Can someone explain to me why expansion of visa programs for skilled workers is so controversial? Hell, Mitt Romney wanted to "staple a green card" to every STEM diploma.
Why the need for these three dimensional Vulcan chess tactics if that's the goal?
My guess is because labor unions and the Democrats (generally) don't want to expand visas for skilled workers without "comprehensive" legalization. But I am definitely biased so I would not at all mind an alternative explanation.
Expanding visa programs will be controversial so long as large numbers of Americans are unemployed.
This particular group is controversial (also) because they are taking a position on controversial non-immigration issues, such as oil drilling and pipelines.
"Controversial" doesn't mean it's right or wrong. It means that many people have strong arguments and emotions both for and against.
That's because "immigration" in this country is actually veiled dilution of the worker pool, externalizing costs, lazy, inflation of limited resources and thereby self-perpetuating wealth creation, deflates source country pressures for improvement, and drains talent from other places.
It is a pernicious practice all around and only advantages the wealthy of the destination country, i.e., USA. It's destructive, poisoning, and exploitative all around for everyone else.
I am an immigrant, and coming here was constructive, sustaining and a very positive thing for me. I got a graduate degree here, and then started a startup that employs several people, enables our users to to access transportation much more easily (and in some cases safely) millions of times every year. I don't see how me coming to the United States has been a net loss for anyone.
I know (personally) at least 100 other people like me.
Not to speak on behalf of GP, but I think the issue is not you as a successful permanent immigrant, but the way the system holds other potential immigrants out and permits some only on short-term visas who then get dumped back to their places of origin.
"immigration" in this country....[is] destructive, poisoning, and exploitative all around for everyone else.
GP didn't single out immigrants who come here on short-term visas, but even if he had, I came here on a short term visa, and so did every single one of the 100 people I referred to. It is true that many had to go back to their places of origin. In some cases they suffered because of it, although I'd argue their place of origin benefited. In some cases they started startups after returning, and both they and their place of origin benefited.
Are you sure? Because at least in the conservative spheres I pay attention to (admittedly of the less populist variety) almost no one opposes skilled visa expansion. All the light and heat is about legalization. I get the impression that if President Obama went on TV tomorrow and said "Comprehensive immigration reform is a bridge too far right now. Let's simplify and expand the process of legal immigration for skilled workers", then he'd have a bill on his desk in a week.
The actual answer is much less colorful than the other answers in this thread. Increasing the number of visas for skilled workers is not that controversial. The problem is that it's part of a more general immigration bill, which is controversial.
The devil is in the details. What constitutes a "skilled" worker? The selling point of the H-1B program was that there really were high-paying jobs available that absolutely nobody state side was stepping up to the plate for, so they needed to bring in skilled immigrants who had the chops to take on these high-paying jobs. The imagery was that America's Best Companies were stalling because they couldn't find the "best and brightest."
Evidence suggests otherwise (http://www.epi.org/publication/bp356-foreign-students-best-b...). Now, I'm not saying you can't find H-1Bs with high salaries or genius intellects. The study linked simply says it's not a majority of the people coming in. Most of them are decidedly not "best and brightest" and certainly aren't pulling six figures annually. That is, the program isn't being used for its stated purpose. Rather, it certainly seems that the goal is _not_ to find local talent, even if it's there (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCbFEgFajGU), because one wants to manipulate the meaning of "prevailing wage" and "qualified worker" to suit a lower labour cost margin.
As well, there are other economic indicators to consider. If there really is a widespread tech shortage you'd expect wages to rise. And you can see various market niches' wages spike at certain localized times of labor shortage. But you don't find high and increasing wages across the board, sustained for years at a time. That is, one of the key indicators of a crippling shortage, simply isn't there. The low unemployment rate in tech hubs like Silicon Valley is further perplexing in the face of a claim that the talent can't be found. When companies like Facebook whinge about having a hard time finding top talent, I get the feeling they're really just making an observation that finding people at the extreme of a bell curve is hard. Increasing the sample population doesn't make that search appreciably easier.
Mixed in with all of these observations, you'll typically find smaller details that make sense, even if they are latched onto bigger ideas that don't. A common objection is that of sending newly graduated foreigners back to their countries of origin rather than letting them stay here. I'd say it's a no-brainer they should be permitted to stay indefinitely. But that doesn't mean it's a no-brainer that we should rubber-stamp every single person with a tech background into an H-1B slot.
It's interesting to me that EPI is doing research/PR against expanding skilled visas. They're more or less a think tank/advocacy group for organized labor (check out their board of directors). Would they have a different agenda if the tech industry were more unionized?
Anyway, who cares if there's a "shortage" or not? If you're going to contribute hundreds of thousands of dollars to GDP, come on in! We'll find something for you to do!
The whole point of the study was that the majority of folks coming in on visa programs like the H-1B aren't "going to contribute hundreds of thousands of dollars to GDP." We already have O visa programs for those kinds of individuals. Out of 65,000 H-1B applicant slots every year, I'd expect to see bigger economic waves if all of them were contributing hundreds of thousands or even millions to GDP.
Is there something wrong with the methodology of the study? I have a great deal of disdain for libertarian front groups like the Heritage Foundation and CATO Institute, but I don't immediately dismiss any study they come out with by virtue of their Boards. Mistaking the presence of an agenda for deliberate scientific dishonesty seems excessive; that the data may align with or contradict one's bias doesn't invalidate it either way.
A) Your argument against H-1B's is disingenuous at best. And I'm curious, are you against expanding H-1B's but in favor of increasing the amount of low-skill immigrants and/or granting citizenship to illegal immigrants? If so, how do you reconcile your seemingly-contradictory stances?
B) Heritage is staunchly conservative, NOT libertarian.
>B) Heritage is staunchly conservative, NOT libertarian.
Apologies. I often find myself lumping them together. Granted, I see themselves lumping each other together as well when it's convenient, but that's beside the point.
>A) Your argument against H-1B's ... against expanding H-1B's ...
What argument against H-1Bs? I made the observation that the rhetoric of seeking out the "best and brightest" was largely unsubstantiated. I'm not against granting visas to highly skilled workers. I'd prefer we dispensed with the temporary, company-locked permission slips and proceeded directly to green card, or at least a long-term visa that didn't tie them to a sponsor and had a clear default path to citizenship should the bearer pursue it. My observation was that the "devil is in the details." Specifically the nature of what constitutes "skilled," particularly within the context of the rhetoric that drives the H-1B.
> ... but in favor of increasing the amount of low-skill immigrants and/or granting citizenship to illegal immigrants?
I don't have an issue with the presence of low-skill immigrants either and don't have a problem granting them visas. The rules behind work visas for "low-skill" labour are just as out of whack as they are for highly skilled labour. As for amnesty, I don't see much of a point in granting illegal immigrants automatic citizenship, primarily because a majority of illegal immigrants don't really want it. I'm sure they'd prefer not having to live in fear of ICE, but whether they wanted to be a citizen or not is another matter completely.
Though of course, comparing highly skilled labour with low-skill labour isn't an apples to apples comparison. Migrant labour isn't so much an immigration issue as it is an international economics issue. Which leads into what you're really asking me:
> how do you reconcile your seemingly-contradictory stances?
The real question you seem to have for me is far broader than "should we let highly skilled foreigners into our country if we cannot find a suitable native citizen to take the role?" Your question is one of what the role of immigrants are in a country. Under what basis are we to let people in? What does it mean to be a citizen and not just a tourist? Better yet, what is the motivation of someone who wants to immigrate? Why are they uprooting themselves?
I'm not an expert on this issue either but I think you're understanding it correctly. There are interest groups on both the left (protectionist labor unions) and the right (nativists) who are hostile to immigrant workers, in both high-skilled and blue collar positions. The "3 dimensional vulcan chess" approach here is an attempt to get congress to actually vote on the law even though it pisses off some entrenched groups. Its really really hard to get congress to do anything at all, let alone do something that pisses off some of the activists in the party bases.
Leaving FWD.us has nothing to do with immigration. Zuck's political advocacy group FWD.us also funnels money to http://www.americansforaconservativedirection.com/ -- Which also advocates for the Keystone XL pipeline and more drilling etc. (And also the mostly DOA 'Gang-of-8' Republican plan for Immigration reform)
US politics is pretty cynical, but not quite cynical enough to blatantly play both sides like this.
I'm speculating here, but I think you're wrong and that this is exactly playing both sides. To me it looks like a quid pro quo arrangement where FWD.us helps a conservative cause (the pipeline) in exchange for cooperation for a immigration reform. Keep an eye on it. I'd expect to see some political grease applied to a liberal cause in the near future too. I think their game plan is to basically buy favors with senators until they've got enough votes to pass a law they actually care about.
Can someone explain to me why otherwise intelligent people are so deliberately ignorant on this issue? Rich bastards want to screw ordinary people. That's it. That is all you need to know. It's dead simple. It's freshmen economics. More workers=lower wages. This has been going on for centuries.
From my understanding, part of the controversy stems from FWD.us stating in general terms that they are lobbying for "immigration reform", but in actuality, they are lobbying for a very specific type of immigration reform, one that would only benefit tech companies looking for highly skilled and foreign (cheaper) labor.
FWD.us isn't advocating to solve the larger immigration issues the US already faces (a clear and present issue that needs resolution), but is merely taking advantage of a political situation to further their own interests.
High skilled immigration is an issue that is a lot simpler where there is a lot more agreement. It ought to be much easier to move on that without considering the issuance of green cards to 7% of the population of Mexico.
I also applaud Elon for sticking to his guns and taking his philanthropy elsewhere. Tech people and VCs especially know that big problems are worth solving more than small boutique problems.
Tech people and VCs especially know that big problems are worth solving more than small boutique problems.
I almost threw up when I read this. Are you serious? What is it about tech people that makes us so wonderful? And why do you think the rest of the population is so simple minded?
Furthermore I thought the group Musk is leaving contains other tech people (at least as traditionally defined). Are you saying that since they do not see the big picture as Musk sees it that they are simple minded people not worthy of being called "tech people"? Do you think any of the people on the supporters page[1] are "true tech people that know big problems are worth solving"?
I'm glad words I never wrote caused you such a physical reaction! Hope your laptop survived.
I was referring to the new rich and the fact that a guy like Elon Musk isn't preoccupied with making a product like Snapchat or Pinterest. Instead him and Tesla have single-handedly realized the all-electric car as a consumer product with physical infrastructure, brand appeal, and impressive engineering. Oh and they're also solving a real global problem by doing this (carbon dioxide levels are currently at the highest levels in recorded human history).
And freakin space mining? Yes we will laugh at the idea today. It's a much loftier goal, it might not even take off, but approaches (somewhat) fixing the real problem of dwindling natural resources here on Earth.
Bill Gates? Ron Conway? PG? You certainly know these people, their accomplishments, and the lasting impacts they've made (among others on the list). I might not agree with their philanthropic desires for FWD.us, but I'm not going to dictate where others should spend their (well earned) fortunes.
I also applaud Elon for sticking to his guns and taking his philanthropy elsewhere. Tech people and VCs especially know that big problems are worth solving more than small boutique problems.
PS: I think you need to look up the definition of philanthropy.
The minimum salary for an H1-B software engineer in Silicon Valley is $84,000, which is on the low end of market but not egregiously low. You can check out the wage requirements here[1]
The best employees are very hard to find because they're always employed (for themselves or others) and when they do go looking for work, they rarely look through regular recruiting ads (since good workers know: these are a waste of your time). You either need to poach them, target them, acqui-hire them or encourage them to seek you out.
One of the easiest ways for the latter to occur is if they simply want a working holiday (very common for employees aged 25-35). Many people will try to get a job at large companies in an area they'd like to visit. But they'll expect you to help with their working visa.
Even if you're poaching, targeting or acqui-hiring, you need to be able to bring the employees to your place of business. If they can't get a visa, you've wasted your time and money.
Do salary deltas of even 100k make a substantial difference to the bottom line for large tech companies like FB and GOOG? Of course the difference is greater than zero but as a percentage of operating cost I imagine it's relatively small.
My guess is large tech companies are eager to import foreign talent primarily because of cultural and socioeconomic differences. Who would you rather hire to maintain your legacy code bases? A skilled immigrant that's thankful for the six figure salary and will obediently complete their tasks without much fuss? Or the native-English-speaking citizen who can find a six figure salary at any of his friends' companies and will walk as soon as the legacy codebase's tech stack starts to reveal itself as less-than-inspiring?
I'm sure they aren't paying the minimum H1-B salary at places like Google or Facebook anyway. It would be odd for some employees to be making $84k and others to be making $120k.
This is not odd at all in work places. Salary has a huge correlation with the demand when you joined and how hard you negotiate. There's a reason employers try their best to keep salaries a secret.
If you find an awesome person, who you know will be great for your company, why should one have to beg the government to let them come? Finding another such person might take months, and might actually be impossible.
Really? Maybe, because it's better for the same price? Or maybe because it's the best available solution to a problem you have, regardless of price? Maybe it's because...
Interesting to note that Musk himself is an immigrant (born in SA). The Reuters article speculates that he quit over an unrelated matter - the FWD.us group sponsored ads for senators who supported drilling oil pipelines in Alaska which apparently did not sit well with Musk.
The pipeline that FWD.us has been touting would actually be in the "lower 48" --- it's the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, which would be intended to transport a particularly dirty form of petrochemicals ("diluted bitumen", which is something like sand soaked in crude oil) across sensitive land (some proposed routes have it going over the Oglalla aquifer, which is a major reservoir for American agriculture).
Wait, is the objection about the safety of the pipeline (Why is it less safe than any of a dozen other pipelines?) or the facilitation of carbon emissions from burning the contents of the pipeline?
Forgive me for being blunt, but most pipeline opponents seem to emphasize the former when what they really object to is the latter.
Not really, just saying that if there are so many leaks causing damages - questioning it is the least that can be done. May be the current capacity is enough and they could do more towards guaranteeing / eliminating leaks before building new ones. I don't know - just think that blindly accepting the leaks seems wrong.
"Opponents of the Keystone XL have stressed the environmental damage they say the pipeline would cause in the Sand Hills area, especially due to an increase in greenhouse gas emissions and the destabilization of sensitive ecosystems."
I don't know how the pipelines fit FWD.us's agenda. Is it possible they were just supporting senators that supported immigration reform but also happened to support the pipeline? If so, it is kinda hard to blame the group.
It's right there in the article. They funded ads for senators that support immigration reform, but the ads also touted the candidate's general positions, which included supporting the pipeline. Paying for an ad that touted support of the pipeline was likely the problem, not that they supported the pipeline at all.
It's called consensus building. In the US, bills are often riddled with bits and pieces of pork barrel legislation that have nothing to do with the intent of the bill. In this case, FWD.us is trying to butter up these senators and representatives by advertising for something they want in hopes that the congressmen will return the favor when it comes time to vote for immigration "reform."
This is actually an example of providing political cover.
Immigration reform is not popular with conservatives, therefore politicians with conservative electorates (like Rubio, Graham, and Begich) might lose their next election if they vote for it. This makes them less likely to vote for it.
Running ads in conservative areas to promote immigration reform will not help; the dislike is too deeply held. FWD.us does not have nearly enough money or time to change such ingrained cultural beliefs.
So instead they run ads supporting the politicians on issues that conservatives already like--like energy development--to try to strengthen the conservative credentials of these politicians. That way the politicians will hopefully feel more secure in their seats, and therefore more comfortable with taking a risk by voting for immigration reform.
The hard part of this strategy is that you might have to run ads supporting things you personally disagree with, simply because it's a good political tactic. Musk probably decided that he cares about getting off oil more than he cares about passing immigration reform, so the balance was backward for him.
I like Elon Musk more every day. Someone who makes cool products that look to improve the quality of life for everyone, while still making some decent money from it. It would have been sad if he had not bailed when the group started pushing an agenda that was counter to his ideals.
The group supported a number of senators' stances on immigration reform, some of whom also happened to support expanding pipelines for gas production. Elon Musk, CEO of an electric car company, decides to leave the group. Not much dot-connecting required here.
Why the need for these three dimensional Vulcan chess tactics if that's the goal?
My guess is because labor unions and the Democrats (generally) don't want to expand visas for skilled workers without "comprehensive" legalization. But I am definitely biased so I would not at all mind an alternative explanation.