$100k fee for h1-b visas coming

[Anonymous]

50M foreigners are living in the United States, legally.

It’s not just H1B. There are dozens of visa types - L1/L2, OPT, student visas, “temporary” work programs, family reunifications, you name it.

On paper, 70,000 L1 visas in a year doesn’t sound huge. But when each one brings a spouse (with full work rights) and kids (in U.S. schools), that number multiplies quickly. Add in the other visas and we’re looking at a million+ legal entrants per year.

And here’s the kicker: most never leave. Why would they? Once you’re in, the system is designed to keep you here.

[Anonymous]

In my 25yrs+ career I have never hired a H1B candidate less qualified and typically almost always more qualified even if just a batter overall candidate than one not requiring sponsorship for any of my corporate business openings incl EE, ME and IT. And actually in Finance they are great.

I have worked for F50 corps like Big 4, Citicorp, Booz Allen, Northrop and Siemens.

To say that all the jobs are taken by foreigners who are preventing American workers from being employed is such a generality and mostly untrue. I've turned away a lot of H1B hires because it wasn't either going to work budget wise or with the lottery system, it wasn't deemed feasible since it's not a guarantee they would be able to stick around. When you hire corporate professionals, you're looking at retention. I don't think most people understand how professional corp hiring is done. We don't just hire someone who is cheapest labor unless it is such a low level high turnover job and even then, sometimes working with Americans is not the easiest thing. There's a certain hunger for ambition to be found in immigrant communities. Also, there's a lot of organizations I've worked with who just don't want to deal with the legal headaches of sponsorship. So, the kind of positions that visa hires are taking really aren't the kind of jobs that are complex.

Yes, you are able to offer a lower salary to H1B since you're sponsoring them but no, it didn't make sense to do so given the total cost of their hire long term unless they were truly that good. Now it's true that lower level IT or if you hired customer svc, basically low level workers in volume - that could pan out for a business case - but for most skilled labor with some experience, no, the H1B candidate generally isn't taking jobs away from a citizen. It's easier to straight offshore which is what most co have opted to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Once there was a company that hired a foreigner on an #H1B visa as a manager.

Within a year, he fired all the Americans and replaced them with #H1B workers from his home country.

I know - because one of the fired Americans was me.

Name the company, so that people can manage their money accordingly. Btw, Marriott has done that with their hotel staffing as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:50M foreigners are living in the United States, legally.

It’s not just H1B. There are dozens of visa types - L1/L2, OPT, student visas, “temporary” work programs, family reunifications, you name it.

On paper, 70,000 L1 visas in a year doesn’t sound huge. But when each one brings a spouse (with full work rights) and kids (in U.S. schools), that number multiplies quickly. Add in the other visas and we’re looking at a million+ legal entrants per year.

And here’s the kicker: most never leave. Why would they? Once you’re in, the system is designed to keep you here.

This issue has to be addressed comprehensively and in a more serious manner than a EO written by Stephen Miller and released on a late Friday afternoon. Why aren’t GOP lawmakers working on an immigration bill now that the GOP controls all the levers of power? They can pass something that addresses all the concerns they have with our immigration system. An updated immigration bill is way overdue in our country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In my 25yrs+ career I have never hired a H1B candidate less qualified and typically almost always more qualified even if just a batter overall candidate than one not requiring sponsorship for any of my corporate business openings incl EE, ME and IT. And actually in Finance they are great.

I have worked for F50 corps like Big 4, Citicorp, Booz Allen, Northrop and Siemens.

To say that all the jobs are taken by foreigners who are preventing American workers from being employed is such a generality and mostly untrue. I've turned away a lot of H1B hires because it wasn't either going to work budget wise or with the lottery system, it wasn't deemed feasible since it's not a guarantee they would be able to stick around. When you hire corporate professionals, you're looking at retention. I don't think most people understand how professional corp hiring is done. We don't just hire someone who is cheapest labor unless it is such a low level high turnover job and even then, sometimes working with Americans is not the easiest thing. There's a certain hunger for ambition to be found in immigrant communities. Also, there's a lot of organizations I've worked with who just don't want to deal with the legal headaches of sponsorship. So, the kind of positions that visa hires are taking really aren't the kind of jobs that are complex.

Yes, you are able to offer a lower salary to H1B since you're sponsoring them but no, it didn't make sense to do so given the total cost of their hire long term unless they were truly that good. Now it's true that lower level IT or if you hired customer svc, basically low level workers in volume - that could pan out for a business case - but for most skilled labor with some experience, no, the H1B candidate generally isn't taking jobs away from a citizen. It's easier to straight offshore which is what most co have opted to do.

This isn't Dubai. The US has a huge population. If someone has a skillset that cannot be found in a nation of 350,000,000, a $100,000 fee is peanuts.

[Anonymous]

There should be a law prohibiting employers from requiring laid off employees to train their replacements in order to get their severance.

[Anonymous]

Don't forget the workday in India is 10 hours. So not only are they cheaper, they have longer days.

[Anonymous]

Reduce H1B visas to like 1000. There cannot be that many “exceptional” people and if they are just filling a job we have TONS of CS people now - many of which need jobs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:50M foreigners are living in the United States, legally.

It’s not just H1B. There are dozens of visa types - L1/L2, OPT, student visas, “temporary” work programs, family reunifications, you name it.

On paper, 70,000 L1 visas in a year doesn’t sound huge. But when each one brings a spouse (with full work rights) and kids (in U.S. schools), that number multiplies quickly. Add in the other visas and we’re looking at a million+ legal entrants per year.

And here’s the kicker: most never leave. Why would they? Once you’re in, the system is designed to keep you here.

This issue has to be addressed comprehensively and in a more serious manner than a EO written by Stephen Miller and released on a late Friday afternoon. Why aren’t GOP lawmakers working on an immigration bill now that the GOP controls all the levers of power? They can pass something that addresses all the concerns they have with our immigration system. An updated immigration bill is way overdue in our country.

A future Democratic president rescinding the EO would require the "worker's party," which thrives on optics, to take specific action to snatch jobs away from Americans during a job availability crisis. And even if they do, it's about the uncertainty - who's gonna gamble on the NEXT guy not reinstating it?

[Anonymous]

Because this is for show. When they want to walk it back, they can. Neither party wants immigration reform. It's bad for business.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are about 65000 H1b issued every year. The simple solution here would be to issue the visas to the highest paying contracts to ensure the most valuable talent is brought to the USA.. It should not be used to bring in cheap labour. But selling the visa for $100K will shift the focus from value and competency to cost.

Wow! what an uniformed post.

Let's just suppose that were true, we could cancel the entire program, and no one would miss it would they?

Year “Initial Approvals” Cap (85,000) “Cap Exempt” (≈ Initial − 85,000)
FY 2022 132,657 85,000 ~ 47,657 Guest Worker Visas

FY 2023 118,948 85,000 ~ 33,948 Guest Worker Visas

FY 2024 141,207 85,000 ~ 56,207 Guest Worker Visas

Note: “Cap Exempt” here just means “initial approvals beyond the 85,000 cap subject limit.” But that doesn’t necessarily map exactly to “academic/non-profit / university” approvals. Some of that cap-exempt portion may be from other cap-exemption sources or other employer categories, and not every academic/non-profit H-1B is necessarily cap-exempt depending on the employer and role. Also, some academic/non-profit initial petitions may still be counted under the cap if the employer doesn’t meet the exemption criteria.

So there were a total of intitial + renewal
FY 2024
427,091 (filed) 399,402 (approved).

Those are just people actively on Visas, cumulatively there are millions of people on visas and that have gotten green cards, to the tune of a significant fraction of our population, to the point where certain areas are completely dominated by skilled immigrants, Silicon Valley for example.

I digress, but in this day and age where information about the subject is so readily available. These sorts of *half-truths* are really not a credit to liberals or immigration advocates.

It was a Republican president (George Bush, Sr.) that signed the immigration law into effect that created the H1b visa program, not libersls. EOs are not a sufficient or longlasting fix for our immigration problems. If Trump was sincere about making lasting changes to our immigration laws—rather than being focused on immediate political expediency—he would work with Congress to get a bill passed. What better time in history than now when he controls all branches of government and the SC?

Well Democrats tried to leave the union over slavery. These are different times for sure. You probably knew that, but you don't have anything better to explain the egg on your face.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Don't forget the workday in India is 10 hours. So not only are they cheaper, they have longer days.

You're talking about completely offshoring. The workday is actually 9 hours but as a PP mentioned, you have to factor in all the Hindu and civil holidays, of which there are many. Sometimes 1 per week in a month. Then you add in the fact that many of these offshore workers just sit there if they're stuck and waste hours and hours or have to ask their peers how to do things. You don't end up ahead. Trust.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

And this is exactly why there shouldn’t be any H1Bs granted - or no more than a few dozen for truly super exceptional people - there is no labor shortage in CS!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And this is exactly why there shouldn’t be any H1Bs granted - or no more than a few dozen for truly super exceptional people - there is no labor shortage in CS!!

h1b was created in 1990.

in a market economy, how could we have a labor shortage for 35 years? no one that supports H1B every answers this question.

H1B has NOTHING to do with labor shortage. It is about replacing US citizens with cheap temporary labor.

I am constantly amazed how naive so many people are. do you really believe Elon Musk when he says he can't find talented developers in the 3.3 million new college grads the US creates EVERY YEAR????

Long term labor shortages do not happen naturally in market economies. That is not to say that they don't exist. They are created when employers or government agencies tamper with the natural functioning of the wage mechanism.

"[To attract] workers, the employer may have to increase his wage offer. ... So when you hear an employer saying he needs immigrants to fill a "labor shortage'', remember what you are hearing: a cry for a labor subsidy to allow the employer to avoid the normal functioning of the labor market."
-1990 Congressional Testimony of Dr. Michael S. Teitelbaum
http://users.nber.org/~sewp/references/archive/weinsteinhowandwhygovernment.pdf