Trump Administration Cracks Down On H-1B Visa Abuse (cnn.com) 252
An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNN Money: The Trump administration is cracking down on companies that get visas for foreign workers and farm them out to employers. Some staffing agencies seek hard-to-get H-1B visas for high-skilled workers, only to contract them out to other companies. There's nothing inherently illegal about contracting out visa recipients, but the workers are supposed to maintain a relationship with their employers, among other requirements. In some cases, outsourcing firms flood the system with applicants. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services agency said in a new policy memo released Thursday it will require more information about H-1B workers' employment to ensure the workers are doing what they were hired for. Companies will have to provide specific work assignments, including dates and locations, to verify the "employer-employee" relationship between the company applying for an H-1B and its visa recipient.
H-1B visas are valid for three years and can be renewed for another three years. The USCIS says it may limit the length of the visa to shorter than three years based the information an employer provides. For example, if an employer can't prove the H-1B holder is "more likely than not" needed for the full three years, the government might issue the visa for fewer than three years. The memo also says the administration wants to prevent employee "benching." That's when firms bring on H-1B visa holders but don't give them work and don't pay them the required wages while they wait for jobs.
H-1B visas are valid for three years and can be renewed for another three years. The USCIS says it may limit the length of the visa to shorter than three years based the information an employer provides. For example, if an employer can't prove the H-1B holder is "more likely than not" needed for the full three years, the government might issue the visa for fewer than three years. The memo also says the administration wants to prevent employee "benching." That's when firms bring on H-1B visa holders but don't give them work and don't pay them the required wages while they wait for jobs.
Employers view H1b Visas as a worker for 33% pay. (Score:5, Insightful)
Employers view H1b Visas as a worker for 33% pay.
Oh, and they like the 'loyalty' of a worker who is dependent on them to stay in the country.
Re: (Score:2)
H1B workers are paid more than local citizens. That is ensured by the LCA process. In fact with the cost of applying for the LCA and the H1 visa , an H1 candidate costs 10K more than a local candidate and the hiring process takes 4 weeks more than it would to hire a local. People dont hire H1s because they want to, they hire them because they cant find locals.
Also H1s dont change jobs often, this is attractive to employers who are looking to have lesser attrition. This was supposed to be fixed through the A
Great! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
From what I've seen, they don't decrease our salaries since they're so useless. I've probably worked with over 250 of them in the 32 years I've worked in the tech industry in Seattle, and not a one was useful to be productive instead of a time suck.
Re:Great! (Score:4, Insightful)
Thank you for that statistically significant anecdote.
Allow me to offer a counter example:
A friend recently forwarded me a job listing for an engineering position in California. The job requires a college degree and multiple years of experience. It was a contract job and the rate was $21.50/hour. The firm that would hire is full of Indians.
There's no God damned way you can convince me that $21.50 is a reasonable rate for the kind of work requested. Newly-graduated engineering or CS students average between $65,000 and $75,000 per year, which is at least $30/hour and that's not counting the cost of benefits.
It is very clear that the job listing was fishing for either an illegal alien, a truly desperate U.S. citizen with the requisite skill set, or it was a perfunctory job search with a ridiculous wage so that an already-chosen H-1B worker could be hired.
Re: (Score:2)
Dear Anonymous Coward,
In most Western nations, you also get free health care and numerous other free benefits. Often, reside in a denser population setting, so that urban mass transit can be effective. (U.S. population density is very moderate.) On top of that, many Western nations offer free or reduced college.
So a recent American, needs to pay for ALL the items you in your Western European county has to pay for. They then need to pay $5K-$10K for health care, few hundred dollars a month toward transport
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Depends. Places that pay 15$/hr think so. McDonald's thinks so. A lot of businesses think so. Some employers don't, though; some care very much about getting the right employees, and don't believe they can be easily replaced.
My wife is a Federal employee now, and her workplace is having an awful time keeping people, because their contract supports the "fungibility" of the employees; they can apply for a transfer to anywhere in Canada shortly after starting work. So, the new local shop needs hundreds of empl
Re:Great! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
That is bull. Many contracting companies provide PTOs, vacations, health insurance, life insurance, 401K match. You cannot brand the entire section of the industry because of a few bad apples.
The bad apples have got a chance to flourish because of H1 caps. Because of the lottery the H1 itself is valuable so an employee has to stick with a bad apple company. Take away the visa cap. Let anybody get an H1 anytime of the year and H1s will only work for companies providing all of the benefits you mentioned.
No we're not... (Score:2)
That is utter BS. We have one of the lowest levels of those receiving unemployment benefits. But workforce participation is rather low. Which means, many are unemployed, or underemployed, and have been so for prolonged states of time.
Do you know how many college degreed individuals are working menial retail jobs and part time jobs at $10/hr? Tons.
About the lowest since 2000. (Please note, that first half of the last century was a single parent workforce, thus participation was lower, because a single job
But no crackdown on H2-B visas (Score:1)
Apparently those are still urgently needed by important US businesses [newsweek.com].
More please (Score:2)
Good plan, not a reduction it seems (Score:2)
I don't have much opinion on increasing or decreasing the numbers, but this will just eliminate the abuse of the system where a corporation can essentially run a slave temp agency. I like it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Like Infosys. I worked for them for 23 months in Bellevue, WA, and out of the H-1B visa holders I worked with, only a couple were good. Infosys worked those two like hell while most of their employees just took up space. I worked for most of that time out of a customer's office a block away, and literally none of the at one point 15 people I worked with did a single thing despite billing the American company from what I heard $15k per day.
Infosys is just importing unqualified bodies to bilk their custome
This will certainly have loopholes (Score:4, Interesting)
Companies are addicted to cheap outsourced labor...there's no way this wasn't drafted without consulting them first. It sounds like the sponsoring companies are just going to have to jump through another hoop to show that there's still a relationship with the company. And you can bet there is...Tata, Infosys and the like use their H-1B slots to move people on-site to their customers. These people either do the work that absolutely can't be done offshore or are interfaces between what's left of the on-site team and the offshore IT farm.
Immigration law is full of all sorts of exceptions and gray areas, and I'm sure a lot of those were purchased by lobbyists. So, while it appears to be a good step in the right direction, it's not an outright ban and probably won't make much difference.
Re: (Score:2)
Making it tougher to have H1s will mean entire industries will move offshore or nearshore. Many companies like Apple and Google are setting up Canada centers as their vendors TCS, Infosys etc have complained they are not being able to staff in the US. The companies are dependent on the vendors for the backend work so they will play nice with the vendors. A number of Apple employees have been offered bonuses to move offshore to continue to supervise the vendor teams.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you actually claiming that Trump's administration would attempt to make things easy for a foreign company like Tata? Dude, I don't think you've been paying attention.
Oh, this should be good ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, this should be good ... someone finally does something about H1Bs and .. it's Trump!
Slashbot heads will explode like 60s scifi robots caught in a contradiction ... "must hate Trump ... but H1Bs ... but must hate Trump ... " Ah, this is awesome.
Re:Oh, this should be good ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Most people are aware that a stopped clock is right twice a day. It remains to be seen however how actually worthwhile happens out of this. Which is why there's a note of cautious approval in the thread.
Slashbot heads will explode like 60s scifi robots caught in a contradiction ... "must hate Trump ... but H1Bs ... but must hate Trump ... " Ah, this is awesome.
Except that didn't happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Admitting that Trump is a stopped clock which is right twice a day is a huge step forward. I mean, gargantuan. You mean Hitler is right twice a day?
Anne Frank's stepsister, in a January essay to mark International Holocaust Remembrance Day, accused Trump of "acting like another Hitler." [cnn.com]
Christine Todd Whitman: Donald Trump Muslim comments like Hitler's [cnn.com] But Trump's most recent comments have drawn comparisons to Hitler, including a front page Tuesday on the Philadelphia Daily News showing Trump with his
Re: (Score:2)
You don't know history. What made Hitler possible is the circumstances. He was a bitter broken soldier speaking to millions of bitter broken soldiers like himself in a cripple of a country that had just been humiliated in a war they had lost and which they could not pay for.
Even a Hitler at another time in German history could not be Hitler, let alone a playboy billionaire businessman at this time in the United States, the richest and the most well armed nation in the history.
Re: (Score:2)
I can say some nice things about Hitler, too. He was good to his dog, and his WWI service was quite creditable.
Re: (Score:2)
Suit yourself. My wife and friends already know I'm a history buff with my own opinions on things. I don't think my employer cares, as long as I don't identify myself with them.
Re: (Score:2)
That sounds like an ideal way to wind it down. H1B as indentured servitude, followed by deportation is what made it so heinous. Nobody involved had any interest in the US or the US economy.
If they stay in the country forever, then they effectively become Americans and gain an interest in the wellbeing of the country. Also, they then need to actually live in the US long-term, which means that they need a salary that matches the cost of living here.
Re: (Score:2)
How do you define long term? The indentured white laborers brought on the early colony ships were indentured for a term of 7 years and after that they were citizens. Nowadays the GC process has been so restricted for Indians even if they apply the first year they come to the US it can still take 10 years (H! is 6 years but if a GC petition is pending H1 can be extended in 1 yr increments till GC comes through) to get a GC and 5 more to become a citizen. 15 years is pretty much a big chunk of your adult work
Hurrah! (Score:5, Interesting)
Hurrah, the Trump administration does something I support!
I would call my self a liberal who is highly sympathetic to fiscal conservatism (the later being how I was raised). My dream of a 100% Republican controlled government would be that they would run the numbers and cull less productive government programs. Sadly, Republican's have abandoned the one platform I've always respected them for, the debt. It bothers me that this is the very best our "conservative" government has been able to bring us.
American social conservatives empower these people who just shovel more and more wealth towards out affluent, all the while they bankrupt our government.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Dude, the guys said as plain as day: "Sadly, Republican's have abandoned the one platform I've always respected them for, the debt." So he gets it. The GOP have failed him.
That was my one hope too for this GOP fiasco, that they would stick to their guns and just start slicing down spending. Entitlements, defense, the whole deal. Instead they bitched a little about planned parenthood, then blew up the deficit with that massive tax cut, and then just said eff it and increased spending on top of it. WTF..
Re: (Score:2)
I'm going to say he lived on Earth before 1980, which is when the Republicans became the borrow-and-spend party.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not arguing with that.
20,000 reserved for advanced degrees (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Infosys is staffing their new Indianapolis center with US citizens making decent money.
Most opposition to Trump is tribalism (Score:4, Interesting)
On an issue by issue basis, polls have consistently supported positions he's also supported.
What is more, if Trump policies are cited as Obama or Hillary policies, you find that many people that reflexively oppose Trump agree with the policies. This makes clear that the opposition is not to the actual policies but rather to the R after his name and his self presentation which rubs many people the wrong way.
Again, those that find this an inconvenient observation will say it is opposition to policies that are immoral.
Policies such as what and according to what clearly undefined moral code are we supposed to be judging him?
Not supporting effectively open borders? Americans don't want that. There has been support for reducing immigration and making more strict the policies that allow existing immigration for well over 30 years.
What about so called "free trade"? Its a farce and everyone knows it is a farce. Free trade was something the US pushed during the Cold War as an inducement to join the First World. It was one of the carrots to side with the West over the Russians. It has generally acted to grant foreign companies access to US markets with few questions asked or conditions required. Now that the Cold War is over, there is no justification for it anymore. It is not infinitely sustainable even if we saw infinite political utility for it. There is obvious damage to many American industries and communities to no particular value to our society besides some geopolitical buy in.
What about government corruption? Here any faction that claims this isn't an issue of import is just lying. The last several years have been an endless embarrassing laundry list of corruption, conflicts of interest, nepotism, theft, incompetence, and dereliction of duty. This is actually starting to become an existential issue for the US government itself. If the government neither is doing the things it was created to do reliably nor has the confidence of the people to do those tasks then the role of the government in society collapses. This is how great empires die with some frequency. They hollow out... rot from within... and then one day... the shiny veneer that promised solidity and perfection collapses. Consensus exists that this should be taken seriously.
What else? Gun policy? If the anti gun people had the votes they'd just go to constitutional convention rather than whining endlessly about restrictions and living constitutions etc. We've changed our constitution as recently as the 1980s. If you have the votes, you can change it. If you don't have the votes then all you can do is bitch. That the anti gun people are bitching makes it very clear they don't have the votes.
On and on and on. The man is sitting at 50% approval right now.
http://news.gallup.com/poll/11... [gallup.com]
Most presidents don't pull 50 percent. Naturally this is an average statistic from Gallup... we'll have to see what Trump pulls at the end of his term. But if he gets anywhere near 50 percent then he'll have gotten about as much approval from the public as the average president which is impressive considering the military grade invective thrown at the man.
Lastly we get into this issue of his immorality. Well, according to what? What are the principles of this morality? Is it written down anywhere so we can examine it? Where does it come from? I'm not saying anything he does is or isn't moral because whatever his morality is will be subjective to whatever standard we're using. It is like judging if someone broke the law without citing which legal code the person is under. So where does this moral code come from? Because it sounds increasingly like the code of "you're a bad person because you disagree with my politics". And whilst I can understand that moral code, it is clearly not one that anyone outside that moral paradigm should take seriously.
Re:Most opposition to Trump is tribalism (Score:4, Insightful)
It really depends how you phrase the question.
https://youtu.be/G0ZZJXw4MTA [youtu.be]
If you ask "should the US have control of its borders?" then most people will agree with you. If you ask "should the US build a wall and aggressively deport children?" then you might get a different answer. Same on healthcare, people had been primed to hate Obamacare and agree with Trump, but when they see what he wants to replace it with they don't like that either.
It's standard populist stuff. Promise what people want, but deliver what you want. Support for one does not imply support for the other.
Re:Most opposition to Trump is tribalism (Score:5, Insightful)
No one would suggest that country X doesn't have a right to control its borders and decide who enters and who doesn't.
Unless that country is the US.
I'll tell you what, I'll accept people from mexico on the same standard that Mexico will accept people from the US into Mexico.
Think Mexico would be okay with Americans just crossing the Mexican border, shirking mexican immigration law, existing in the country illegally, getting deported over and over again only to return again, illegal American immigrants to Mexico demanding the rights of citizens, claiming that any attempt to enforce Mexican border law is racism... etc...
The argument used against the US if applied to any other nation would be laughed or shouted out of the room by basically any country.
That people actually presume to use the argument against the US is somewhere between mindless repetition of talking points and mendacious sophistry.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly.
Opposition to Trump is nearly entirely tribalism. On the issues, we agree. This immigration stuff in particular is something that most Americans of both parties agree upon. Lots of people from BOTH parties are manipulated by powerful interests that have a different agenda.
Most Democrats and Republicans don't want the current high levels of immigration with the seemingly lax control and standards. However, large portions of the Republicans and Democrat congress do want it.
Republican politicians seem
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
According to Rasmussen's daily polling for Monday, February 26th, Trump has a 49% approval rating. Even more interesting, Obama, on this date in the 2nd year of his presidency, only had a 44% approval rating.
Curiously, according to the Washington Post, Obama's media coverage was 42% positive and 20% negative. While the coverage for Trump was 62% negative and only 5% positive. A number of other studies show negative coverage of Trump to be over 90%.
Re: (Score:2)
exactly... Its just tired ra ra sis boom bah to intimidate. Its as meaningless as the stamping of the feet from one side of the stadium.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think it's even the R to Trump's name, it's just that they cannot absorb the idea of Trump leading the country.
As a thought experiment -- imagine if Trump ran as a Democrat (which he was until 2009) on a socially liberal but economically protectionist platform like Bernie's, defeating Hillary and becoming a D candidate to the dismay of all the establishment and intellectuals. I imagine blue collar and simple folks would vote for him, while actual liberal intellectuals would vote for any R candidate
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.msnbc.com/morning-... [msnbc.com]
MSNBC finds this credible for whatever you take from that.
Re: (Score:2)
Make a complete argument, please. What corruption do you think he's facilitating?
There was a series of scandals with the IRS, the EPA, the DOS, the DOD, the DOJ, and the FBI prior to his election.
There seems plenty of justification for a general purge.
Re: (Score:2)
As Mueller digs deeper into Trump's campaign staff, you're trying to pretend he isn't corrupt?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm noting the absence of evidence.
What you're saying is INVESTIGATION = GUILT.
By this logic everyone ever investigated for anything was guilty of whatever they were investigated for...
Thus far we have another special council fishing expedition.
Again, happy to be proven wrong... show the evidence and prove it.
Re: (Score:2)
Investigations that produce ongoing indictments and guilty pleas are evidence that something's going on. The Trump campaign was clearly corrupt. We're looking into Russian interference with the election, and Trump is trying to be buddy-buddy with the Russians. Obviously, this isn't enough to convict, and likely isn't probable cause by itself, but I find it suggestive.
As far as Trump himself being corrupt, we know that already. He bought off a state attorney general who was investigating Trump U. He'
Re: (Score:2)
Eh... not really. We could probably find just as much if we looked into the clintons.
I mean, one of the "crimes" was that Flynn said he didn't talk to a Russian diplomat AFTER Trump was elected when he had talked to a Russian diplomat. Had he said he did do it... there would have been no legal consequences.
This is why most lawyers will tell you to respond "I don't recall" to every question when something like this happens. Because there are a million laws and they're frequently not applied reasonably.
Do you
Re: (Score:2)
False equivalence. Moreover, the Clintons have been investigated extensively, so we have a good idea what they've done, and the Trump campaign and Trump himself are only starting to get that level of scrutiny.
You could only say that by claiming to know
Re: (Score:2)
Actually the Clintons were given blanket immunity by the FBI... I this was all documented. You're going ask for evidence... I'll cite a mainstream source like CNN or something... don't waste my time with that.
You want to pretend there is something there, so be it... There are people that pretend they have force powers or larp as vampires. If you have something then take them to court. Thus far we have some dodgy money with some fund raisers which is pretty typical of all the campaigns and Flynn idiotically
Re: (Score:2)
Typing "clinton fbi immunity" gives me a couple of pages of results about Clinton aides who wanted immunity. This is standard practice in an investigation: give immunity to the little fish in exchange for testimony about the bigger fishes. (Also, if you've got immunity, you can be required to testify about illegal things you did, since the Fifth's clause about self-incrimination only applies if the person in question is or might be on trial.)
You continue to ignore the Mueller investigation. We know t
Re: (Score:2)
This is a good example of what I was talking about.
This is just ad hominem. On the issues, what do you disagree with, please?
Re: (Score:2)
...
http://www.rasmussenreports.co... [rasmussenreports.com]
https://www.msnbc.com/morning-... [msnbc.com]
I'm not making it up.
Re: (Score:2)
So were the polls that showed Trump would win the election in the first place. I'm not saying the polls I'm citing are right or wrong or yours are right or wrong... but that you have a lot of polls that agree with each other doesn't mean they're right.
Let us just leave it at... you are dubious of those results... very well... naturally subsequent elections will clarify the reality of one of these views over time. Till then.
Re: (Score:2)
All of which has nothing to do with policies or the job he's doing. I mean, its the same tired ad hominem.
Re: (Score:2)
thank you for the correction
Re: (Score:2)
Cite some evidence of that. I mean, anyone can say something. I could say that you are personally made entirely out of cheese.
Is that true? Are you made of cheese? Evidence or you set a standard of evidence not being required. At which point... God exists...
Re: (Score:2)
Naturally there is tribalism all over the place. We're human beings so that's just part of the landscape.
But the point is why are people choosing X vs Y? Is it issues or tribalism?
Because again, if you cite most Trump policies to democrats as if they were democrat ideas, the ideas and programs are generally popular with democrats.
Thus opposition is apparently almost entirely tribalism. If instead you cited Hillary ideas at Republicans and they liked them if told they were trump ideas, then I'd also conclude
Re: (Score:2)
Also since you care about when it was taken even though in either case it would speak to my point...
here is one that is after the SOTU address:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
You're denying the Sun here.
Re: (Score:2)
Which goal post did I move or are you just repeating things?
Cite the goal post moved.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually I asked a simple question and you proved me right by not answering it.
As to a reasonable person, you attack me and I respond. You are asking me to ignore your attack because I'm unreasonable if I defend myself.
This is the argument of a coward. You want to be able to attack and not suffer a rebut.
We can see why you operate under the AC tag. You are an intellectual coward. You are afraid and even offended by the very notion that any of your idiotic arguments would be questioned or that you would be h
Nope. Just like China, this is just BS (Score:2)
Enforce the salary requirements (Score:2)
Bust a few large tech companies. Find out they're underpaying people on H1Bs and make them pay up with back pay.
So the people on H1B visas get a salary increase and the tech companies lose the incentive to fire Americans and replace them with H1Bs.
Who loses in this scenario? Well the tech companies do, but it'll be hard for them to spin this as a bad thing. And unlike many will actually go bankrupt since most are sitting on enormous piles of cash.
Re: (Score:2)
If there is a mega crackdown on H1Bs, India will negotiate with US for the return of Social Security payments made by H1Bs. In the last 25 years H1Bs have contributed a shitload to SS without taking any payouts. If this money has to be returned SS wil go bankrupt. Say Bye bye to welfare/Disability checks.
Re: (Score:2)
This 'crackdown' means H1Bs get paid more. Also consider the following conversation
India : Because of [a very convoluted argument] you owe us social security payments and if you pay social security will go bankrupt now rather than in a couple of decades.
US : Err, no. We're not going to do that.
If you contribute to social security but never claim a pension that doesn't mean you can claim the money back. I've paid tax in loads of places that I'm not going to get a pension in. I can't 'negotiate' to get my mon
Re: (Score:2)
The social security rules say that if foreign countries have a treaty with US saying they have their own social security than the foreign nationals on work visas dont have to pay social security. e.g. French folks on H1 in the US do not pay FICA taxes. India does not have such a Totalization treaty hence Indian H1Bs get screwed - they have to pay FICA taxes but their H1s are valid for only 6 years and you do not become eligible to claim unless you have 40 quarters or 10 years of contributions so they never
Re: (Score:2)
I am all for paying H1Bs more but the fact of the matter is the rules for H1Bs are very biased. The employer has too much power and it takes far too long to settle legally (GCs have a 10 year backlog).
As long as the playing field is not fair people dont care about playing fair either. They will exploit every loophole they can get away with.
Want to solve the H1 issue - make the visa non capped and individual. Anyone with the qualification should be able to get the visa individually without a 6 month wait. Th
I don't see what's wrong (Score:2)
The employer is the agency. It's no different to what Toilet & Douche, Cowboys & Lowbrows, Pricey Whorehouse or any of the others do.
There are problems with the H1B system, but this ain't one of them.
Re: (Score:2)
"must be an astronaut & Olympic medallist in 17 sports, plus an Oscar"
You must be thinking of the O1 visa. That is the visa that Nativists point to as an alternate to the H1 and for which USCIS makes ridiculous demands of proof.
The H1 was created as industry said the USCIS is slowing down hiring too much for Greencards and the companies needed a faster way to get foreigners over here to work. It was also part of the WTO negotiations where India bargained for access to the US services market in return f
Re: (Score:2)
Your telepathy skills need some work. A bunch of shysters called Cohen & Grigsby offer seminars on how to game the system. It's pretty famous. Or rather, infamous.
Re: (Score:2)
British Dutch and German's do not need the H1 to work in the US. They can come on E3 and E4 treaty visas. India does not have a treaty with US so the only visa open to Indians is the H1 hence the over representation of Indians in the H1 category.
BTW some Europeans choose H1 over E3 because H1 is a dual intent visa. It specifically allows applying for greencards whereas the treaty visas do not.
Frankly Europeans get 2 months of vacation, free medical care and free college for their kids so not many are intere
So many simple steps that could be taken (Score:3)
So many simple steps that could be taken to improve the system, like those seeking less candidates receive approval first.
> Request only 1-2 H1B's, you have top priority, 3-10 then you have second tier priority, 11-100, third tier, 100-1,000 fourth tier, 1,000+ last tier. All higher tiers are reviewed and granted prior to the next tier. That alone would shift the H1B program to a much more legitimate implementation.
> Increase salary requirement and set to inflation adjustment every 5 years.
> Random audits, all candidate resumes provided must be uploaded to the H1B visa program. Companies with a 100 or more H1B visas are randomly selected for audit and review.
> 10% tax levied per $100,000 bracket of H1B visa, the revenues directly fund programs to provide free access to STEM programs at community and state colleges. If the H1B visas are needed because there are not enough qualified candidates, than the program should help fund the qualifying of candidates.
Mar-a-Lago (Score:2)
I'll bet Mar-a-Lago didn't lose any.
Just don't make this a witch hunt (Score:2)
These rule changes sound sane. I just hope the anti H1-B sentiment doesn't become a witch hunt. I often see posts here making blanket statements that all H1-B visa workers are underpaid and/or underskilled. Yet I work with several H1-B immigrants who are DANG FRIEKING GOOD. They are some of the best people on the team, and they have been trying to get green cards for a while. Some of them got married here and want to buy a house and start a family. These are engineers with college degrees who are easi
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
doing something useful for once. No more useless indians taking jobs here.
The companies that do that only exist because bigger companies want them to exist. They provide a source for employees they can get rid of very quickly, should work be reduced or they simply don't work out. Basically a company can avoid layoffs by redefining some employees as contract workers, even though they work they same hours and do the same level of tasks as everyone else.
I am an American and my first job was a contract engineer. It actually paid pretty good, better than now to be fair, though with
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly, H1B visas are used to hire and fire at will. Essentially, it is a way for upper management to have one less responsibility while maximizing bonuses.
But, but, but... (Score:2)
It's illegal to replace qualified U.S. workers with H1B visa holders.
***
Ah, you see, we outsourced 1/2 hour work to India. So one of our job requirements along with 8 years of HTML 5 experience was the ability to speak fluent Hindi in order to communicate with our off-shore IT department.
Sadly, we couldn't find any qualified U.S. personnel to fill any of the positions.
WRONG (Score:2)
You've been on the same side of the same coin...
"I've been in the company of some really skilled engineers who were here on some form of H1-B Visa"
Yes, you have. And those really skilled engineers were likely being paid an average engineering wage, where as to hire an American with the same caliber of skills, one would have to pay nearly twice as much.
Here's the big rub, Americans, can't compete with H1B visa holders. Why not? Because, education in the U.S. is too expensive. It'll cost you around a $100,00
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is, the companies will just outsource jobs to cheap labor countries vs. bring the cheap labor to the U.S.
Hewlett Packard (what once was) and IBM at one time had more employees in India than the U.S.
I don't like the "H1-B" excuse either. It's a lie (no technically trained counterparts in the U.S.).
It's simply a way to cheapen labor costs and eliminate giving benefits.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
"Told" to hate him? You think there are marching orders for that? All the Republicans I know either hate him or dislike him while grudgingly accepting him. But of course, I've heard a lot on the forums complain that they're all RINOs, including the vast majority of past Republican leadership (even Reagan would be called a RINO these days if he dared to snub Trump).
Re: (Score:1)
You are clearly an expert on the Republicans. Do you have a newsletter we can subscribe to?
Re: The orange one (Score:2)
Re: The orange one (Score:1)
So....what you are saying is there were a lot of good guys around with guns, but they couldn't, or wouldn't, stop the bad guy with a gun?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Speak for yourself. He try get rid of people like me who demonstrate the truth Hillary should have won but was instead defeated by Russians who installed TRUMP through election metal.
And here is a perfect example of what has gone wrong with this site...A "Top Editor" who is unable to type a coherent message either:
1) Because they lack the ability
OR
2) Because they are so partisan that they feel they have to post as quickly as possible in order to defend "their side" and so are unable to take the small amount of time to proof-read what they are posting.
And sadly, based on the types of articles which seem to be appearing on this site, the "Editors" seem to be unable to take (or at th
Re: (Score:3)
If there is a new story about Trump I look forward to reading it here a week later.
Re: (Score:2)
And here is a perfect example of what has gone wrong with this site...A "Top Editor" who is unable to type a coherent message either:
We've always had people unable to type coherent messages, ever since the beginning. And before that was usenet...
Re:The orange one (Score:4)
You realize that isn't the real msmash, right? It's some troll who registered the name "msmash (Top Editor)".
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously? You're a "Top Editor"? Maybe you should spend a little less time speculating why your candidate lost, because to date, there hasn't been a shred of evidence to back up your claim. Sure, they interfered, but again, that's not why she lost.
Re: The orange one (Score:2)
Interesting to note you blamed the Russians, Comey, Fox News, Alt-rightneo-no's, etc, then only at the end of you comment you toss in the 'ohh yeah, she was a sucktacular candidate that would have lost to any of the 16 candidate Trump beat in the 2016 election.'
Bottom line, bad retail politician, no clear message, a new and unique way to manage her campaign- that's why she lost to a candidate nearly as bad as her.
The superdelegates put her on the ballot, her shoddy campaign cost her the election, but yeah '
Re: (Score:2)
Trump was by far a worse candidate, and still is by any objective measure.
Unless you count the actual objective measure of winning? If he's good at anything, it's getting media attention, and they fell whole hog for him.
The Truth is.. (Score:5, Insightful)
The truth is, Bernie should of won. Except Hillary and the DNC flat out cheated on so many levels to prevent him from being the nominee. Americans wanted a non-establishment candidate
- Hillary Clinton, prospective nominee, expected candidate, 100% establishment, epitome of establishment and partisan politics.
- Bernie Sanders, long shot, good person, non-establishment candidate.
- Donald Trump, a jerk, major personal issues, non-establishment candidate.
Americans wanted a non-establishment candidate. Americans would have elected Bernie Sanders. Except Hillary and the DNC did everything they could to block and prevent him (including flat out cheating, providing debate questions, removing hundreds of thousands of voters from voter rolls in pro-Bernie districts, miraculous coin flips, pulling in favors from the media to downplay and hide Bernie's successes and Hillary's failures, and so much more).
The end result, DNC burned their younger demographic, showing the youth their votes don't matter. America, which wanted a anti-establishment candidate was now left with only one, Trump. The combination of a desire for anti-establishment and DNC hurting their own base resulted in what was to many, a shocking turn of events - President Trump. Yet, the result was exactly as I had predicted. All my Democrat friends who mocked me over my support of Bernie Sanders were shocked and dismayed. But I tried to explain to them, here I was, a lifelong Republican and Ron Paul supporter, and I was out there with Bernie Sanders yard signs and so was my mother. This is something that most did not understand. And folks like me, and there were quite a few, ( a lot of Ron Paul, anti-war libertarian Republicans were supporting Bernie Sanders) were NEVER going to vote for Hillary.
People like the above, are still so flabbergasted and clueless as to why their presumed perfect candidate Hillary failed to win. They have clamored for straws ever since, and latched onto the idea that somehow Russia was the deciding factor. It'd be laughable, if it weren't so sad.
Hillary lost, because she was a 100% establishment candidate who was caught using the full weight of the establishment to block the democratic process. She was the wrong candidate, at the wrong time. And a bad one at that...
Re: (Score:2)
I'm going to have to agree with you on this one. It was obvious that Hillary purchased the DNC for her purposes. They had a spreadsheet of positions they were going to use to reward major donors ( here http://dailycaller.com/2016/07... [dailycaller.com] )
Hillary pissed off the young folks and the non-elitist Democrats.
The reactionary vote went with Trump.
It'll be interesting to see what the next election looks like. The Republicans really blew it on the last election as they had no electable candidate and Trump threatened
Re: (Score:2)
Even though I am a GOP guy, I respect my friends efforts to fight the corruption in the DNC. He's certainly not alone.
I think he is up against too much, though
Rush says to never feel sorry for
Re: (Score:1)
it's a hot topic for the mid-terms. 'claiming' to clamp down, when trump himself has abused them, and the gop's wealthy donors abuse them.. it's all talk. they won't actually do anything.
and.. it is a smoke screen to try to dilute the current 'gun control' debate... again, because mid-terms.
gop is circling the wagons... they're ducking and covering...
just wait til they get desperate, see the blackness staring at them, and start passing more shit legislation, like the billion dollar tax cuts for the wealthy,
Your Argument (Score:5, Informative)
So just to be clear, your argument is that we should do what Obama did - nothing - and let companies not only abuse undocumented workers, but continue to abuse the H1-B system too?
Or did you just want to bitch about Trump by bringing up some unsubstantiated tabloid rumor that is about what some guy 20 levels below Trump did in the hiring for some demolition project?
As you are an Obama supporter, I can understand your position would be to bitch about everything and do absolutely nothing to curb abuses by business. I just can't understand the logic in such a position.
Re: (Score:2)
H-1B reform is about the only thing Trump has done or is doing that I really like.
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't he claim to have a pen and know how to use it? He didn't seem to have a problem writing laws with his DACA orders.
Re:Why bother with H-1b visas? (Score:5, Interesting)
Their legal advice was all the same: Fill out the I-9 form [irs.gov] for everyone we hired, and make photocopies of the two pieces of official documentation presented as proof of work eligibility. The government provides no way to confirm that these documents are legit, so the I-9 and photocopies become proof that we did our due diligence, and shields us from prosecution for hiring unauthorized workers.
In other words, the way the system is currently set up, having illegal immigrants on your payroll is not proof of wrongdoing by the employer. If the employee presented what seemed to be proper work documents at the time of their hiring, the employer has done nothing wrong by hiring them. And in fact the employer can be sued if they deny employment to anyone because they suspect the documentation was forged, and it turns out to be legit. Basically the employer has no choice but to accept without proof that any provided documentation is legit.
If you really want to stop illegal immigrants* from being hired, the government simply has to set up a system where the authenticity of work documents can be confirmed by employers prior to hiring someone. Most of the people we later found to have presented forged docs were woefully easy to spot - the name didn't match the SSN, or the last known residence didn't match the SSN. Oddly, the people who are most likely to blame employers for hiring illegal immigrants are also the ones most vehemently opposed to this type of system to easily authenticate work documents.
* This is why the term "undocumented immigrant" is a misnomer - there is no way for an employer to distinguish a documented immigrant, from an undocumented immigrant who is doing everything in their power to fool you into thinking they are documented. The only definitions which work are:
Here's why. (Score:2)
The purpose of this is so that Trump can sell the favor of selective enforcement by not cracking down on H1Bs at companies that support him
Re:Why bother with H-1b visas? (Score:5, Informative)
There is a system, it is called E-Verify
https://www.uscis.gov/e-verify [uscis.gov]
e-Verify (Score:2)
The govt already has a system in place to verify people before they join. Employers dont like using it as they want to hire illegals. Illegals work harder and dont make any waves as they want to fly under the radar. Look at how illegals mostly work in fields like Chicken processing or Fruit picking. These are fields where people are exploited. Software companies dont use illegals even though there is a clear demand for foreign labor. This is because software companies are more honest employers.