H1B visas - no jobs for US citizens.

[stormtrax]

No, I'm not a democrat - in fact, I've only refrained from voting a straight GOP ticket twice - but I hate George W Bush. Especially his new energy secretary, Spencer Abraham.

How could George pick such an absolute cretin as "Spence"? Spence has been rabidly opposed to helping US citizens find jobs, selling his vote (fairly openly, I might add) to large corporations in favor of H1B visas.

An H1B visa is used by companies who claim that there are no US citizens who can perform the work of a foreigner. H1B visas are granted almost routinely above and beyond the established cuota for a given country. Initially pegged at bringing in 100,000 or so, it turns out that the feds weren't counting how many were granted: over a quarter of a million foreign workers were allowed in -per year- to take jobs from American citizens. Including mine.

Why would a company prefer an H1B worker? They'll work for far less. These people want to come to the US for the sake of coming to the US. They'll work for (in some cases) half of the going rate. Under terms of the visa, they are not subject to social security, medicare or income tax, though under the laws of this country if they ever get sick and decided not to pay for health insurance (or if it was not offered to them) they are entitled to free health care.

Spencer Abraham (lauded as Energy Secretary by Rusty Hills, Michigan GOP chairman, he drives a minivan) was well aware that the majority of his constituents (he was Senator up until the last election) were opposed to not only the existance of the H1B program but also Spence's proposed -expansion- to let even more people in. To top it all off, now that the economy is slowing and more US citizens are losing their jobs, the H1B program allows the same (uncounted) number into the country - more US jobs will be lost.

George Bush, of course, doesn't care. He's never held a job that wasn't bought for him by his daddy's poker buddies (little sarcasm there). He's never had to look for a job. Neither has Spencer Abraham. Neither one cares.

[waterj2]

Why do people born in the US deserve jobs in the US more than people from overseas? Should skilled workers in foreign countries be denied the chance to use their skills to benefit themselves so that less skilled US workers can demand higher wages?

[stormtrax]

IF the foreigners were more skilled than the US workers you'd have a point. But the people I personally know who have been displaced from employment as a result of H1B programs were just as skilled - if not even more so - than their replacements.

In some cases, they were asked to train their replacement and then shown the door.

Why are you favoring a plan to put US citizens on welfare, unemployment and medicaid/medicare? Do you believe in the welfare state in which the government should pick up the tab for people the government put on the streets?

[C3]

My husband came to the U.S. on an H1B visa. I don't know what the situation in your industry is, but he was not paid half the going salary. In fact, his company paid him a higher salary than his counterparts, offered him a contract (which the others did not have) and helped him with relocation expenses. He was quite an expensive investment for his company and, it turns out, more qualified than many of his coworkers.
In addition, I don't know where you get the idea that these workers don't have to pay social security or income taxes. They do. I've never heard that they could get free health care either. Are you just making stuff up?

[CrankyAsAnOldMan]

What I've heard about an H1B visa sounds like there are DAMNED hard to get. The burden of proof that there is no U.S. worker to fill the spot is very high.

I am a strong supporter of Spence's opponent, Debbie Stabenow, but she damned near lost my vote over the ads grossly misreprenting the H1B visa and why Spence was so evil for supporting the expansion of its use.

I guess I need more documentation of what you're saying.

If you wanna bitch about someone from Michigan being the energy secretary, I'll listen to that. Christ, talk about challenging someone's ability to have a balanced view on U.S. gas consumption.

[waterj2]

Yeah, the IRS seems to indicate that people with H1B visas have to pay taxes:
http://www.irs.gov/tax_edu/faq/faq13-4.html

What other of your "facts" are simply lies?

Also, just because someone had to be trained to do job does not mean that they are not more skilled than the trainer. I'd imagine that virtually all highly skilled jobs require on the job training. And since a bachelor's degree is required for an H1B visa, presumably the person being replaced has one as well. I doubt that it's highly skilled college graduates that are flooding our welfare system.

[Spiny Norman]

Ehm - isolation is not always that great.

I presume the hiring company has a reason to hire the unwashed foreigner - if a foreign engineer delivers more bang for the buck, isn't the US well served by having him/her inside the borders for a while ? Looking at the demands for H1B applicants (college graduate or 10 years of relevant experience), it's not as if the people they're replacing are going to sleep in the gutter.

Of course some people will abuse even sensible policies. But as I see it, an open door policy for smart people is an asset, not a liability. Who knows, the foreigners might bring in some insights ?

Then again, I'm currently working expat (though not in the US), so what else can I say ?

S. Norman

Post-preview: Damn, you people are saying it better than I can - again!

[ruadh]

Just discussed here (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=52484).

Of course stormtrax is flat out wrong about the wages, the tax requirements, the free health care, that the feds "weren't counting", that there is any sort of per-country quota on H-1Bs, etc. And since we're in the Pit, I might add that if his attention to detail at his job was anything like his attention to detail here, it's no wonder he's now unemployed.

[waterj2]

Although he is most likely full of shit, he may have somehow been confused with the B1 visa:
· B1 - This is a business visa and legally, you cannot work on this visa. This visa is valid for 6 months only. Your company cannot apply for a Green Card while you are on a B1 visa. Your family cannot accompany you. You are not supposed to earn any money while you are on a B1 visa in the US. So, you have to pay no income tax.

[stormtrax]

C3: Maybe your husband earned more than locals. I never said (or implied) that it never happens. However, a common complaint is that H1Bers tend to be paid less and hesitate to ask for raises out of fear of being fired and shipped back to wherever.

Cranky: The burden of proof is supposed to be high that there is nobody locally who can do the work. In reality, this is not true. I've seen many H1B visas going to people to work as a network administrator - jobs which could easilly be filled by somebody locally. Large companies frequently don't advertise an opening to the general population: they'll post an internal announcement, wait three weeks and ask for the visa - which is then either rubber stamped or the company will ask whatever senator they have on the payroll to pull a string or two and then get it rubber stamped.

Waterj2: Let's see... I can either believe what the IRS code says (which also says that Microsoft should pay taxes, which it doesn't) or I can believe people who were here on H1B visas, got married and citizenship and started to complain that she didn't have to pay taxes before but now she does. Furthermore, the concept of foreigners being allowed to work in the US and not pay income taxes is well-established. A very common arrangement is for foreigners to come to the US on a 3 year visa (forget which classification it is) and open a liquor/party store, which they operate without paying personal income taxes through some law or another. After the visa expires they return home but sell the store to a family member who continues the business.

ruadh: With respect to the free health care - hospitals are prohibited by law to deny medical care to anybody. Period. If you are here on an H1B and get sick you may go to any emergency room of your choosing and receive free (to you) medical attention.

With respect to the ease with which H1Bs are obtained by companies in defiance of the law, I refer you to the House Immigration Subcommittee held on 5 May, 1999. Witnesses testified that fraud by both visa recipients and corporate sponsors is rampant, that government agencies do not have the resources to deal with the problem, and the recipients of fraudulently obtained visas are rarely prosecuted or deported.

Rep. Edward Pease (R-IN) asked one panel of witnesses, "Why is it that we are not prosecuting the folks who are the beneficiaries of illegal activity?" Michael Bromwich, Inspector General of the Department of Justice, answered that "the system would be flooded with cases."

H1B visas are also used to bring in non-technical workers - yet another reason why the program should be at least halted while the government works to solve the problems. As testified before congress, "Examples of fraud associated with the requesting company include instances where: the company is non-existent and/or operating from a post office box, residence, apartment, or many companies are sharing one of the above. Often the requesting company acts as an employment agency, petitions for the foreign workers, but then attempts to find them other jobs, with associated additional fees, paid for by the intending company. In some cases, an existing company petitions for employees, but terminates them on arrival, enabling an otherwise ineligible person to enter into the U.S. These actions are accomplished both with and without the beneficiary's advance knowledge."

Jill Esposito, of the Visa Office of the State Department, testified about an example of H1B fraud. An American company sought an H1B visa for a foreign worker to serve as its "comptroller" to "direct the financial activities of the company." The worker was interviewed by the State Department in his country, and it was learned that he did not speak English, that the company was a donut shop, and that it was owned by his sister.

William Yates of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) stated that the INS did a study of 3,247 cases referred to an American Consulate in India. He said that "they were unable to verify the authenticity of close to 45% of the claims made on the petitions. Twenty-one percent of the work experience claims made to the INS were confirmed to be fraudulent in this investigation."

[stormtrax]

"Of course stormtrax is flat out wrong ... that the feds "weren't counting","
- ruadh

According to the INS, 20,000 more visas than allocated were awarded in 1999. (Widely reported, use your favorite search engine with the terms +ins +h1b +visa +1999 and you should come up with several references.)

It was proposed that the INS should therefore decrease the H1B allocation in 2000 by the same number. Spencer Abraham viciously objected to this proposal.

Ruadh, I also suggest you go back and read what I said about the per-country quotas. I did not say that H1Bs were allocated by country, I said they were issued "above and beyond the established cuota for a given country" - in other words, other types of visas are allocated in the form of x visas to country y per year - which is tied into the visa lottery system which is commonly used.

Let's say that the country of Intelandia is given 10 visas per year, which are then distributed. H1B is a separate program which could then (in theory) allow an additional 115,000 Intelandians into the US (I think that's the current cap... I'd have to double check).

[waterj2]

Waterj2: Let's see... I can either believe what the IRS code says (which also says that Microsoft should pay taxes, which it doesn't) or I can believe people who were here on H1B visas, got married and citizenship and started to complain that she didn't have to pay taxes before but now she does. Furthermore, the concept of foreigners being allowed to work in the US and not pay income taxes is well-established. A very common arrangement is for foreigners to come to the US on a 3 year visa (forget which classification it is) and open a liquor/party store, which they operate without paying personal income taxes through some law or another. After the visa expires they return home but sell the store to a family member who continues the business.

I have not found any source on the web that indicates that people with H1-B visas are not required to pay income tax, and several that say the opposite. There is no law exempting them from it. If the people that you know told you this, either you misunderstood or she [sic] is lying. As for bizarre scenarios involving liquor stores, that doesn't apply here, as people with h1-B visas are not allowed to hold jobs other than the one that the visa is provided for.

As for health care, hospitals are only required to provide emergency care, and are allowed to charge for it.

Also, Michael romwich's testimony (http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/ts050599.htm) was concerned primarily with other types of visa fraud, mainly the Visa Waiver Pilot Program.

That said, you haven't told me why US citizens should have more rights to work in the US than foreigners.

[oldscratch]

Well I can either believe what the law and government says about a specific issue, or I can believe random rumours from unnamed people. Yep. :rolleyes:


Using this logic, we now know that abortion is illegal. Cause I know a guy who told me so.

[stormtrax]

I provided the link to testimony in which an H1B visa was used to bring in a non-english speaking worker to help with a sister's donut shop. While Romwich may have been speaking about fraud in general, Jill Esposito was testifying regarding the H1Bs in particular.

"thousands of marginally qualified applicants are also entering the United States in the H1-B and L-1 categories."
- Jill Esposito

Mark A. Mancini testified about visa/immigration fraud in general - including H1Bs.

John Ratigan testified:

"The best known sources of "employment" visas are the H-1B and L visas. This subcommittee is quite familiar with the debate over H-1B visas. L visas, by which overseas employees of multi-national firms come to the U.S. for up to 7 years to gain experience in the U.S. office, fulfill a very useful function for both U.S. and foreign corporations. They have enjoyed a highly positive and well deserved reputation for many years.

Both visa categories have experienced fraud, however, simply because, for those in the business of moving aliens to the United States, H and L are prime "people movers". Both categories have been misused, for example, by Chinese alien smugglers and Russian organized crime figures."

Nancy Sambaiew complained that there were 10,000 applications per year per officer. As no distinctions were made, this would also include the H1Bs.

William Yates testified:
"As early as 1996, AmCon Chennai estimated that a significant percentage of their H1-B petitioners, almost all of whom were computer programmers, were misrepresenting their academic or professional credentials. The INS Service Centers worked with the AmCon Chennai in a joint effort aimed at verifying claimed education and work experience from the petition submitted to the INS. These joint efforts were initiated one year ago. Between the inception of the joint effort and March 31, 1999, of the 3,247 cases referred to AmCon Chennai's anti-fraud unit, they were unable to verify the authenticity of close to 45% of the claims made on the petitions."

As for the question why should US residents have more of a right to work in the US than non-US residents, the reasons should be obvious. Since you choose to believe otherwise, I'm sure you wouldn't mind surrendering your employment to allow a foreign worker to reap the benefits of this country.

oldscratch - in this country we don't believe in what the laws (or the Constitution) say any more. Janet, Hillary and Bill taught us that.

[waterj2]

So the US government lies to everyone to benefit people that can't even vote? And where do these people find out about their special tax-exempt status if not from the IRS? Why does the material published by the IRS to tell aliens how to file for taxes leave out the minor detail that they don't actually have to pay anything?

As for the question why should US residents have more of a right to work in the US than non-US residents, the reasons should be obvious. Since you choose to believe otherwise, I'm sure you wouldn't mind surrendering your employment to allow a foreign worker to reap the benefits of this country.

Well, given that my employment is with the United States Navy, that would be a conflict of interest. In general, I would accept being replaced by anyone who had more to offer my employer than I did. Anyways, please explain the "obvious" reasons that you have more right to a job than someone from a foreign country. And try to avoid false dichotomies about how it's either my job or theirs.

[oldscratch]

whatever water :rolleyes: Hiding behind "conflict of interest". You're just scared they'll bring over some Armenian to take your Navy job.

[capacitor]

I tried to apply for jobs in my field, in my Department of Labor, and there were many, many entries in which the only practical way that I can qualify is if I am a foreigner on H1B visa speaking the language. The jobs were worded very carefully so as to escape government scrutiny. There was one in which I know the language, yet the Labor official there tried to persuade me not to try it.

[super_head]

Not directly related, but my wife is a foreign national and a technically skilled worker. She came over on a K-1 fiancee visa, which is an entirely different animal than anything being discussed and is, thus, not of concern.

Now, as for being able to find skilled workers easily - perhaps that is the situation where you live - but it is most definitely not the case where we live (beautiful, yet under-educated, Alabama). The company my wife went to work for as an Information Systems Manager had been looking for nearly six months for a qualified applicant with the right experience. So, it's not as easy to find skilled staff as you might think.

[threemae]

Stormtrax, I am sorry to hear about your personal job loss, but this is the price we pay for a genrally strong economy. In the end, people come to America to produce more than they were before or else thay would not get paid more and hence, not come to America in the first place. They are also consumers too, so they help to crate new job you will eventually fill. They do not weaken the economy, they simply add layers to it.

It sucks in the shortterm, but the alternative is someplace like France where workers are so protected that they often find themselves having difficulty finding jobs in the firstplace leading to 20% unemployment vs. 3.5 % or whatever it is right now. Not to mention on overall smaller per capita income that places with less protected workers.

whatever water Hiding behind "conflict of interest". You're just scared they'll bring over some Armenian to take your Navy job.

American service men and women do need to be at least fully naturalized Americans, lest we fall short in a military campaign against our powerful enemy, Armenia.

Okay, maybe not Armenis, but you get the point.

[stormtrax]

In a strong economy it isn't necessarily such a problem. The biggest problem is that highly skilled people are being cut from payrolls en masse and the H1B visas continue to flood the markets.

Also, H1Bers tend to not spend as much as their American replacees - they send their money back home so it isn't being spent locally.

"American service men and women do need to be at least fully naturalized Americans"

But the contractors used to replace downsized soldiers do not.

But the military is a horrible place to work anyway - my brother-in-law was recently shafted when the army told him (and thousands of others) -upon discharge- that the GI Bill would not apply to him as promised and no, he wouldn't get back the money he contributed to the program while enlisted.

But that's another thread.

[oldscratch]

That reminds me of a joke about the Navy....


nah.

[Lizard]

Originally posted by oldscratch
Well I can either believe what the law and government says about a specific issue, or I can believe random rumours from unnamed people. Yep. :rolleyes:


I'm surprised at you oldscratch. Do you believe anything the government says as literally true? Do you think laws are always enforced exactly the way they appear on the books? Such positions would be inconsistent with everything else I know about you.

I'm not joining the debate (since I don't know a damn thing about it and it doesn't affect me in my field, anyway) I just wanted to poin the above out.

[Bill H.]

stormtrax, you've been replaced by someone who's better than you. And rather than work harder or go to school to get better, you scream about your entitlement to a job and how the law should keep out honest hard workers who had the misfortune of being born in a lesser place. And you spew lies about how they don't pay taxes, etc.

You, sir are an idiot.

[Spiritus Mundi]

First, a possible explanation. H1-B workers are not exempt from tax. However, many H1-B workers are contract workers whose employee of record is a placement firm specializing in finding spots for such workers. In some cases, that employer of record might negotiate an "after taxes and fees" rate with the worker. The taxes are paid, but the worker never sees them deducted from his negotiated wage.

Now, I have worked with several H1-B recipients and have generally found them to be competent and hard working. Every one that I have known has lived, along with his immediate family, in the local community. They spent money for housing, transportation, food, entertainment, clothing, etc. None of them lived like paupers while "draining our economy" of the cash they sent home. Most were paid less than the top rate for profesionals in their positions, but none were accepting a wage which was unreasonable.

Yes, fraud exists in this program. Fraud exists in every program. Arguing that the law should be changed because people are not following it is tortuous logic.

It is also true that most high-tech firms rely heavily upon foreign workers. Now, one way to view this is that those firms are trying to cheat US workers out of good jobs. Another way of looking at it is that those firms are taking advantage of the best minds available, no matter where they happened to grow up.

The truth, most likely, is a little of both. Having spent much of the last 60 days interviewing applicants for a technical position I can tell you that if a strong H1-B applicant showed up tomorrow I would send his paperwork to HR before the ink on my signature dried.

Of course, the US Army also fulfilled its promises to me re: college benefits.

[oldscratch]

No Lizard. But, if a government agency says that it's illegal to dump toxic waste, and some nutjob comes in and claims that his friends says it's legal. I'm gonna believe the government. Notice, we're not disputing that fraud occurs. There are people of all stripes who break the laws. What we are disputing is the law itself. I'm gonna stick with the authorities who wrote the laws on that one. Make sense?

[stormtrax]

Bill H, you are entirely ignorant of what my skills and abilities are as compared with other workers. You are entirely oblivious to any factual information regarding my situation. Your judgemental attitude reveals you as an ignorant fool offering nothing of value.

A person of your apparent skills should go far in either management or government.

[Monty]

American service men and women do need to be at least fully naturalized Americans, lest we fall short in a military campaign against our powerful enemy, Armenia.

Okay, maybe not Armenis, but you get the point. [/B]

Incorrect. Warrant and Commissioned Officers, and E9 (to include the sole E10 in each branch of the Armed Forces), are required to be US citizens. All other enlisted personnel may be (1) US citizens, by birth or naturalization, (2) Resident Aliens, or (3) Non-Immigrant Aliens enlisted under the provisions of the Status of Forces Agreement between the United States of America and the Republic of the Philippines, when said treaty was in effect.

This tidbit brought to you by Monty, your friendly retired Personnelman First Class, US Navy. (PN1, Fleet Reserve)

[Monty]

I left out an important tidbit in the tidbit above:

Enlisted personnel whose Rating, MOS, or AFSC requires a security clearance, of any level, must also be US citizens, unless a waiver of the citizenship requirement is granted. In 20 years of Active Service and 13 months of Reserve service, I've never seen a waiver for that, but I suppose it could happen.

[stormtrax]

S.M. you could definitely be on to something. I am glad that there are people like you out there countering the forces of the moronic Bill H's of the world. What you postulated is entirely plausible and would explain what I have heard.

As for the companies, I doubt very much (and have never stated otherwise) that they are out to "cheat US citizens out of good jobs". They view everything in terms of the immediate bottom line: how to make things look just good enough for another performance bonus and a promotion before the natural consequences come about.

[Bill H.]

stormtrax wrote
A person of your apparent skills should go far in either management or government.
In fact, I have done ok, and have created several hundred jobs in the last 4 years. Perhaps a third of those were H1Bs. The H1Bs I have worked with have all been exceptional people that I was proud to work with and proud to have brought into this country. They weren't hired "because they were cheap".

And take this from one who's signed a lot of paychecks: they pay taxes just like everybody else.

I won't even dive into your other crazy lies, like the government backing out on GI Bill benefits.

[waterj2]

Wow, I go to ask about the security clearance thing, and notice you just answered it. I've heard, though, that the vast majority of ratings in the Navy are off-limits to non citizens because of that, and they all get stuck being MSs and stuff like that. Is this at all accurate?

[Monty]

It's not the Army, etc., who promise the benefits; the programs are statutory. That means that if the individual meets the statutory requirements, then he gets the statutory benefits.

The Montgomery GI Bill is technically a non-contributory program. Nobody contributes a penny to it. What they do is agree to a reduced pay for 12 months, said reduction being $100 per month. If the individual decides not to avail himself of the program, at the end of the statutory limit, then he just pissed away a lot of cash, not to mention one hell of an opportunity. Please note that taxes are levied on the reduced salary, not including the $100. FTR, that pissed away cash is a hell of a lot higher than $1200; it's in the neighbourhood of $18,000.

The VEAP (Veterans Education Assistance Program) was a contributory program. If an individual decided, after initially participating in the program, then he can be reimbursed his contribution to the program. Taxes were levied on the salary, to include whatever the individual contributed.

When the MGIB started, there was one hell of a good ad campaign for it, including the First Sergeant reading the pertinent parts about qualifications and benefits to the assembled troops. There was also, quite recently, a conversion program for those of us in the VEAP to sign up for the MGIB. I converted mine in March of 1997.

There's also a thing known as the MGIB Enrollment form. Said form has the eligibility criteria listed on it.

If this doesns't satisfy your relative's quest for "justice," he can always submit a Request for Correction of Military Records (the Navy and Marines use the Request for Correction of Naval Records). Or, he can always write his Congressman.

Sorry, but I've no sympathy for someone who didn't read the form or didn't do anything to fix it but whine.

[Monty]

P.S. Please forgive the typos. It's freaking freezing in Marina tonight and I'm not used to it! {Yep, that's a whine, but I'll live ;)}

[Bill H.]

stormtrax wrote
(Spiritus Mundi), I am glad that there are people like you out there countering the forces of the moronic Bill H's of the world.
You may want to re-read Spiritus Mundis post and my own: they both say the same thing. SM didn't say I was wrong, rather that you were wrong. The only difference was that SM was far more polite.

And in case you've forgotten your original comments, they were:
Under terms of the visa, they are not subject to social security, medicare or income tax, though under the laws of this country if they ever get sick and decided not to pay for health insurance (or if it was not offered to them) they are entitled to free health care.

You said in no uncertain terms that they didn't pay taxes. You lied.

[Bill H.]

stormtrax wrote
As for the companies, I doubt very much (and have never stated otherwise) that they are out to "cheat US citizens out of good jobs".
Then how do you explain the title of this thread: H1B visas - no jobs for US citizens? Did someone else type that for you?

[Monty]

Waterj,

Actually, there are plenty of ratings (MS, PN, DK, etc.) which do not require a clearance, and plenty of ratings (CT, OS, etc.) which do. As far as crew complement goes, all personnel assigned to Ship's Company of nuclear powered vessels must be US citezens, yet that requirement does not exist for personnel of units embarked on said vessels.

[stormtrax]

H1B visas are used to award jobs to non-US citizens.

Companies do not set out saying "Let's take away jobs from US citizens" and say -instead- "let's get cheap labor".

Even a 4th grader should be able to comprehend this. Apparently you choose not to.

Part two: lying and repeating what I was told by a recipient of an H1B are entirely different things. I may be wrong, but I don't lie. Ever.

As for the GI benefits, please explain why people I know were denied benefits. Honorable discharges aside, either the paperwork was "lost" or an honorable discharge wasn't good enough. What do you know?

[stormtrax]

It is the reduction in pay for the GI bill of which I speak. While "contributed" may be technically incorrect, I tend to lump in any reduction in pay as a "contribution" - he would have otherwise received the funds in the form of higher pay but "contributed" them (in the form of a smaller paycheck) to become eligible for the GI bill.

He is in the process of contesting the decision (as are many people he knew who left the army at the same time as he) but has been promised that the military's swift and decisive action will require at least several more months.

[MsRobyn]

Originally posted by stormtrax
As for the GI benefits, please explain why people I know were denied benefits. Honorable discharges aside, either the paperwork was "lost" or an honorable discharge wasn't good enough. What do you know?

I'm not going to get into your other charges, stormtrax but I know that GI Bill (and College fund-type benefits) are not absolute guarantees. In addition to the requirement for discharge (it must be a General under Honorable or higher), but the person must also be eligible for re-enlistment (just because a person got out with an Honorable does not mean the person is eligible to re-enlist.), meet minimum time-in-service requirements (usually 180 consecutive days), and not fall under other GI Bill programs (for example, someone initially enlists in the Army in 1981 [the old rules], is discharged after a year or two, then re-ups in the Navy in 1986 [the new rules].) Finally, participation in the GI Bill is purely voluntary. You pay in $1200 at $100 a month for 12 months. Some of the people I was in boot camp with were trying to support families on an E-1's pay, and were hard-pressed to afford even the $100 a month.

Tell your buddy to contact his Congressman's office. They have special veteran's affairs people who have an amazing ability to get things done where the VA or DOD can take months or years.

Robin

[threemae]

A note on the correction of what people in the military need to be, I was meerly agreeing that people of certain ranks need to have spent at least a certain amount of time as a resident alien or whatever to become a citizen. Sorry for the lack of clarity.

they are not subject to social security, medicare or income tax, though under the laws of this country if they ever get sick and decided not to pay for health insurance (or if it was not offered to them) they are entitled to free health care.


Even if you never lie, you might want to consider picking up the habit in exchange for making rash assumptions and decisions without spending a second or two in actual, rational though.

Just a suggestion.

And I would tend to agree with Bill H.'s initial description of you as an idiot.

Or a liar.

[stormtrax]

That's ok, threemae - you are entitled to your foolish judgements.

[Bill H.]

By the way, stormtrax, it'll be nice if you can find a shread of decency and admit you're wrong about immigrants not paying taxes. Saying it's "entirely plausible" doesn't count.

And thanks, threemae.

[stormtrax]

It would be nice indeed, Mr. Bill H, but you don't deserve it. You were wrong about the deal with the title of the thread and didn't admit that you were wrong, so why shouldn't I follow your stellar example?

In a nutshell, I don't like you or your type. I think you're a pretty bad excuse for a human being who makes me feel torn between doing what is right and keeping republicans in power or doing what is wrong and putting in the democrats so people like you get taken to the cleaners by the IRS. So put that in your Lexus and smoke it.

To (almost) everybody else, I admit that at times I trust my sources too much and can get facts wrong.

To Bill H, I offer my sincerest :Þ - and I ask that you consult a dictionary. "Immigrant" contains within the definition (http://www.m-w.com - try it sometime) an annoying bit about permanent residency whereas the H1B visas are, by definition temporary - and I've never questioned whether or not PERMANENT aliens were taxed, just the temporary ones. (Why didn't Mr. "I created hundreds of jobs" understand this simple bit? He seems to be familiar with the term "idiot"... perhaps that would be aptly applied?)

Oh... and by the way... some TEMPORARY aliens are -not- taxed. Read up on tax treaties sometime. Admittedly they generally will not apply to H1Bers, but your blanket implication that ALL aliens pay taxes is flatly wrong.

I said it once, I'll say it again.... :Þ

[Bill H.]

stormtrax, first you make several unfound (aggressively-worded) charges about some honest hardworking people. Then, when Spiritus Mundi corrects you, you don't retract your charge, but rather blame one of the people you've maligned, claiming that your lying is their fault because of some statement you mis-interpreted. Then when I call you on it, you claim you "trust your sources too much". You're such a saint. Finally, you try to slither out of things by virtue of some irrelevant technicality (Bill, you said 'immigrant', which doesn't necessarily equate to H1B). My phrasing doesn't change the fact that your statements about H1B holders were lies. That makes you a liar. And your absolute refusal to admit you're wrong makes you entirely classless.

[slowhand53]

Originally posted by Spiritus Mundi

The truth, most likely, is a little of both. Having spent much of the last 60 days interviewing applicants for a technical position I can tell you that if a strong H1-B applicant showed up tomorrow I would send his paperwork to HR before the ink on my signature dried.


did you happen to look into relocating US citizens? Having spent 10 of the last 21 months unemployed and desparetly searching for work, I have seen the ugly side of job hunting for geeks. I was never contacted about possibly relocating to another part of the US even though my profiles on job boards stated that I was willing. Wouldn't you rather fill a position with an American rather than a foreign national if they had similar qualifications?

As to waterj2's question of why a US authorized (doesn't need to be us born) worker should have more of a right to a job than an H1B applicant, if nothing else than due process. The intent of the H1B is if the company CAN'T find a qualified US autorized worker, the employer may look to other countries w/o regard to immigration quotas. My personal beef is that too many companies neglect their duty to seek out qualified applicant in the US. I do not doubt that they look within their local area, it's gotta be a helluva lot cheaper than starting up the whole visa process, but wouldn't it be cheaper to relocate someone from NJ to Alabama rather than Kazakhstan to Alabama?

All this being said I do not know of any positions that were filled by an H1B rather than me.

[stormtrax]

Bill, I'm growing tired of your refusal to open your eyes and -read-. Until you get a clue I'm not going to bother reading or replying to anything you have to say.

[Bill H.]

stormtrax wrote
Until you get a clue I'm not going to bother reading or replying to anything you have to say.
You're breaking my heart.

It doesn't matter if you close your ears; your mind has been closed from the beginning.

And I know you read this.

[waterj2]

I found a link to where the quotes of Congressional testimony came from:

http://techlawjournal.com/employ/19990506.htm

The donut shop example seems pretty irrelevant, because it seems that no H1B visa was granted in that case.

Going way back to this claim:
. Initially pegged at bringing in 100,000 or so, it turns out that the feds weren't counting how many were granted: over a quarter of a million foreign workers were allowed in -per year- to take jobs from American citizens. Including mine.

You then backed this claim up by saying:

According to the INS, 20,000 more visas than allocated were awarded in 1999. (Widely reported, use your favorite search engine with the terms +ins +h1b +visa +1999 and you should come up with several references.)

100,000 or so cap + 20,000 extras is nowhere near a quarter million. And this was only once, in 1998 and previous the cap was 65,000, and was not exceeded. While widely reported perhaps, not even the 20,000 overage is not necessarily correct:

I would note for the record, by the way, that INS has also retracted its earlier estimate of a 10,000-20,000 "overage" in FY 1999.

(From a letter to Janet Reno (http://www.jackson-hertogs.com/news/1999/1222.htm) by Spence himself detailing many of the reasons he believed the INS count to be inflated)

Also, your comments about downsized military members is kind of strange, considering the fact that one of the biggest problems in the military is that they are having trouble keeping people.

[Spiritus Mundi]

did you happen to look into relocating US citizens?

I do not actively seek prospects (though I did post notice on an email string for Unix admins). I just do the final technical interview for folks who make it past the phone screen. I have had resumes cross my desk from out of state, though. In my company (and others that I have worked for) external postings generally get picked up by headhunters who search job boards, etc. I certainly do not actively search job boards for applicants, and I strongly doubt that any of our HR people do either.

Having spent 10 of the last 21 months unemployed and desparetly searching for work, I have seen the ugly side of job hunting for geeks.

Well, I relocated for this job, and I have had several offers to relocate since then (despite not actively looking for work) so somebody must be looking out of state for prospects. All of those contacts have come from headhunters, though. They are sharks, but they can be useful so long as you don't confuse them with friends.

If you have Unix admin experience then send me an email.

Wouldn't you rather fill a position with an American rather than a foreign national if they had similar qualifications?

No. If the qualifications were identical I would choose the candidate that whose personality I felt would blend best into our department. It makes absolutely no difference to me what his or her passport says.

[ruadh]

Originally posted by stormtrax
Ruadh, I also suggest you go back and read what I said about the per-country quotas. I did not say that H1Bs were allocated by country, I said they were issued "above and beyond the established cuota for a given country" - in other words, other types of visas are allocated in the form of x visas to country y per year - which is tied into the visa lottery system which is commonly used.

What the fuck are you talking about? The per-country quotas that exist are for immigrant visas (i.e., green cards) There are none for temporary visas. So there's no "established cuota" [sic] to go above and beyond.

capacitator:

I tried to apply for jobs in my field, in my Department of Labor, and there were many, many entries in which the only practical way that I can qualify is if I am a foreigner on H1B visa speaking the language. The jobs were worded very carefully so as to escape government scrutiny.

Last time you said this, you were asked to provide evidence. We're still waiting.

[Fugazi]

/slight hijack/ to clarify something

It was very possible to get screwed out of the GI Bill. Under the old VEAP plan, for every dollar you put in the gov't would put in 2. However, the money you put in didn't earn any interest and you could put money in whenever you wanted (up to $2100 IRRC).

The point of all of this is many people were counseled to put your money in something else & transfer it to VEAP before seperation/retirement. When they came out with the new GI bill, it didn't apply to people under VEAP. Then, a few years back they allowed people with VEAP to transfer it to the new GI bill, but only if you had a balance in VEAP at the time. This left many people, including myself, out in the cold.

[Profane]

I'm sure my mother would be surprised to hear that she wasn't paying taxes for the 8 years she worked under an H1B visa. She would also disagree with the assertion that she got paid less when under the visa, because when she was finally sponsered for her greencard by her employer they cut her salary by a third. She never had any insurance offered to her, so when she or her 3 children needed healthcare she paid every penny by herself.

My father eventually started his own PR business that now employs over a dozen people. So you can subtract them from the number of U.S. citizens out of jobs because of H1B visas. You can visit his company website at http://www.LVA.com if you feel like it.


I personally believe that people that get so upset about immigration are just racists.

[ruadh]

Originally posted by stormtrax
Large companies frequently don't advertise an opening to the general population: they'll post an internal announcement, wait three weeks and ask for the visa - which is then either rubber stamped or the company will ask whatever senator they have on the payroll to pull a string or two and then get it rubber stamped.

You mean the way the donut shop's application was "rubber stamped"? Please. You can argue that the application process isn't as stringent as it could be, but to suggest that all a company has to do to get an H1B worker is file the application is yet another lie.

ruadh: With respect to the free health care - hospitals are prohibited by law to deny medical care to anybody. Period. If you are here on an H1B and get sick you may go to any emergency room of your choosing and receive free (to you) medical attention.

You can get medical attention all right but it won't be free. The hospital will send you a bill for it and if you don't pay it they'll send a collection agency after you. I speak from experience here.

[Monty]

Fugazi: I don't see a self-inflicted injury as "being screwed out" of something. Prior to the MGIB taking effect, there was plenty of notice for those eligible under the VEAP to make a lump-sum payment. Hell, they're STILL eligible to do so if on active duty today.

The prudent thing to have done is what I did (yep 20-20 hindsight for others, but this is how it worked for me):

1. Listen to the wife (back when I was married).
2. Contribute the maximum.
3. Let it stay in there until it's used.
4. Write congressman about why those under VEAP should be allowed to convert to MGIB.
5. Thank God when the government sees the wisdom of #4 (if you're a praying sort).
6. Convert and take the $1500 back ($2700 returned contribution minus $1200 MGIB enrollment) and use it to either pay off bills or invest. Or just party with it.

The key thing here was: I READ THE PLAN OF THE WEEK! You know, that nifty little thing the unit administration office put out every week which was mandatory reading.

[Fugazi]

Monty - I never read the plan of the week (I know my bad) and I know a lot of people who didn't. I didn't hear anything about the transfer plan until it was too late. The only people I know of who transfered were people that already had money sitting around in VEAP doing nothing.

Kinda reminds me of Hitchhikers Guide when they posted the plans for the By-pass in the basement, without stairs, in a locked file cabinet.

Anyway, I was just trying to point out how someone could serve in the military and not get the GI Bill.

[capacitor]

ruadh, what do you mean by "provide evidence"? Lure the guy who told me about it, beat him up and put him on your lap and make him confess? Besides, I noticed that those types of long help-wanted ads like the one I described don't usually show up on the net.

[ruadh]

This is the quote you were asked to back up in a previous thread:

I have a computer science degree, and one day, I searched in the Department of Labor to look for a high tech job. I picked the jobs I wanted, but the other qualifications in those were listed in such a way that the only people who can possibly qualify for those high-tech jobs are foreign immigrants.

It's quite simple. Give us examples of the job listings that were written in such a way that only foreigners could qualify.

[Monty]

Originally posted by Fugazi
Monty - I never read the plan of the week

Too bad.

(I know my bad)

Exactly. It was your own fault. See above where I said "self-inflicted injury."

and I know a lot of people who didn't.

Their fault for being willfully ignorant of what was happening that just possibly could of been of some import to them. BTW, it's kind of hard to keep up with what watches you're posted to without reading the plan, isn't it?

I didn't hear anything about the transfer plan until it was too late.

You avoided the entire issue for well over a year? Let me guess, you never read the base newspaper nor even the Army Times, Navy Times, etc.?


[quoste]The only people I know of who transfered were people that already had money sitting around in VEAP doing nothing.[/quote]

This is manure on two levels:

(1) The money in the VEAP account wasn't "doing nothing." The contribution from the Service member is "twice matched" by the government. Thus, if one had contributed $2700, the government contributes $5400; that gives one $8100 towards education. Sure as heck looks like a 200% return on the investment to me.

(2) For the conversion, one also had the option of getting the $2700 back and then participating in the $100 a month salary reduction.

Kinda reminds me of Hitchhikers Guide when they posted the plans for the By-pass in the basement, without stairs, in a locked file cabinet.

Except here we're discussing something that's posted on the unit bulletin board, in a conspicuous place, available to all members of the unit. I guess it's the military's fault for not posting it where the sun doesn't shine so you could've seen it then.

Anyway, I was just trying to point out how someone could serve in the military and not get the GI Bill.

And I, along with at least one other poster here, am pointing out how it's their own stupid and indifferent at the time fault.

In short, too bad. Assign the blame where it belongs: with the person who remained willfully ignorant.

[gobear]

Why do people born in the US deserve jobs in the US more than people from overseas? Should skilled workers in foreign countries be denied the chance to use their skills to benefit themselves so that less skilled US workers can demand higher wages?

Other nations and supra-national confederations, like the EU, make it at least as difficult, if not more so, for foreign nationals to be employed. In South Korea, for example, it is possible for a non-Korean to teach English legally, provided one has a sponsor and the necessary qualifications. It is very difficult, if not impossible, to find a position in a Korean company as anything other than a "foreign consultant." Why should the US cede a privilege to other nations' citizens that their home countries won't extend to ours?

If you'd like, we could do away with existing immigration laws and let any willing workers come to America and be employed. Or, it would be simpler to outsource coding and programming tasks to, say, India. We could eliminate jobs going to those greedy, overpaid Americans and maximize corporate profits. Surely, you'd like to see the prevailing tech-sector entry-level wage cut in the interests of global fairness?

[Bill H.]

goboy wrote
Why should the US cede a privilege to other nations' citizens that their home countries won't extend to ours?
So, then you'll agree that since Singapore has no problem publicly caning criminals who are U.S. citizens, that we should start publicly caning criminals from other countries?

The answer to your question: "Because we're better than that."

[ruadh]

goboy, is it possible for you to consider the issue of immigration to the US separate from the problems you had as a foreigner in Korea? I'm beginning to wonder.

The US is not South Korea. It needs foreign workers. So does Britain, so does Ireland, so do most countries of Western Europe, where there are very few people to the left of Jean-Marie Le Pen who deny the necessity for skilled foreign workers. It isn't about "extending a privilege". It's about the self-interest of the country.

[gobear]

So, then you'll agree that since Singapore has no problem publicly caning criminals who are U.S. citizens, that we should start publicly caning criminals from other countries?

No, the two situations are not logically analogous. Crippling the economic opportunites for citizens to fatten corporate profits does not relate to adopting barbarous punishments.

As I recall, you're a recruiter for H1-B workers, so your comments cannot be construed as disinterested. Apparently, you believe that Americans should settle for lower wages or lose jobs to cheaper foreign competition.
There are educated, industrious Indians or Pakistanis who would be crackerjack employment recruiters. Are you ready to give away your job to a foreigner who is willing to work hard? After all, if we relax or do away with immigration laws, your employer would be free to put your job out to someone who will take less money. Lower wages increase profitability, and, after all, isn't that much more important?
than the economic welfare of greedy americans?

[threemae]

Easy there, Monty. It soungs to me like Fitz is just pointing out that it would be possible to not get money out of the GI Bill, not that he was necessarily the victim of an international crime syndicate chaneling money from, good, God-fearing people such as himself and his other service men and women working through the U.S. Government.

[JubilationTCornpone]

Originally posted by LunaSea
I personally believe that people that get so upset about immigration are just racists.

I'm sure that many of them are. However, some of these people are well-intentioned but misinformed -- often because they don't work in high-tech fields, or lack experience therein. Others are concerned about their own ability to compete for jobs, and perceive foreign workers as a threat.

I remember one programmer I met, who complained viciously about his difficulty in finding a job. He claimed that companies would rather hire a foreigner who had "never even seen a computer" (his exact words), rather than pay for an American programmer. I think we can all agree that such accusations are ridiculous in the extreme.

This same fellow said that it was "impractical" for him to learn additional programming languages, so that he could compete against foreign nationals. Excuse me? Such an attitude smacks of laziness. If foreign nationals are willing to work hard at refining their skills, why shouldn't a U.S. citizen do the same?

[Monty]

Threemae: what?

This is taking it easy. Someone who whines about not getting a statutory benefit because he didn't follow the statutory requirements, said requirements being broadcast long and often, is just whining. There's no global conspiracy involved and no ultra-secret scam involved.

The reason the GI Bill discussion is in this thread because the two issues, GI Bill & H1B visas, were described at the outset with lies about both programs. I'm doing my part here, as someone conversant in the particulars and mechanics of the GI Bill to point out the lies involved.

I will also continue to be hard-nosed to someone who compalins that he wasn't informed of something posted in a Plan of the Week (Unit Training Schedule, for the Army types) when he, by his own admission, did not read the thing.

[pantom]

The evidence is in the classifieds of your local paper, ruadh. Generally, you'll see an ad with a really, really long list of absolutely amazing qualifications followed by an absolutely precise salary offering, down almost to the penny. The salary offering is, well, low compared to the qualifications asked for. These are customized ads published for the express purpose of demonstrating that the job couldn't be filled by a current resident of the U.S. It follows the letter of the law, of course, but certainly not the spirit.
When did everyone on the SDMB become so naive?

[Fugazi]

Monty -
First of all I wasn't whining, I couldn't care less about the GI Bill. I'm 35 and have no intention of going back to school, and if I did, my company would pay for it. Also, yes it's true that you had a whole year to transfer your money from VEAP to the GI Bill, but only if you had money in your VEAP account by a certain cutoff date. I will try and find out the dates they announced the transfer and the cutoff date for having money in VEAP.

[capacitor]

Thanks pantom. I don't usually state the obvious for people. One thing I don't get, for example: Why do we have to learn another human language if what we are doing is computer programming? I know some French and Spanish, but we are talking about ads requiring one to speak languages such as Korean, Japanese, and Hindustan. Nothing wrong with these languages, mind you, but these languages are not widely taught in US schools.

[Fugazi]

http://www.gibill.va.gov/education/News/convert.htm

From this VA site I got the following info

NOTE: A serviceperson must have some contributions remaining in his or her chapter 32 contribution account as of October 9, 1996, to be eligible to elect chapter 30 during the one-year election period.

(2) The individual must have been serving on active duty on October 9, 1996.

(3) During the one-year period beginning on October 9, 1996, and ending on October 8, 1997, the individual must make an election to receive chapter 30 benefits. The Secretary of each service department will establish election procedures

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/useftp.cgi?IPaddress=wais.access.gpo.gov&filename=publ275.104&directory=/diskc/wais/data/104_cong_public_laws and this site shows the law passed on Oct 9,1996.

So if you didn't have money in your VEAP account the day the law passed you were screwed. If you have any different info Monty, I'd be glad to here it because, admittedly I was in a hurry when I looked this stuff up.

[Fugazi]

Oops, that second link didn't work. You can use this one and scroll down to Public Law 104-275.

http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/publaw/104publ.html

[ruadh]

Sorry, capacitor, you're not getting off the hook that easily. First of all, nothing in pantom's post indicated that only foreign workers are qualified for these jobs, and I repeat: I want to see specific examples, not paraphrases.

Second:

These are customized ads published for the express purpose of demonstrating that the job couldn't be filled by a current resident of the U.S. It follows the letter of the law, of course, but certainly not the spirit.

If it were true, it wouldn't even follow the letter of the law. The idea that a company would be so stupid as to advertise that they are breaking the law, when they could easily just ignore applications from people who didn't meet the criteria they really wanted, is highly dubious.

Post an example, OK? Is it that frigging difficult?

I'd also like to see examples of ads that say you need Hindustan.

[JubilationTCornpone]

Originally posted by ruadh
Post an example, OK? Is it that frigging difficult?

ruadh is right. We need to examine specific examples in order to make a fair evaluation.

Are language requirements unreasonable? Maybe, maybe not. It depends on the nature of the job. I think it's grossly unfair to exclaim, "How the hell are we supposed to learn Japanese?!?!?" if fluency in that language is important to the job.

Many U.S. workers feel that companies should be obligated to hire them over foreigners. IMO, that's just ridiculous. Companies should feel free to hire the best candidate for the job, regardless of citizenship. If the U.S. workers can't compete, they should make a special effort to hone their skills. If they can't hone his skills sufficiently, that's their problem. Companies shouldn't be forced to water their standards down, just so the stragglers can keep up.

Of course, I recognize that some engineers just can't compete, despite their very best efforts -- and I sympathize. However, companies should not be forced to accommodate them by lowering their standards or shutting foreigners out. Perhaps those engineers need to settle for a less prestigious position, or perhaps they should seek employment in some other field. Whatever the case, the problem belongs to them, not to corporate America.

[RickJay]

Originally posted by goboy

So, then you'll agree that since Singapore has no problem publicly caning criminals who are U.S. citizens, that we should start publicly caning criminals from other countries?

No, the two situations are not logically analogous. Crippling the economic opportunites for citizens to fatten corporate profits does not relate to adopting barbarous punishments.

Of course, to believe this requires one to believe that allowing immigrants to come in and take up useful work somehow "Cripples" the economy or some people's economic opportunities. Since that is complete and utter bullshit, your comments are completely invalid. The "immigrants take away our jobs!" bit is one of the oldest and dumbest chestnuts there is. It amazes me people can believe this.

If increasing the number of workers - which is all immigration does - increases unemployment, why is it that the unemployment rate hasn't climbed as the population increases? Why is it that the United States (population 270,000,000) has a lower unemployment rate than Canada (population 30,000,000) when there are so many people competing for jobs? Why is it that Germany has about 45,000,000 jobs when Canada has only 16,000,000? Can't be natural resources. The standards of living are about the same. Hey, let's take another example; why is it that the unemployment rate hasn't shot above 50% since women started taking more outside jobs? They had to take those jobs from men, right? What could it be?

Could it be that increased population and more productive workers also increases the number of available jobs? Gosh, what a concept. Let's review:

Where do jobs come from? Demand for products and services.

Do immigrants take up jobs? Yes.

But do immigrants also demand products and services? Yes.

Unless you create a short-term supply shock by bringing in a hundred million people in one year, the very simple truth is that immigrants to the United States create the same number of jobs they occupy. Protectionism against immigrant labour will result in no benefit to society, though it will limit the available pool of labour and entrepreneurs, to the detriment of everyone.

As a matter of fact, continued immigration is integral to the U.S. economy. (Canadian, too.) As the population ages, the ratio of working Americans to non-working Americans declines; there are as many non-working Americans as a percentage of the population as there have ever been. So unless you want this ratio to continue worsening until you're personally paying for the Social Security benefits for five blue-haired grandmas who crash their land boats on their way to the polls to screw up their butterfly ballots, I suggest you consider the valuable contribution a stream of productive workers can make towards paying for a hundred million or so SS beneficiaries.

[JubilationTCornpone]

Originally posted by RickJay
Could it be that increased population and more productive workers also increases the number of available jobs? Gosh, what a concept.

This is especially true in high-tech industries, which provide tremendous opportunities for growth and increased employment.

RickJay is right. The people who complain about foreigners taking away jobs are being short-sighted. Sure, some U.S. citizens may be turned down as a result, but they can also benefit from increased job opportunities. In addition, a skilled, competent, self-motivated worker can always find other opportunities.

What about the incompetent ones? Or the ones who possess some competence, but just not enough? They should shore up their skills, or seek other forms of employment. They should not go whining to the government, demanding protection from the hardworking foreigners. If companies don't want to hire them, they probably have good reason.

[gobear]

Do you have any cites for your figures, RickJay, or did you just pull out of the air? I agree that an influx of workers is necessary to prop up the Ponzi scheme called Social Security, but the fact remains that uncontrolled immigration hurts American employees. (Not that you care; you're from Canada)
For instance, (http://www.fairus.org/html/04172910.htm) illegal immigrants have squeezed out natives and previous immigrants from agricultural work. The meat packing industry has been recruiting for cheap, non-union employees directly from Mexico. You can pay them less, exploit them, and if they complain, threaten them with La Migra.
The effects (http://www.fairus.org/html/09115801.htm)of immigration on the job prospects for low-wage Americans is undeniable. Do we really need to increase the burden on our already at-risk underclass?

Now for high-tech competition. According to this Web site ("http://www.americanworker.org/truth_handout.htm), "A study last year by a Los-Angeles-based consulting group (Commercial Programming Systems, Inc.) found "Generally speaking, foreign workers get paid much less." The survey of 400 technology firms nationwide found that foreign workers are generally hired at one-third to one-half less than their U.S. counterparts."

It's not a matter of "whining to the government, demanding protection from the hardworking foreigners," it's a matter of exploitation.

[JubilationTCornpone]

Originally posted by goboy
Now for high-tech competition. According to this Web this thread (http://www.americanworker.org/truth_handout.htm]site[/url], "A study last year by a Los-Angeles-based consulting group (Commercial Programming Systems, Inc.) found "Generally speaking, foreign workers get paid much less." The survey of 400 technology firms nationwide found that foreign workers are generally hired at one-third to one-half less than their U.S. counterparts."

It's not a matter of "whining to the government, demanding protection from the hardworking foreigners," it's a matter of exploitation.


No, it IS whining. It's not immigration ITSELF that's at fault here. It's the alleged (and questionable) disparity in income, which can be addressed through INS and Dept of Labor regulations. (In fact, Clinton recently signed some such legislation into effect.)

Besides which, such statistics are highly questionable. Foreign workers earning 1/3 of what their "counterparts" command? That's unlikely in the extreme. A skilled junior programmer can expect to earn about $42,000 or so, depending on his location and experience level. 1/3 of that is a mere $14,000 -- which is less than what most graduate students earn! That kind of widespread abuse would never get past the Department of Labor! Obviously, these "statistics" are ludicruous and should be viewed with tremendous skepticism.

Also consider that a large number of techie immigrants are recent college graduates. As a result, you can expect that they would command less than their more experienced U.S. counterparts -- though certainly not at the questionable levels proposed by the agency you cited. Such statistics have already been debunked in [url="http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=52484), which ruadh mentioned earlier.

I won't discount the possibility that techie immigrants aren't paid as handsomely as U.S. workers --- although that could be a reckless generalization as well. However, when people claim that immigrants are paid less than half what their American counterparts get, I can only marvel at the absurdity of that claim.

[JubilationTCornpone]

Originally posted by goboy
Do you have any cites for your figures, RickJay, or did you just pull out of the air? I agree that an influx of workers is necessary to prop up the Ponzi scheme called Social Security, but the fact remains that uncontrolled immigration hurts American employees. (Not that you care; you're from Canada)

Perhaps you missed the part where RickJay said that a massive influx would hurt the economy.

Nobody's advocating uncontroller immigration. We're simply refuting the people who think that immigration itself will hurt the economy.

For instance, (http://www.fairus.org/html/04172910.htm) illegal immigrants have squeezed out natives and previous immigrants from agricultural work.

Perhaps, but this discussion has been about legally employed foreigners -- specifically, skilled personnel on H-1B visas. Complaining about illegal immigration may be valid, but its irrelevant to the topic at hand.

[B]The effects (http://www.fairus.org/html/09115801.htm)of immigration on the job prospects for low-wage Americans is undeniable. Do we really need to increase the burden on our already at-risk underclass?

Also irrelevant. This thread is about H-1B workers, who are neither low-wage nor underclass. As a result, such complaints (valid or not) have no bearing on the topic at hand.

[gobear]

It is entirely possible I could be wrong on this issue. Certainly, I need to get more information. I apologize for straying for the main topic.


goboy, is it possible for you to consider the issue of immigration to the US separate from the problems you had as a foreigner in Korea? I'm beginning to wonder.

Ruadh, I lived in Korea and am in a position to evaluate the policies of Korea and the US as I experienced them. If I had lived in Ireland, I'd be comparing EU policies.

By the by, if the EU is in such need of foreign workers, why is it so difficult to get a work visa?

[ruadh]

Originally posted by goboy
Ruadh, I lived in Korea and am in a position to evaluate the policies of Korea and the US as I experienced them. If I had lived in Ireland, I'd be comparing EU policies.

You're completely missing the point. Which is that your attitudes WRT immigration to the US, as demonstrated in this and the earlier thread(s) you started, seem to be based in large part on your resentment about the way you were treated in Korea and a feeling that "they don't do us any favors, so why should we". Whether or not the Korean people wanted you around has nothing to do with whether or not the US benefits from immigration.

By the by, if the EU is in such need of foreign workers, why is it so difficult to get a work visa?

Because the laws predate the high-tech explosion. Many of these countries either have amended or are discussing amending their laws to make it easier for skilled workers to get visas. Currently there's a refugee issue in many countries here and a delicate balance between allowing in the workers the economy needs without making it too easy for just anyone to waltz through Customs. But the trend is definitely toward loosening the requirements for skilled workers. Hell, they let me in ...

And yes, I realize this has no more to do with the US than your example about Korea does, but I just wanted to point out that the worker shortage is recognized on a global scale (at least in the developed world) and isn't just something dreamed up by a few penny-pinching Silicon Valley CEOs.

[JubilationTCornpone]

Originally posted by ruadh

By the by, if the EU is in such need of foreign workers, why is it so difficult to get a work visa?

Because the laws predate the high-tech explosion. Many of these countries either have amended or are discussing amending their laws to make it easier for skilled workers to get visas.

The same holds true for the USA, BTW. Most of our immigration laws pre-date the explosion of demand for high tech workers. Some steps have been taken to alleviate the problem, such as increasing the H-1B cap. Nevertheless, the problem remains -- due largely to INS bureaucracy and misguided political opposition.

[doreen]

These are customized ads published for the express purpose of demonstrating that the job couldn't be filled by a current resident of the U.S. It follows the letter of the law, of course, but certainly not the spirit.


I've seen the ads that I think are being descibed, however, I don't think they're so much to show a non-resident in general is needed as they are to show that a particular person (who, of course, is a non-resident, or it wouldn't be necessary) is needed.The ones I'm talking about will be about three column inches long, describing in absurd detail the requirements for working behind the counter of a donut shop. The idea seems to be that only the owner's brother-in-law will both qualify and want the job.

[pantom]

I can't believe I'm getting this deep into this merd. But here goes.
First off, there would obviously be no way to prove that any particular ad is placed for the express purpose of justifying an H1-B hire. But having worked in an office that used to place these things specifically so that they could hire some student who'd overstayed his student visa, I do have some idea of what they look like. Let us compare and contrast two ads from the Times today:

Ad 1 - [X company] is looking for technology professionals to develop business applications and support the technology infrastructure in both team member and leadership roles. We offer the opportunity to work in an environment where acheivements are recognized...Multiple opportunities exist for qualified applicants in one or more of these technologies: COBOL/DB2, Visual Basic, C++, Java, Sybase, Oracle, SQL, UNIX, Windows NT, SunOS/Solaris...

Ad 2 - Test, diagnose and repair hardware & functional errors with notebook/laptop computer systems. Determine cause of computer malfunction or failure, using diagnostic tools. Test functional performance of the computer systems & subsystems. Analyze test results & compare results with specifications...2 yrs exp, 40 hrs/wk, M-F 9am-5pm, $38,393.68/yr.

Ad 1 is simply a company looking to fill some openings in programming positions. Ad 2 looks suspiciously like one of the ads I'm talking about. It meets the following criteria:

a) one opening.
b) highly detailed and extremely specific listing of job responsibilities.
c) precise specification of salary.
d) precise specification of hours and time.
e) no benefits listed.

It may or may not be such an ad. But ad 2 is what they look like. It's a weak example, in that usually, as I said, you get this long laundry list of technologies and applications and even operating systems the person has to be familiar with, kind of like you see in ad 1, except that you have to be familiar with all of the items listed, not one or more of them. The chances of any one person actually having all of the stuff listed would be remote - unless you had someone in mind already when you were writing the ad.

To repeat: I really can't believe you guys are being this naive. This is not, as far as I can see, a thread addressing immigration in general, which I'm actually for. It is addressing an instance of abuse of a program set up to address a situation of shortage in highly technical areas where such a shortage might be expected to exist. Simple applications programming, or, as in ad 2 above, troubleshooting a Wintel computer, is not an example of that kind of position. But H1-B's are used for these kinds of positions, despite the fact that there is not now and never has been a shortage of applications programmers. There may be a shortage in programmers for highly specialized engineering applications, or in designing software for particular pieces of hardware, or in areas where an advanced knowledge of math or sometimes even biology is needed as well as programming. But not in business applications.

[Monty]

Fugazi: A couple of things:

First: Above where I said those on Active Duty could still convert, should have read "can still contribute to their VEAP if they have an account."

Second: The fact that there are folks who got out of the Service with no educational benefits is not in dispute. What is in dispute is the allegation that the military lied about the educational benefits.

Third: You are aware that you said "date the law passed" when you should have said "date the law went into effect," aren't you? I did a quick web search, and also checked two Service's web pages (Navy and Coast Guard) and got information on the bill in question.

Fourth: The last days of the run-up to the effective date of that law were busy for the unit ESO because of the folks who decided that's a damn good deal.

Fifth: What's also in dispute is that folks who didn't read the information posted to them somehow weren't at fault for not being informed.

Sixth: For Pantom: you got any proof of your assertion that there's only one specific individual who would qualify for that ad?

Seventh: For Stormtrax: The reason, IMHO, you're getting so much grief here is that you posted, well, inaccuracies, shall we say, about at least one of the two programs you mentioned. That tends to detract from your assertions on the other program since you mentioned them both in the same thread.

[pantom]

NO, I haven't got any proof and I said so kumquat. Read the post. I have no idea if that ad is or isn't posted specifically as an H1-B front. No idea at all.

None. Zip. Nada. Rien.

Got it?

Normal want ads, however, don't go into excruciating details and don't post an absolutely specific number for the salary. Such ads are typical if you already have someone in mind and are simply posting as a formality. It gets put in the documentation to be forwarded as proof that you couldn't find anyone to perform the job posted, except for this person from some foreign clime you need to import through an H1-B visa.
Lord, first I do your homework for you guys, and then you don't even bother to read what I post. What's next, you want me to hold your dick while you pee?

[Monty]

I did read the post. Glad to see you admit you were full of it there.

Anyway, how about defining "normal want ad." I jsut checked my local want ads (Monterey County Herald) for January 9, 2001. The first 20 want ads have 7 that don't go into detail and 3 that it depends on your view if they're detailed or not. So that means that out of the first 20 ads, one half of them are what you seem to consider not a normal ad. Oh, only one of them could be considered as "high tech" employment.

[JubilationTCornpone]

Originally posted by pantom

Ad 2 - Test, diagnose and repair hardware & functional errors with notebook/laptop computer systems. Determine cause of computer malfunction or failure, using diagnostic tools. Test functional performance of the computer systems & subsystems. Analyze test results & compare results with specifications...2 yrs exp, 40 hrs/wk, M-F 9am-5pm, $38,393.68/yr.
[cut]
Ad 2 looks suspiciously like one of the ads I'm talking about. It meets the following criteria:

a) one opening.
b) highly detailed and extremely specific listing of job responsibilities.
c) precise specification of salary.
d) precise specification of hours and time.
e) no benefits listed.


(a) There's nothing unreasonable about a company recruiting for just one opening.

(b) It's fairly detailed, but not onerously so. Every single one of the requirements listed is fairly generic ("test," "diagnose," "repair," etc). Nothing in that description sticks out as being unusual or unreasonable.

(c, d) What's wrong with listing the specific salary and time requirements? That's a perfectly reasonable way of letting applicants know what to expect. Doing so does NOTHING to shut out U.S. citizens in favor of foreigners.

(e) Job ads seldom list the benefits in detail. This is doubtlessly because ad space is costly; besides, benefits are usually a secondary consideration. I'm sure that people are usually more concerned with job requirements and salary levels.

In other words, I don't think this ad does anything to prove your point.

Now, sometimes companies DO write ads which are highly detailed, so that they can safely hire a specific individual. However, this is true of both foreign and American applicants. Besides, as long as the requirements listed are reasonable and accurate, there's no real harm in being specific.

Y'see, companies who recruit foreigners can't just write up any old job requirements. They need them approved by the Dept of Labor, to ensure that none of the requirements are unreasonable (e.g. knowledge of Sanskrit, where it's unnecessary). If no qualified U.S. citizens step forward, then the company gets to hire a foreigner. If a qualified citizen does show up, then the company has to explain why they chose to hire the foreigner over the citizen. If they can't defend their case, then the company is legally obligated to hire the citizen instead.

The citizen's background doesn't have to be an exact match for the job. If his background is a close but imperfect match, then the DoL can always confront the employer, saying, "Don't tell us you're going to turn away this citizen, just because he lacks <fill-in-the-blank>!" Once again, unless the employer can present a compelling case, they would be obligated to hire the citizen.

In other words, a highly detailed job description is NOT necessarily a sign of wrongdoing. Such descriptions are often the company's way of recruiting the best person available -- foreign or otherwise. If a company uses this technique to hire foreigners, there's nothing wrong with that -- AS LONG AS the job description is honest and reasonable. If someone comes close to meeting it, then the company is legally obligated to consider that person and defend their final choice.

[ruadh]

Good reply, JTC. I'd also like to add that the ads that Pantom and Doreen are talking about are not H-1B ads, but Labor Certification ads - which are used in the green card process when a company decides to sponsor one of its employees for residency. Of course, they'd like to keep someone who's done a good job for them for some time already, rather than hire a new person - why wouldn't they?

Still, if the ad is too specific to an individual, it will be rejected by the DOL as "tailoring", and companies do have to give satisfactory explanations as to why they rejected other candidates.

[JubilationTCornpone]

Originally posted by ruadh
Good reply, JTC. I'd also like to add that the ads that Pantom and Doreen are talking about are not H-1B ads, but Labor Certification ads - which are used in the green card process when a company decides to sponsor one of its employees for residency. Of course, they'd like to keep someone who's done a good job for them for some time already, rather than hire a new person - why wouldn't they?

That's an excellent point, ruadh. I think it would be shameful to deny them the opportunity to keep a hardworking, highly qualified employee.

If the employee is specially qualified, this will be reflected in his job description. If he isn't, then there will be an ample number of US citizens who can apply for that job -- and the company will be forced to defend its decision amidst federal scrutiny.

Still, if the ad is too specific to an individual, it will be rejected by the DOL as "tailoring", and companies do have to give satisfactory explanations as to why they rejected other candidates.

That's right. The DOL goes to great lengths to ensure that US citizens are not arbitarily shut out. The DOL rejects unreasonable requirements imposed by the employer, for one thing. It also ensures that American applicants aren't excluded due to mere technicalities (e.g. having just 1.6 years of programming experience, instead of a full two years).

[JubilationTCornpone]

Originally posted by doreen
[I've seen the ads that I think are being descibed, however, I don't think they're so much to show a non-resident in general is needed as they are to show that a particular person (who, of course, is a non-resident, or it wouldn't be necessary) is needed.

No, the person in question is not necessarily a foreigner (which is different from a non-resident). Sometimes, companies advertise for these positions so as to comply with employment discrimination laws. (I'll confess that I don't know the details of these regulations; however, a technical recruiter assured me that such is the case.)

In addition, companies sometimes list highly detailed requirements so as to reduce the number of grossly unqualified applicants. There's an understanding that people who don't meet the exact requirements, but come close, are still welcome to apply. Having been involved in the hiring process before, I can attest that we received a large number of applications which didn't quite meet our stated requirements, but which we considered nonetheless.

[Demise]

Originally posted by LunaSea
I personally believe that people that get so upset about immigration are just racists.

I believe that people that make unjustified statements like this are just assholes.

[pantom]

Yup, Monty, I'm full of it.
I don't live in a world where all employers are forthright, honest, God-fearing, beautiful people. In my world, they're out to make a profit, and the only thing they will allow to get in their way is a clear violation of the law that they can be called on.
So, you can live in your world, where no one overstays their student visa, where everyone charges a fair price for everything and pays everyone a fair wage, and I'll live in my world, where everyone's out to make as much as they can in whatever way they can.
And where we're all full of it.

But, at least we know how to read. Some of us even know how to write. And how to recognize a fool.

[pantom]

JTC, as you well know, in a high-tech ad, a range of salaries is usually specified because everyone negotiates that, based on the experience of the person, what the company is willing to lay out, and the condition of the market at the time.
Skills are also somewhat negotiable. Generally, a company will list a bunch of stuff they want, and say which of them are required and which will give you a better chance of getting through the door.
We're not talking about hiring a letter-carrier here. There, you expect to see a specific starting salary because it's a union job with set salary scales. When was the last time you hired or interviewed for a union job?

[Monty]

Originally posted by pantom
Yup, Monty, I'm full of it.

Again, glad to see you admit it, albeit be your undeveloped sarcasm.

I don't live in a world where all employers are forthright, honest, God-fearing, beautiful people.

Care to provide a cite where I ever said that?

[/quote]In my world, they're out to make a profit, and the only thing they will allow to get in their way is a clear violation of the law that they can be called on.[/quote]

Then you're certainly living in a mythical land. In my experience, there's this vast territory of "in between" of those two extremes of employers.

So, you can live in your world, where no one overstays their student visa,

I have never said that nobody overstayed their student visa.

where everyone charges a fair price for everything and pays everyone a fair wage,

Nor did I ever mention fair price or fair wage (or unfair, for that matter).

and I'll live in my world, where everyone's out to make as much as they can in whatever way they can.

Well, that's a pretty bleak, and extreme, view of life. I seriously doubt it's all that cut & dried, though.

And where we're all full of it.

Got a mouse in your pocket?

But, at least we know how to read.[quote]

Any of you able to do so with comprehension?

[quote]Some of us even know how to write.

Any of you able to do so with valid cites?

And how to recognize a fool.

Must be a hell of a lot of mirrors in that land!

[pantom]

Again, glad to see you admit it, albeit be your undeveloped sarcasm.



I'm sure you meant to say "albeit by your underdeveloped sarcasm".

Next time, develop your grammar a little bit more. Aids in comprehension, you know.

[Monty]

No, pantom, I meant "albeit your undeveloped sarcasm." As in: not developed, referring to evidently stillborn sarcasm in the admission.

[Monty]

Dang typos!

"albeit be" obviously (for those who can read, pantom) should be "albeit by."

Grammar's fine and my spelling usually is.

[pantom]

It's ok, we've already established you're only semi-literate. That you can barely write, and don't bother to check your typing (do you see that Preview Reply button on the bottom? Use it!) is hardly a surprise.

[Profane]

Originally posted by Demise
Originally posted by LunaSea
I personally believe that people that get so upset about immigration are just racists.

I believe that people that make unjustified statements like this are just assholes.



I believe this because I've heard so many people start to trash immigrants, but when I tell them I'm one they say "Not you, you're from England." To me, there is no explanation other than racism. I've never heard anyone cursing the Irish for working in bars or the French for starting restaurants, but I hear plenty of nasty comments about Mexican housekeepers, Asians and their Chinese takeouts, and Pakistanis at the 7-11.

This asshole see racism.

So, how would you explain it?

[JubilationTCornpone]

Originally posted by pantom
JTC, as you well know, in a high-tech ad, a range of salaries is usually specified because everyone negotiates that, based on the experience of the person, what the company is willing to lay out, and the condition of the market at the time.

First of all, that's not true. I frequently see ads in IEEE publications which only specify a single salary value. Many of these are for professorships and other jobs which are not normally filled by H-1B positions.

Second, even if it were true, there would still be nothing unusual about posting a single salary value -- especially when that value is more or less fixed. I was recently involved in hiring for two new positions, neither of which could be legally filled by an H-1B holder. For both positions, we offered a specific salary value. (One applicant successfully negotiated a higher salary, but the point remains -- our ads only mentioned a fixed value.)

Skills are also somewhat negotiable. Generally, a company will list a bunch of stuff they want, and say which of them are required and which will give you a better chance of getting through the door.


So? I explicitly said that skills sets are negotiable. There's still nothing anomalous or unethical about listing a detailed skill set. This can be used to target a specific individual -- foreigner or otherwise -- but it's also a sound and reasonable hiring tactic.

Besides, I also explicitly said that the government can force employers to select the U.S. citizen if his skill set is "close enough," and if the employer can not adequately explain why this person would be an inadequate choice.


We're not talking about hiring a letter-carrier here. There, you expect to see a specific starting salary because it's a union job with set salary scales. When was the last time you hired or interviewed for a union job?

That's not the issue here. The issue is whether the ad you cited is anomalous or otherwise unusual. It isn't. Even if it were used for hiring an H-1B -- and there's no good reason to believe it is -- there is still nothing unreasonable or unethical in its text.

[JubilationTCornpone]

Originally posted by pantom
Yup, Monty, I'm full of it.
I don't live in a world where all employers are forthright, honest, God-fearing, beautiful people. In my world, they're out to make a profit, and the only thing they will allow to get in their way is a clear violation of the law that they can be called on.
So, you can live in your world, where no one overstays their student visa, where everyone charges a fair price for everything and pays everyone a fair wage, and I'll live in my world, where everyone's out to make as much as they can in whatever way they can.
And where we're all full of it.

No offense, but that doesn't do anything to address Monty's objections to your claims regarding want ads.

Besides, Monty is right. Some employers do trample on the law to get their way, but others don't. As Monty said, you have your two extremes, and most employers stay within the wide expanse between.

In another thread, you said that you're only objecting to abuse of the H-1B system. Let's assume that's the case. Abuse certainly does exist, but none of the examples you've cited are clear examples thereof. With all due respect, I think you're seeing a lot of abuse where none clearly exists.

[Spiritus Mundi]

JTC, as you well know, in a high-tech ad, a range of salaries is usually specified because everyone negotiates that, based on the experience of the person, what the company is willing to lay out, and the condition of the market at the time.

As another datum to support JTC's response, the last two jobs I accepted were advertised with a specific salary. One of them was also advertised with a very explicit set of skills. Both fit quite clearly into the "high-tech" category (systems programmer, unix administrator).

[BunnyGirl]

Just my $.02 here based on my experience.

Normal want ads, however, don't go into excruciating details and don't post an absolutely specific number for the salary
The software company I worked for actually would go into great detail about what they needed for tech jobs and the salary was listed. They didn't want Joe Blow off the street coming in or wasting their time because he "knew a little sumpthin" about computers. They were very specific about what they needed. The salary was an annual rate determined by an hourly figure, but they listed the annual rate. Typically, the salary was always negotiable but at least the figure gave applicants some kind of idea what we were looking at.

Now, not knowing much about what different kinds of visas there are, I do know that we specifically wouldn't interview or consider one woman for a programming position because she was on a visa (of some kind) and the expenses for supporting her visa were more than our little company could handle. I guess they'd hired that way before and the hoops they had to jump through for Immigration were a serious drain on the time of the HR department (i.e. our accountant).

Now, as a clerical person, I can also state that every ad I've ever answered for office work has been very detailed: here's an example (that I've made up based on my experience):

Executive Assistant to vice president of Sales, must be extremely organized, hard-working, multi-tasking ability needed, organize meetings and off-site conferences, provide extensive customer service and executive support in our new offices, M-F, 8-5, benefits included, typing speed 75wpm, must know Word, Excel, Access. Experience with A/S400 preferred. Some overtime. Salary up $13.50 per hour. Mail resume to XXX Joe Road, MI or fax to XXX-XXXX.

Ad space is expensive. That ad (and I've placed lots of them for companies I've worked for) would cost about $400 for 1 week in our town.

[Bill H.]

goboy wrote
As I recall, you're (Bill H. is) a recruiter for H1-B workers, so your comments cannot be construed as disinterested. Apparently, you believe that Americans should settle for lower wages or lose jobs to cheaper foreign competition.
There are educated, industrious Indians or Pakistanis who would be crackerjack employment recruiters. Are you ready to give away your job to a foreigner who is willing to work hard? After all, if we relax or do away with immigration laws, your employer would be free to put your job out to someone who will take less money. Lower wages increase profitability, and, after all, isn't that much more important?
than the economic welfare of greedy americans?
Well, firstly, to be accurate I'm not a recruiter, I'm a CEO. I do many other things beyond recruiting people, and in fact most of the actual recruiting that is done isn't directly by me but by recruiters in my organization.

But to answer your question: No, I don't have a problem including immigrants in the job pool for positions I hold. In fact, in my industry (silicon valley high tech), there are many successful immigrants in my position, many who are much more successful than I. And when I say "more successful", I mean that in a head-to-head job competition between me and them, they would be more likely to win the position. Why am I not concerned about this? Because there are plenty of job openings out there, and having these intelligent, hard-working additions to our society increases the number of job openings in our society.

Also, when you say
[quote]As I recall, you're (Bill H. is) a recruiter for H1-B workers, so your comments cannot be construed as disinterested./quote]
you imply that my voice shouldn't be heard because I'm closer to the issue than others. It seems to me that the opposite is true, that my experiences give me a perspective that is more insightful than the average person.

[Bill H.]

goboy wrote
As I recall, you're (Bill H. is) a recruiter for H1-B workers, so your comments cannot be construed as disinterested. Apparently, you believe that Americans should settle for lower wages or lose jobs to cheaper foreign competition.
There are educated, industrious Indians or Pakistanis who would be crackerjack employment recruiters. Are you ready to give away your job to a foreigner who is willing to work hard? After all, if we relax or do away with immigration laws, your employer would be free to put your job out to someone who will take less money. Lower wages increase profitability, and, after all, isn't that much more important?
than the economic welfare of greedy americans?
Well, firstly, to be accurate I'm not a recruiter, I'm a CEO. I do many other things beyond recruiting people, and in fact most of the actual recruiting that is done isn't directly by me but by recruiters in my organization.

But to answer your question: No, I don't have a problem including immigrants in the job pool for positions I hold. In fact, in my industry (silicon valley high tech), there are many successful immigrants in my position, many who are much more successful than I. And when I say "more successful", I mean that in a head-to-head job competition between me and them, they would be more likely to win the position. Why am I not concerned about this? Because there are plenty of job openings out there, and having these intelligent, hard-working additions to our society increases the number of job openings in our society.

Also, when you wrote
As I recall, you're (Bill H. is) a recruiter for H1-B workers, so your comments cannot be construed as disinterested.
you implied that my voice shouldn't be heard because I am closer to the issue than others. It seems to me that the opposite is true, that my experiences give me more relevant insights into the issue than others who are not involved.

[Bill H.]

sorry for double post. I guess this one makes a triple.

[waterj2]

Gee, Bill, I didn't even think one post was necessary to dismiss such a pathetic ad hominem argument. Although I do find it amusing that another one of the "facts" brought into this discussion by opponents of H1-B's turns out to have been a bit in error. Not that all people opposed to H1-B's are liars, of course, but the ones posting to this thread seem to have a slight problem with truth. Looks like we chased Stormtrax away, though. Figures, must be awfully embarassing to be proven to be completely full of shit.

[JubilationTCornpone]

Originally posted by Bill H.

But to answer your question: No, I don't have a problem including immigrants in the job pool for positions I hold. In fact, in my industry (silicon valley high tech), there are many successful immigrants in my position, many who are much more successful than I. And when I say "more successful", I mean that in a head-to-head job competition between me and them, they would be more likely to win the position. Why am I not concerned about this? Because there are plenty of job openings out there, and having these intelligent, hard-working additions to our society increases the number of job openings in our society.

Ain't that the truth!

Every single company I've worked for in the past four years has been scrambling to hire engineers and programmers. They've even been willing to wait for months, just to get the right person (citizen or otherwise). There are plenty of jobs to go around, which is why I don't buy this nonsense about foreigners stealing jobs or driving salaries down significantly. (If they do tend to decrease wages, I can't believe that the impact is anywhere close to devastating. Heck, if they fill necessary jobs, then this should have a long-term positive impact on salary levels!)