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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Oops, that second link didn’t work. You can use this one and scroll down to Public Law 104-275.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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, 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 effectsof 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, “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 this thread, 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.