The part that says "the outgoing administration" is demonstrably false. The facts are that the immigration policy of the US has not changed much under Obama (with a few notable exceptions like Cuba but that is not really related to the tech industry). Please stop spreading FUD.
The immigration policy is nonsensical, but Obama has little to do with it. Perhaps the only legitimate criticism you can make is that he was not able to reform it properly.
That is not correct. The G. W. Bush administration, just before leaving the office, gave all the legal immigrants "Job Mobility" (i.e., their H1B visa was not anymore tied to the employer). It is minor and easy step President could take under his executive power.
Reference for this? I see that Bush proposed something like this in 2004, but I can't find any reference for it ever having been implemented.
Bush Administration made the "priority date current" for a short window; this allowed legal immigrants waiting in the line for Permanent Residency to file and obtain 485-EAD.
https://www.murthy.com/2012/10/26/using-the-ead-as-an-option...
So, I tried to keep it simple by mentioning "job mobility".
The priority dates became current abruptly for a month in July 2007 (see [1], [2] and [3] for Visa Bulletins for Jun/Jul/Aug 2007; "C" means current, "U" means unavailable). This was also the time period when "labor substitution" [4] was possible - i.e the employer could substitute a new prospective employee in the place of another who has an approved labor certification. Together, this enabled many people on H-1B to get an EAD [5]. EADs offer more or less the same flexibility as Green Cards for the purpose of employment.
This is probably what suryacom meant.
Labor substitution provision has since been revoked.
[1] Visa bulletin for June 2007: https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/law-and-policy/bul...
[2] Visa bulletin for July 2007: https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/law-and-policy/bul...
[3] Visa bulletin for August 2007: https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/law-and-policy/bul...
[4] http://www.kenreyeslaw.com/blog/2014/october/labor-certifica...
[5] https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/green-card-processes-and-pr...
The incoming administration has targeted the H-1B program and thanks to their control of the legislative arm and their embrace of the "southern strategy" I would expect things to get significantly worse for H-1Bs, especially those with the wrong skin color.
Here is a concrete example of something the Obama administration - the executive arm - did actually do for H1Bs - clarifying that there is a 60 day grace prior for switching jobs:
https://www.uscis.gov/news/news-releases/uscis-publishes-fin...
It was not. Please see my sibling comment.
Furthermore, Obama administration has explicitly declined to allow such provisions despite being well aware of this situation and after publicly promising relief.
In a memo[1] dated 11/20/2014 (right after the President's State of the Union address [2]), Jeh Johnson (Secretary of Dept. of Homeland Security) stated:
As you know, our employment-based immigration system is
afflicted with extremely long waits for immigrant visas, or
"green cards," due to relatively low green card numerical limits
established by Congress 24 years ago in 1990.
...
The resulting backlogs for green cards prevent U.S. employers
from attracting and retaining highly skilled workers critical to
their businesses. U.S. businesses have historically relied on
temporary visas- such as H-1B, L-1B, or 0-1 visas-to retain
individuals with needed skills as they work their way through
these backlogs. But as the backlogs for green cards grow longer,
it is increasingly the case that temporary visas fail to fill
the gap.
...
To correct this problem, I hereby direct USCIS to take several
steps to modernize and improve the immigrant visa process.
> clarifying that there is a 60 day grace prior for switching jobs
Notice how little the actual action was compared to the lofty initial rhetoric.
[1]: Executive Action: Support High-skilled Business and Workers - https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/14_1120...
[2]: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/01/28/presi...
[3]: USCIS Publishes Final Rule For Certain Employment-Based Immigrant and Nonimmigrant Visa Programs - https://www.uscis.gov/news/news-releases/uscis-publishes-fin...
It is rather disappointing that more action has not been taken to remedy this increasingly byzantine process. Its rather frustrating to jump through all the hoops and then be told to wait for 10+ years for the legal right to work after having contributed thousands of dollars in taxes, social security etc.
Yes. The content of the actual rule can be found at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-11-18/pdf/2016-27540.p.... It says:
Nonimmigrants in certain high-skilled, nonimmigrant classifications may
be granted grace periods of up to 10 days before and after their validity
period, and a grace period upon cessation of employment on which the
foreign national’s classification was based, for up to 60 days or until the
end of their authorized validity period, whichever is shorter, during each
authorized validity period.
It is this conflation that hurts the legal immigrants the most. I believe if a bill was introduced to reform the legal immigration process to permit more highly skilled workers to immigrate more easily, neither of the houses (nor the public) would have a problem with it.
When the Democrat leadership argues for "comprehensive immigration reform" they are shooting down separating skilled from low-skilled immigration.
"Senate lawmakers who are most involved with immigration legislation--the so-called Gang of Eight--would prefer to see a comprehensive deal. That's also the position President Obama has taken. The trick lies in corralling enough Republicans to support a total-package process, as opposed to striking a set of smaller agreements. Carving out skilled immigration might lead to an easy bipartisan win, but it would give ammunition to piecemealers and risk fracturing the Gang of Eight."
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/03/democrat...
I disagree. I think that a lot of politicians would refuse to sign any legislation with the words "permit" and "immigrant" in them. The public at large as misinformed enough that they're probably right to do so, too, if they want to be re-elected.
Yes, the executive branch got stalled on immigration reform, but it was executive branch's choice to roll all of the issues (illegal immigration per se, illegal immigrants with children legally granted US citizenship status, illegal immigrants who overstayed their temporary worker visa, F1 students with no path to immigration status, H1 temporary workers who faced employment loss, immigrant investor green cards) into one giant overarching "immigration reform".
It certainly did not have to be approached that way, unless someone specifically was looking for a way to get blocked on such omnibus approach and then throw up their hands at "lack of cooperation".
This is true for many, many things under Obama. For those of us who elected him as a "change agent" we are largely disappointed.
The prevention mechanism is fairly obvious, and it's to rank the H1 applications by salary instead of the current lottery system. Genuine employers like Google or Facebook don't need to game the system, it's the outsourcing shops employ this tactic to boost the margins. They're welcome to join the game by boosting their salaries, though.
From the US government point of view a US salary paid in the US is a net win over a salary paid in Ireland or Switzerland, as it's still subject to federal income taxes, so net win on revenue.
With the current administration, their priority was totally upside down.
> I have no idea.
Also, respectfully, I think that you should have an idea how things are likely to effect you before you form a preference for one alternative over another.
Irrespective of were one falls on the illegal/undocumented immigration debate, and what the possible solutions could be, what does your post have to do with immigrants who spend considerable time, money and energy navigating the US immigration system that may feel it a tiny bit unfair when others don't have to abide by the same set of immigration rules?
I would add that for many immigrants to the US, especially those who are on the lower rungs of the economic ladder, the US immigration system isn't just a minor bureaucratic announce, it can be a significant source of financial and familial stress.
The cook doesn't even need to put a lid on the pot to keep the crabs from escaping, since as soon as any crab tries to escape, the crabs below it will drag it down with them.
Similarly, in the immigration debate (and in many other situations in life) those who are worse off often resent others who are doing better, and instead of helping to improve everyone's life, or at least focus on improving their own, will try to worsen the lot of those who are doing better.
I saw both the financial and personal toll that navigating the immigration system took on my parents, it was a constant source of stress in the family. I'm sympathetic to all immigrants, legal or otherwise, and believe that immigration reform should include amnesty for those in the US illegally, along with a path to citizenship.
With that being said, I would find it problematic to apply a different set of rules and expectations for different kinds of immigrants. As I said, I do support a path to full legalization and citizenship, even though I would personally still find it somewhat unfair. I don't think that this feeling of unfairness is resentment though, and I certainly wouldn't wish for any immigrant's life to be made harder or worse off than my own.
You are misguided on this matter and the criticism of immigration lawyers is misplaced
Immigration attorneys have much to gain by trapping more people in GC backlogs.
P.S: I did provide the twitter handle of fwd.us for anyone not convinced to verify
Unfortunately, immigration reform in the eyes of the ruling class isn't how the issue is presented in the press (shocker I know). One must question why an issue that seemingly has both party establishments blessing doesn't make it through congress and to the President's desk? The answer is the fringe of both parties thwart reform. Given they are a minority in the system, the only way they manage to keep the never-ending status-quo is due to the fact both establishments insist on passing all of these items on their laundry list at the same time.
The conservative establishment wants cheap labor (increased visa cap w/restrictive rules) and the liberal establishment wants votes via a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, w/the belief these voters will break overwhelmingly for democratic candidate if they were to participate in the political process.
The downward pressure on the wages of U.S. citizens which the increased visas (w/restrictions) would cause is antithetical to a liberal populist. A visa w/o restrictions would mostly remedy this grievance (with an appropriate cap), but you have a better chance of seeing a human land on Pluto in this century than that passing Congress.
On the other side, republicans who identify with the tea party or freedom caucus (or both) care more about their ideology than corporate profits, and their entrenchment in the political system would be threatened if a sudden influx of undocumented immigrants began participating in the U.S. elections. It's also worth pointing out that some of the backlash towards a pathway to citizenship stems from raw xenophobia; but I'd argue the former reason as the "primary" one.
The upper echelons of SV are no different than any other American industry, being that they will be apolitical with the contributions, and have press releases/tweets which they think will get the most positive receptions, which may or may not be congruent with the aforementioned lobbying. The giant tech cos would love for it to be easy for you to come work for them, on the condition they can pay you below market or at market rates (which they've manipulated substantially) w/limited or no mobility between employers.
Here is an example, where every year, tens of thousands of legal immigrant kids getting deported because legal immigrants followed all the laws. Instead if we had not, and our kids were in illegal status, then Obama administration's DACA would have saved our kids.
Just read the 1st two paragraph of this article: https://www.cato.org/blog/congress-should-help-young-legal-i...
[Note: there are tons of other examples I can provide, where it is more beneficial to claim to be an illegal vs trying to be legal status]
P.S. the fwd.us, a tech industry backed non-profit organization would never speak about our issues; but would bend over backward to prevent illegals from deported (check their twitter handle "FWD_us" if you don't believe). Btw- I have nothing against illegal immigrants; but it hurts to be disadvantaged after following every impossible immigration rules for past 10+ years.