HN is full of these cognitive dissonances; another example is the generally pro-immigration stance when it comes to low-wage workers, which is contrasted with the anti-tech immigration stance. I used to think it was different groups of people on different threads, but I have come to believe that many maintain diametrically opposed views.
There could be solid position there, as I have argued in the manner you have stated here.
"Tech Immigration" is largely H1B immigration is prefectly valid to be opposed to H1B while being pro immigration.
H1B is a predatory program designed to lower wages and put immigrants in a terrible stop when in comes to the immigration status, i.e the employer holds not only their income, but their ability to remain in the nation in the palm of their hands. This created a toxic and coercive relationship with the employer.
At the same time a correction to this program, and a correction to the low skilled workers is simply allowing more open immigration, if you want to come here to work you should be able to.
The 'open borders' position you describe would definitely be a consistent one, but it's not compatible with most of the HN arguments against tech immigrants. Most HN anti-H1B posts talk about how they depress wages, and it seems likely that a significant increase in software developer immigrants would depress wages even more than the H1B status quo.
The alternative is a sane program that is detached from your employer’s whims and provides you some stability and control. As of this writing, that program in the US is called a green card. But don’t get me started on how hard that is get.
I want to be clear no where did I say anything about "open borders", I said "more open immigration"
I do believe in some controls on immigration, security controls as an example. However I also believe it should be vastly easier than it is today, order of magnitude more open than it is today.
Of course I agree with my peer comment, that the alternative to an H-1B isn't open borders. There are a number of other countries with much more reasonable immigration programs - Canada and Australia for instance - which prioritize immigration of individuals that would provide the most value for the labor market by assigning skills and attributes a point value. It's important to separate out the quantity of immigration, what they do/where they go, and how they're restricted in the process.
With that in mind, consider also that 'and according to a 2018 study by the National Foundation for American Policy, immigrants founded or cofounded 55% of the United States' billion-dollar companies.' [1] It's not a zero-sum game, and stapling would-be founders to companies they would rather not work at for decades (H-1B for Indian born folks) hoping to get the freedom to found the next unicorn is quite a waste of time, talent and their risk-on years.
As an aside, it's interesting that folks want high wages, high disposable income, low inequality, low prices and low inflation all at the same time. I strongly suspect that these are fundamentally incompatible goals. Feels like, at most, a pick-two kind of thing.
This contradicts my experiences, as someone who personally went through it. Of all my immigrant friends and acquainteances (around 50 people) at different tech companies, around 90% are or are or were on H1B. Not a single consider themselves abused by their employer. Many of them have changed companies when they've been on H1B. Your status is tied to your employer, but you can find a new sponsor. H1B transfer is standard procedure.
Of course there is abuse. Even systemic abuse. This goes both ways though. For instance, Indian applicants can wait for over a decade for green card, we're talking completely americanized, fluent and self sufficient people, often with high positions at companies. People who did everything right, by any standard. Are these people abused? Perhaps, but if so, it's because the US government refuses to acknowledge them as permanent residents, which they clearly are for all practical purposes.
Alternatives and improvements to H1B is important, but suspiciously few in this community were interested in such a discussion at the time. Imo, parent comment is spot on that this is one of the hackernews dissonances.
> There could be solid position there, as I have argued in the manner you have stated here.
I may have done the same!
Parent and gp are scrubbing any nuance and leaving cartoon version of arguments, then fighting that strawman. Not all immigration is the same, IMO, sameness is a requisite for arguing the only "rational" positions can either be pro-immigration (all of it) or anti-immigration, which is absurd and reductive.
This is not about Apple charging more - it's about Apple charging for something they did not add any value to. This is closer to Oracle's billing tactics, that rightfully get pilloried on HN, the only difference is I'm yet to encounter anyone on HN defend Oracle's billing practices.
As someone who has gone through the immigration process, I can affirm that once you are no longer beholden to your employer for work authorization, more opportunities are available, and that leads to significantly larger salaries.
I am sure a large part of it has to do with the fact that until certain points in the process, you cannot change your employer without restarting the process, so a lot of people just stay without making a fuss about it.
Edit. Regardless, as it stands, the current H1B is indeed a broken system ripe for exploitation.
Who decides H1B is predatory? Based on my personal experience,I don't think it is. H1B is boon for many people, who came here, got educated and started contributing to the local economy.
It appears your pro immigration stance is for people, who are less educated and more likely to provide cheaper non tech services. To summarize, your stance is not for pro or against immigration, but to serve your own interests like everyone.
Facts, Reality, 1000's of people that have exploited by the system and talk about their experiences publicly just like your fellow commenter that seems to have had a different experience than you.
>>Based on my personal experience,I don't think it is. H1B is boon for many people, who came here, got educated and started contributing to the local economy.
2 things can be true at the same time as well, it could very well be a boon for the person, but it could also artificially stunt their growth due to the restrictions placed on them by the program, I am not sure how anyone could honestly argue that is better for the immigrant to be locked into their employer, and for the employer to have the power to deportation over their employee.. Or honestly argue that would not be abused by less than ethical employers of which there many.
You may have found a good one, I can assure you not everyone does
>>It appears your pro immigration stance is for people, who are less educated and more likely to provide cheaper non tech services.
That seems to be a huge leap based on an assumption that does not track with reality. I am unclear as to what would prevent highly educated people from immigrating to the US with more open immigration, but how H1B does not?
>>To summarize, your stance is not for pro or against immigration, but to serve your own interests like everyone.
Does not serve my interests at all really. I am not impacted by immigration one way or the other.
Are you talking about victims of Indian consulting companies that are basically hacking the H1b system? Yes they need to be dealt with. Perhaps they need to just block consulting jobs from the program generally. Stick to at least enriching employers who add some value to the system other than just performing arbitrage.
> generally pro-immigration stance when it comes to low-wage workers, which is contrasted with the anti-tech immigration stance
I have the opposite view and don't believe they are diametrically opposed. I see many legitimate reasons to cap unskilled immigration while seeing virtually no good reasons to cap skilled.
