is 90k. I've got offers, but they won't break the 90k barrier. It pisses me off to no end that they're trying to let foreigners with phony degrees and phony abilities come in and take the job that I could have easily filled with higher quality.

    1. Re:grrrr by Kergan · · Score: 1

      Get over it. The 90k/year immigrant is quick to note that he can make a better wage elsewhere, and the company will be looking for a new guy as soon as he moves on. Plus, the odds are they're only offering you the interview because the spotted the immigrant, and they need to show immigration officials that they failed to locate the needed candidate before sponsoring a visa. The real issue here isn't the immigrant, it's the immigration policy, the hiring policy and the going bout of deflation.

    2. Re:grrrr by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      I share your pain. I used to make more than twice what I make right now, but it seems that these days, having an H1B is a requirement. I keep getting contacted by people with Indian sounding names from various consulting firms, and they always want to know about my H1B status, never my citizenship status. Basically, if you are not on an H1B and are not Indian, they don't want to hear from you, because you are going to demand the prevailing wage, and they are there to try to illegally undercut the prevailing wage by using H1B labor.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  32. Green Card by talldean · · Score: 1

    Temporary, no. Permanent, yes. We should be stapling green cards to every engineering degree with a 3.0 average granted by an accredited US university. We don't have enough highly skilled folks to fill these jobs, and these jobs are leaving and not coming back. If a company in America wants to hire you to do work for more than the average *household* income in America, and it's not a profession with a lack of job openings, we should be doing our best to convince you to become a permanent citizen. Average household income is under $50k, FWIW.

    1. Re:Green Card by BigDaveyL · · Score: 1

      Here's a question..... Why not hire the glut of people already in the system? As I posted earlier, why do we need to import labor with the amount of unemployed/underemployed people we have now?

    2. Re:Green Card by talldean · · Score: 1

      The glut of people have the wrong skills, and can't always be retrained, and certainly can't finish training now. H1-B visas don't go to unskilled laborers; the temporary visas go to people who have the skills we need, and have them now, and are likely to gain *more* skills in the future.

    3. Re:Green Card by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like your business shouldnt exist. Financials dont work out. Stop trying to get welfare from the govt.

    4. Re:Green Card by BigDaveyL · · Score: 1

      So, you're telling me if someone has a degree in CS/MIS/SE/etc. and years of programming in language X, that they can't pick up language Y and become productive in a reasonable amount of time? Have the underlying concepts of programming changed all that much? Is this the Twilight Zone or something?

    5. Re:Green Card by talldean · · Score: 1

      I assumed you were talking about "glut of unemployed factory workers". My bad. Where is there a glut of unemployed software engineers? To be fair, "years of language X" isn't a great sign; "years of languages X, Y, and Z, with nonprofessional experience in A, B and C" is *much* more likely to find work.

    6. Re:Green Card by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but they are not likely to have anything close to a life.

      I mean shit, do you expect managers to do managing outside the office and stick it on the resume? WTF.

    7. Re:Green Card by talldean · · Score: 1

      Keeping up with your profession and keeping your skills recent doesn't take a whole lotta time; call it a five hour a week investment that's the difference between "having trouble finding work" and "can quickly find work in any major city in the world". If that's an hour a day after work, it's arguably a pretty good spend of an hour of time. On the managerial front, I've met very, very few managers who worked a 40-hour workweek; they're not doing managing outside the office, but they're certainly stuck *in* the office more than most. Or, for white collar jobs, the 40-hour workweek is often a myth; 45-50 seems the absolute norm in America.

    8. Re:Green Card by BigDaveyL · · Score: 1

      Sorry if I wasn't clear.

      Take me for example. I do work in some niche languages, some you probably never heard of. I took the job years ago, have to pay the bills. I want to get out. I have a masters degree in a related field. I am slowly trying to learn/keep up to date in my free time (you know when life doesn't get in the way). However, I run into a lot of resistence since I have taken a non-tradional path and I don't have all the keywords.

    9. Re:Green Card by talldean · · Score: 1

      (Digs) SPSS seemed to be hugely used around NIH/Bethesda, if it helps. Tossed your resume into the system here at work as well, can't hurt. :-)

    10. Re:Green Card by BigDaveyL · · Score: 1

      Thanks :-)

  33. I'm trying to get an English PhD in now by DCFusor · · Score: 3, Interesting
    And can't easily do it. He wants to help with my fusion project - for love or tiny money. I want him as a contractor, so I get to give him what little I can afford, rather than giving the state unemployment and disability - I won't have min wage left over for him after that crap - which is why small business doesn't hire people when things are tight. This sucks, he can only get a 6 mo tourist visa unless I can find a university that hasn't hit its limit to hire him as a visiting scholar (he qualifies in spades) so he can at least work here part time. No ethnic/race/spy issues with this guy - he's top rate nuclear physicist and well off enough not to need much money to do what we love to do. Since I can't afford him as an official "employee" (eg the state required crap), the deal isn't happening. He'd be a great US citizen, but there's no way to there from here it seems, just ask the State Dept - if you can get them on the phone at all, you just get shunted from auto-response to another non human response number in a big circle.
    .

    This sucks.

    --
    Why guess when you can know? Measure!
    1. Re:I'm trying to get an English PhD in now by Rene+S.+Hollan · · Score: 1

      EB-1

      --
      In Liberty, Rene
    2. Re:I'm trying to get an English PhD in now by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

      So you have a job, but so little budget you cant even pay minimum wage?

      Why dont you figure out how to get more budget first, instead of trying to figure out how to get more work done.

    3. Re:I'm trying to get an English PhD in now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so I get to give him what little I can afford, rather than giving the state unemployment and disability - I won't have min wage left over for him after that crap

      You're in a hyper-captial-intensive industry like fucking FUSION and you want us to believe you can't come up with minimum wage? Fuck off.

    4. Re:I'm trying to get an English PhD in now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And can't easily do it. He wants to help with my fusion project - for love or tiny money. I want him as a contractor, so I get to give him what little I can afford, rather than giving the state unemployment and disability - I won't have min wage left over for him after that crap - which is why small business doesn't hire people when things are tight. This sucks, he can only get a 6 mo tourist visa unless I can find a university that hasn't hit its limit to hire him as a visiting scholar (he qualifies in spades) so he can at least work here part time. No ethnic/race/spy issues with this guy - he's top rate nuclear physicist and well off enough not to need much money to do what we love to do. Since I can't afford him as an official "employee" (eg the state required crap), the deal isn't happening. He'd be a great US citizen, but there's no way to there from here it seems, just ask the State Dept - if you can get them on the phone at all, you just get shunted from auto-response to another non human response number in a big circle. .

      This sucks.

      So, your issue is that you want to avoid paying taxes, but you can't find a good way to do it? It sounds like the system is working in this case.

    5. Re:I'm trying to get an English PhD in now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      O1

      or, have him form a company over in the UK, hire that company to provide services to you in the UK, have them send him over for training purposes.

    6. Re:I'm trying to get an English PhD in now by KPU · · Score: 1

      Your subject suggests that you are trying to import a PhD whose specialty is English.

  34. dude by buddyglass · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Let 'em all in. If you're going to pull down six digits (and pay taxes on it) then I say: WELCOME TO THE U.S.A.

    Here's the thing. We Americans don't actually build stuff, grow stuff or put stuff together anymore. Well, we do, but it's becoming more and more rare. What do we do? We make software and design stuff. Unfortunately, the kind of endeavors one might easily imagining doing somewhere else. We really, really don't want that to happen, since it's this kind of activity we're going to rely on moving forward to support the rest of the economy, which is inwardly focused (medicine, finance, service industry, etc.) That's why we really want all the world's bad-ass scientists, engineers and developers to re-locate their Hindi / Mandarin / who-the-hell-cares-as-long-as-they-also-speak-English selves stateside and get to work building the next Facebook Google.

    1. Re:dude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why we really want all the world's bad-ass scientists, engineers and developers to re-locate their Hindi / Mandarin / who-the-hell-cares-as-long-as-they-also-speak-English selves stateside and get to work building the next Facebook Google.

      Which ends up going public, fails to yield any gains in the market, and point in fact, nose dives hard and fast. This in turn drives the rest of the market down.

      There are THOUSANDS of people who can do the top tier jobs in this country, but only a handful of people authorized to hire them. They are the same people who dictate a corporate direction, and are at the mercy of shareholders looking to increase profitability by driving down costs.

    2. Re:dude by VisceralLogic · · Score: 1

      Let 'em all in. If you're going to pull down six digits (and pay taxes on it) then I say: WELCOME TO THE U.S.A.

      Here's the thing. We Americans don't actually build stuff, grow stuff or put stuff together anymore. Well, we do, but it's becoming more and more rare. What do we do? We make software and design stuff. Unfortunately, the kind of endeavors one might easily imagining doing somewhere else. We really, really don't want that to happen, since it's this kind of activity we're going to rely on moving forward to support the rest of the economy, which is inwardly focused (medicine, finance, service industry, etc.) That's why we really want all the world's bad-ass scientists, engineers and developers to re-locate their Hindi / Mandarin / who-the-hell-cares-as-long-as-they-also-speak-English selves stateside and get to work building the next Facebook Google.

      You should visit the Midwest some time. There are entire states devoted to growing stuff.

      --
      Stop! Dremel time!
    3. Re:dude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let 'em all in. If you're going to pull down six digits (and pay taxes on it) then I say: WELCOME TO THE U.S.A.

      Here's the thing. We Americans don't actually build stuff, grow stuff or put stuff together anymore. Well, we do, but it's becoming more and more rare. What do we do? We make software and design stuff. Unfortunately, the kind of endeavors one might easily imagining doing somewhere else. We really, really don't want that to happen, since it's this kind of activity we're going to rely on moving forward to support the rest of the economy, which is inwardly focused (medicine, finance, service industry, etc.) That's why we really want all the world's bad-ass scientists, engineers and developers to re-locate their Hindi / Mandarin / who-the-hell-cares-as-long-as-they-also-speak-English selves stateside and get to work building the next Facebook Google.

      Let 'em all in. If you're going to pull down six digits (and pay taxes on it) then I say: WELCOME TO THE U.S.A.

      Here's the thing. We Americans don't actually build stuff, grow stuff or put stuff together anymore. Well, we do, but it's becoming more and more rare. What do we do? We make software and design stuff. Unfortunately, the kind of endeavors one might easily imagining doing somewhere else. We really, really don't want that to happen, since it's this kind of activity we're going to rely on moving forward to support the rest of the economy, which is inwardly focused (medicine, finance, service industry, etc.) That's why we really want all the world's bad-ass scientists, engineers and developers to re-locate their Hindi / Mandarin / who-the-hell-cares-as-long-as-they-also-speak-English selves stateside and get to work building the next Facebook Google.

      Let 'em all in. If you're going to pull down six digits (and pay taxes on it) then I say: WELCOME TO THE U.S.A.

      Here's the thing. We Americans don't actually build stuff, grow stuff or put stuff together anymore. Well, we do, but it's becoming more and more rare. What do we do? We make software and design stuff. Unfortunately, the kind of endeavors one might easily imagining doing somewhere else. We really, really don't want that to happen, since it's this kind of activity we're going to rely on moving forward to support the rest of the economy, which is inwardly focused (medicine, finance, service industry, etc.) That's why we really want all the world's bad-ass scientists, engineers and developers to re-locate their Hindi / Mandarin / who-the-hell-cares-as-long-as-they-also-speak-English selves stateside and get to work building the next Facebook Google.

      Yes, stop the immigrants from taking the low paying jobs and save them for the tea party and their followers. Let's open the door to immigrants on jobs that pay real money, but less then educated, experienced people corporations look to replace.

    4. Re:dude by buddyglass · · Score: 1

      Subsidies, yo.

    5. Re:dude by buddyglass · · Score: 1

      Short sell for fun and profit.

    6. Re:dude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes and they COST (yes I repeat cost and in they loose money in net value) hundreds of billions of tax payer money every year.

        The american agricultural industry is the 3rd most subsidized industry in the world in value.

        So the question remains : what will pay for this ? The previous poster's insight is very true, most of what constitutes the GDP is "inwardly focused", but in order to buy petrol or whatever you need to actually sell shit to other people at some point. Right now what you guys sell is some crappy cars, good planes and excellent software. Very design intensive activities that requires a LOT of talented engineers and scientists, who could be relocated at any given time, if they were a shortage in the US.

    7. Re:dude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We make software and design stuff.

      We also do high speed pizza delivery better than anyone.

  35. Re:With unemployment where it is at, send them hom by talldean · · Score: 1

    Junk degrees in college are an issue here, and they aren't helping much of anyone. College loans are available to all, but they're not quite enough to pay for a top-tier engineering school. College loans are available to all, but they subsidize comparative medieval literature majors just the same as electrical engineers. We need more of certain professions, but we aren't actively helping people go into those professions any more than a random pick on a dartboard. We also explain to high school students "you can do anything!", when in the real world, some careers are *enormously* harder to pursue than others.

  36. 100 million by ZombieBraintrust · · Score: 1

    If we imported a bunch of poor people we would have factories again. Cheap labor would bring them back. About 100 million people want to imigrate to the united states. We have plenty of room and food for them. Not sure if we have water for that many people. Short term you would have a lot of disruption. People would lose jobs. Wages would go down. There would be deflation on the dollar. Lots of oppurtoonity as well. Local buisnesses would be able to sell goods and services to these people.

  37. It's a Global Economy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As soon as we can accept the reality that we are already competing with them for jobs, all the reasons not to have them here fall away.

    The countries that recognize this first will gain the most benefit.

    1. Re:It's a Global Economy by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

      As soon as we can accept the reality that we are already competing with them for jobs, all the reasons not to have them here fall away.

      The countries that recognize this first will gain the most benefit.

      Oh please. Have you looked at our state of education lately? Have you noticed how few of us go into the most important fields of study?

  38. Re:Y'all Come Policy: Bring Em under the Tent by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

    The myth of immigrant labor taking jobs is pretty much busted.

    This myth was busted a long, long time ago. See The Lump of Labor Fallacy. Economists have understood for centuries that economics is not a zero-sum game. But uneducated people continue to believe it is.

  39. Re:With unemployment where it is at, send them hom by BigDaveyL · · Score: 1

    I agree. But I know people with STEM degrees who have difficulty finding meaningful work. It seems to me that if you have less than 5 years or so of professional work in very specific areas in addition to a relevant degree, that you're SOL

  40. Re:With unemployment where it is at, send them hom by Tog+Klim · · Score: 1

    ALL unemployed people aren't stupid, they can learn. Even the older tech workers. Tech companies just want to pay less for foreign.

  41. Let anyone in with a technical degree by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 2

    As in medical, engineering, software, geophysics, etc. The best thing that could happen to the USA is a population bias in favor of intelligence. At the moment, it would seem that we desperately need that.

    However, I would also propose that those with without technical degrees (e.g political science, ethno-musicology) need not apply, but good luck in your country search.

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
    1. Re:Let anyone in with a technical degree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can we ship less educated Americans back to the countries they are coming from? That could disable the tea party.

    2. Re:Let anyone in with a technical degree by KPU · · Score: 1

      I sense an influx of graduates from Bollywood Upstairs Medical College.

    3. Re:Let anyone in with a technical degree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bollywood. Well, there's a price to pay for everything.

  42. Wage= desirable skills by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Basic economics states that highly paid workers have desirable and rare skill sets. I can hardly think of a better test.

  43. Don't treat them like Mexican goat herders by Kergan · · Score: 1

    ... because that's how it currently feels when you want to get a US visa with a strong education and the intention to create a company there. Scratch that; this doesn't even remotely begin to describe US immigration officials. I'd wager that they export more US jobs (by having them created elsewhere, directly or indirectly) than all other professions combined.

    Seriously... Just open the floodgates and let anyone who applies with a degree come and settle, including those after lower quintile jobs. People with education are more likely to create a business, and those that don't increase the supply of trained staff. Cost-free, at that. The "they'll steal low-wage jobs" point is hogwash. Nobody wants the lowest paid jobs anyway, the newcomers would do away with the housing inventory in a snap, and China would have an extremely hard time making its factories work if their production engineers all migrated to the US. (Remember that NYT story about how Apple decided to produce the iPhone in China because, amongst other things, fielding a few thousands of production engineers could be done in China in a matter of weeks instead of months?)

    Also, consider the drive, the resourcefulness and the taste for risk-taking that are needed to successfully cross the Rio Grande or the Mediterranean Sea. In either case, you need to not take no for an answer when you applied the legal way, save hard-earned cash to pay whoever is taking you on the other side, and there is a non-negligible likelihood that you'll get robbed, murdered or (if a woman) forced into sex slavery. If those skills don't fit the successful entrepreneur, I don't know what does. And if crime gets less cash because the flood gates are open, all the better.

    Lastly, it is surprising that livestock and poultry can cross borders freely, but actual people cannot. We may have gotten our priorities wrong when passports were introduced in the 19th century. Then again, if the plebeians cannot escape to better places, wages are kept in check.

    1. Re:Don't treat them like Mexican goat herders by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      Nobody wants the lowest paid jobs anyway,

      Before: "One Million Apply for 62000 Jobs at McDonald's"
      After: "One Hundred And One Million Apply for 70000 Jobs at McDonald's"

  44. Here's an idea by DancesWithRobots · · Score: 1

    How about training local citizens for the job, at low or no cost to them.

    1. Re:Here's an idea by Ash+Vince · · Score: 1

      How about training local citizens for the job, at low or no cost to them.

      The problem with this is that they are often a pain in the arse :)

      Firstly, local citizens that go through the US university system generally have an attitude of entitlement. This is especially true of fresh graduates who have no idea how work actually is, just their preconceptions they picked up off TV.

      Foreign workers without Green Cards are much more compliant workers as they know that if they screw around and get fired they may also get deported. This also makes it much harder for them to enforce the employment rights they do have as they might be out of the country before they get a chance should they be terminated without due process.

      Then there is the money side of things. People on temporary work visas are generally supporting a family back home. That requires less remuneration that a US citizen would need to support a family in the US so they are happier to work for a lower wage.

      Of course this means the US sending lots of money overseas and that is actually bad for the countries economy as a whole compared to if it is all spent in the US. It is also bad for the economy though if US companies can't fill vacancies without offering more money, that pushes up everyones wages as a knock on effect and puts too much power in the hands of the workers, not the company directors and shareholders.

      --
      I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
  45. Why the limitations? by houghi · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Don't you believe in a free market?
    I think it is silly to restrict people because of where they are born. If somebody is better then I am, why should he NOT be able to take my job.
    If _I_ am better then somebody else, why should I not be able to take his job?
    If you are an employer, why should you not have the ability to hire the best people that you can?
    Do you want to be hired on what you are able to do, or because of your race, sex, religion or nationality?

    I have a different nationality from the country where I work. My company thought I was the best for the task, so they hired me. They thought higher of me then of people of their own country. The reason why? Because they cared about the job, not about the passport.

    And when people speak about me not being from their country I say: I have chosen the country I live in. I have made a very calculated decision as an adult. That means I deserve it MORE to live here then those who are born here. That always brings up interesting discussions. :-D

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    1. Re:Why the limitations? by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      The rest of the US economy just isn't a "free market" so you cause a massive imbalance by having one part of it being so.

      As an immigrant to the US myself I can also tell you that your solution would get you an endless stream of people coming from economically poorer countries who's only plan is to come to the US for a year or two, live cheap and send the vast majority of their earnings back home i.e. out of the US economic system, then eventually move back home and live it up there as they are now relatively rich in their country.

      The ongoing exporting of money from a country hurts its overall economy badly. Furthermore those people nearly always consider themselves temporary visitors out to take advantage of a fast buck, rather than well-meaning residents. Consequently the vast majority don't even try to integrate with or contribute to the local society in any way that a citizen or permanent resident (like me) would.

      The net effect from the US economy perspective is all negative, plus it massively devalues our skillets as it gives employers yet another reason to believe they can pay peanuts and get away with it, at least in the short term.

    2. Re:Why the limitations? by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      Typo: I meant skill-sets not skillets.
      You can never devalue the good ol' US bar-b-q :-)

    3. Re:Why the limitations? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >If somebody is better then I am, why should he NOT be able to take my job.

      In principle I can't disagree, but points to ponder:

      How does your employer know he can do a better job than you?
      Because he's willing to work longer hours? (which is an error on
      your employer's part, since working longer hours doesn't necessarily
      imply greater productivity)

      What if he is equal or better than you, but willing to work for a smaller
      salary?

      What if he is not as good as you, but willing to work for a *much* smaller
      salary, so that your employer thinks he can hire two or "them" for less than
      what he pays you, and still get your job done as well as could you alone?

      'Course, if your employer thinks any of these things, IMHO the company is
      shortsighted, and I feverently hope will be drummed out of business by
      more intelligent competition in the marketplace.

    4. Re:Why the limitations? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not the best talent, but best for the lowest price. Let's be honest. You are not better, just cheaper and can get it done.
      Americans will fight to build a wall to keep out cheap labor, but more then willing to give up the higher paying jobs.
      And corporations can pay low wages to knuckleheads to post on blog sites and comment sections.

    5. Re:Why the limitations? by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      Let's see if you still feel the same way when you're 50 years old and have lost your job to someone half your age willing to work for half the pay.

      Unless you are a scientist or researcher with some leads on technology that no one else has, or are in some other way unique in your personal value proposition, in all probability, your company sponsored you because you cost less than the locals who could also do the job.

      This works out well for you, for now, and for the company, but not for the people that you're competing against. You don't care now, but you'll care when you become entrenched over time and then find yourself competing against those younger and cheaper than yourself.

      This has nothing to do with any nationality, religion, sex or race and has everything to do with being able to expect a decent wage to live on when you do a good job.

      Capitalism is good up to a point but you have to have some balance to protect the people from the companies.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    6. Re:Why the limitations? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup. Notice that this is how it works inside the EU. All EU citizens can live and work anywhere in the EU. That's how France ended up needing a "local" representative for French people living outside France, mostly in the UK. There are shitloads of them, and they had no "voice" in France even though they remain French citizens and often return there for brief periods.

      If you apply for a job serving burgers or sweeping the streets they won't ask you your nationality, they just ask if you have "The right to work in the EU" and if the answer is "Yes" then they want to see a passport or national ID before you start work. Discriminating against "foreign" workers from inside the EU is illegal, just like discriminating against black people, or disabled people.

      And the rationale fo this was indeed a free market. If goods can be moved without tariffs and restrictions, then the workers must be able to move too or else it's a race to the bottom for lower paid workers. A natural discinclination to travel long distances from friends and family provides a little friction so that small changes don't result in mass migrations, but if you charge half as much for a product in France as elsewhere, you can expect EU citizens to travel to France to buy it, and likewise if you pay twice as much for workers in France, you can expect EU citizens to move there to get those jobs.

    7. Re:Why the limitations? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't you believe in a free market?
      I think it is silly to restrict people because of where they are born. If somebody is cheaper then I am, why should he NOT be able to take my job.
      If _I_ am cheaper then somebody else, why should I not be able to take his job?
      If you are an employer, why should you not have the ability to hire the cheapest people that you can?

      FTFY. Nice ideal, but the real problem underlying the whole situation is easy to identify.

  46. Make them citizens or permanent residents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they are good, the employers should be willing to pay a fair market wage for them. Just make them full citizens so they can work where they want at market price.

    If employers do get a program like H1-B, they should have to pay a heavy fee (~$10,000 an employee per year) that is used to give scholarships for American students. So if there really is a shortage of workers, it can be addressed.

    Also, if a nation asks the U.S. to stop poaching it's workers, we should respect that unless the nation in question has a poor human rights record.

  47. Pay them like americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Full benefits, no visa in hostage bs, no contractor bs.

    Oh wait, they arent such a good deal then when you cant cheat the system?

  48. H1-B then EB-2 or EB-3 based immigration by Rene+S.+Hollan · · Score: 1

    It is (relatively) easy for skilled workers to work in the U.S. either temporarily or to immigrate.

    Basically, there has to be no American that can be found that meets the minimum job requirements at the prevailing wage.

    I did write skilled.

    Of course, "found" has different interpretations depending on whether the stay is temporary (H1-B) or permanent (EB-2 or EB-3 "Green Card").

    For the temporary case, the employer has to assert they can't find any Americans (and not have layed off any in the last six months, not have an ongoing strike, not be in the immigration department's "dog house", etc.).

    For the permanent case, the employer has to hire the least-qualified American from responses to a ten-day nation-wide advertised job search.

    Immigration attornies can "fudge" things a bit, to make it easier, but not mutch.

    --
    In Liberty, Rene
  49. Re:With unemployment where it is at, send them hom by ZombieBraintrust · · Score: 1

    What does an employed person care if their customer is foreign or not? If I change a tire on a foreigners car I still get paid the same. A foreigner eats the same fast food, rents the same property, and uses the same movies theaters as a citizen. Bringing them into the country levels the playing field for American workers. A foreigner earns the same wage and recieves the same benifits when here. At home they get paid less and regulations are looser for the environment and safety. At home their paychecks go to foriegn buisnesses for foriegn goods. More people does not equal less jobs. More people normally equals more jobs.

  50. Let Me Understand This Correctly by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

    With an average unemployment of over 8.2%, and you can't find a single American to do your job?

    1. Re:Let Me Understand This Correctly by retroworks · · Score: 1

      Yes. Do you think that the 8.2% who are underemployed are eligible for the "top 20th percentile" jobs? 15% of Americans are barely employable, and we have 8.2% unemployed. The best hope of the unemployed 8.2% is a quick injection of smarts to their prospective employers.

      --
      Gently reply
    2. Re:Let Me Understand This Correctly by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

      With an average unemployment of over 8.2%, and you can't find a single American to do your job?

      We are talking about the 20% top percentile, 6-figure salary type of jobs, you know. This is not about filling job slots, but bringing highly trained talent into the country. If we are to survive the inevitability of globalization (and the cheap-o manufacturing flight that comes with it), we must do this.

    3. Re:Let Me Understand This Correctly by dave562 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What field do you work in?

      It took me three plus months of searching to find a good IT employee to help me with my workload. I'm at a company that has tripled its revenue in the last two years. I have more work than I can handle on my own, but I need someone competent to do it... not someone who I need to train and hold their hand. I need to be more productive, not less productive. I need someone I can delegate work to and know that they will do it just as well or better than I can. Those people are not easy to find. I had to sort through a whole slew of unqualified candidates before finding the guy I hired.

      And right after I hired him, I asked for a raise because going through the hiring process made me realize just how limited the supply of qualified technical workers really is. They gave it to me, because the company knows it too.

      There is a serious problem with Americans. Too many people think that they deserve a high paying job. They think they can go "get an education" and get hired by a company that will give them a career track.

      Most of the people I know who are doing well are doing what they enjoy. They are in IT and they like computers. They are doctors and they are fascinated by life and the body. They are engineers and they are complete geeks for building things. They are into biochem and are thrilled to be working with the building blocks of life. They all have passion and they work hard and are constantly thinking about work... not because they have to, but because their brains are wired that way. They enjoy it. It fascinates them.

      Too many people get too focused on being "successful". They do not realize that success comes from excelling at what you do. The drive to excel only comes from passion. Either passion about the task, or passion about the reward. People who are passionate about the task will be successful their entire lives. People who are passionate about the rewards will eventually burn out.

    4. Re:Let Me Understand This Correctly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhm, let me give you an example, sir.

      I have degrees in Finance and Computer Science, plus an MBA. Oh, and I have a lot of experience. I have lived in the US and Japan, and speak both languages fluently. I can get a cork visa for most countries (including US or Japan, obviously) with little effort, and a lot of companies want to have me. In fact, right now I have two companies bitching that they can't clone me, since they want me to help out, but I am busy somewhere else. I have no problem charging over $100k USD per year for my services.

      Then there is my brother. He is a nice guy, but he grew up in the US in Florida, basically as a red-neck. He almost dropped out of high-school, and didn't go to college. He knows some computer stuff (i.e. he's not a kernel hacker or anything, but he knows basic stuff like how to install Windows, etc.), so sometimes he puts ads on Craig's List or whatever and finds people who will pay him to fix their computers - but the only real job he has ever worked is McDonalds.

      Now, who will hire him? I mean ... nobody besides fast food places. He could maybe work at an IT Help Desk, but he's never worked in a corporate environment, and he's very arm "rough around the edges" with a bad temper. Meanwhile there are people applying for those help desk jobs with degrees in IT who have interned various places.

      I would even pay for his school, but he went and had kids (by accident, of course), and he has to stay home and take care of them.

      So how can I help him? (And I mean seriously, if you have any ideas, please tell me!)

      Basically if I want to help him, it seems I would have to pay not only for his college, but for a full-time baby-sitter as well (his wife was also working in the fast food industry, but is partially disabled).

      And let's face it, I am not his mother.

      The point is, there are a lot of people like him who basically can't get a job, and can't easily get trained. (Did I mention that you need a car to go to community college if you live in a rural area in the US because the public transit there is in the stone age?) There are lots of unemployed people who are basically unemployABLE - and even those of us with a personal interest in helping them can't do it so easily.

      I can't take him to one of my clients and be like "He doesn't know anything about HR business processes and has never touched an ERP system, but.. trust me, he'll do well".

    5. Re:Let Me Understand This Correctly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and yet I believe the unemployment for those with a CS college degree is around 2%.

    6. Re:Let Me Understand This Correctly by Hodr · · Score: 1

      FYI- According to the US Census Bureau, the top 20th percentile starts at 55k. 100k/yr gets you closer to the top 7th percentile.

    7. Re:Let Me Understand This Correctly by BigDaveyL · · Score: 1

      Even then it is hard to find a job. I am passionate about IT but need some spit and polish.

    8. Re:Let Me Understand This Correctly by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      There is a serious problem with Americans. Too many people think that they deserve a high paying job. They think they can go "get an education" and get hired by a company that will give them a career track.

      Another problem common in America: holier-than-thou elitism. You are a hardworking individual...it's everyone else that are a bunch of slackers.

    9. Re:Let Me Understand This Correctly by dave562 · · Score: 1

      Not everyone else. Just a sizeable minority.

  51. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  52. Sort by pay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm an Aussie living in the US. I was on E-3, but switched off since it had no path to permanent residency, which was unfair for my family and children. I'm now on H1-B hoping to get a green card, but if I don't manage to, we'll all be leaving the country in 3 years (sigh), including my children who only know the US.

    Time-limited: no, provided they continue valuable employment. This currently depends on the visa type: some are unlimited (eg, E-3), some aren't (eg, H1-B). It is a real nuisance to have both a total time limit in terms of years, and the constant threat of a sudden time limit in terms of days - if you lose your job. You, and your family, can never really settle down, which can become an impediment to productive work, which is the very reason you are in the US. For a specific example: I sleep on a broken bed, and I'm not really getting the sleep I need. Should I buy a new bed? What if I lose my job tomorrow and need to leave the US? I can't take my bed with me. (If this logic seems cloudy, bear in mind I didn't sleep well last night!)

    Path to permanent residency: yes, unless you want people accruing US-paid wealth and then taking it out of the country when they retire. I consider this less of a problem than the time limits; if we have to leave one day, we will. I think it's a worse issue, for the US, to be forced to leave when you are still a productive employee, or still have that potential and will to do so. It would be better to leave on my schedule, so I can plan my family to move, and allow my children to come to terms with the event.

    Limited number: the lottery isn't fun. If a number is necessary, my suggestion is sort by pay, and favour the top paid jobs. This will make it difficult for companies to artificially drive down US salaries by hiring cheaper visa holders to replace US jobs.

  53. It's just fine as it is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have a Ph.D., I'm from the UK and I have got Visas from both the US and Australia and to be honest I think it is fine as it is. All of the institutions I have worked for in the US have had super Visa offices. I'm more than happy just to come to the US for the term of the contract and then move on. I really enjoy the US (Corvallis and Chicago so far). Having a Ph.D. is an immense privilege an so is the freedom it gives to travel the world and work with many people. I would like to think that I give a bit back to the places I stay. I'm happy to come home to the UK, not because I think it is better but just because it is home. If your thinking about getting a phud, do it, its a great place out there. see it live it, enjoy it.

  54. A Kiwi who moved to Canada by ESarge · · Score: 1

    Just copy Canada.

    I'm a New Zealand-born software developer working in just one of those highly paid jobs in Vancouver BC. I refused to move to the US partly because I think the H1-B system has great potential for abuse.

    As a country, you want the highly skilled migrants because they can work where they like and they bring great value. *Every* country in the world is competing to get them; except the US. US based developers have to compete against developers everywhere else anyway; preventing immigration doesn't help any. Even a low-skilled immigrant doesn't really steal a job. In many cases, the money they make is roughly matched by the money they spend that keeps the local economy moving. This is the experience in Alabama where they are actively trying to force immigrants out. Preventing immigration is also racist. As a country, you are claiming that those who are born in your country have a greater right to a job than somebody born anywhere else. Is there a fundamental difference between an American and an African other than their place of birth?

    The Canadian system has a few ways in but they can be summarised as:
    1. Find an employer who wants you enough to fill out some forms for you.
    2. Show that you are young and smart
    3. Wait for the paperwork. That gets you Permanent Resident status.
    4. Wait 3 years actually in Canada
    5. Apply for Citizenship.

    In my case, I came to Canada on a Working Holiday Work Permit. This allowed me to work for anyone for 1 year and is only available to under-36 year olds. Then I found a job and explained what I needed them to do. I used a scheme where my province nominates me for immigration. My employer wrote a letter to the province, filled in some forms, added a copy of their incorporation certificate, I paid the money and off it went.

    1. Re:A Kiwi who moved to Canada by meiao · · Score: 1

      Yeah,
      Canada just changed that.
      I wanted a Canada visa and can't get one now.

    2. Re:A Kiwi who moved to Canada by ESarge · · Score: 2

      If you have skills look up BC PNP.

    3. Re:A Kiwi who moved to Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So how easy would it be for a US developer with mad skillz to emigrate, even temporarily, to NZ to work?

      Big problem for USians working in Canada is double-taxation. Canada restricts US labor in Canada by taxing the non-Citizen's USian income at a fairly high rate. The IRS cuts USians in this situation no slack, either. And, I suppose if one is temporarily living and working in Canada, good luck getting one's VAT moneys back when one goes back to the US, like one can if just touristing.

    4. Re:A Kiwi who moved to Canada by jblb · · Score: 1

      So how easy would it be for a US developer with mad skillz to emigrate, even temporarily, to NZ to work?

      Not too difficult, but easier to down the skilled migrant permanent residency route. Input your details in the points calculator - 140 points means you're selected straightaway. 120 points and IT experience means you'll probably be selected in a few months. Difficult to get a job offer without securing a visa beforehand, and preferably being in the country already too.. Australia is probably easier for a temporary work permit - check out the '457' visa

    5. Re:A Kiwi who moved to Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting. You appear to be against racism but ageism is OK with you. Is there a fundamental difference between some who is 36 and 37 years old? How about 35 and 45? Jeez pick your 'ism but in the end it is wrong. It should be based on skills, aptitude, employ-ability, etc. not something arbitrary like age.

    6. Re:A Kiwi who moved to Canada by ESarge · · Score: 1

      In fairness, I blame the US on this one. The IRS is rather unusual in the world in demanding that US ex-pats report income to the US - even when they've lived overseas for years.

      If you're resident in a country and enjoying its benefits then I think you should pay tax there. In fact, that's how it works for me. I pay tax in Canada at the normal rate for a Canadian. I have to declare NZ income to the NZ tax authorities (i.e. I used to own a house in NZ and had to declare that) but I would only be taxed on income generated in NZ.

    7. Re:A Kiwi who moved to Canada by ESarge · · Score: 1

      No ageism isn't okay with me.

      The normal route for a work permit or immigration in Canada is to get a job offer and then follow the process to show that no Canadian could be found to do the job. There's nothing in there about age.

      Many countries around the world have a Working Holiday program. It recognises that young people generally have fewer responsibilities and more desire to travel. It gives them a chance to try out a country or a continent and see if they can make a go of it. Typically, Kiwis and Aussies go to the UK, get a job, travel Europe and then come back after the visa expies after two years. It's so common that it's called the big OE (Overseas Experience).

      Quite a lot of them do transition onto a normal migration route and stay. They are normally reciprocal arrangements and the UK, Canada, Australia, NZ and France all have them. The US refuses to make such arrangements so that route is closed to US citizens.

      The Working Holiday was convenient for me because, instead of applying from NZ and trying to convince an employer to take me seriously, I could show up in Canada, ready to go and apply there.

      I would note, that age often turns up as one of the criteria in an immigration scheme. Older migrants do generally have a harder time of it. It's more difficult to make the adjustments to make a go in a new culture.

  55. 100K+ is made by 20% of workers?! by ozborn · · Score: 1
    I don't think so - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States

    Household income will come closer, but only 6-7% of people make that kind of money.

  56. maybe your skillsets is to big or to long by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    maybe your skillsets is to big or to long

    1. Re:maybe your skillsets is to big or to long by the_B0fh · · Score: 1

      Yes, I do have a very big and long skillset.

  57. More like the Canadian Points System by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A point system not on a job see http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/skilled/assess/index.asp

    If a person has enough qualifications they are allowed to enter without a job offer in hand.

  58. college what about tech school and people who lear by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    college what about tech schools and people who learn on there own??
    OR apprenticeships

    CS is not IT. Tech school do give the skilled needed for a IT help desk / desktop / system admin job. CS is more on the programmer side and even then it tends to be very top level with lot's of lacking skills.

  59. Re:With unemployment where it is at, send them hom by tompaulco · · Score: 1

    No amount of training is going to bridge the shortage of skilled workers in the USA.
    Hiring the existing unemployed skilled workers might bridge the shortage. You won't know if you don't try it.

    --
    If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  60. Re:With unemployment where it is at, send them hom by crbowman · · Score: 1

    No it's called supply and demand. I promise you that you'll find plenty of people doing what ever job you want if you just pay them accordingly. If we paid tech workers (or fruit pickers or teachers or whatever job you want) what we apparently pay investment bankers or CEOs or what we used to pay lawyers you'd be able to find as many as you need. People seem to want the free market but then complain when the free market responds by informing them that they need to pay more than they want to for a particular resource. The market is telling that employer that smart people capable of doing the job they want done can get better compensated in a different field. Why should we distort the market for any particular field?
        Let me pick on Bill Gates who has testified before congress on this issue (partly cause it's just fun). He has said that Microsoft can't find enough people here with the skills they need. That's not true, there is a whole company here called Apple (and Google and yadda yadda yadda) that have all the skilled workers Microsoft needs. However Microsoft is unwilling to pay them enough to lure them away. That's the market at work, it's has decided that the most productive place to put it's skilled workers, *for a given wage* is a variety of companies. Microsoft's complaint isn't really that it can't find enough workers locally, it's just that it doesn't want to pay what's required to do so, and so what it wants to do is artificially increase the supply of workers by importing them so that the price on the demand curve shift lower.
        Finally to answer the question originally posed. I'd make it a requirement that H1B type migrants be paid in the top 5 percentile (or pick your own high figure) for the job they are taking. That gives the employers incentive to find a worker here and the market will work out the rest.

  61. Re:With unemployment where it is at, send them hom by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

    There is no shortage you fool. There is a surplus.

    The shortage is of people willing to 100k of work a year for 40k in pay.

  62. Limited visa = no high potentials by quax · · Score: 2

    I worked in Germany, the US and now Canada. Had a green card for the US due to my American wife, but decided that Canada would be a good place to sit out the Great Recession. I wouldn't be here if this country didn't have fairly transparent immigration rules that allow for certainty that you and your familly will get permanent residence status.

    Payed of handsomely for Canada. After all I pay a heck of a lot of taxes - not considerably much worse than what I had to pay in the US though and my salary increased by a good margin when I made the move.

    1. Re:Limited visa = no high potentials by Beetle+B. · · Score: 1

      They changed the immigration rules for Canada in 2008 - now it's tougher to get in unless you're in the right profession.

      Mechanical Engineer? Civil? Electrical? Programmer? Sorry, you're not eligible to apply. They reduced the allowed professions to a few. Within engineering I think it's only mining/petroleum (guess why).

      If you have a job offer, then it's a different story.

      --
      Beetle B.
    2. Re:Limited visa = no high potentials by quax · · Score: 1

      I transferred within the same company so this wasn't an issue for me.

      Generally I understand that Canada wants to ensure that people who get here make good money. After all this is supposed to be a net benefit for the country.

      And so far the formula seems to work. In this pocket of the GTA (York region) recent immigrants make on average more money then the established Canadians.

  63. H1Bs cannot start their own business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Furthermore, a lot of businesses started by immigrants are just staffing companies.

  64. Copy Australia by jblb · · Score: 1

    The skilled migrant system in Australia, NZ and Canada seems to work well - a points system with adjustable quotas and bonus points for areas of absolute skills shortage, with a well defined path to residency and citizenship.

  65. Re:With unemployment where it is at, send them hom by talldean · · Score: 1

    Science degrees are rough, honestly; many of the physics majors I've met have wound up doing math or software.

  66. And here is reality. by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

    How about training local citizens for the job, at low or no cost to them.

    That requires local citizens willing/inclined to pursue the education necessary for a 6-figure salary. And please don't tell me that cost is what drives locals away from doing that. We have an abundance of Marketing/Creative Writing graduates (and too few STEM graduates) to prove this is not a factor.

    You need to change the ethos of our society before you can even have a soapbox from where to ask your question. As it is, it's just jingoistic posturing. Deal with it, and suck on it. We do not have a society that cares much about education, and who cares more about creationism and MBAs than anything remotely associated with STEM. There is a reason the STEM intelligentsia in this country is made up in great part by foreign-born citizens.

    1. Re:And here is reality. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For what it's worth--I agree with you about the national attitude towards education. But that being said--the cost has been what kept ME away from a degree.

    2. Re:And here is reality. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have a society that is not willing to pay a 6-figure salary to those local citizens that have pursued the education necessary for a 6-figure salary.
      They want to pay H1B rates.

  67. Re:college what about tech school and people who l by the_B0fh · · Score: 1

    Just because you prefer to read into what I did not say is not my fucking problem. The top guy on the team makes $120k and does not have a college degree, so fuck off.

  68. Re:Y'all Come Policy: Bring Em under the Tent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Absolute bullshit. I work with multiple immigrants in a network security team each making 100k due to well-placed connections and the current international status of most financial institutions. They are knowledgable and usually hard working, but those are premium jobs that US citizens are qualified for and screaming to fill, and they bring nothing extra to the table as their big city Mexico background has no bearing on their jobs now.

  69. Re:With unemployment where it is at, send them hom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you have too much experience, you are SOL too as employers don't want to pay for that. I have seen way too many 5-7 years experience only job (and not over) ads.

  70. Re:With unemployment where it is at, send them hom by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

    " A foreigner earns the same wage and recieves the same benifits when here."

    NO. They depress wages. Except ceo wages.

  71. Re:With unemployment where it is at, send them hom by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

    Oh, and there's plenty of work available in the fields picking fruit, but only foreign workers will do it for $3 an hour.

    FTFY.

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  72. Re:With unemployment where it is at, send them hom by dave562 · · Score: 1

    No amount of training is going to bridge the shortage of skilled workers in the USA.

    Exactly. I can only speak for IT, but it has been hard to find qualified candidates for mid-level positions. The guy I ended up hiring is mostly self taught and loves the work. The large majority of the candidates all wanted to be IT managers and were very light on technical skills.

  73. Spouses need to be given a visa too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would have moved to the US several years ago if it was not for the fact my spouse would not get a work visa automatically and, in fact, it would be very difficult for her to get one. Not because she is not skilled - she has her PhD - but simply because she is in a niche research field where there are not that many jobs going (although she is one of the top experts in her field in the world).

    The hassle of trying to get her through the system has put us off. I am in the top echelons in my in-demand field and would be a "good catch" for the US but the hassle is just not worth it.

  74. Set quota at 250,000 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let employers bid on these visas. That includes hospitals looking for doctors, hedge funds looking for managers, base ball teams looking for left handed pitchers, etc. That'll filter out the bums. There's no need to specify "highly trained".

  75. It depends.... by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

    What are a reasonable temporary-worker or immigration-visa rules to apply to workers whose skills would quickly net them a 'top 20th percentile wages' job (about $100,000) in the American workplace...

    It depends. Are we at economic full employment with american workers in those positions? If not, why would want to encourage businesses to hire non-american workers? On the other hand, if we are at economic full employment with american workers in those positions, then by all means, fill the empty positions with skilled non-americans.

  76. Re:With unemployment where it is at, send them hom by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

    Pay more.

  77. reasonable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    none

  78. Explain current system and it's failings first by nastav · · Score: 0
    A question like this without context is just a troll.

    There is a current framework in the US consisting of philosophy, policies, laws and regulations that answers each of these questions. In order to elicit reasonable responses, it's important to describe the status quo, describe where it's failings are, and ask for ideas for incremental or radical improvements.

    --
    -- obligatory (but true) caveat: my comments my own, and don't reflect my employer or colleagues' positions.
    1. Re:Explain current system and it's failings first by Yoda222 · · Score: 1

      Ok, I do the failings of any system with discrimination on citizenship. Why should anybody have an advantage or a disadvantage just because he was born at the right place, or because he had the good combination of parents, or a combination of this two criteria (depending of the countries we are talking about) ? I don't understand that.

  79. Reciprocity by billybob_jcv · · Score: 1

    Whatever the rules, there needs to be reciprocity - if a country won't let US citizens move there, purchase property and pay the same tax rates as residents, then screw 'em.

  80. Re:more apprenticeships are needed college for all by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

    more apprenticeships are needed college for all is a issue with the system as is.

    And grammar classes. We need more of that as well.

  81. The New New Colossus by goodmanj · · Score: 1

    Give me your rich, your educated,
    your nation's promise for the future.
    Send these, for no more than three years, to me
    provided they have proof of employment and don't intend to have kids.

    Screw that. There is only one immigration problem in the U.S.: the fact that we've made it difficult to get in. The anti-immigration argument "We shouldn't give people who break the rules amnesty, or let them cut in line!" assumes that there should be a line, or that immigration should ever be a crime.

    The sum total of U.S. immigration policy should be: "Are you wanted for a crime in your home country? No? Welcome to America."

  82. Re:With unemployment where it is at, send them hom by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

    Read my lips. No amount of training is going to bridge the shortage of skilled workers in the USA. Until something is done that actually addresses the problems in your education system this is always going to be an issue.

    The education system is far from perfect, but there seems to be a lack of entry level positions that would help aleviate the problem. Basically Corporate America complains there is a "talent shortage" but then does nothing about it.

    This is one of the root causes (not the only one mind you, but an important one.) Corporate America used to believe in training and developing talent. Now, they all want already trained senior level people (with mid-level salaries), and junior-level openings filled with either local senior-level people or with offshore foot soldiers.

    My first job send me and other colleagues to a 5-day training workshop, $7K per head. And mind you that this wasn't an engineering firm, but a good ol' insurance company. But this wasn't uncommon. Any company with enough size had a budget for training.

    That concept is gone because, after all, a company's sole goal nowadays is to maximize profit. Anything else is labeled as socialism (mostly by illiterate angry folks who have no flying clue what the f* that term means.)

  83. Re:With unemployment where it is at, send them hom by turbidostato · · Score: 1

    "Tech companies just want to pay less for foreign."

    Just as you want to pay less for what they produce.

  84. Re:With unemployment where it is at, send them hom by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1

    Well that's where you're wrong actually. Putting artificial barriers in the way of who can and cannot get into the country is the exact opposite of the free market. Your little suggestion about dictating what H1B employees should earn is exactly the kind of interference in the market that you lament in almost every other sentence of that post. Your statement is a classic example of doublethink. You're either for the free market (and the free movement of labor that goes with it) or you're not, or you're in favour of some sort of compromise. But don't ask for trade barriers in one breath and complain about distorting the market in the next.

    --
    Drill baby drill - on Mars
  85. Re:With unemployment where it is at, send them hom by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1

    Pay more.

    Monkeys don't get any better at programming just because you throw more money at them. Sometimes you have to look further afield if you want to get qualified people.

    --
    Drill baby drill - on Mars
  86. No emplyment of others by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Until full American employment is reached.
    If you cant get qualified employees in America with 50 million unemployed.
    It is your fault.

  87. This should be the only way in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am one of those people who is an immigrant and worked my butt off to earn one of them STEM degrees. I am gainfully employed and paying taxes in the high tax bracket for a long time. Additionally, my university education assimilated me into the American culture more strongly. There are many fellow immigrants who came straight on H1B visas and they rarely interact with local population. They do not think America is their country and in general are extremely arrogant.

    So, I would say the following. Define what a STEM degree is clearly. Figure out a way to avoid the Strayer University types by having a way to accredit the colleges/universities. Give these students green cards along with their degree. Completely eliminate the H1B program if possible.

  88. It's not immigration... a first-person perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Holding a PhD from one of the UK's most prestigious institutions, in a growing (albeit somewhat interdisciplinary) field. After four years post-doc at one of the country's (private) top tech schools, I'm now switching to a very large public university as a professor with a salary that is, luckily, in the top 5% of individual incomes (that's still just a starting salary for freshly-minted PhDs at Google, mind you.)

    One would think that I fit the category of sought-after potential immigrant.

    Indeed, I've had no particular trouble obtaining the necessary visas to relocate and live in the US. If I had to do the paperwork myself, I'd be busy for weeks researching various requirements. Specialists take care of it - reminiscent of how the medical field employs scores of specialists dealing with insurance paperwork and legal documentation requirements.

    Now, the one thing this country could do to convince me to stay for other reasons than good money and a good work environment is to actually make me feel welcome. It's not the individuals - people are more welcoming (in the cities, outside of hick-country) than elsewhere. It's the legal situation. Let me explain.

    When I enter the country in Newark or Philly, I still wait in the "visitors" line. That's despite me owning my own home (!) and paying taxes as a "US resident" and having lived here since '08. Why?

    When I bought my home, due to some obscure and hard-to-read rules in tax law, I missed out on $8k for first-time homeowners - by two months - because I was paying taxes under the wrong category. Great.

    I tried to register an aircraft that I purchased last year. I had to form an LLC to register it with the FAA, and after surprising changes last year in how they do things, my LLC still wasn't good enough. Because I am considered an "alien" (am I from Mars???), my aircraft had to be given to a friend to be registered - transactions with their own ridiculous paperwork and use tax implications. And it's really just a dinky little aircraft that I like to fly around for fun. (And by the way, I'm on the board of a local flying club, where I've spent a lot of time re-building our group.)

    But here's the kicker. Due to the lack of a green card, I have no right to due process. Should I ever get arrested, because, say, my artist buddy was giving me a ride, and he keeps some pot in his car, then he'll probably walk free (and get a lawyer), but I may get thrown out of the country, perhaps to re-apply for my visa.

    I wanted to campaign for Obama in '08, and guess what, I wasn't allowed to donate. And I didn't go talk to people in my community to convince them to go vote, because a "go vote, because I can't go" just isn't very convincing.

    Really, it's a lot of small and big issues. I just want to be a part of society with privileges and duties while I'm here. That was no problem when I moved, say, from Germany to the UK, a while back. Historical and political reasons aside, there is a limited rationale why a committed, non-economic migrant shouldn't participate in society. Where I grew up, we had a lot of US air bases nearby. I would have welcomed the Americans to participate in the local community like we scientists do when we come to the US. Just give us a better legal basis.

  89. Washington shills for big tech (want more H1b's) by Paracelcus · · Score: 1

    There's NO shortage of highly skilled, unemployed, AMERICAN WORKERS!
    All this SHIT about labor shortages while unemployment, (REAL) unemployment is between 18% and 20%!
    NEVER since the great depression have there seen so many unemployed for so long!

    --
    I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
  90. Are your "skillsets" both relevant and realistic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Over a period of six years in the 1990s I personally responded to advertisements which not only stated requirements for experience with software versions which did NOT EXIST, but for years of experience with hardware which had also NOT EXISTED for even half of the number of years of "required" experience. This was NOT just "IT" related 'stuff' but industrial equipment used in electrical power generating stations where there was NO excuse for the blantant misrepresentations in the advertisements. The few times I received a response when I pointed out the errors and noted that I could provide actual training certificates from the vendors of the hardware, the answers were usually as disrespectful and laced with low level epithats as those on this and other forums which clearly come from those on the 'dark side' who no longer, if they ever, "do the work" themselves.

  91. Re:With unemployment where it is at, send them hom by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 3, Funny

    If I may make a modest proposal here... why send them home? Consider this: 40 million Americans live in poverty. 3.5 million American children are at a risk of hunger every day! Meanwhile, foreign workers are rich in fats and protein - a good part of which, I must add, coming from them being well-fed and well-cared for in an American society, courtesy of the American taxpayer! How can you possibly support shipping all those valuable nutrients to third world countries like UK and Germany when American citizens are dying without them? Not to mention all the CO2 emissions produced by planes flying them back.

    Think of the children! Think of the environment!

  92. What a horrible news !! by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 1

    the Queen's English committee folded yesterday

    Many people have difficulties differentiating "their" and "there"

    Just when we need someone to educate the public about proper English Grammar the committee folded !!

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
  93. Allow NO 2nd class citizens! by jedidiah · · Score: 1

    If they are valuable enough to import for their skills, then they are valuable enough to be granted citizenship on the spot. Otherwise, don't bother.

    H1-B is an abomination.

    Genuine talent should not be effectively enslaved to some American employer. At the very least a proper guest worker deserves an immediate green card and the right to work for any employer they choose. They should be on equal footing as any citizen.

    No talent scabs should not even be allowed in the country.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    1. Re:Allow NO 2nd class citizens! by davids-world.com · · Score: 1

      See the comment above ("It's not immigration"). I can relate to what you're saying - I'd rather be a part of this country (at least while I'm living here) than to be treated as a guest.

  94. A few steps to take by russotto · · Score: 1

    First, eliminate any advantages H-1Bs have over US workers. The most important thing to do is to make the visa stick to the employee, not the company. If the employee changes jobs, the visa (and any green card paperwork) moves with him, no restarting anything. If the employee is laid off or fired, he gets to stay if he finds another eligible job within X months. It's often claimed that employers prefer H-1B workers because they're essentially indentured; if they quit for another job, they risk losing the visa and have to re-start any green card paperwork.

    Second -- and this one is much harder -- make sure these so-called skilled professionals are skilled. Too often a company will engage a whole bunch of cheap and unskilled H-1Bs from a body shop specializing in the practice, rather than hiring or contracting for a smaller number of much more expensive actual skilled people. There are a lot of skilled H-1Bs, but there's an order of magnitude more phonies.

  95. Re:With unemployment where it is at, send them hom by dave562 · · Score: 1

    I couldn't have said it better myself. In my situation, the guy we ended up hiring took the position for the rate we were offering. He was also employed at the time and left his job to come work for us. Salary was not a barrier to attracting qualified talent (once we found the talent).

  96. Re:With unemployment where it is at, send them hom by jedidiah · · Score: 1

    Most of the people screaming "socialism" and fighting for tax cuts for the wealthy are precisely the sort of underskilled underemployed laborers that are being left behind by the new corporate mentality. Ironically they are the ones that need a little "socialism" to help pick up the slack.

    I can just see them all defending the Soylent Corporation.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  97. Re:With unemployment where it is at, send them hom by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

    If you paid more, you would have more qualified people seeking you out. Clearly there is a problem, and it is with you.

  98. Let me pose a similarly axial question by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

    Let me pose a different, axial question: why shouldn't the US invade their countries, steal their women, and pillage their natural resources (and hand-made carpets)? It's a similarly preposterous question, so I deem you should answer it.

    In all seriousness, this is a stupid question. It's like the famous "let them eat cake" statement: completely ignorant of the situation, proposing a grand solution to a complicated and sensitive problem.

    There is absolutely no reason why there should be much, if any, limitations on such highly skilled workers. I deem that the reality is that all of the leading questions asked by the OP should have a feel-good answer readily available to the lips and easily found within the immigration code of pretty much any country. The problem is quite the opposite, and compounded by other related issues. People, as described, don't actually make it into the US.

    For instance: a highly skilled professional who would make $60-90k throughout most of the US (vs. in, say, the SF Bay area, where wages are grossly inflated) from Europe is fucked. S/he can't get in, in most cases. I know this because I've got quite a few acquaintances who have tried to do so, and have been unable to do so. They're specialized machinists with employment offers, IT professionals, and nurses with clean histories and in-demand skills. So ask yourself: why are people like them not allowed to immigrate to the US, either on temporary vistas or to become residents and citizens? Why does the 3rd world have a massively disproportionate number (no matter how you divide it up - per capita, per application, or some combination thereof) compared to Europe? Here's a hint: immigration in the US has become yet another form of global welfare the US "provides as a service", doing irreparable harm to the countries at the bottom first and foremost.

    If we're not letting people like this into the country - while allowing people to flow in over the borders from Mexico and immigrate from North Africa and China at record levels (you know, those places in the globe which aren't actually all that culturally or politically friendly with the US), I'm glad we've got a problem with employment in the US.

    And that's what it comes down to: There is no legal immigration which is working in the US. We're importing crime, impoverty, manual laborers, and a burgeoning welfare underclass. The other side of that is that we seem to be using affirmative action for India and China as well, allowing complete dipshits with fraudulent diplomas and CVs come over here and work $90k/year jobs at $45k. The State Department couldn't more actively sabotage national interests if they tried, quite literally.

    --
    ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
  99. Well basically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Think of it this way, you don't choose where to be born any more than you choose what color your skin is, so ideally you shouldn't be discriminated against based on your birthplace or citizenship - especially if you didn't choose your citizenship (and most people didn't).

    Now, realistically the US and other more advanced countries can't just open the flood-gates because lots of people who think they would be better off begging for food on the streets in the US than starving at home would come (at least the ones who could some how afford it). So the argument goes at least - if you guys let all the poor ones in, they will take jobs, drive down wages, or stay unemployed and just be a drain on the public services and the economy in general. Then again, all anecdotal evidence shows that the places with the highest immigration rates (f.e. NYC) are the some of best off economically. Many foreigners come and are happy to take low-wage jobs that there is demand for but which Americans don't particularly want to do.

    But you're talking about High-wage jobs. First of all, people who can make $100k per year in the US can make it elsewhere, so if you tried to keep them out, they would just say "ok, fine", but the US would lose out on having them. Second of all, anyone who can make $100k a year can pay a lawyer to find the loop-holes if they really do want to stay in the US, (and there will always be loopholes) so trying to prevent them from staying is silly.
    Cases in point:
    1. My ex-girlfriend (lives in California now). She is French-Chinese and makes like $250k a year at a financial firm. Most of her friends decided they were better off going back to china, and she too could make more money in China, but she likes living in California for now. I am pretty sure that if the US government tried to send her home, she would find a way to buy herself out of it, or her company would help. (Obviously they find her work valuable!)
    2. One of my college friends - She is from South-Africa, studied engineering. I think she works for motorola now designing cell phone radios. Anyway, if she didn't get a work visa from her company, she was preparing to get an "investment visa". If you have substantial investments in the US, then you are allowed to be there to keep an eye on them. She was just going to buy an expensive house or something, I forget.
    3. Another friend - She was a nurse, and her company wanted to sponsor her, but I think their company size was too small for the number of people they were sponsoring (and note that work visas for nurses are almost automatic due to the drastic shortage in the US and Japan too!) First, though she had already graduated nursing college at a 4 year university, we signed her up for a community college to get her a student visa. (And you can work for a year as "optional practical training" while under a student visa.) While working on the OPT, my lawyer suggested we set up a corporation that pays her, and subcontracts from the place she worked for, instead of her being a direct employee. This, of course would require the cooperation of her eventual employer. She decided to move back to Japan eventually.

    Anyway, a reasonable policy is:
    1. Let them stay, invite them to stay.
    2. Make sure they work legally, and pay taxes.
    3. Make it clear that by living in the US, there are some standards they must abide by. F.e. they must accept that women have equal rights, that racism isn't allowed, etc. The biggest actual issues that the US has seen from foreigners has been from people who try to come to the US and keep their old ways, even when they are unacceptable and illegal in the US.
    4. Require a certain level of English proficiency, or that they take classes. This isn't to say everyone in the world should speak English, just that I know people in the US who have a hard time because they don't know English so well. (I also, think, however, US people coming to here to Japan should have to learn Japanese first, for the same reasons!)

    Just remember:
    1

  100. Or he's too big of a jerk by publiclurker · · Score: 1

    for anyone with any self respect to want to work for. Given his comments, I think I know how to vote.

    1. Re:Or he's too big of a jerk by the_B0fh · · Score: 1

      Funny how my team loves me. I literally have people come crying to me for a position on my team. But one thing I do not tolerate is idiots. The ones who responded without using their reading comprehension skills, why should I pamper them?

      I point out we can't find qualified candidates despite offering top dollars, and I get the peanut gallery making idiot comments assuming I'm paying too little or not grooming from my team, etc etc.

      And then I'm supposed to lovingly groom you idiots into some semblance of understanding what the issue is, when you've already decided I'm wrong? Fuck that shit. If you're rude to me, well, fuck you.

  101. how about you tell yourself that by publiclurker · · Score: 1

    you might find the source of all of your problems that way.

  102. That's the problem with false capitalists... by publiclurker · · Score: 1

    they think that everyone else should supply them whatever they want at the price they demand. I've fired more than one employer who couldn't believe that I wouldn't enjoy doing all of their work for them at way below market wages.

    1. Re:That's the problem with false capitalists... by the_B0fh · · Score: 1

      Good for you. As an employee as well, I too enjoy a good wage, and feel that everyone should definitely get the most they can, for a job they like.

  103. Highly trained ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In my personal observation in 15 years in the industry is that H1 B workers are far from highly trained. They are generally poor engineers who do sub standard work for below market wages. We should just call them what they are, cheap imported labor.

  104. Re:With unemployment where it is at, send them hom by erp_consultant · · Score: 1

    Exactly right. The structure has broken down because the concept of lifetime employment is dead. There was a time, not so long ago, when companies would hire kids out of college, train them, and provide them with a career with a good salary and benefits. And at the end of it you got a pension as gratitude for your service. Heck, my dad worked for Kodak for 35 years until the day he retired. He made a good living. They took care of him. Today, the idea of working even 3.5 years (never mind 35) at the same company is insane. Pensions - gone. Training - gone. If you work in high tech you can be certain that your job will be off-shored the instant some bean counter can justify it. Companies claim they can't find qualified people - bullshit. What they really mean is that they are unwilling to spend any money to train someone to do the job. They would rather hire some H1-B worker at a fraction of the salary and hold them captive for the duration of the visa. You realize that if you're on an H1-B and you leave the job you have to start the visa process all over again? And possibly have to leave the country to do it. Yeah - employers know that too. All to well. So they have a basically a captive labor force working cheap. If it doesn't work out then just can the guy and move on to the next H1-B application on the pile. That's why I contract. I work they pay me. No quarter asked, none given.

  105. It's a complicated issue. by Karmashock · · Score: 1

    Yes we should not only allow educated immigrates to stay but we should encourage as many to come to the US as wish to come.

    That said, the primary reason so much of the US economy needs these immigrants is because they outsourced their lower skilled jobs. With those positions outsourced it harder for domestic labor to get the experience to be useful in higher level jobs.

    So I'd say do both. I don't know how to encourage businesses to hire more entry level workers rather then outsourcing them. It's a complex issue. But if they keep doing this our domestic labor force will have to leave the country to get experience in another country before they can come back. It's that or the welfare rolls expand.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  106. From an economists point of view... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As many as want to come in, in fact if there's anything reasonable we can do to encourage skilled worker immigration let's do that too.

  107. Re:Washington shills for big tech (want more H1b's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    CS unemployment is 4.5%. Deal with it.

  108. Op is weird... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    #1 I don't know if you realize this but you are indeed talking about human beings (yeah I know they are not Americans but they are humans) so maybe don't treat them as cattle and you won't get only the misfits.

    #2 as they are human, with a life, maybe a wife/husband, kids, they need visibility. They don't want their life to be a lottery. (remembers they are smart people who can do actual stuff so they don't crave the dream of the average hillbilly..)

    #3 What you are suggesting is in direct opposition to what made the USA. As someone else posted, you might want to visit New York bay in the near future and get a good old fashioned History lesson from miss Liberty.

    #4 I love how you guys are always all for the free market, except when you're not. Do you really think it should be up to some bureaucrat in Washington to decide who's going to be the next Bill Gates ? (Sorry Zuckerberg I'm still waiting for the Facebook bubble to burst..)

      So to summarize, I don't think this should be on slashdot. It isn't news, and it certainly wasn't a question well phrased. It was partisan and directed.

  109. We don't have a country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We merely have a system of rules, regulations, laws and procedures. We can no longer consider the citizen to be special in any way. Get out your resume and polish it up for that minimum wage job, because you'll be competing with the world once "your" government finally sheds any pretense that you are special.

  110. A cold day in hell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hi. just to let you know, hell would need to freeze over for me live and work in the USA :(
    Just like China, I love to visit the countries as a tourist, but being a citizen is a whole another affair.
    After 9/11 you've lost both your freedoms and your rights :(

  111. Re:Are your "skillsets" both relevant and realisti by BigDaveyL · · Score: 1

    I remember seeing ads in 2000-2002 time frame of companies wanting 7+ years of Java. If you were lucky - at a company that was an early adopter - you'd probably have 5-6 years tops. Unless of course your name was Gossling...

  112. Re:With unemployment where it is at, send them hom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No. Typically the H1B workers do NOT receive the same wage. And they're abused... "Free" overtime though their pimp companies charge the overtime.... I saw an instance of this at a FEDeral but not federal banking institution. The H1B quit because he was not paid for his 10-12 hours per day... only 8 and when I mentioned this to the boss after the fact the boss said (paraphrased): "Oh yes they DID charge overtime." As Norm Matloff says: "The H-1B work visa is fundamentally about cheap labor.".

  113. Re:With unemployment where it is at, send them hom by pnutjam · · Score: 1

    Labor has natural trade barriers due to geography and the lack of teleportation. Bridging these barriers may or may not be a good thing, but let's not pretend there is a freely flowing supply of workers even without government interference.
    He is also not asking for trade barriers, he is asking for reasonable regulations that need to exist in a free market.

  114. Give Them All Greencards. No more Temp Workers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First off they are not just doing this with IT workers. Companies are bringing in welders, paying them nothing, and forcing them to live in group housing that they pay for which is more expensive than an appartment. These are temporary workers. This was on HDNET. You are telling me you can't train someone to be a welder? Some guy out of work due to a bad economy won't be motivated to learn this trade well? Ok it takes time, but people can figure it out. Companies don't want to train, don't want to pay, and don't want people who can quit.

    The solution is simple. Give all people who come here to work green cards immedaitely. All H1-B, L2 visa holders, etc.. in the US now, immediately get greencards. Void all bondage type contracts that state you can't quit or pay insane fines (google h1b contracts and see what the h1b visa holders complain about. Sign this or you get kicked out of the country so you can never quit and shut up about it).

    This will show you the real need for these people. If you eliminate the indentured servant part of the visa and allow people to QUIT, then you can't keep them at low wages. You can't keep them forever. You can't cheat them. So no more h1bs, temp visas, etc... Everyone gets a greencard and bondage contracts are null and void. Too bad for you if its expensive to bring someone here. If its so expensive, hire someone who already lives here.

    If you do that, the number of people being brought over because Americans are so unskilled will drop radically. This is all it will take. Give them more rights, not less. You will never stop the visas from coming. However, you can play the civil rights card. This is good for the immigrants already here. More people won't flood in as well. As I said, they are doing this for all kinds of jobs. Its one of the reasons that unemployment is damn high. Americans cost too much, so lets bring in indentured servants and illegal aliens who can't complain.

    with 8% unemployment there are Americans to do just about any job. You may have to train them, but people can do it.

  115. Mod parent up! by BigDaveyL · · Score: 1

    Companies would rather bring in exactly want they want (i.e. skills, no training at low pay) then actually expend some effort.

  116. Replace H1B with domestic training programs by jep305 · · Score: 1

    Subject says it all.

    --
    In Reason We Trust
  117. Capital and Foreign Labor vs. Native Labor by Arimanes · · Score: 1

    Alan Greenspan was not shy about the motivation for increased STEM immigration: "We pay the highest skilled labor wages in the world. If we would open up our borders to skilled labor far more than we do, we would attract a very substantial quantity of skilled labor which would suppress the wage levels of the skilled..." http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2007/03/14/greenspan_let_more_skilled_immigrants_in/ The idea of STEM shortages is advanced to shave corporate costs. The AFL-CIO explains that there is no shortage. “ Between 2006 and 2007, the U.S. Department of Education and the Computing Research Association show that colleges and universities graduated more than 203,000 students with Bachelor’s, Master’s or Ph.D.s in the core disciplines of computer and information sciences, math and engineering and engineering technology. This number more than surpasses the 82,000 new jobs expected to be added in computer and mathematical science occupations during this time period." http://dpeaflcio.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Guest-Worker-Programs-and-STEM.pdf 22 million Americans are unemployed. Let's take care of them first, *then* start thinking about the rest of the world.

  118. Re:With unemployment where it is at, send them hom by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1

    If you paid more, you would have more qualified people seeking you out.

    Yeah, from outside the US.

    --
    Drill baby drill - on Mars
  119. Join the US military by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Join the US military as a path to citizenship.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/15/us/15immig.html?pagewanted=all

    If you are not willing to join and support the future of this country and just want to be a leech you can GTFO.

    I can not imagine the path for a US citizen to become a citizen or a working visa holder of many other countries is much easier than someone coming here and I doubt the US citizen living illegally in many foreign countries is a walk in the park either. Would I get government assistance? Could I walk into any medical facility and get treated? Would I be able to get a drivers license? Would my kids get schooling and assitance? Would I be able to finance and buy property? If I got arrested for stealing, would I be back out on the street the next day? Maybe, I don't really know.

  120. Re:Washington shills for big tech (want more H1b's by Paracelcus · · Score: 1

    BULL FUCKING SHIT! CS unemployment? Dumbass, CS is the degree you have (or wish you have), NOT the job you lost!

    --
    I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
  121. Re: Don't let them all in by NickGnome · · Score: 1
    I've seen estimates that about 50% of people who came to the USA with intention to stay went back. Another significant percentage came to the USA, went back, then returned to the USA.

    If they were being paid local market total compensation, their pay wouldn't be much of an issue.

    If US tax-victims were not subsidizing foreign students' educations, and they were not learning US research methods, how to use or modify capital equipment developed in the USA, didn't have access to intellectual property developed in the USA, that wouldn't be much of an issue.

    If all H-1B recipients were genuinely "best and brightest" and were paid at local "best and brightest" total compensation levels it wouldn't be much of an issue. If they were all truly "best and brightest" and stayed in the USA, became US citizens, refrained from spying or intellectual property theft or smuggling of US national security secrets, invested in the USA, created jobs for other US citizens, it wouldn't be an issue.

    (I include those last 2 having recently read Gurcharan Das's book and noting his mentions of several "great entrepreneurs" who came from India to the USA, attended US colleges and universities, learned the ropes, gained access to information and technology and business contacts, then poured their US earnings and/or US investment funds and US technology and other intellectual property from the USA back into creating jobs and infrastructure in India. This is very good reason for the USA to make serious cuts in the numbers of student and guest-work and LPR visas.)

    It's an issue because the vast majority of H-1B grantees are not "best" or "brightest", they're not doing work that requires above-average ability, they don't create jobs for US citizens, they aren't loyal to the USA, they're not paid local market compensation for the job, and because there is a glut (1.8 million or more) of able, knowledgeable, experienced US citizen STEM professionals who could be doing those jobs but instead are unemployed or under-employed, because they can't get a recruiter let alone a hiring manager to conscientiously read their resumes and make the small effort to evaluate their knowledge, intelligence, creativity, and industry. And then, of course, it's an issue because it would be nice for US citizens to actually be flown in (at this stage, a train or bus would do) within the USA for interviews as was common before the H-1B program. It would be nice if even the minority of H-1Bs sponsored for green cards, which many believe is a sign that they're a cut above the average H-1B, were paid salaries (total compensation is not reported) significantly above the median, or better, a compensation commensurate with being "best" or "brightest" as they claim. It would be nice if immigration lawyers were not engaging in bias against US citizens, advising clients to advertise those jobs in obscure places so that few capable US citizens will have the chance to apply, and otherwise to favor the person in the PERM process applying for the green card.

  122. Re: don't let them all in by NickGnome · · Score: 1
    "measly one year visa"

    .

    For the last decade, there have been US employers demanding that US citizens travel hundreds of miles to another state, to work for 1-3 months, for less than the median -- no housing allowance, no travel allowance, no meal allowance or per diem to cover the extra expenses of such a working arrangement/circumstance. Why? Because of the talent glut and the bizarre expectations of executives, distorted by the existence of the F+OPT and H-1B and L-1 visa programs and the explosion in bodyshopping.

  123. Re: we have high unemployment, send them home by NickGnome · · Score: 1
    "Putting artificial barriers in the way of who can and cannot get into the country is the exact opposite of the free market."

    Making sure they're not criminals is not an "artificial" "non-free market" "barrier". It's good common sense.

    The executives and their lobbyists and the immigration lawyers who just happen to make a good living from the visa applicants, have been claiming shortage since 1986, when they knew quite well, and most of the rest of the citizenry knew, that there was no evidence of a shortage, and no such evidence has been presented. That's fraud, and thus not "free market".

    The executives have been fraudulently claiming that every H-1B recipient is "best and brightest", but the vast majority are neither. That's not "free market".

    Either you initiate force or fraud, or you do not. But don't demand cheap, young, pliant labor with questionable ethics in one breath; conspire over means of rejecting every US applicant regardless of their ability and drive; and then complain about it not being an undistorted market, because YOU are the one distorting the markets.

  124. Re:With unemployment where it is at, send them hom by NickGnome · · Score: 1
    "it has been hard to find 'qualified' candidates for mid-level positions"

    .

    Define "hard". How easy or hard or cheap or expensive should it be?

    In how many major daily papers did you advertise? Were they only classifieds or display ads? On how many web sites? In how many of those ads did you include your e-mail address and telephone number (not your immigration lawyers')? What percentage of candidates did you fly in for interviews? How much were you willing to invest in relocation? How much were you willing to invest in normal -- 2-12 week -- new-hire training? (For that matter, how much do you invest in retained employee training? Is it the 2-4 weeks that was the norm before H-1B?) Are 10% of your employees in training at any particular time, as was the case at Infosys back in 2000? Is that investment in employee training 5% or more of annual revenues as it was at Infosys? It should be more in comparison with such a low-life bodyshop.

    Define "qualified". Are those "qualifications" reasonable or outrageous? "Qualified" is such a weasel word that it means nothing at all without extensive explanation (and the folks at Cohen and Grigsby made it widely known how much the word is abused). Credentials, for instance, should be mere corroboration, supporting evidence of likely ability and productivity, not a deal-killer. I've seen bright high school and college students doing professional-grade work in economics, science, engineering apps, data-base analysis and design, statistical analysis... Is it really one job or are you trying to get one person who is willing to do 3 or 4 jobs for 1 professional's compensation?

    Are there ethical issues that may repulse self-respecting STEM professionals? Does the work involve privacy violations? Does it involve force or fraud or anything else shady? Does it involve something which would make it easier for others to cheat or violate privacy in some way?

    Of course, the more interesting the work the more people are likely to want to do it. And the more interesting it is, the more likely they are to put up with poor working conditions, pay, risks, etc. If it's not interesting you'll get fewer nibbles and will have to offer better compensation. (Some kinds of risk can make work more interesting in the right circumstances, else we'd never have lumberjacks, commercial fishermen, farmers, or people to maintain radio and water towers and high-voltage lines. Hrmph, then again recent headlines suggest that some commerial fishing outfits have turned to slavery. I hope you're not trying that hard.)

  125. Re: paying for our own health care like honest men by NickGnome · · Score: 1
    Right up into the 1960s the vast majority of Americans paid for their medical care out of savings or by taking out loans.

    In 1940 only 10% of Americans bothered to purchase health care insurance. The move to insurance and the insertion of unnecessary intermediaries, helped drive up prices, because at point of purchase only about 5% of actual costs were seen by the purchaser, the rest was hidden in the form of past insurance premium payments and in the buffering functions inherent in insurance. This meant that we were tempted to buy more than we could afford, or, looked at from the other side, allowed the prices to go up.

    Sorry, can't be PC with the Subject; it won't fit.

  126. Re: educational credentials by NickGnome · · Score: 1
    The ones who come into the USA on F visas mostly go to weaker programs (only a few to the best)... I'm paraphrasing Dr. Matloff, the UC Davis CS prof and advocate for Chinese immigrants, who has backed a few genuinely best and brightest immigrants to get faculty positions and such.

    .

    Academic credentials should not count for much in a point system, and the cap exemptions should be eliminated. I've seen too many people with PhDs and MBAs who were not very bright.

    A proper background investigation would take care of most of the other concerns.

    But, since the H-1B guest-workers are disingenuously represented as "best and brightest" we should hold them (the executives, lobbyists, immigration lawyers, and the guest-workers) to that standard.

    You could set top 1% or 0.5% IQ standard or SAT or ACT or GRE or MCAT score as the minimum, and that would create incentives for various kinds of cheating which we'd have to expend other resources to squelch.

    You could set a minimum number of patents, but then we'd get a lot of feeble patent applications, and, due to politics, a lot of them would be approved when they should not.

    We could set the number of student visas at 20K per year, hard limit, no waivers or exemptions; and a number of H-1B visa at 2K per year -- no exemptions, no waivers, a hard cap; run background investigations and charge the costs; then auction off a proportional number of visas each month to the highest bidding applicants and/or sponsors. This would create something like market discipline, market pricing, but we still wouldn't necessarily be getting the "best and brightest".

  127. Why is this not shooting your foot off w a cannon? by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    Don't you believe in a free market? I think it is silly to restrict people because of where they are born. If somebody is better then I am, why should he NOT be able to take my job.

    So while you're competing with some nice Vietnamese kid for your job, are you going to enjoy the Vietnamese cost of living while you are doing so? Of course not.

    So how does your post make any sense. You want an international "free market" on labor, but there is no international "free market" on housing or health care. That nice Vietnamese kid will take your job, and most of his earnings will be spent back home, where he sent them. As opposed to that money staying within your community if that paycheck was still going to you.

  128. Let's not. by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    As in medical, engineering, software, geophysics, etc. The best thing that could happen to the USA is a population bias in favor of intelligence. At the moment, it would seem that we desperately need that.

    Young American: assume 5 to 6 figures in student loan debt for that technical degree.
    Young Vietnamese: zero student loan debt because he went to a state school.

    Young American: lifetime of paying American prices for goods, housing, health care.
    Young Vietnamese: lifetime of paying a fraction of a percentage of that cost.

    Young American: spend his money within the American economy.
    Young Vietnamese: sends his money back home to his family.

    End result: only rich assed rich Americans will get technical degrees in America, because they are the only ones who can afford it.

  129. Wait, what? by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    So on the low end Americans should have to compete with third world labor on manufacturing, and now they also have to compete with third word cost of education and standard of living on the high end as well? Just how many Americans are going to take on 5 or 6 figures in student loan debt and then have to compete with graduates from India or China who had.....none of those costs to deal with?

    1. Re:Wait, what? by buddyglass · · Score: 1

      Some thoughts in no particular order:

      1. I took on no debt. I compete. If you have the tools to eventually compete successfully then most likely you can get your education paid for.

      2. If I had to take on five or six figures of student loan debt in order to get a high-paying job (that would allow me to repay my student loan debt in short order) then I'd do it and call it a bargain.

      3. Top universities in China and India aren't free. Especially when one considers that the average Chinese or Indian has income much lower than the average American.

      4. You're a native English speaker. They're not. You don't think that gives you a leg up?

      5. We're competing with them regardless of where they are. Bringing them here lets Americans reap the benefits of their productivity instead of their home country. That's a win.

      6. It's not a zero sum game in which there a fixed number of jobs. The more smart, productive people pour into this country the more jobs there will eventually be.

    2. Re:Wait, what? by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      I took on no debt.

      Then:

      1. You graduated a long time ago and you are comparing apples to irrelevant oranges by putting your experience next to today's grads. The cost of higher education is in a different universe from where it was just ten years ago.

      2. You served in the military and got some GI Bill funding. Bully for you, but it is not reasonable to expect people to sign up for military service as a condition of higher education.

      3. Your family paid for your education. Not exactly new - Bush would have been a community college dropout without his daddy's money. Not everyone has a rich-assed dad though.

      4. You benefited from some other generous benefit or happenstance not available to the vast majority of the population. Full ride athletic scholarship, maybe. Hell, lets say your ability really matches your ego - not everyone can be in the top 5% for obvious mathematical reasons.

      If I had to take on five or six figures of student loan debt in order to get a high-paying job (that would allow me to repay my student loan debt in short order) then I'd do it and call it a bargain.

      And how well are you going to be able to compete when you have to pay $400 a month on your student loans - when the cheap import labor has no such costs to deal with? No matter how little you are willing to work for, that's still $4800 more per year than your competition has to worry about.

      Top universities in China and India aren't free

      They're practically free next to an American education.

      Especially when one considers that the average Chinese or Indian has income much lower than the average American.

      Especially when one considers that both India and China have a larger middle class (for their) countries than the U.S. does in total. And since when was this limited to "top" universities? California public unis now cost more than Ivy Leage schools.

      You're a native English speaker. They're not. You don't think that gives you a leg up?

      I think this is the weakest one yet. You don't know there's a reason that so many call centers are located in India, or that people can't learn a second language? Or that if only 1% of Chinese students learn fluent English and want to work in America, that equates to over 10 million competitors for American jobs?

      We're competing with them regardless of where they are.

      No. We're not. If I'm good a math and want to teach it in high school, I actually don't have to compete with math grads from Bangladesh. Same for medical doctors or engineers. Your brilliant proposal would take care of that, though.

      Bringing them here lets Americans drives a steak through what's left of the middle class

      Fixed that for you. An American gets an American job - and there's plenty of competition for the jobs out there with six unemployed people for every open position - and his salary by and large stays within the American economy. Whereas your cheap imported labor from India or Vietnam will end up sending much of their paychecks back home. Out of the American economy.

      And when, exactly, do we get Vietnamese prices for housing and medical care to go along with Vietnamese labor willing to work for half as much money? Your proposal makes some measure of sense if your last name is Walton or Koch. Otherwise, you're shooting off your feet and mine with a cannon. Thanks but no thanks.

    3. Re:Wait, what? by buddyglass · · Score: 1

      The cost of higher education is in a different universe from where it was just ten years ago.

      This is mostly a myth. The marginal cost has gone way up but fewer and fewer students actually pay full price. The net cost of public schools (since we're talking about a cost-conscious consumer) has gone up by about 25% over the last 15 years after accounting for inflation.

      Your family paid for your education. Not exactly new - Bush would have been a community college dropout without his daddy's money. Not everyone has a rich-assed dad though.

      My parents helped with room and board; not tuition. They weren't especially wealthy. This strikes me as quite reasonable. Had I lacked their support I'd have either gone to a school that offered to pay room and board or I'd have taken out loans. The grand total would have been about $20k for four years (ending in 1997).

      And how well are you going to be able to compete when you have to pay $400 a month on your student loans - when the cheap import labor has no such costs to deal with?

      How does having a $400/mo loan payment affect my ability to compete in the job market? If I had that kind of obligation I'd live more frugally than I might otherwise. My need to live frugally would have no bearing on my ability to get hired and perform well in a job.

      California public unis now cost more than Ivy Leage schools.

      You make an excellent argument for not attending a public university in California.

      You don't know there's a reason that so many call centers are located in India, or that people can't learn a second language? Or that if only 1% of Chinese students learn fluent English and want to work in America, that equates to over 10 million competitors for American jobs?

      We're not talking about call centers in India. We're talking about STEM jobs in the U.S. There are tons of fluent Chinese and Indian speakers of English. Most, while fluent, still can't communicate as well as native speakers. I know because I work with them and interview them.

      [We're competing with them regardless of where they are.] No. We're not.

      For the kinds of positions I'm talking about, yes we are. People can start companies here or they can start them "there", where "there" is "the rest of the world". The more smart people we have "here" the more likely it is that new enterprises will start "here" rather than "there".

      If I'm good a math and want to teach it in high school, I actually don't have to compete with math grads from Bangladesh. Same for medical doctors or engineers. Your brilliant proposal would take care of that, though.

      Here's where the fact that this isn't zero sum comes into play. Only some percentage of immigrants will be math teachers. Only some percentage will be doctors. They'll be mixed in with engineers, developers, scientists, businessmen, etc. These guys and gals will have kids. That means more teaching jobs. More trips to the doctor. Etc. Hell, more eating out at restaurants, more buying crap at the mall, etc. The U.S. has the opportunity to skim off a good chunk of these countries' very best and brightest. It's basically reverse brain drain. It blows my mind that you can't see how it would be beneficial to integrate them into the U.S. citizenry.

    4. Re:Wait, what? by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      This is mostly a myth.

      Hardly. Tuition has increased over 400% since 1985, and doubled in the last decade. Your link plays the "lies, damn lies and statistics" game by talking about how scholarships and grants have increased while leaving out the fact that not everyone has access to the same scholarships and grants.

      And of course fuel, housing and health care costs have exploded right along with tuition, while wages have stagnated or declined. And that was before the crash in 2008.

      My parents helped with room and board; not tuition. They weren't especially wealthy. This strikes me as quite reasonable.

      Don't you mean room and board and utilities and food? A few thousand dollars in subsidy a year that many other students didn't have? Nah, I'm sure that had nothing to do with you being able to graduate debt-free compared to those other students.

      The grand total would have been about $20k for four years (ending in 1997).

      In 1997? Like I said, you're speaking from an entirely separate universe from today's college grads. Tuition was far cheaper, and it was relatively easy to find a job as it was at the height of the tech bubble. You're like somebody in California bragging about how quickly he paid off his house, without mentioning that he bought it before the passage of Prop 13.

      How does having a $400/mo loan payment affect my ability to compete in the job market? If I had that kind of obligation I'd live more frugally than I might otherwise. My need to live frugally would have no bearing on my ability to get hired and perform well in a job.

      How does it not? No matter how little you are willing to work for, an even more frugal worker from India can undercut your lowest acceptable salary by almost five thousand dollars a year.

      You make an excellent argument for not attending a public university in California.

      You're making an excellent attempt to avoid the point: that expensive tuition rates are hardly limited to "top" schools. If this were only a matter of students being able to afford to get in Haaaarvaaard or the Vietnamese equivalent, this wouldn't be an issue.

      We're not talking about call centers in India.

      You skipped over the key word: "there's a reason that so many call centers are located in India". And that reason is the fact that India was a British Colony, which means that English is still a commonly taught language in Indian schools.

      And did you notice the dichotomy in your storyline? We should open our borders to many educated foreign workers. But we don't really have to worry about many foreign workers taking jobs here because not that many will have sufficient fluency in English.

      Which one is it?

      Most, while fluent, still can't communicate as well as native speakers.

      "Most" is mostly not relevant when you're talking about a couple of countries with a couple billion people between them. India's middle class alone is the size of the entire U.S. population.

      For the kinds of positions I'm talking about, yes we are.

      No. We're not. Manufacturing has largely moved offshore, but you don't need a masters to stamp widgets on an assembly line. The overwhelming majority of goods are designed in the United States, which means the overwhelming majority of employees of those businesses are Americans.

      Which, again, will all be solved by your brilliant proposal to let foreigners compete for American jobs without Americans having the benefit of foreign costs of living - an issue you don't seem to be interested

    5. Re:Wait, what? by buddyglass · · Score: 1

      Hardly. Tuition has increased over 400% [pbs.org] since 1985, and doubled in the last decade. Your link plays the "lies, damn lies and statistics" game by talking about how scholarships and grants have increased while leaving out the fact that not everyone has access to the same scholarships and grants.

      If you're in the top tier wealth-wise then yeah, you're not going to have access to those scholarships and grants. To which I say, "boo freaking hoo". If you're not in that tier then you do have access to them. These aren't merit-based scholarships we're talking about; it's financial aid. Consider that Harvard is now free for students from households earning $65k/year or less. It wasn't always that way; that's a recent development. My household income is around the 15th percentile nationally. If my kid were to attend Harvard he'd pay somewhere around 1/3 sticker price. You really can't use the rate of increase of marginal tuition cost as your stat for demonstrating that college is less affordable than it once was. The marginal tuition cost only applies when you're at the margin. Incidentally, if tuition were merely to have tracked inflation from 1985 to 2005 it would cost 182% as much. So in real terms we're looking at an increase of 120% in marginal tuition cost over that period, much of which (but not all) was defrayed by corresponding increases in financial aid grants.

      Don't you mean room and board and utilities and food? A few thousand dollars in subsidy a year that many other students didn't have? Nah, I'm sure that had nothing to do with you being able to graduate debt-free compared to those other students.

      The definition of "room and board" typically includes food. Utilities are assumed to be part of the housing cost. The money I got from my parents allowed me to attend the university I attended without taking on any debt. Had they not contributed and I'd had to borrow the money instead, and if I'd chosen to attend the same university, I'd have graduated with around $20k of debt. That assumes (perhaps incorrectly) that I wouldn't have qualified for some sort of financial aid grant in the absence of my parents' assistance. Faced with the necessity of taking out loans I might have chosen instead to attend one of a couple other universities that offered me a free ride.

      In 1997? Like I said, you're speaking from an entirely separate universe from today's college grads. Tuition was far cheaper, and it was relatively easy to find a job as it was at the height of the tech bubble.

      If I were entering college right now I wouldn't be paying tuition, so the fact that tuition is higher is somewhat irrelevant. Jobs were indeed plentiful when I got out of graduate school in 1999 compared to today. Then again, the tech job situation in the very same geographic area is currently extremely tight. In this particular geographic area I would have about the same difficulty getting a job in 2012 as I did in 1999. And, obviously, nothing's stopping folks with tech degrees who live in other parts of the country from relocating here.

      How does it not? No matter how little you are willing to work for, an even more frugal worker from India can undercut your lowest acceptable salary by almost five thousand dollars a year.

      So you think that if we open the flood gates to foreign tech workers the salaries for tech jobs will fall so low that you can't support yourself on one and simultaneously pay off a $400/mo loan. Seriously?

      You're making an excellent attempt to avoid the point: that expensive tuition rates are hardly limited to "top" schools.

      There are plenty of schools whose tuition isn't as high as the ones in California. If you can't get into Berkeley or UCLA then maybe you're better off going to Kansas or Nebraska. Nobody's forcing you to pay top dollar for a mediocr