I would think that nothing is stopping her from owning the business or even running it if she moves abroad. It's just her working in US that's in question.
If the business truly is profitable, perhaps she could promote one of her 15 employees to run it.
This isn't about xenophobia. This is about people making promises they shouldn't be making in the first place and others misunderstanding the rights and status their visa gives them.
USCIS started cracking down on Silicon Valley companies with > 15% H1Bs last week.
Looks like H1Bs are currently fucked. There're no more premium processing, meaning transfers will take > 6 months, so you could possibly find a new job but if your transfer gets rejected for whatever reason, you will need to leave the country. And in this climate who knows what will happen in 6 months?
So H1Bs no longer have any mobility, no new H1Bs can get hired, and Green Card processing probably will be even harder. I wonder what that's going to do to the job market in SV, will jobs become easier for non-H1Bs, or will it cut down on the number of jobs altogether?
I guess Trump is really getting his revenge on SV now.
> So H1Bs no longer have any mobility, no new H1Bs can get hired, and Green Card processing probably will be even harder. I wonder what that's going to do to the job market in SV, will jobs become easier for non-H1Bs, or will it cut down on the number of jobs altogether?
I'm not in the Bay Area, but this is extremely relevant in my situation. How is the hiring landscape outside of Amazon/Google/Microsoft/Facebook for potential H1Bs?
edit: ...or is this just panic that I'm reading way into on HN?
That's rough for the immigrants, but a company with >15% H1B visa holders is abusing the system and displacing American workers. The purpose of the program is to bring in the best of the best, not ship them in & use them for cheap labor.
So, if they find the best of the best, you're saying you want to force companies to hire enough American dead weight to keep their numbers looking nice?
I'm saying the use of foreign labor, both within the US and outside, is a large reason why wages are stagnant for the lower and middle class. Exploitation of the H1B visa program is one way this has been happening.
The demand for cheap labor hasn't changed though, so even if H1B visas were gone tomorrow, it would just mean companies would move or hire abroad, not higher wages for Americans.
It's like shoes. Why not manufacture shoes in America and pay the workers good, living wages? Because no one would buy the shoes, because the cost would be so much higher than those of competitors that can make the shoes for much less abroad.
It's the same with software. Many East and Southeast Asian countries have large populations of hard working, highly educated people willing to work for less. That's the force causing wage stagnation. It doesn't really matter that much if we let them come to the US or not (though letting them come helps keep big companies in the US).
At some point we need to put lower and middle class growth ahead of upper class growth. Wealth inequality is growing insanely fast, and only very few are benefiting the growing economy. What does it matter if big companies are in the US if the majority of people don't benefit from its growth?
Sure, I agree with the goal (wealth distribution), but not the means, because forcing companies to pay above market wages just makes the companies non-competitive. Any jobs it gives to Americans will be lost long term when the company goes under.
The means I support would be raising taxes on rich people, then using that money for a UBI or (given that is a kind of pipe dream) subsidizing programs that benefit lower classes and the elimination of taxes of taxes that effect the lower classes most.
As to why it's good to have our companies be competitive? Lots of reasons. For one, our retirement funds, endowments and such depend on it. Further, a US based company outsourcing labor still creates more US jobs than a company wholly overseas. And those things contribute to the general health of the economy, which is important to the ever growing service sector of the US economy.
I agree that wealth distribution via taxes and UBI would be ideal, but I don't think it would ever get through our incredibly troubled political system.
>forcing companies to pay above market wages just makes the companies non-competitive.
I interpret this differently. Before outsourcing and union busting of the 70s and 80s, laborers made a very decent living doing basic work, and the companies made a profit. When those companies outsourced, their profits went through the roof because they exploited the lower cost of living and lack of environmental and labor laws. By bringing those jobs back into the US, the companies wouldn't be paying above market wages. They would be forced to give their fair share of the corporate earnings to the employee. Things are too skewed against the lower class right now.
"As a former consular officer, I must point out that Ms. Rampell is ill informed. There are two broad classifications of U.S. visas: immigrant and non-immigrant. Immigrant visa do confer legal immigrant status. Non-immigrant visas, as the name suggests, do not. They allow a person to enter the U.S. for a specific time and purpose.
H-1B are non-immigrant visas. Keerthi Ranjith, who is highlighted in the story, did not have an H1-B; she had an H4 visa, a visa for "dependent spouses of H-1B nonimmigrants" (see https://www.uscis.gov/working-united-states/tempor... Obviously, Ms Rampell did not do her due diligence. H1-B visa confer the right to enter the U.S. for a specific purpose (temporary employment for a specific employer) , but do not guarantee a permanent right to reside in the U.S. The U.S. Government made no such promise (even if her husband's employer made such a promise)."
In short, not an immigrant, did not have an immigrant visa.
So once again Washington Post tortures headlines (and indeed facts).
It's an opinion piece, and that's usually what everyone says, "It's an opinion piece, it's not news." I would hope a newspaper would require their opinion authors to verify their supporting information at least. I understand that opinion pieces are meant to sway readers one way or another, but they shouldn't be allowed by the company to be underhanded in doing so, willfully or not.
The piece of misinformation you cited wouldn't sway everyone, but at least readers would be free to decide themselves in an informed manner. I mean that's why I read stuff, to be informed, it makes it useful to me. It just goes to show how entertainment based (tabloid) US "news" has gotten (all denominations.)
I don't care if its an opinion piece, I care that its read as and promoted as being more like standard reporting. The line between opinion pieces and journalism, well, I'd say its blurry but I don't think it is anymore, I think its ceased to exist and that's a very bad thing indeed.
I want a banner on top that says something like "While WaPo is happy to give Mrs Rampall a platform to voice her opinion, we would like to remind our readers that this article is opinion and does not necessarily represent the views of WaPo and is not held to the same standards of journalism that WaPo holds its regular contributors."
Understood. And I get that this article touches on a topic of particular concern. And it is worth noting and discussing.
But for the sweet love of Darwin, can we please get an objective factual take on the situation instead of this partisan half true clickbait? Please? I really like this site. I don't want to see articles on the front page every day that are so intent on discrediting some political party that they stoop to any kind of half truth and use sensational rather than factual headlines.
I don't think you have the background knowledge about H1B and H4 visas. How the system worked is basically a person gets H1B visa, moves to US with his family. Or, has H1B visa and marries later. Now the spouse is under H4 visa. It means s/he cannot work till the person with H1B visa is very close to getting green card. Effectively, it means that the spouse has to stop career for close to 10 years.
Obama administration allowed H4 visa holders to work under certain conditions. Jeff Sessions (who is considered racist at worst, to racially insensitive at best) has no desire to support that resolution after it was challenged in court.
So this has not much to do with whether it is immigrant or non-immigrant visa.
The way the author tells the story is totally upside-down. You have to read through the text very carefully to figure out what really is happening in policy change. To the end, you still can't. You need to read a real report to learn what's really going on.
This is because US visa policy is complicated. Hard to make sense of it, if you have not been through the process... (or are for some reason very interested in it)
I think there is lot of confusion about what this policy change could mean.
Effective May 2015, there was a rule passed by USCIS which allows certain people on H4 visa to work. This visa category is granted to spouses of H1B. The rule does not allow all H4 visa holders work permit. It only allows certain people whose spouses have approved i-140 (Immigrant petition for alient worker).
So basically it allowed work permission for families who are on their way to be granted immigrant status (from H1B's non-immigrant status).
IMHO - no matter which side of debate you are on vis-a-vis H1B, this rule only enabled people to go from housewives to family member who can earn. Spouses of L1 visa for example could always work.
When this rule was enacted "SaveJobs" organization filed a plea which was rejected. afaict - they filed another plea in higher court, but this time department of justice (under new leadership) rather than fighting the appeal asked 60 day "pause" to make a decision if they want to contest it. If DOJ doesn't fight it - the EAD rule may get scrapped.
Exactly, and see how this comment on a comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14014531 (by user: mythrwy) in this page is getting upvoted. People here just want to believe that Washington Post "tortures headlines (and indeed facts)" without having any background knowledge about H1B and H4. So much hate for Washington Post here. I wonder why?
My friend, just so you don't have bad feelings let me clarify my position.
I personally think if a person is going to get a work visa in the USA and is allowed to bring their spouse, the spouse should also be able to work (or study or whatever). It seems a bit unfair to the spouse for it to be otherwise.
In answer to your question about "hate for Washington Post" I'll sum it up very simply. Rabidly partisan reporting that is often of questionable accuracy. Do not like to see on HN.
First of all, it ignores that the Obama administration tried to overrule a law with an Executive rule change, which is NOT legal.
So, example quotes:
1)
...the Trump administration may quietly revoke the ability
There is no legal ability to do this. Federal Court has already ruled Obama's action in this to be illegal.
2)
and are typically high-skilled themselves
Their example (Ranjith) wants to do afterschool tutoring.
3)
“All my employees,” Ranjith is quick to note, “are citizens, of course. They were all born here.”
There is no way she would know that. At most, they could all have claimed to be born in the US, but that's not necessary and is none of her business. In fact, it's illegal for her to even ask that.
4)
A lawsuit challenging the rule was filed in 2015 and recently landed in federal appeals court.
Appeals court means that the rule was already ruled illegal at the Federal District Court level. That's a big detail to leave out.
5)
A settlement with the plaintiffs would effectively allow Sessions to kill the rule
Actually, the rule is dead unless Sessions were to pursue an appeal and win (and be upheld if SCOTUS were to accept an appeal from there).
29 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 71.1 ms ] threadI would think that nothing is stopping her from owning the business or even running it if she moves abroad. It's just her working in US that's in question.
If the business truly is profitable, perhaps she could promote one of her 15 employees to run it.
Xenophobia isn't based in reason or rational consideration.
Looks like H1Bs are currently fucked. There're no more premium processing, meaning transfers will take > 6 months, so you could possibly find a new job but if your transfer gets rejected for whatever reason, you will need to leave the country. And in this climate who knows what will happen in 6 months?
So H1Bs no longer have any mobility, no new H1Bs can get hired, and Green Card processing probably will be even harder. I wonder what that's going to do to the job market in SV, will jobs become easier for non-H1Bs, or will it cut down on the number of jobs altogether?
I guess Trump is really getting his revenge on SV now.
I'm not in the Bay Area, but this is extremely relevant in my situation. How is the hiring landscape outside of Amazon/Google/Microsoft/Facebook for potential H1Bs?
edit: ...or is this just panic that I'm reading way into on HN?
It's like shoes. Why not manufacture shoes in America and pay the workers good, living wages? Because no one would buy the shoes, because the cost would be so much higher than those of competitors that can make the shoes for much less abroad.
It's the same with software. Many East and Southeast Asian countries have large populations of hard working, highly educated people willing to work for less. That's the force causing wage stagnation. It doesn't really matter that much if we let them come to the US or not (though letting them come helps keep big companies in the US).
The means I support would be raising taxes on rich people, then using that money for a UBI or (given that is a kind of pipe dream) subsidizing programs that benefit lower classes and the elimination of taxes of taxes that effect the lower classes most.
As to why it's good to have our companies be competitive? Lots of reasons. For one, our retirement funds, endowments and such depend on it. Further, a US based company outsourcing labor still creates more US jobs than a company wholly overseas. And those things contribute to the general health of the economy, which is important to the ever growing service sector of the US economy.
>forcing companies to pay above market wages just makes the companies non-competitive.
I interpret this differently. Before outsourcing and union busting of the 70s and 80s, laborers made a very decent living doing basic work, and the companies made a profit. When those companies outsourced, their profits went through the roof because they exploited the lower cost of living and lack of environmental and labor laws. By bringing those jobs back into the US, the companies wouldn't be paying above market wages. They would be forced to give their fair share of the corporate earnings to the employee. Things are too skewed against the lower class right now.
"As a former consular officer, I must point out that Ms. Rampell is ill informed. There are two broad classifications of U.S. visas: immigrant and non-immigrant. Immigrant visa do confer legal immigrant status. Non-immigrant visas, as the name suggests, do not. They allow a person to enter the U.S. for a specific time and purpose.
H-1B are non-immigrant visas. Keerthi Ranjith, who is highlighted in the story, did not have an H1-B; she had an H4 visa, a visa for "dependent spouses of H-1B nonimmigrants" (see https://www.uscis.gov/working-united-states/tempor... Obviously, Ms Rampell did not do her due diligence. H1-B visa confer the right to enter the U.S. for a specific purpose (temporary employment for a specific employer) , but do not guarantee a permanent right to reside in the U.S. The U.S. Government made no such promise (even if her husband's employer made such a promise)."
In short, not an immigrant, did not have an immigrant visa.
So once again Washington Post tortures headlines (and indeed facts).
The piece of misinformation you cited wouldn't sway everyone, but at least readers would be free to decide themselves in an informed manner. I mean that's why I read stuff, to be informed, it makes it useful to me. It just goes to show how entertainment based (tabloid) US "news" has gotten (all denominations.)
I want a banner on top that says something like "While WaPo is happy to give Mrs Rampall a platform to voice her opinion, we would like to remind our readers that this article is opinion and does not necessarily represent the views of WaPo and is not held to the same standards of journalism that WaPo holds its regular contributors."
But for the sweet love of Darwin, can we please get an objective factual take on the situation instead of this partisan half true clickbait? Please? I really like this site. I don't want to see articles on the front page every day that are so intent on discrediting some political party that they stoop to any kind of half truth and use sensational rather than factual headlines.
It's killing me here.
Obama administration allowed H4 visa holders to work under certain conditions. Jeff Sessions (who is considered racist at worst, to racially insensitive at best) has no desire to support that resolution after it was challenged in court.
So this has not much to do with whether it is immigrant or non-immigrant visa.
Here is a video posted on the website of groups fighting for removal of H4 work permit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kyh_q4uxG4o
"Is the principal beneficiary of an approved Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker;"[1]
https://www.uscis.gov/working-united-states/temporary-worker...
[0] https://www.uscis.gov/working-united-states/temporary-worker...
Effective May 2015, there was a rule passed by USCIS which allows certain people on H4 visa to work. This visa category is granted to spouses of H1B. The rule does not allow all H4 visa holders work permit. It only allows certain people whose spouses have approved i-140 (Immigrant petition for alient worker).
So basically it allowed work permission for families who are on their way to be granted immigrant status (from H1B's non-immigrant status).
IMHO - no matter which side of debate you are on vis-a-vis H1B, this rule only enabled people to go from housewives to family member who can earn. Spouses of L1 visa for example could always work.
When this rule was enacted "SaveJobs" organization filed a plea which was rejected. afaict - they filed another plea in higher court, but this time department of justice (under new leadership) rather than fighting the appeal asked 60 day "pause" to make a decision if they want to contest it. If DOJ doesn't fight it - the EAD rule may get scrapped.
I personally think if a person is going to get a work visa in the USA and is allowed to bring their spouse, the spouse should also be able to work (or study or whatever). It seems a bit unfair to the spouse for it to be otherwise.
In answer to your question about "hate for Washington Post" I'll sum it up very simply. Rabidly partisan reporting that is often of questionable accuracy. Do not like to see on HN.
First of all, it ignores that the Obama administration tried to overrule a law with an Executive rule change, which is NOT legal.
So, example quotes:
1)
There is no legal ability to do this. Federal Court has already ruled Obama's action in this to be illegal.2)
Their example (Ranjith) wants to do afterschool tutoring.3)
There is no way she would know that. At most, they could all have claimed to be born in the US, but that's not necessary and is none of her business. In fact, it's illegal for her to even ask that.4)
Appeals court means that the rule was already ruled illegal at the Federal District Court level. That's a big detail to leave out.5)
Actually, the rule is dead unless Sessions were to pursue an appeal and win (and be upheld if SCOTUS were to accept an appeal from there).etc.