I mean, it's the same argument for indentured service, which today is considered morally reprehensible. The point is not that the people who took that choice knew the risks they were taking. The point that the kind of situation H1B puts you into in its current form is not one that should exist, even if by choice.

But it is also true that many folks are not aware of these risks. I have many friends in the States on H1B, many are completely unaware of this. Most have good employers so I doubt this will be a problem, but there's not as much awareness as there should be.

> I mean, it's the same argument for indentured service

Everytime there is an article about H1B, people start flinging "slavery" and "indentured servants". Please be honest and don't analogize H1B hurdles (which I agree exist) to situations where people were actually killed.

Making an analogy does not mean equating the two. I'm specifically making an analogy between the "hey, you chose to do it" arguments that historically supported indenture and are currently supporting the unsavory bits of H1B. These arguments are similar. They share the fallacy of avoiding nuance in the choice (some people aren't fully aware of the choice. Some people may want to change their minds once they've settled in but can't do so easily), and they also share the fallacy of making choice matter in the first place -- people aren't saying that H1B workers don't choose this, people are saying that it's bad to make them choose it in the first place.

If you don't like the indentured servitude example, take minimum wage. If it didn't exist, many people would still be ok with being paid less. We have collectively decided that that is a bad thing. We have collectively decided that underpaying people is bad even if they choose to be okay with it. We don't say "hey, you chose an underpaying job over no job at all, you can't complain about it".

Choice is a red herring in these discussions. Nobody is saying that H1B workers were forced into this. Folks are well aware they made a choice. That does not affect the argument that part of the "con" side of the choice is something that shouldn't exist in our society. You're free to disagree with that argument, but the "folks chose it" is not a rebuttal because that was never the premise.

Actually, there's threats and downsides to the H-1B that AFAIK are not documented, so there is no way an employee can learn about them and make a rational choice -- other than hiring their own immigration lawyer and having them step through the bad scenarios.

A lot of people on this thread sound like they've come nowhere near close to one of the bad scenarios, and have no awareness of them.

We respectfully disagree on this. You make valid points and thankfully it's not hyperbole.

I see the practical side of things, which is either I take it or leave it, as I have no vote in this matter. And if I'm taking it, I'm making sure that I develop my skill set so that I make myself invaluable in future employment or if I venture on my own (and this doesn't have to be in the US), rather than wasting my brain cycles and waiting for this elusive piece of paper from the US government.

> I see the practical side of things, which is either I take it or leave it

I think you're seeing it from a personal POV, where you have a tradeoff where you've made a valid choice with what you have found to be a net gain. And you did explicitly mention that you're speaking for yourself initially. This is all a fine POV to have and I mostly agree with it; I know many people who have made a similar analysis and come to similar resolutions.

My point is about "I've said this in previous posts as well, nobody forces you to take an H1B, you chose to take it", which is a more general statement about all H1B takers. I find it a bad precedent to set to accept that kind of argument; because like I said the discussion isn't about choice in the first place (and accepting such arguments distracts the decision). Like I said, it's fine to disagree with "H1B putting employees on a leash should be stopped", just don't use choice as an argument there :)

How were you aware of all the risks involved? Did you hire your own immigration lawyer (NOT the company-retained one) and have them go through it with you? If so, then that's very wise. If you didn't, I very much doubt you knew of all the risks, since some I've never seen documented. I really think if you had one of the rough times on the H-1B, you wouldn't be so caviler.

I spoke to my older brother (who left once his H1B was over, as he never wanted to stay here long term) and my seniors in grad school who explained all the intricacies; of course I never understood every single detail. But what I understood was getting a GC for an Indian citizen is a long wait. Frankly, I am okay leaving the US if I have to if I fall into any of the pitfalls. I don't have sleepless nights over it.

And BTW, I got my H1B in the 2008 lottery and had to go through lean times during the recession. So it's not as if I've had a smooth ride all along.

What was the worst risk you learned about?

- Being out of status

- Indefinite wait for a GC for Indian citizens

- Not being able to start your own business (there are caveats)

You weren't aware of the risks. There's much worse than that.

I am not a lawyer, and the following is not legal advice: get your own (experienced) immigration lawyer, and ask them about what I've heard one lawyer call "cost-effective employee retention plans". It can include threatening to unfairly ruin an employee's chances of ever getting another US visa if they leave the company. As in, you may never set foot in the US again. I'm not sure people can relate to how horrible this is unless you've unfortunately lived through it.

That's the reason in my posts I always made a distinction between legitimate company vs shady consultants.

Unless you do something nefarious (spying, stealing etc.) no legitimate company would go after someone. And thinking about it logically, the company has to spend a lot of resources to prove this in the first place. "Innocent until proven guilty"

I believe there are some legitimate companies that treat visa workers well (like the company I work for), but I'd still be a bit careful. You can join what you think is a legitimate company, and then they are sold to someone else. When I joined Sun Microsystems, it seemed like a solid company that would be around forever. Sold in 2010.

> And thinking about it logically

Oh no.

My #1 advice to potential visa workers would be to get your own immigration lawyer. My #2 advice would probably be to stop reasoning about things logically. What matters is the law.

You're implying that it's illogical a company would go after someone like this. I know for a fact they do. And, it's illogical. Knowing it's illogical is little comfort for those visa workers hurt by it.

> the company has to spend a lot of resources

Not necessarily. In one situation (I don't want to describe in detail here), it requires almost zero effort from the employer. And I know for a fact it happens.

> Sun Microsystems, it seemed like a solid company that would be around forever. Sold in 2010

I don't understand, what's the issue when the company gets sold? What bearing does that have on your visa apart from the change of employer filing? If Oracle bought Sun (two legitimate companies), it would be a change of employer which is a straightforward process, or am I missing something?

Standard note: I'm not a lawyer...

You were making the point of choosing a legitimate company vs a shady company, as a way to mitigate risk. Which is a good idea. But it's also worth noting that -- especially in the tech industry -- a good company one day can be bought by a shady company the next. (Although I'm not saying Oracle is shady, I didn't stick around long enough to find out.)

Also, if a company doesn't purchase all assets and liabilities (happened to one company I know of last month), and instead acquires pieces, then it may not be a straightforward change of employer.