I doubt many people would work in the United States if they were told that they could work for six years, but then they had to leave.
In the current system, sponsoring a worker for a green card doesn’t really mean anything since (as you have even described) the delay for receiving a green card is so long.
What are the wrong companies? His resume did look professional. How could he be setting his sights too high, when he applies only for entry level positions?
Exactly what statistics have you provided? You have provided one example of anecdotal evidence, yet you reject out of hand the anecdotal evidence I provide.
The only other evidence you provided is that hate filled diatribe entitled: “Norman Matloff, The Hatchet Man of Asian Immigration.” In the first few paragraphs it is said
I doubt this is true. This paper is clearly much more dubious than Matloff’s own, full of anti-Matloff rhetoric and ad hominem attacks.
If you want me to logically analyze this paper I will. It is quite full of fallacies.
You make it sound that the high tech industry got this and every other H1-B bill past Congress with spirit and a whole lotta luck.
They have the ear of Congress. If they can get a bill passed 96-1, they can get a bill passed to streamline the green card process. They have not done so.
Even if they had to concentrate their efforts to get this bill passed, now that it has passed, why has no legislation been introduced to make it easiier for these workers to receive green cards?
Of course, at least in the case of H1-Bs, legal fees are not supposed to be factored into salary. Company’s expenses should go up for foreign workers.
Actually they mean that there are issues with the legislation, he knows about them, and he has done nothing other than direct an agency so understaffed it is unable to even complete its own paperwork to watch for more H1-B abuse.
We only have your word that the resume is up to snuff. Besides, there could be any number of problems with his job search. Even his resume is professional, it might not be eye-catching enough, or he may not be targetting the right companies or locales. I myself had problems finding a job right after school because I wasn’t marketing myself correctly.
His story is anecdotal evidence, and nothing more. We can’t take his isolated case and immediately conclude that it’s a widespread problem.
I cited that anecdote to show that we should be careful about making reckless generalizations. Your anecdote IS a reckless generalization – the story of one man, whose experience is probably not indicative of the industry at large.
Not quite. ruadh and I also showed the various ways in which Matloff’s statistics and logic are faulty. Industry makes the widespread and consistent claim that labor is hard to find-- a statement that is consistent with our low unemployment rates. The burden of proof thus rests upon Matloff and you to show otherwise, and we’ve already seen how your “evidence” amounts to nothing more than opinion, anecdotes, isolated situations, hasty generalizations and unwarranted conclusions.
Which doesn’t make his accusations incorrect. I’ll grant that his verbiage was needlessly mean-spirited, but that doesn’t automatically invalidate his logic. After all, he simply voices the same sentiments that ruadh and I put forth – that Matloff uses statistics too broadly, failing to account for key factors such as experience levels.
Huh? Where did you pull that from?
All I said is that companies have a short-term stragetic advantage in focusing on new H-1B legislation, rather than green card legislation. I said absolutely nothing about the amount of effort required. It looks like you’re reading words that simply aren’t there.
The fact that the H-1B bill was resoundedly passed does NOT MEAN that a green card bill would be passed as easily – and it CERTAINLY does not mean that they have Congress in their grasp, as you’re clearly insinuating.
See? This is an EXCELLENT example of hasty generalization and reckless conclusion.
Besides, even if a similar green card bill WERE passed, that wouldn’t automatically result in a flood of green card-holding employees – especially since the green card process is necessarily slower and more complex. That’s one reason why there’s a strategic advantage in focusing on H-1B legislation for now.
Are you absolutely certain that NO such legislation has been introduced? None has been granted, but that doesn’t mean that none has been introduced or discussed, or that none is in the works. I do know that the Dept of Labor has been developing (or has developed) a more streamlined process, so there has certainly been SOME work along those lines (see http://www.shusterman.com/dol82500.html for info).
Besides, even if we grant your claim, there could be any number of reasons why no green card legislation has been introduced YET. Green card certification is a more complicated process, with tremendous long-term effects. In addition, green cards are granted on a per-country quota basis, which adds political complications to the process.
They can’t be directly factored into the salary levels. However, when a small company has a small HR staff abd a fixed budget, they may not be able to pay the engineer as much as they’d otherwise like to.
Besides, you’re missing the whole point. He initially accepted $48K, but that shot up to $60K-- an 25% increase! So aside from an initial “blip” in his wages, he was NOT being paid less than $50K – and even if he were, that would hardly be unreasonable for a new graduate to command.
There was room for improvement, but both Clinton and Congress approved the legislation anyway. The fact that Clinton approved it and called attention to its problems indicates that he felt it was worth approving overall. The potential for H-1B abuse exists, and new problems may occur, but it was considered a positive move overall.
No system will be perfect. Sometimes the methods used to prevent abuse can themselves be abused. That doesn’t make the system terrible; it simply means that abuse can not be completely eradicated. And as we have REPEATEDLY, REPEATEDLY pointed out, the presence of abuse does not mean that the H-1B system itself is wrong, or that the shortage of workers does not exist.
So they’re sponsoring these folks for green cards even though they don’t want to keep them permanently because it’s the only way they can have them even temporarily?
The green card process is exceedingly complicated and costs employers a large amount in time, paperwork, attorney’s fees, filing fees, and HR salaries. Yet you’re saying that employers are willing to go through this for workers they don’t even want to keep, just so that while those workers are still H-1Bs they can pay them a bit less?
I find this logic torturous, frankly.
Of course it “means something.” In what way doesn’t it?
I referred to this earlier, but I had to double-check it. Such legislation has been passed: Indian and Chinese workers will no longer be subject to the per-country quotas that have kept them waiting so long. The rest of the delay is, as I mentioned before, largely due to INS backlogs rather than statutory restrictions.
It’s more than just tortuous. It’s based on pure supposition, nothing more.
We are asked to believe that these companies are only sponsoring green cards as part of some elaborate ruse, so that they can viciously exploit foreigners. After all, it can’t possibly be true that they genuinely and sincerely want to keep these foreigners after all!
Heck, if that were true, then these companies would not be filing the green card applications at all! At the very least, they’d be withdrawing the applications shortly after they were filed. Since the applications ARE being filed, and since there’s no evidence of massive withdrawals, we can safely disregard this scenario as pure bunk.
Incidentally, please note that ruadh says that the green card process is long, tedious and exceedingly complicated. He is absolutely correct. As I said, I’m sure this is precisely why employers choose to focus on improving H-1B legislation instead, since H-1B’s can be granted much more quickly and easily.
Jubilation, you’re right that given the OP, you could safely assume that I was arguing against immigration, which is why I wanted to point out that in no way was I against it.
Back to the topic at hand: it matters not whether the H1-B program is better than the green card program, or vice versa. Both are restrictions on the market that are ripe for abuse. Both should be repealed in favor of simple quotas from foreign countries. In this Internet age, there is no compelling reason for an H1-B to exist. That the program does exist means that employers find it convenient for it to exist, because it serves their interests.
Sure they can be abused. I don’t think anyone would disagree. However, none of the situations you’ve cited are clear examples thereof.
And while straightforward quotas may be simpler, it’s hardly straightforward. Quotas alone provide no means for sifting the qualified from the unqualified.
Boy, talk about sweeping generalizations! You’ve already admitted that foreign workers are sometimes needed. Well, the only alternative to H-1B status (temporary residency) is immediate PERMANENT residency. Do you really want to open those floodgates up?
I see, dude. You’re saying that since the bill was overwhelming passed, it must have been because high tech industries “have the ear of Congress” – that whatever they demand can get passed. In other words, it can’t possibly be because the legislation itself was meritorious. No, it’s gotta be because industry has Congress under it’s thumb.
These are the kinds of wild speculations that pervade Kyuzo’s arguments. Just look back.
His friend only got two job interviews? It can’t possibly be because he wasn’t selling himself properly, or that he wasn’t hitting the right companies. No, it’s gotta be because the labor shortage is fictitious, and his experiences have got to be indicative of the market at large!
Industry got an H-1B bill passed, but (supposedly) had not passed a green card bill. This must be evidence of an insidious, manipulative plot! It can’t possibly be that green card legislation is more complicated, or harder to approve, or that it would produce less immediate gains. (FTR, the green card regulations have been amended, thereby rending his objection moot.)
A company sponsors someone for a green card? They can’t possibly be serious about wanting to keep the employee. No, it must be an elaborate scam – a vicious scheme which allows them to pay H-1B’s at substandard rates.
79% of H-1Bs are not geniuses or top programmers? Obviously, rampant abuse is occuring! After all, it can’t possibly be that companies are forced to recruit foreigners from both camps – geniuses and non-geniuses. They can’t possibly have exhausted the number of top programmers who desire to work in the country.
And so forth, and so on.
Dude, legislation HAS been introduced. In fact, it WAS approved. I think that speaks volumes about the quality of your argument.
Note to JTC: I’m a “she” 
And if the industry has such power over Congress that they could just snap their fingers and the green card process would be streamlined immediately, why are there still any H-1B limits at all?
Granted. Of course, I thought you had read section 2.3 of Matloff’s report and knew the other evidence. Clearly not.
What did that last line say? Oh right, the long waiting period is because of a lack of resources. Hmmm. Well, why is no legislation introduced to address their lack of resources?
They can remove the per country quotas until the cows come home, but there will still be a long waiting period because of a lack of resources.
Dude, please observe what ruadh herself said - the long waiting period is because of a lack of resources. What has been done to improve that? Are you even reading any of this? Have you even read Matloff’s paper?
Dude, green card regulations are complicated, difficult, and time consuming. That’s why the INS needs more…resources! The type of legislation that needs to be passed is an increase in funding and resources for the INS, so they can process green cards faster. They have not done so.
The low unemployment rate is meaningless. Programmers who can’t find work and leave the industry count as employed bus drivers, not unemployed computer programmers.
As far as your calim that abuse does not disprove a shortage, the presence of certain types of abuse may disprove the shortage.
Since you were the OP, I think the burden of proof is on you to show a shortage.
Note to ruadh: Oops. [Dang it, gal, why can’t you use a gender-specific name? ]
His case is unconvincing, for reasons already discussed. Besides, even if we grant your dubious claim, that still doesn’t mean that such a bill would be passed as easily – or that it’s strategically advantageous to do so. As we repeatedly point out, your arguments routinely invoke astounding leaps of logic. (HINT: I suggest that you read up on the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy.)
And of course, since green card legislation HAS been amended, that makes your argument moot.
You’re raising the bar again. Earlier you claimed that NO green card legislation has been introduced. Now that your claim has been disproven, you’re changing your tune.
Besides, there could be any number of reasons why the amount of resources has not yet been increased.
Common sense dictates that it’s not enough to simply introduce legislation. The money has to come from somewhere, and every government agency wants a piece of the pie. It’s easy to promise funding, but acquiring it is another matter.
I think we all agree that INS needs more resources. However, the lack of such resources does NOT imply a vicious plot on the part of high tech industry.
And there could be any number of reasons why they haven’t passed such legislation. That doesn’t mean they aren’t working on it, and it doesn’t mean that this issue has not been discussed.
Besides, we’ve already discussed the strategic advantage of focusing on H-1B’s for now. We’ve also discussed the complexities involved in ACQUIRING more funding. It is NOT simply a matter of adding new legislation. The money must come from somewhere, and fighting for that money can be a long-term battle.
You seem awfully eager to cast blame on industry – to assume malice and manipulation where none is evident. After all, if Congress hasn’t increased INS funding yet, then (gasp!) obviously they aren’t even working on the problem! Surely there can’t be anyone competing for these resources! And surely this must imply some conspiratorial manipulation on the part of high tech industries, so that they can savagely defraud foreigners and the American people! By Kyuzo’s logic, there can be no other explanation.
I said that it’s consistent with the low unemployment rates, not that it’s absolute proof. Now, if we had evidence that a large number of programmers were now working as bus drivers, that would be another matter…
This is really getting ridiculous. How many times do we have to say it? The mere presence of abuse only means that SOME PEOPLE are abusing the system. It is a tremendous leap of logic to conclude, from this, that the shortage is non-existent.
That is common sense, plain and simple.
It is a widespread claim in industry, and various studies support that claim. It is also consistent with the complaints at the HR departments of every single engineering company I’ve worked for. Additionally, the only objections we’ve seen have been easily debunked by myself, ruadh and company.
In other words, there is a preponderance of testimony that the shortage exists, and the arguments for its non-existence have been shown to be spurious. Heck, most of those arguments are conspiratorial and outright ridiculous. Since common wisdom says that the shortage exists, the opposing side had better have DARNED GOOD evidence that it doesn’t. Instead, all they have are opinions, anecdotes, half-baked statistics and absurd generalizations.
If the industry isn’t pushing Congress to allocate more resources to clear up the backlog - and I don’t know for a fact that they aren’t - it’s quite easily explainable without resort to conspiracy theory. There’s no reason it would be as important to the industry, because their employees can remain in the US indefinitely, with work authorization, while the green card application is pending; therefore the industry’s primary concern - available workers - is still being met.
But it doesn’t follow from this that they’re somehow opposed to the process being sped up.
I humbly ask that everyone who has participated in this thread(including those who may have only viewed it) to read the above article and then comment on it. It is concise and readable, only five pages long, but I feel it describes the situation much better than I can. I would very much like to hear thoughts on what is right or wrong with it.
JubilationTCornpone, suffice it to say that we have not discussed section 2.3 in this thread, so how can the information listed in that section be unconvincing, for reasons already discussed? Show me the problems with that section. Better yet, don’t. I am tired of you saying your opinion on something and then claiming you have debunked it. I am tired of your lack of effort to read information thoroughly. I am tired of your ad hominem attacks. I am tired of your lack of bias.
Put up or shut up. “Various studies” - provide a cite. “Every engineering company I have worked at…” - anecdotal evidence. “Common wisdom” - how about explaining things logically, instead of falling back on common sense?
Jubilation: Yes, provided it comes with a strictly enforced quota as to how many you let in each year, decided by legislative action, thoroughly debated in public. This is precisely what we had in Ellis Island days. The republic survived. Employers would have to deal with the newly-arrived as de facto citizens, and pay them a market rate, instead of having this club to beat them over the head with they have now.
The current situation introduces market distortions that have no place in a country which allegedly values free markets. Anything less than letting a person in as a permanent resident conditional only upon his getting a) gainful employment within a year and b) staying out of trouble for let’s say, the first three to five years, will be very hard to enforce (even the above would be tough, in reality) and will introduce distortions into the job market. If an employer wants someone to work for him, the deal should always be made between two free parties unencumbered by any law making them a vassal to the other.
Kyuzo: read the link. Amusing and enlightening to say the least. As a general rule, any time you see the Senate vote for something 96-1, it’s time to duck & run for cover. The Gulf of Tonkin resolution justifying our involvement in Vietnam passed by a similar margin.
A quota alone won’t suffice. After all, one also needs guidelines as to WHICH applicants should be admitted.
The H-1B and green card programs already provide quotas. In addition, they also provide processes for determining whether someone is qualified or not.