|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: nationalism and morality.
|
Anyuta
Shipmate
# 14692
|
Posted
Background:
H-1B visas are used to hire foreign workers in a profession (such as tech) where there are (supposedly) no qualified Americans to do the job.
there is no law to require companies to first try to find Americans.
Many middle aged US Tech workers are out of work, and frustrated that companies jump straight to H-1B rather than hiring them (even though they are equally or better qualified).
There was a radio broadcast where this issue was discussed. One proposal that was presented was to make it a legal requirement for companies to prove that they tried to, but were unable to find qualified Americans before going the H-B1 route.
But my topic is not about whether this is true, or the right path to take.. my question is focused on a quote by a politician proposing such a law:
"it ought to be no more than a moral requirement, but not everyone lives up to the morality of putting America first"
My issue is not with the law (which seems reasonable), but with the idea that somehow it's a MORAL issue (or should be).
What do y'all think? is it immoral to not "put America" (Or insert name of your country) first?
is there a moral imperative to preferentially treat citizens of your country? not just a legal imperative or common sense or patriotic or water, but specifically MORAL?
I personally don't think so, but would love to hear other arguments on this topic.
if it is a moral issue, what is the basis for this? and is it based on citizenship or ethnicity? do I have a moral obligation to put other Russians first, other citizens of the US, other women? other biologists... where are the lines?
I suppose one could argue that it's an extension of the idea of putting your family first. most people would agree that there is some level of moral imperative to take care of your own. but how far do you expand that?
Posts: 764 | From: USA | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
IconiumBound
Shipmate
# 754
|
Posted
It's not necessarily a moral issue. Rather than the question of hiring foreign help, how about the hiring of younger workers and putting older workers out to pasture. This seems to be a question of fairness. Can't the business owner do what is best for his company? I recall that Jesus had a story about "fairness"; Mt 20:1-15.
Posts: 1318 | From: Philadelphia, PA, USA | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
I don't see it as a moral requirement at all. If anything the opposite. I don't think we have a moral right to stop people living and working where they want. And I'm a Christian. We're particularly commanded by God to treat strangers and foreigners as well as ourselves.
quote:
Originally posted by Anyuta:
Many middle aged US Tech workers are out of work, and frustrated that companies jump straight to H-1B rather than hiring them (even though they are equally or better qualified).
I'm always suspicious of this claim. If there really are local people competent to do the job there must be some other reason that the bosses won't hire them. Find out what that reason is and fix it.
[ 21. February 2013, 17:25: Message edited by: ken ]
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
I do find it rather strange when politicians appeal to the morality of patriotism. The idea that the government claims to seek to protect its own people, and yet is willing to allow many of its citizens to live in dire poverty (because of the requirements of the market, and often through no fault of their own), is indefensible.
Putting one's own citizens first must begin at the top with a total commitment to the well being of everyone. Of course, I am well aware that some people bring poverty on themselves, but it seems that true patriotism must always bow the knee to economics.
And there seems to be a kind of cognitive dissonance at times of militarily inspired jingoism. The government talks about protecting its people, while pursuing domestic policies that drive its own people out of work and into hardship. One thinks of Thatcherism and the Falklands War, for example, or Bush and the Iraq War.
It seems to me at times, that "Britain" and "America" are just codes for "the elite of Britain" and "the elite of America" (and sod everyone else!).
[ 21. February 2013, 17:26: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
The government talks about protecting its people, while pursuing domestic policies that drive its own people out of work and into hardship. One thinks of Thatcherism and the Falklands War.
Where's the connexion? Surely trying to prevent 2,000-odd British subjects from being residents of a fascist dictatorship is avoiding hardship?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og, King of Bashan
Ship's giant Amorite
# 9562
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I don't see it as a moral requirement at all. If anything the opposite. I don't think we have a moral right to stop people living and working where they want. And I'm a Christian. We're particularly commanded by God to treat strangers and foreigners as well as ourselves.
Does this also apply to outsourcing work to other countries?
--------------------
"I like to eat crawfish and drink beer. That's despair?" ― Walker Percy
Posts: 3259 | From: Denver, Colorado, USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
In a way I do believe it is moral except that my beloved Atlanta Braves should have dibs on foreign ball players.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't
Where's the connexion? Surely trying to prevent 2,000-odd British subjects from being residents of a fascist dictatorship is avoiding hardship?
Yes, it is. And in fact, I supported the Falklands War.
But I was using that as an example of an appeal to patriotism. Now how is it possible to turn that appeal into a moral imperative while pursuing policies that are damaging to other citizens?
If there is a moral aspect to patriotism, surely it should apply to economic policies as well as to military adventures?
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
But I was using that as an example of an appeal to patriotism. Now how is it possible to turn that appeal into a moral imperative while pursuing policies that are damaging to other citizens?
I see. As someone who reckons that 'there was no alternative', I'm afraid I take a rather different view on whether 'damage' was caused. But YMMV and all that.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I'm always suspicious of this claim. If there really are local people competent to do the job there must be some other reason that the bosses won't hire them. Find out what that reason is and fix it.
The usual claim is that H1-Bs from India (it's usually India when these claims circulate) are willing to work for significantly less money than the middle-aged American expects. The law requires an H1-B holder to be paid at least some local prevailing wage for the kind of work he's doing, but in practice it's fairly easy for an employer to choose to describe a prospective immigrant's job functions so that they fall into a "cheap" category.
Personally, I am very much in favor of an open-borders approach to immigration and of hiring the best applicant for the job regardless of his nationality. I might be persuaded that there's a case to limit immigration for low-skilled jobs in order to protect low-skilled natives against a massive influx of labor driving down their wages, but I am not persuaded that that is at all necessary in the case of the highly-skilled.
As a starting point, I would allow completely free immigration for anyone taking a job which pays more than twice the median wage for the state, and allow citizenship once the person had filed five annual tax returns over a seven-year period showing that he had earned twice the state median. Something similar to that, anyway.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
The government talks about protecting its people, while pursuing domestic policies that drive its own people out of work and into hardship. One thinks of Thatcherism and the Falklands War.
Where's the connexion? Surely trying to prevent 2,000-odd British subjects from being residents of a fascist dictatorship is avoiding hardship?
That was the effect on the 2,000 or so Falklanders. The effect on the 60 million residents of the UK was different.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
The usual claim is that H1-Bs from India (it's usually India when these claims circulate) are willing to work for significantly less money than the middle-aged American expects.
The fix for that isn't immigration control. Its trade unions, basic business ethics, trade unions, minimum wage laws, trade unions, transparent accounting practices, trade unions, and trade unions.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
hilaryg
Shipmate
# 11690
|
Posted
As a foreign worker in the US with a visa (not H1B), I am also sceptical of the claim that companies go straight to recruiting foreign workers and not considering US workers. H1B has an annual cap of numbers issued, so if you apply after that year's limit of visas has been reached, you have to wait until the next year to try again. The cap for THIS year's visas was reached in June LAST year. What employer is going to wait that long to get their employee?
So I believe, given the cost (immigration lawyers, some degree of relocation expenses) and time, companies really only resort to H1B when they genuinely cannot find suitable "local" candidates for the job. It's more efficient to set up offices in the countries providing the talent.
I don't see companies have any moral obligation to employ anyone other than the best people they can find to do the job, regardless of gender, age, sexual orientation, religion, race etc, but it makes business sense for them to be as local as possible. I do think they have a moral obligation to the community in which they situate, but that isn't limited to employment opportunities. To my mind it includes suppliers, support for community activities & charities, treating the environment with respect, engaging with local authorities in matters of infrastructure, offering educational & training opportunities for schools & students. A good employer will do all of those things, and I have been fortunate to work for such companies in the UK.
Posts: 261 | From: back home in England | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel" Dr Johnson
When it's pleaded, one should at least check the silver.
If it is really true that people with as good or greater skills as US citizens, skills which in this case are very marketable in their own country, are willing to migrate half way across the world and bear US overheads, living costs, rent etc so as to work for less than US skilled workers, the other possible implication just could perhaps be that US citizens with those skills are overpricing themselves.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I'm always suspicious of this claim. If there really are local people competent to do the job there must be some other reason that the bosses won't hire them. Find out what that reason is and fix it.
The reason is the very large difference between the cost of a software engineer from, say, India and one from the USA. The problem will be fixed, and the way it will be fixed is by dropping engineers in this country into the lower middle class.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anyuta:
"it ought to be no more than a moral requirement, but not everyone lives up to the morality of putting America first"
My issue is not with the law (which seems reasonable), but with the idea that somehow it's a MORAL issue (or should be).
What do y'all think? is it immoral to not "put America" (Or insert name of your country) first?
is there a moral imperative to preferentially treat citizens of your country? not just a legal imperative or common sense or patriotic or water, but specifically MORAL?
I would say that a business has a moral obligation not to screw over its own community in order to make a tad more money. And screwing over includes actions that promote unemployment with subsequent impoverishment in said community. Other than that, I don't see this as a moral issue. But that's a pretty big issue.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
hilaryg
Shipmate
# 11690
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I'm always suspicious of this claim. If there really are local people competent to do the job there must be some other reason that the bosses won't hire them. Find out what that reason is and fix it.
The reason is the very large difference between the cost of a software engineer from, say, India and one from the USA. The problem will be fixed, and the way it will be fixed is by dropping engineers in this country into the lower middle class.
The Indian software engineers are not allowed be paid less than American software engineers as this is not allowed under the H1B scheme. Employers have to agree to pay going rates in order to get the visas for their employees (although I have no doubt some companies may get creative on justifying where the H1B employees sit on the salary scale compared to other employees).
The cost to the employer of employing Indian software engineers is more than employing an American due to having to employ immigration lawyers, pay the fees to the USCIS and wait at least 6 months for the employee to be able to come to the US (and potentially pay airline costs, relocation fees etc). Immigrants and their employers still pay all the SS, Medicare taxes etc that citizens do (even though I will never be eligible to claim Medicare or SS), so they still cost the same on the payroll.
Its far more likely that if employers have a permanent deficit of software engineers, they will eventually open an office in India to do the job instead, and pay local rates there. That will cost a lot less.
Posts: 261 | From: back home in England | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hilaryg:
The Indian software engineers are not allowed be paid less than American software engineers as this is not allowed under the H1B scheme. Employers have to agree to pay going rates in order to get the visas for their employees (although I have no doubt some companies may get creative on justifying where the H1B employees sit on the salary scale compared to other employees).
The cost to the employer of employing Indian software engineers is more than employing an American due to having to employ immigration lawyers, pay the fees to the USCIS and wait at least 6 months for the employee to be able to come to the US (and potentially pay airline costs, relocation fees etc). Immigrants and their employers still pay all the SS, Medicare taxes etc that citizens do (even though I will never be eligible to claim Medicare or SS), so they still cost the same on the payroll.
Its far more likely that if employers have a permanent deficit of software engineers, they will eventually open an office in India to do the job instead, and pay local rates there. That will cost a lot less.
This is wildly out of synch with the data. HP fired essentially all of its software engineers when H-1Bs were first available and replaced them with Indian software engineers, which caused a bit less of a scandal that I was expecting it would at the time.
When H-1Bs required the manufacturer to try to find a US employee before hiring someone on an H-1B visa, the newspapers were filled with ads for generic software engineers who spoke fluent Farsi or what-have-you and -- unlike a typical ad -- they included the offering salary, which was always well below market price. The combination of highly-unusual requirements that were unrelated to software and very low wages was documented at the time as a routine industry practice for getting around the H-1B requirements. My hazy recollection is the ultimate response was to just do away with the requirement to hire Americans, but I am not sure of that.
BTW, the IEEE ended up creating a bit of a firestorm by initially objecting to the H-1B abuses. While the vast majority of IEEE members are Americans, it has pretensions to being an international organization. The engineers from abroad were outraged that their dues were being used to lobby against their interests, reasonably enough. FWIW
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
The rest of us can work out from the context that an H-1B visa is some sort of work permit. But what do USCIS, SS, and IEEE stand for please? And is HP, Hewlett Packard, or does it mean something else?
[ 22. February 2013, 16:19: Message edited by: Enoch ]
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
The rest of us can work out from the context that an H-1B visa is some sort of work permit. But what do USCIS, SS, and IEEE stand for please? And is HP, Hewlett Packard, or does it mean something else?
USCIS = US Citizen & Immigration Service
SS = Social Security (retirement benefits mostly)
IEEE = Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers
and yes, HP is Hewlett Packard. Sorry.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
hilaryg
Shipmate
# 11690
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
This is wildly out of synch with the data. HP fired essentially all of its software engineers when H-1Bs were first available and replaced them with Indian software engineers, which caused a bit less of a scandal that I was expecting it would at the time.
Do you have some references for that - how recent is your data? The H-1 program has been in place since the 1950s, and H-1B visas were first available in the early 1990s. There have been changes in regulations since then which may mean that situation with HP could not happen now. I can only go off what current regulations are - it may well have been that other things were going on at HP and the H-1B program conveniently took the blame.
quote:
When H-1Bs required the manufacturer to try to find a US employee before hiring someone on an H-1B visa, the newspapers were filled with ads for generic software engineers who spoke fluent Farsi or what-have-you and -- unlike a typical ad -- they included the offering salary, which was always well below market price. The combination of highly-unusual requirements that were unrelated to software and very low wages was documented at the time as a routine industry practice for getting around the H-1B requirements. My hazy recollection is the ultimate response was to just do away with the requirement to hire Americans, but I am not sure of that.
So they were specifically recruiting for engineers from Iran & Afghanistan? Presumably, if these advertisements were in US newspapers, they were recruiting folk already within the US? So they must already have had jobs, because the terms of the H-1B are that you have to leave the country if you leave your job, and you would not want to move to an H-1B visa if you already have another one - it's very restrictive and your spouse is not allowed to work.
I've typed out and snipped a load of other stuff about visas as all of this is a tangent to the original question - are or should American companies be morally obligated to try and employ Americans first?
My position being that it's a question in theory only as my experience is that American companies will try and employ Americans in America first simply because it's easier and cheaper when you factor in all costs not just salary. If American companies are not employing Americans, it will probably be due to other reasons, like lack of suitable candidates. Of the top 10 companies applying for H-1Bs, six had their headquarters outside of the USA, so is it such a big moral problem for American companies after all?
Posts: 261 | From: back home in England | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
Hi, Hilaryg. No, I don't have a dossier on the various abuses. I was aware of these things some years back. I will be retiring next month, so I just don't care any more about the ways that companies suppress wages. For people still contending with the job market, the vitiating of the middle class should be a real concern. AFAICS, companies have decided to enrich a few at the top at the expense of both shareholders and workers, and it's pretty much a done deal.
If we ever get a democracy back, I would hope that the voters would demand a government that would insist on a equitable distribution of wealth. The costs in the US assume that folks make a whole lot more money than people in most of the world. The companies seem to have recognized that they can sell their products at US prices while paying third-world wages, and by the time this country collapses, they can be retired to wherever is the next livable society. May they and the politicians they rode in on rot in Hell.
--Tom Clune
[ 22. February 2013, 18:39: Message edited by: tclune ]
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
jbohn
Shipmate
# 8753
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hilaryg:
So they were specifically recruiting for engineers from Iran & Afghanistan? Presumably, if these advertisements were in US newspapers, they were recruiting folk already within the US?
I think what Tom was getting at is that the employers would run the ads in U.S. papers to show they were "trying to recruit people already in the U.S." - of course, no one actually in the U.S. was qualified for the extensive and specific requirements, so they'd *have* to hire from overseas. A bonus was that the going rate for whatever they were defining the position as was pretty much whatever they said it was- there wasn't a market for "programmer fluent in Farsi" and such specifically.
[ 22. February 2013, 18:31: Message edited by: jbohn ]
--------------------
We are punished by our sins, not for them.
--Elbert Hubbard
Posts: 989 | From: East of Eden, west of St. Paul | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
hilaryg
Shipmate
# 11690
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
I think what Tom was getting at is that the employers would run the ads in U.S. papers to show they were "trying to recruit people already in the U.S." - of course, no one actually in the U.S. was qualified for the extensive and specific requirements, so they'd *have* to hire from overseas.
Ok, makes sense, thanks.
Tom is correct in that there is no current requirement to prove you've tried to recruit an American before applying for an H-1B visa. However, the employer does have to file an application with the Department of Labor at the same time they apply for the visa. The DoL application is on public record, and is supposed to show that you are not displacing an American, or depressing wages, or breaking a strike.
When you combine that with the current cap (and the fact that the cap is usually fulfilled within a few months of applications opening up for that Financial Year), I don't think that particular situation could arise to the same extent now.
I may be biased, being an immigrant worker myself, but I just don't see it being used to depress wages on the scale that Tom is talking about. In my particular case, my employers tried to fill my position in the USA for over a year. Eventually they took a look at existing employees in other countries and offered me the position instead. And we're 6 months into trying to recruit to fill another position in my team, and no nearer identifying a suitable candidate than we were on day 1.
In my job, I see the consulting companies we use outsourcing the work to companies in India, rather than bringing the staff from India over here.
Posts: 261 | From: back home in England | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hilaryg:
So they must already have had jobs, because the terms of the H-1B are that you have to leave the country if you leave your job, and you would not want to move to an H-1B visa if you already have another one - it's very restrictive and your spouse is not allowed to work.
If you want to immigrate, you want to move to an H-1B: it's about the only class of non-immigrant visa where it's permissible to have "dual intent". With most non-immigrant visas, you are explicitly required to plan to return to your home country once your term is up, and show evidence that this is likely to happen.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
hilaryg
Shipmate
# 11690
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
If you want to immigrate, you want to move to an H-1B: it's about the only class of non-immigrant visa where it's permissible to have "dual intent". With most non-immigrant visas, you are explicitly required to plan to return to your home country once your term is up, and show evidence that this is likely to happen.
Well, if we're talking employment based visas, L1 is also dual intent, and your spouse can work under their L2 visa. I also understand the various spousal/fiance/child non-immigrant K & V visas are dual intent. But I'm not a lawyer, only an L-1B holder. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posts: 261 | From: back home in England | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Us foreigners have been able to guess from context what an H-1B is, but now we've got L1, L1B, L2, K & V. What are these please?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
hilaryg
Shipmate
# 11690
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Us foreigners have been able to guess from context what an H-1B is, but now we've got L1, L1B, L2, K & V. What are these please?
They are all types of visa allowing people to live in the USA. I will refer you here for a full list.
Posts: 261 | From: back home in England | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hilaryg:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Us foreigners have been able to guess from context what an H-1B is, but now we've got L1, L1B, L2, K & V. What are these please?
They are all types of visa allowing people to live in the USA. I will refer you here for a full list.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
One hundred and eighty-eight different categories!!!!!!!!!
I think we've got somewhere between twenty and thirty, which is far more than ever before, and often thought to be too complicated and to put people off doing business here!
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
hilaryg
Shipmate
# 11690
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
One hundred and eighty-eight different categories!!!!!!!!!
I think we've got somewhere between twenty and thirty, which is far more than ever before, and often thought to be too complicated and to put people off doing business here!
It's a bit of an eye opener isn't it? Immigration is a whole different world, and if you've never been involved in it, it's easy to underestimate how difficult it can be.
As a British Subject/Citizen, I'm used to the idea that my passport gets me into virtually any country in the world that I want to go. However, as soon as you want to do anything other than visit, then doors slam shut pretty rapidly. It's actually pretty hard to get into the USA to work if you are British and want to do it legally and indefinitely.
I've no reason to think it's any easier going the other way. In fact I do know that if I was fortunate enough to meet someone here and get married, we'd now have a more difficult time getting permission for my husband to move to the UK, thanks to recent new rules about proving minimum income.
Posts: 261 | From: back home in England | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fool on the hill
Shipmate
# 9428
|
Posted
Anyuta, you don't happen to have a printed article about this radio broadcast do you? And what's the name of the politician you quoted? If you know
Posts: 792 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anyuta
Shipmate
# 14692
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
Anyuta, you don't happen to have a printed article about this radio broadcast do you? And what's the name of the politician you quoted? If you know
It was on NPR. It was actually a follow up to an earlier broadcast, where the journalist had stated that the H-1B required proof that the company tried to find an American to fill the job..which is not the case.
At the time I posted my op, there was no transcript at the NPR site, but there was a audio file of the article, which I used to verify the exact language of the quote. Didn't catch the pol's name, as it wasn't relevant to my question.
I will see if I can re locate it and will post a link if I can.
Posts: 764 | From: USA | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anyuta
Shipmate
# 14692
|
Posted
Found it. There is now a . Transcript
The pol. was SENATOR CHUCK GRASSLEY.
Posts: 764 | From: USA | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
Part (not all) of the issue is probably the reluctance of businesses of any kind to hire anyone over 40. That's why they made a law to forbid age discrimination for people over 40, although in many careers you bump in age discrimination more around 33.
When I was 38 with a newly minted went-back-for-it degree, awarded with various honors the job market supposedly valued, several interviewers told me I was too old. "You'd have a boss younger than you, that doesn't work." At 38, I was legally rejected solely because of age. At 40 they just have to not say that reason out loud.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
