Hacker News Reader

Comment by ones_and_zeros | Hacker News Reader

Here is the summary straight from the horses mouth: https://lofgren.house.gov/uploadedfiles/high_skilled_bill_sx...

A few points:

- This does not raise the salary requirement to $130k/yr. This only applies to employers that do not want to do the extra paper work for "attestations regarding recruitment and non-displacement of U.S. workers"

- It takes a "market based" allocation strategy which allows "cash bonuses and similar compensation" to be included. This is a joke.

- Startups and small businesses will get 20% of the visas. It'll be interesting to see how this is gamed

- This does not fix the Corporate/Higher Ed partnership loophole

- This does not fix the power imbalance between visa holders and employers

I personally don't see this bill going anywhere. Zoe just needs to look like she is doing something.

View on HN

Thanks for this!

I've been on multiple H1B visas, at both large companies and startups. I've also sponsored H1B visas as an employer. I would support this bill.

The headline is a classic example of sensational journalism by the Times of India.

The $130k salary requirement applies only to "dependent employers", defined as employers with over 15% of their workforce on H1Bs. This is clearly aimed at reducing H1B misuse by TCS, Infosys, and their ilk.

The vast majority of companies who employ people on H1Bs aren't "dependent" employers by this definition, and hence will be unaffected by the salary increase rule. If anything, they'll benefit from more visas being available to non-dependent employers.

Also, startups will likely benefit from the 20% requirement.

And Samsung US. They pay H1B's absolute crap. This would be a good thing for them.

http://www.h1bdata.info/index.php?em=samsung&job=&city=&year...

Just a glance, doesn't seem that bad.

You're including Austin, TX (Semiconductor) in that search. Their CA engineer salaries are much lower. Also, I wonder about that data. I've seen bigger CA databases that have more records and lower salaries. Also, look at what AirBNB pays their H1B's.

http://www.h1bdata.info/index.php?em=SAMSUNG+RESEARCH+AMERIC...

Edit: Sorry, going to retract this. My data is a few years old. It seems like they have started paying market rates.

http://h1bpay.com/salaries?company=samsung+&city=mountain+vi...

Although a startup might only marginally benefit because a single one would be a significant portion of their employees, right? So it would be over 15% right off the bat if they have fewer than 7 people

I think this 15% rule applies only to companies with more than 50 employees

As you said, this seems to penalize the Infosys-type companies, and seems to give favorable treatment to Silicon Valley firms. Given that's her district, this should not be surprising.

Regardless of the merits of this particular bill, at least we now have a conversation going with both political sides weighing in.

Here's hoping that they end up somewhere rational.

this makes perfect sense. thank you! these sensationalist article titles are very misleading!!!!

There are enough unscrupulous actors that will pay 130k on paper and have ways of paying much less in reality. Enforcement and audits will also have to increase correspondingly, and penalties must be severe.

In Australia, 7-11 was paying staff minimum wage then demanding half of it back in cash. Literally mugging their own staff.

A lot of fly in fly out workers too. They make good salaries but have to spend a massive chunk of it "renting" accommodation off their employer.

Since when? Those are (were) real $250k salaries. Accom (a donga) and flights are included. Living in Perth is pretty expensive though, and in fact many live in Bali.

Note that this bill is completely separate from Trump's possible upcoming executive order which may also affect H1B:

https://www.murthy.com/2017/01/31/possible-executive-order-t...

EOD, this is just a bill, such bills have been introduced in the past but never saw the light of day, its just that, this time around, this is being introduced under Trump.

All in all, there are some benefits in this bill. Does it say anything about green card backlog? or was my interpretation wrong?

> - Startups and small businesses will get 20% of the visas. It'll be interesting to see how this is gamed

Probably the old fashioned way: Tata Startup Services, a wholly owned subsidiary of Tata Consulting Services.

Yep. When money is to be made they need no invitation.

Someone will be using a "startup company name" generator for these wholly owned subsidiaries and be filling out the paperwork for 50 of them all at the same time. No doubt to get a discount on the legal fees.

Is there a simple way to say in legalese "we want startups, but not 1. startups that have large companies as controlling interests at any remove, or 2. startups who exist to serve only one or two large companies"?

Sure, you'd exclude a few enterprise-B2B startups from your program, and startups that have been invested in "over a barrel" such that the founders no longer retain control, but you'd also filter out these ne'er-do-wells.

Not really, which is why I generally oppose special rules for startups. No way to make sure that it's bona fide startups using them.

Breaking news: The name generator is available there https://www.dotomator.com/web20.html

Sounds like automating creating startups and filling out paperwork for H1-Bs is a good idea for a startup.

But currently they take around 60% of all awarded visas, in the future they will be capped to 20% at most if they went the start up route.

And the hill staffers who wrote the bill will start up a consulting service on how to comply with the small business requirements.

I wrote about this earlier:

http://fightthefuture.org/articles/hr-170-will-all-large-com...

Basically bills like this will allow Tata, Wipro and others to just absorb all the talent within the industry. Some versions I've seen do restrict the wage increase to companies that have n% of their workers being H1-B employees, which seems a bit more reasonable.

While everyone seems to be focussing on TCS, Infosys etc, the worst abuse of H-1B comes from small staffing firms in US. I foresee them using the 20% set aside for startups.

true that!

Well the "startup" still has to pay roughly 15% (or whatever the number is) more than market rate, so this loophole won't work. They can't just reduce the salary once it's "acquired".

EDIT: Also this is one of three H1B related bills in Congress. I suppose there will be some compromise between them, considering that they are sponsored both by Republicans and Democrats.

- It takes a "market based" allocation strategy which allows "cash bonuses and similar compensation" to be included. This is a joke.

Honest question, why is this a joke?

Employer-provided healthcare is considered compensation, and the "cost" is somewhat determined at will depending on creative accounting.

How is it so? I'd say there are real dollars going to the healthcare providers.

It relies on the companies own estimate of the value of those bonuses... but bonuses are discretionary and the value of private company stock can be hard to determine. So you could have a salary of $90k, $10k of healthcare benefits, and $30k worth of "assumed" bonuses in the form of options, restricted shares, etc. which:

a) you're not certain to get anyway (because they're bonuses)

b) might not really be worth $30k

> the value of private company stock can be hard to determine

The IRS uses 409A valuation. These valuations have been high enough to cause huge AMT burden to engineers. Sam Altman etc have written about it; Zoe Lofgren herself has been trying for years to fix it.

Why do you think it is a joke?

It is awful when you get hit by this. Modern tax law absolutely wrecks startup founders who are not already rich. It's quite stunning.

It's generally not founders who get screwed by AMT related consequences. Founders should have 83-b'd shares, not vesting options.

You can oy exercise 83b if you have cash on hand in advance. Hence my comment: only wealthy founders tend to get a good deal.

And for Engineers and Designers it's even harder.

It is very wrong to treat employees as investors when they're invariably taking major income hits to be there.

Founders should be receiving shares (not options) before any financing. Fair market value is zero, so an 83b is free.

The people who get screwed are early employees, who join and get options when shares are not worth a lot but non-zero. Then your choices are front the cash to early exercise (if the company even allows that) and 83b what are probably going to be worthless shares or wait until later and find that the shares are worth a lot now but still illiquid (and risky!) and the AMT hit of exercising is enormous.

> Founders should be receiving shares (not options) before any financing. Fair market value is zero, so an 83b is free.

"Fair market value is zero, so an 83b is free." Okkkaayyyy...

I'm not an expert and 409A valuations are not a joke but the current rules around 409A valuations are there to prevent people valuing them too low to reduce taxes, not too high because - why would you?

Some scenarios: A company's "real" fair market value is $50 and this is also what they report to the IRS. They issue options with a strike price of $60, which are $10 out-of-the-money. This is an allowed transaction.

B) The FMV reported to the IRS is $40 but the "real" FMV is $50. Options are issued with a strike price of $50. The IRS thinks that these options are $10 out of the money and therefore allowed, but they should actually have been taxed more-or-less as income.

C) The FMV reported to the IRS is $60 but the "real" FMV is $50. Options are issued with a strike price of $65. The IRS is happy that these options are out of the money, which they really are. If the IRS audits and challenges the valuation, they may come up with a price closer to $50 but that only means that too much tax might have been paid which they're not going to be too upset about. Meanwhile, for the purposes of reporting compensation of their prospective H1B staff member, the barely out of the money options look a lot better than they should.

The IRS is set up to look for B, no-one looks out for C.

Well, part of the problem is that even if value is calculated right, there's no adjustment for liquidity. Calculating compensation for H1-B purposes based on 409A is a bit silly if there's no way to cash out. That's made all the more true by the possibility of destroying that value later, for instance by agreeing to a high-multiplier preference in later funding.

I would accept 409A as a reasonable assessment of a company's value, but that's somewhat different than an assessment of what compensation an H1-B worker is getting.

You raise a good point about liquidity.

The PDF linked by OP said "including cash bonuses and similar compensation", and the knee-jerk reaction was "it is a joke". Furthermore, it was explainted that "the value of private company stock can be hard to determine". I pointed out the 409A valuation as a response to this.

I do not know if equity will be counted against income.

But I think it is reasonable to count vested and exercised equity into the pay calculation. After all, IRS uses that to determine taxes.

Let's say you have $30k in options and you're an H1b. Sometime in the first 4 yrs of work you're fired and you have to go out of US. How likely it is that you will exercise your, especially since you're in a serious life change/upheaval (from moving out of US and closing down anything you might have going on still) and also with an illiquid stock?!

Even if you do get these bonuses, don't you pay taxes on the assumed value?

Yup. The fact that compensation is included, is useless. Companies give you unvested shares worth tonnes that take > 4 years to fully vest. The attrition rates are so high, the sweat shops can get away with it.

None of the sweat shops offer equity.

Well, that can change, especially if the "equity" is in a worthless employing subsidiary that never turns a profit or has a liquidity event.

Startups offer equity, consulting companies don't. That would actually tend to favor startups as the equity they grant drives the "compensation" upwards despite it being monopoly money until the shares actually vest and assuming they're even worth printing at this point.

Absolutely! I completely agree. But what stops the consultancies from doing this without actually ever letting it to fully vest?

Same for the cash bonuses. All the workers might underperform and never see the bonus.

Here's where software people find "loopholes" like they're looking for edge case bugs in code.

Suppose Tata pulls exactly what you describe. Do you think that stands a half a chance in hell of standing up to scrutiny by DoL?

That's interesting. So the laws aren't being taken literally?

They are generally not treated as executable code written in English, but rather are interpreted taking into account the facts and circumstances.

If Tata has hundreds of employees, all making $80K and a $50K bonus, none earning the bonus due to poor individual performance, but all being retained by the company and sent on new client engagements (presumably due to acceptable performance).

In finance, this is often referred to as substance over form, but the same concept applies in other areas of civil law as well.

Unvested RSUs aren't counted as compensation, at least for tax purposes.

Sometimes I wish we could just fine Tata for going against the spirit of the h1b law. If its a large enough fine they might stop their shenanigans.

Tata is just one of MANY similar companies.

You dont need to fine Tata, you need to make it not a lottery, reduce restrictions and then let anyone who wants to do it do it.

If you get $1,000,000 worth of equity that vests in 100 years, your annual stock compensation is still $10,000.

I get the impression that this new bill is like putting lipstick on a pig which is the current system. I was hoping the amendments to the H1-B bill would be one of the silver linings of a Trump presidency, but I guess not anymore.

This is a proposed bill by California democrat Zoe Lofgren.

Thankfully it has zero chance of passing.

I've commented on this before, at: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13433540 I'm copying the comment below:

---

I'm on an H-1B, and the thing that infuriates me about the dialogue on this is that they are effectively trying to ban skilled immigration, and exclude people like me from coming.

If you don't qualify for the family-based or refugee route, employment-based immigration is the only viable pathway. The amount of hate I see piled on people trying to come here via the employment-based immigration seems insane to me. These people make it seem like employment-based immigration is not as respectable or legitimate, compared to refugee/asylum and family-based immigration.

The problem with requiring higher wagers is that for people like me, who were students in US -- it's very hard to get an ultra-high salary for the first job out of college. (I did my undergrad here, and I don't have a Master's.) I was a student (on an F-1 visa), and my first job out of college offered me $60,000/year. On my first job on my H-1B visa (in NYC), I was offered $85,000 a year (got slightly over $100,000 with bonuses). Then, just about a year and half later, I was paid (incl. lucky cash bonuses) slightly over $200,000 in a single year. (My base salary is $130,000 now.)

If you raised wage requirements, you'd basically be not allowing people like me to continue to stay and work in the US (after graduation from college), and would instead only allow people from outside who have lots of experience (and skill) and can command a much higher salary upfront.

---

It's very disappointing to see the level of vitriol directed towards people who are just trying to build a better life in this country, especially here on HN.

Parent comment contained none of the "vitriol" you've imputed to it. Perhaps you meant to reply to something else?

People who studied here is a huge untackled problem. I wish there was more movement to make it easier for them (us actually) to stay.

I studied here, but never really had to deal with the immigration aspect because I'm here to be with my American wife. However, I vaguely remember that F1 students could work for a very limited amount of time with the F1 visa and work even longer if they studied a STEM field. I guess that's something. But having to hustle like nuts to get above some magical salary boundary is crazy. Especially since that likely would include changing employers since that seems to be the best way to get a raise.

If you don't mind me asking, how did you get such an increase over 2.5 years? I find it surprising that $200k is possible 2.5 years out of undergrad. Are there any particular opportunities you made use of?

I can communicate over mail, if that helps.

I can guess that. It mostly comes down to his skill. He is including bonuses. If you interview for a startup in silicon valley or NYC, those figures are not unheard of.

I received multiple discretionary ("spot") bonuses (all cash). My base salary was a lot lower -- which is the only thing the H-1B petition (and LCA) mentions.

H-1B was not setup as a path for graduates to stay in the US. It was intended to allow highly skilled workers in and has been gamed since then to do all kinds of things.

That said, I think a permissive immigration policy is in our intrests, but H-1B is a poor basis for such a policy.

This.

F1 students are not American citizens and are not entitled to an immigration pathway through employment.

They are on a student visa with the right to study at an American university.

This is true, but on the whole immigrant college graduates are typically a boon to an economy, not a drag. It's in our best interest to keep these people here, rather than shipping them back home.

I don't know the statistics to agree or disagree.

I can only convey that the current system is shady and is rife with abuse. Reform is necessary, preferably nonpartisan.

We do not need more entry level candidates. By allowing the importation of entry level workers you deny graduates the chance to receive training and obtain valuable experience. There's then little incentive for employers to train fresh grads.

> F1 students are not American citizens and are not entitled to an immigration pathway through employment

American citizens would be entitled to an immigration pathway?

H-1B is dual intent.

H-1B allows dual intent, but H-1B does not require dual intent.

One could argue that H-1B is a visa that never was intended to apply for fresh graduates - it's a vehicle for "importing" specialists that USA doesn't have, bringing in unusual expertise that USA can't build locally. Yes, "People from outside who have lots of experience (and skill) and can command a much higher salary upfront" is the exclusive target audience for the intended goals of why the H-1B visa is implemented, and if it's dominated by other people then it's not working as intended.

Likely there should be some path for immigrant students to stay, but H-1B shouldn't be that path.

The permanent employment based visas (E-2, E-3) should have primacy. Although it is a long process it would be possible to obtain work authorization within the optional practical training period even without the STEM extension if the quota was current. The issue is the employment based quota, especially the per country limits.

Yes, I would like it if they eliminated the quota for the employment-based (EB-2 and EB-3) visas, and created a exemption from labor certification for people who studies in the US.

It's already incredibly difficult, time-consuming, and expensive to secure an employment-based immigration path. The process takes between 1 to 2 years. In addition, the employer is required to attest (via labor certification) that there are no minimally qualified U.S. workers who can do the same job. The quotas create just decades-long backlogs, and make things even worse for immigrants.

The regulatory red tape for EB immigrant visas is incredible. I've read comments on HN and other forums saying that companies typically spent circa $40,000 to get an EB-2/EB-3 visa. In fact, Congress intentionally made it easier to get H-1B visas for precisely this reason: https://www.cato.org/blog/why-congress-rejected-h-1b-recruit...

> E-2, E-3

You mean EB-2 and EB-3 (Employment Based green cards)?

E-3 is a US work visa for Australian citizens only, almost identical to H1-B but with a separate cap. It was a thank you to Australia from the Bush Administration for helping in the Iraq war.

Yes, that's what I meant.

> Likely there should be some path for immigrant students to stay, but H-1B shouldn't be that path.

Perhaps they should create an exception that allows immigrant student to work for entry-level market wages for a few years after they graduate.

I mean, immigrants students will need some kind of visa that lets them work to stay here after school. It could be the H-1B, or something else.

But the only way they can stay is if that visa requires only paying what new graduates normally make.

There is a huge range of salary's for recent grads from minimum wage to 200+k/year. So, a minimum salary of say 75k would allow many students to stay but not all students to stay.

PS: I suspect if there where a direct path from student to staying in the US then people would just game that process. Which would reduce the number of 'real' students and cause a political backlash.

That game is already being played. It's very lucrative for private colleges catering to third world (and second world) kleptocrats that want to plant their children and their dirty cash in the USA.

> if there where a direct path from student to staying in the US then people would just game that process

If someone manages to get accepted at a genuine accredited U.S. high-education institution, and completes their studies, and graduates, why not let them stay? I understand there will be a lot more demand to study in the U.S. if such a pathway existed; so you would want to make sure that there are no diploma mills, and that only people graduating from accredited colleges are allowed to stay. Perhaps capping the number of international students at a college to something like 20% would go further in mitigating your concern. The flow of student immigrants would then be naturally regulated by the admissions process, and by the number of available seats for international students in U.S. universities and institutions.

Most schools are not very good and have very low admissions criteria. These programs operate as cash cows for the university and students come with the intent to find a US employer to hire them. It's why graduate programs in Computer Science are primarily international students, it's not that they're better it's just that the vast majority of them want a job in the US.

"why not let them stay?" has a simple answer that not letting them stay has some benefit to some USA citizens in reducing competition in the workforce. One may argue whether benefits of this 'labor market protectionism' really outweigh the drawbacks in economic competitiveness, but after recent elections this choice has been made and "jobs for Americans instead of immigrants" has become an explicit goal.

It really doesn't make much practical sense to attract students, educate them, and have them leave. But having the flow of student immigrants be naturally regulated by the admissions process, as you propose, seems to be putting the cart before the horse policy wise. From the gov't perspective, the interests and education goals of the (potential) immigrants are irrelevant but the flow of skilled immigrant labor matters a lot - what would be a practical solution is to make a decision about what amount and kind of post-college immigrants staying would be best for the interests of current USA citizens (which might reasonably be close to 0 in some areas of study), and then set the limits and conditions for student visas/admissions to match that goal.

> Perhaps they should create an exception that allows immigrant student to work for entry-level market wages for a few years after they graduate.

They have something like this, it's called Optional Practical Training (OPT).

OPT is only good for 1 year.

Yes, I know about OPT. I was making the general point that if there is going to be reform, we need to make sure that there is some way for immigrant students to stay and work in the country after they graduate. Right now, we've got that through OPT, the 3-year OPT extension for STEM graduates, and the H-1B visa. A few students lose multiple rounds on the H-1B lottery, use up their OPT, and get kicked out. If we're going to reform the system, we should try to not eliminate the pathway that exists, and preferably provide one that's even better.

STEM F-1 students can work under OPT for 3 years. I'd say that's good enough considering the fact that H1B also get issued for 3 years.

I agree that there should be a different path towards getting a work permit for ppl who studied in the US vs ppl who come over to work off the bat.

The changes aimed at fixing the abuse of the system by consultant "super companies" are going to affect ppl who finish their studies and get paid a market-level salary at their first gig which in most cases still won't come close to 130K.

These are typically well adjusted folks with drivers licenses, their own apartments/houses/families even (so they need to make more than 5 TCS consultants cramped in a studio apartment) etc. One would think they'd be in the batch of prime candidates for the long-term or even permanent immigration.

> It's very disappointing to see the level of vitriol directed towards people who are just trying to build a better life in this country, especially here on HN.

This line along with the rest of the comment is completely written out of context. I have no idea how your reply is relevant.

The system has been good for you and I don't begrudge that. I'm happy for you. But besides its successes, the current system has fomented a fair bit of abuse of h1bs and suppressed American citizens wages... at least based on what I've seen as a longtime developer (working with h1bs and contractors at times) and job hunter. But it was put in place with the long-broken promise that it would not do that.

While I do agree that the current immigration laws need to change in order to allow for international students with a US college degree to pursue a life in the US, I believe that the original intent/purpose of the H1B was not to provide a way for new grads to stay in the US but rather to attract talented workers from abroad with skillsets that are hard to find in the US.

That being said, as someone in a similar boat (graduated from a US college, lived in the US for more than half of my life), I strongly believe that there is a need for a reform in US immigration laws. Even though I spent more than half my life in the States, I don't qualify for any programs/paths to pursue permanent residency in the US except for the H1B route.

I was a student (on an F-1 visa)

Note that during the F-1 visa application, you needed to prove that you had no intent to stay. This is a current requirement for the F-1 visa.

While there are problems with the proposed legislation, at a minimum, it does allow for dual-intent for F-1 visas, and allows for a bridge from F-1 status to legal permanent resident. This means that an F-1 visa petitioner doesn't have to lie on their application, and there is no incentive to use the H1-B program in a way it wasn't intended.

This small piece, seems like a attempt at solving this student-to-resident pathway issues.

I'm honestly a bit confused to see this point raised here. I certainly have seen vitriol aimed at H-1B workers, including on HN. Raising minimum salary would be a way to restrict the program, but the comment you're replying to specifically calls that change "lipstick on a pig". I guess 'lipstick' might be an endorsement, but it's fair to say that this bill is about making Americans happier with a still-broken system.

Suggesting that the existing H-1B system is broken and in need of reform isn't necessarily a call for less skilled immigration. My two biggest complaints about it are actually both pro-immigration.

First, I think what was meant as a way to integrate skilled immigrants into the economy has been transformed into a way to marginalize many visa-holders into non-standard consulting work.

Second, I think the H-1B system has created a distorted market which hurts both visa holders and domestic workers by creating a labor pool which is basically unable to bargain. Tying someone's immigration status to the actions of a single employer makes even basic negotiations like "this work environment is terrible" or "I'm underpaid for the work I'm doing" untentable, since the employer has an irrefutable lever over the employee. That's terrible for visa-holders working at inappropriate wages or under unpleasant or unsafe conditions. It's also bad news for domestic workers, who rightly complain that they're not just competing against international labor but handicapped-by-law labor. In an industry which has already seen one major wage-fixing conspiracy, I think it's understandable that there's some nervousness about employers using the law to create an artificial boundary on labor prices.

I'd like to see skilled immigration massively expanded, and I think part of that process is reforming the H-1B system. Many companies use the system quite reasonably, but others are specifically using it to avoid treating American or international workers fairly.

> Firstly, yes, there are a lot of consulting firms

That's true, there are a lot of consulting firms like Tata/Infosys/Wipro that use up a large chunk of the available H-1B visas. They only pay their workers like $80,000 on average, and almost never sponsor a green card. The other thing is that a big chunk (like >50%) of the people at these firms are on visas. I'd like to see a solution that limits that sort of use, and instead provides visas to more legitimate companies, without making it impossible for immigrant students to stay in the country.

One possible solution might be to require higher wages if more than 20% of the employees are on visas. At most of the companies I worked, at least 80% of my coworkers were Americans. But at the same time, I've heard that a high percentage of developers Facebook and Google are on visas. Simply requiring that companies higher wages if more than like 20% of their workforce are on visas, would end the use by consulting firms that are heavily staffed by H-1B workers. It also would not completely shut the door on immigrant students looking for a job after they graduate.

> Tying someone's immigration status to the actions of a single employer makes even basic negotiations like "this work environment is terrible"

This is a misconception. I can change jobs to any employer that is willing to do an H-1B visa transfer. Of course, it reduces the set of companies I can work for, but in tech, most companies will transfer your visa. Another fact is that, before January 17, 2017, you couldn't have gaps in employment, and had to find a new job while working. But this has been fixed, and now H-1B visa holders can quit freely, and have 60 days to find a new H-1B employer. I've pointed it out here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13452381

In addition, I have been in the exact situation you described -- i.e. "this work environment is terrible". This was before the 60-day rule came into effect, and I actually quit my job anyways. I lost my legal status in the country as a result, but it really wasn't that big of a deal. I just had to do find a new job, fly out of the country, and re-enter, to regain my legal status (and start my new job). I've explained what I did in detail, here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13361827

> and almost never sponsor a green card

> to require higher wages if more than 20% of the employees are on visa

This is the sort of change I'd like to see. H-1B should be a stepping-stone to offering citizenship to skilled workers who want it. (Regardless of original intent - it's both practical and moral for the US to do this.) The possibility of creating a perpetual pool of visa contractors is one of my main complaints, and I'd like to see more visa slots opened to companies willing to pay well and sponsor for green cards.

> This is a misconception.

Interesting context, thank you. I knew about the change of employer (I think that's common knowledge?) but I'd heard horror stories of people being told, basically, "shut up or we'll fire you right now and you'll have an employment gap". Or just being fired outright, to show other visa employees how little bargaining power they had.

I didn't know about the 2017 allowance for employment gaps. That's awesome news, and that change specifically is one I've wanted to see for a while.

As for your experience, I'm glad it worked out, but I do consider it a horrible problem with the visa system. Forcing people to leave the country during their application process is stupid (and harmful to anyone short on money), it worsens problems like the recent re-entry ban Trump enacted, and it's a bit delicate with actual legal status; losing legal status here can have consequences almost immediately if someone cares to enforce them.

More broadly, I hate how much of the US visa system involves getting lucky with paperwork, or having an administrator look the other way. I'm glad to know about the 60 day improvement, and I'd love to see further extensions to allow easier green card access or student-to-work rollovers.

The hard truth is that nobody loves voluntary slaves, and even less of all - their masters.

> These people make it seem like employment-based immigration is not as respectable or legitimate, compared to refugee/asylum and family-based immigration.

"If you raised wage requirements, you'd basically be not allowing people like me to continue to stay and work in the US (after graduation from college), and would instead only allow people from outside who have lots of experience (and skill) and can command a much higher salary upfront."

I hate to break it to you, but those are the exact kind of people that H-1B visas are SUPPOSED to be used for. Not fresh out of college people. Your employer abused the visa program.

> If you raised wage requirements, you'd basically be not allowing people like me to continue to stay and work in the US

yeah, we know. that's kind of the point.

I'm pretty sure any negative feelings about H1-Bs are not directed at the workers themselves, but rather the companies that use the program as a form of indentured servitude. That suppresses wages in our industry.

Clearly the rate of family-based immigration is insane. And the lack of requirements for any kind of skills that would benefit America for relatives is costing America. Outside spouses and minor children, family has no special right to follow immigrants into the USA and privileging unskilled family migrants reduces the chance for a community to assimilate.

That reunification migration program should be regulated and limited severely.

But there is no right for employment based immigration either. There does not need to be a pathway for every single person on Earth to come to America. America is already crowded.

If there's no viable visa category to come to the USA, there are 200 other countries for a person to migrate to. And staying put is a fine option for most migrants as well, though there are exceptions.

The idea that the USA and only the USA is the acceptable destiny for every person is ludicrous and has to stop. We have the highest proportion of foreign born people in hour history already and it's time for a long immigration moratorium to help us absorb the immigrants we have.

> America is already crowded.

America isn't crowded. America is mostly pretty empty. http://www2.census.gov/geo/pdfs/maps-data/maps/thematic/us_p...

The question isn't how much desert or glacier a country has. It's whether a family can afford a place to live and if you can get where you're going in the city without waiting forever in traffic. America is failing badly at both those essential criteria.

I'd just like to point out the requirement for a family sponsor visa is 5x the poverty rate. At a minimum you currently need to make $100k annual salary.

Also, family sponsored visas don't come out of the same quota pool as other visas so your statements are functionally irrelevant to this topic.

I'd just like to point out the requirement for a family sponsor visa is 5x the poverty rate. At a minimum you currently need to make $100k annual salary.

I've never heard about this. Where did you get it from?

From the USCIS website. When you file a petition for a family visa one of the forms is the I-864, financial support. Depending on your status you are required to have 3x-5x the poverty line in income or assets. Now, you don't have to do this alone. If you have 3-4 family members willing to apply they use the combined income.

> If you don't qualify for the family-based or refugee route, employment-based immigration is the only viable pathway.

This is, I think, the fundamental problem of our immigration system and ultimately tied to the source of the illegal immigration.problem that arises whenever the economic and social climate is relatively good (right now, we've got negative net rate of illegal immigration, because the economic and social climate sucks), and also much of our border security problem.

Our immigration policy seeks to do three main things:

(1) prevent people we absolutely don't want in this country (usually, for safety/security reasons) from coming in for any reason at any time.

(2) Allow people we specifically do want in the country to come in, and

(3) Manage the costs incurred as a result of the total level of immigration.

#1 is pretty straightforward: we prohibit certain people from entry, period, based on certain rules.

#2 and #3 together are served by a complex set of visa categories, with quotas in each category (both global and per country, in each category.) And we treat anyone that doesn't get a slot in the quota.or doesn't fit a preference category exactly like the prohibited individuals in #1.

A better way to address #3 (and to replace some existing categories, like the H-1B) would be to allow either entry- or annual- (possibly both as options) fee-based immigration or annual residency with work status for immigrants above the caps. The fee structure might be different for people eligible for dofferent existing preference categories but "skipping the line", and higher than any of those for non-prohibited immigrants in no preference category. Third parties could sponsor such supernumerary visas, but would have no special status for doing so (other than contract rights, but even then law could limit contract enforcement to recovery of the cost of sponsorship according to the rules applicable to general debts.)

Americans straight out of undergrad should easily be able to command $105k+ base salary now, plus stock.

I have seen H-1Bs get paid less than their American counterparts, for doing the exact same work.

Raising the salary floor on H-1Bs would be good for all employees in the sector, both Americans and those on H-1Bs. (There might be a small drop in the number of jobs, but the quality of life in those jobs will be much better.)

Isn't there an OPT for two years in which you can work? That may or may not be enough to get to 130

Bloomberg suggests this is going to get upstaged by the administration's proposed changes; but they're not really revealing any details about the draft. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-30/trump-s-n...

This months old Vanity Fair article gives some insight that Trump feels there is a role for immigration policy to make it easy for foreign students getting good jobs in the U.S. and innovating here; while his senior counselor and strategist thinks there are too many asians in Silicon Valley, and that it risks degrading civil society. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-30/trump-s-n...

But most any substantial change to immigration policy that isn't national security related, must come from Congress.

It looks like you posted the Bloomberg link again the second time, not the Vanity Fair link

Rats. Here it is.

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/11/steve-bannon-racist-c...

>while his senior counselor and strategist thinks there are too many asians in Silicon Valley

The idea that you can have "too many" of any type of person is about an un-american as one can be. Somehow Trump has no problem with 'too many' chubby white supremacists in the white house. Oh right, whites get a pass on everything. Its only non-whites that have to worry about being too high profile or too successful as to not upset whites. Or dating/marrying white women.

This is straight up racism, open and direct from the white house. I'm not sure how anyone is tolerating this and why there isn't more of an uproar.

I'm tired of this "un-american" nonesense. I remember when it was "un-american" to oppose the Iraq war.

Not wanting to be inundated with foreigners is a valid political position whether you like it or not.

Blatant racism and bigotry is valid? Irish and Italians were once niggers in America too. My view is racist assholes are human, have free speech rights, should not be silenced, but like any cockroach should have light shined on them and their perverted beliefs. Y'all need to read you some John Rawls and learn about the "veil of ignorance" rather than being so fucking ignorant.

These people aren't "foreigners" they're naturalized citizens. The criticism isn't that there's too many of them, but too many in leadership and wealth positions. That is racism in a nutshell regardless of how you Trump types want to spin it. So Asians can't own businesses or "too many" but whites can own an unlimited amount? Oh ok.

I think the shortest fix for the violation part(Corporate/Ed tech loophole and the Implementation/Consultant loophole) is some boots on the ground for DHS to investigate worksites. If there is enough economic incentive vested in any one area, sooner or later people will game it. And the H1B business is very lucrative. Putting in oversight to such a thing is hard without boots on the ground/human resources. AFAIR Visa program is run entirely on applicant fees making to slapstick to a bill even a harder sell given how much congress frowns upon spending.

Given what "boots on the ground" typically means for federal agencies (i.e. armed raids), your suggestion makes me twitchy.

You don't need armed raid to audit visa compliance. You need one bespectacled guy with a briefcase. It's true that most of the US law enforcement wants to look like military and tries to use armed troops way out of proportion (I mean, Library of Congress and Department of Education have their owned armed response units, because regular police isn't tough enough to deal with education issues anymore, apparently) - but I hope it's possible to avoid going full Steven Seagal in this case.

You're right that it would be possible with something akin to a health department visit, but need rarely has anything to do with armed raids.

> DHS to investigate worksites

This is not a man in suite arriving at site via Uber asking polite questions. This is mostly a SWAT team storming through all doors and killing dogs if any an then taking away all your documents, interviewing all employees. In short that is end of business to you.

Remember they will not come alone. They will bring sleuths from all other departments and you will be fined for not having appropriate number of fire extinguishers and for not having a separate bin for dry cells.

You clients will avoid you and your landlord will be upset.

This is mostly a SWAT team storming through all doors and killing dogs if any an then taking away all your documents, interviewing all employees. In short that is end of business to you.

Yes. That is exactly what I want employers thinking when the offer of cheap H1-Bs tempts them. Let's have a lot more on-site enforcement, please.

And a few horror stories in the media would be a great benefit to Americans.

Even a kick-ass ex-Googler is not worth it. Heck, I will divorce my wife if she opens up my house for potential DHS raids.

I smell Schadenfreude here !

Jokes apart the boots on the ground regulatory approach increases compliance cost for everyone even for someone who has employed a potential Turing award winner foreigner.

No it won't. It's not fun to live in a country where only way to make people to follow the law is to have armed raids that kills their dogs and destroys their homes. That should be exception reserved to dangerous violent criminals, not the first resort when some paper lacks proper signature.

That's nice. The typical H1-B employer has been breaking the law and ruining prospect for American families for decades and there's no enforcement of the rules in sight anywhere. At this point, we'll take whatever means of enforcement we can get.

This is what blowback from years of privileged abuse of the law looks like.

Heck, the entire Trump phenomenon is what blowback from extended abuse of elite privilege looks like. It isn't pretty, but the elites refused all other means of curbing their exploitation.

> The typical H1-B employer has been breaking the law and ruining prospect for American families for decades

No it wasn't. Typical H1B employer has been following all the laws to the letter, filling a crapton of paperwork and paying a crapton of money to the lawyers for it. And has been paying tons of taxes and creating tons of jobs and amazing things we are all now using. There are a bunch of a-typical abusers, which need to be reined in, but one does not need jackbooted stormtroopers for this, one needs a competent lawyer and an accountant. It's not a fortress of Dr. Evil, it's paperwork.

> no enforcement of the rules in sight anywhere

Nobody argues against enforcement. I argue against enforcement with idiotic overblown supermacho glamour attached. I understand everybody wants to feel like Captain America, but if you look at those movies closely when Captain America gets to business, it usually ends up in a couple of cities leveled to the ground. I'd rather take an accountant, thank you very much. When interdimensional space reptilians attack, we'll be sure to call the Captain then.

> Heck, the entire Trump phenomenon is what blowback from extended abuse

Blowback is usually not something good. That's exactly my point. Enforcement - yes. Going overboard and hurting the cause you try to fix - no.

I think it would be much cheaper and more effective to just auction the the slots (by how much the employer is willing to pay the employee); otherwise, you're just in a quagmire of "is this really a startup for purposes of the exemption", "is this person's role really close enough to Deep Learning Expert", "is this really what similar workers" make, etc -- a hundred loopholes to exploit.

Thanks for pointing these things out... I've been saying for a few years now, that H1Bs should have a salary floor of 8-12x minimum wage, or the top 10-15% income bracket... given that it's supposed to be for specialized technical skills that aren't able to be found domestically.

^This. Thanks for taking the time to dig through the legislation. I wish news articles were this critical.

> Startups and small businesses will get 20% of the visas. It'll be interesting to see how this is gamed

Probably in exactly the same ways Federal contracts are gamed.

I grant you this is in fact not the perfect reform bill, the question is, is it better than the current situation? To me it looks like it's at least somewhat better, so as a Canadian who may want to move to the US at some point, I'm hoping it passes.

> so as a Canadian who may want to move to the US at some point, I'm hoping it passes.

Why would it affect you?

You quote the part that explains it. It looks like it might affect him as someone who might move to the US at some point. It might affect him. Large, successful insurance companies work on the notion of probability. It does bear taking into account.

A Canadian would come in under a TN visa which is not a lottery, not H1-B.

No route to permanent residency via the TN visa. With the status of NAFTA up in the air now that Trump's in power, that's potentially a pretty big deal.

There's no real route, no, but you can take the EB Green Card path. You just can't leave the country from the period starting when you file for adjustment of status and ending when you get EAD/AP (otherwise you're never coming back in under TN status again and will likely get banned for a few years :P)

A Canadian could come in under a TN status but it is not a dual-intent status meaning that they could not petition for a green card.

> who may want to move to the US

A Canadian would come in under a TN visa which is not a lottery, not H1-B.

So again, how do H1-B changes affect a Canadian?

A lot of larger companies will switch you to an H1-B at some point since they're trying to put you on a Green Card track (bc of long-run costs? not sure). While you technically can apply for a green card on TN status, since TN is intended for temporary workers, it's frowned upon by DHS and immigration departments at companies know that.

Source: I'm a two-time Canadian > US TN-to-H1B and eventually bailed out of the process by marrying an American.

TN can be extended indefinitely, so if you're being pressured to change to a H1-B you might want to ask why until you get a direct and specific answer.

So you can get a green card and thus aren't tied to the company?

TNs could be renewed indefinitely, however they're specifically meant to be temporary so you can only renew them if you continue to convince the adjudicating officer that you do not intend to renew them indefinitely. This may become a challenge a decade or two in. They are explicitly not a replacement for a green card. They can also be revoked at each border crossing.

An H-1B gives you a defined 6 year window with doctrine of dual intent allowing you to pursue a green card, which a TN status does not.

because it opens up the options to sponsor you for a green card.

Curious, was the marriage specifically for the purpose of getting out of that rat race?

Nope, just got lucky. :)

Hope I run into the same sort of luck eventually. Sucks having to worry about whether I'll still be in the country when trying to plan for the years to come.

All this on top of worrying about work, relationships, personal health, and always trying to catch up and learn the "fundamental" bits of knowledge required to do my job. Sometimes I feel like I wasn't born with as many cores as others :(

He may be looking to pursue a green card which is not possible with TN status.

> as a Canadian who may want to move to the US

You can move to the US on the TN visa (as long as NAFTA is still valid). I've met programmers from Canada and Mexico who are on the TN visa.

Definitely aware of this, however the TN visa doesn't have a path to a green card. A common strategy for Canadians is to come in on a TN visa and then repeatedly apply for an H1-B and hope to win the lottery while you are there. It basically just allows you to start work immediately instead of having to wait for an H1-B.

I know a few people who went TN to green card, and I myself went E-3 (a non-immigrant visa) to green card. It made the process more convoluted and risky but in my mind was way better than playing the H1-B lottery.

Actually, green card applications are completely separate from whatever visa (TN or H-1B) you have. The H-1B does not give you a path to the green card.

The only benefit of an H-1B over TN is that it is a dual-intent visa, and you are guaranteed to not have "immigrant intent"-related trouble at the border. However, there was a guideline issued by the CBP back in 2008 that stated that a pending employment-based green card application (I-140) would not alone be considered as immigrant intent: https://www.hooyou.com/news/news021709tn.html Quoted:

"A recently published authoritative letter from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agency (CBP) addressing the TN nonimmigrant visa category offers new and definite insight on the CBP’s policy for determining immigrant intent. In the letter, dated April 2008, the Executive Director of Admissibility and Passenger Protection Programs details clearly that filing an immigrant petition (I-140) alone is not automatically considered a demonstration of immigrant intent, and aliens with pending I-140s may still be admitted into US with a TN visa."

I don't know if that policy is still in effect, but if it is, then you have nothing to fear, and your employer can apply for your green card. The programmer from Mexico on TN that I knew actually had USCIS approval of his TN status. For TN status, USCIS approval isn't necessary, but it helps avoid problems at the border even further: https://www.tnvisabulletin.com/nafta-tn-blog/2012/4/12/cbp-m...

Thank you. Good points. Is anybody working on a better bill?

>attestations regarding recruitment

Isn't the compliance enforcement budget zeroed out?

Thank for the summary and link. I was about to have a heart attack.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com