I left the US because I finally got fed up of the treatment of anyone foreign - I was working at a top US university on an international project, but every time I returned from a conference or field work I had to convince some not finished high school rent-a-cop at immigration that I was allowed back in.
I wasn't allowed on field work in the US because the research plane flying the experiment and equipment I designed had the door to the cockpit open - and as a foreigner I couldn't get airport security clearance to be on such a flight.
The bioscience people left the US long ago for countries where 4000year old mythology didn't dictate what you could work on, the physical scientists are going now.
Still if you get rid of all the immigrants the US will be a world leader in beaded blankets and feather headresses.
Similar story - back in the 90s it was next to impossible to work on an international scientific project with the USA because scientist working in US universities had to apply for the same green card quota as MS/Intel/Google etc.
This year apparently it's much easier to get a green card but the feeling in academia is that it just isn't worth the hassle. In my field (nuclear physics), except for some weapons projects, it's becoming a bit of a scientific backwater.
because scientist working in US universities had to apply for the same green card quota as MS/Intel/Google
This doesn't mesh with my experience. They had to work within the same H1-B quota as the commercial sector. I agree that this is a serious problem in research institutions that are not affiliated with a university (universities can issue J visas for their visiting scientists and thus bypass the H1-B quota).
Green cards are different in that there is a fast track for people with world-class scientific expertise. It is possible to get a green card in under a year in that category. That said, that doesn't help people in the commercial sector who are just as equally valuable to the brain trust, which was the point of the article.
I think the US would benefit from a points-based immigration system like Canada and Australia have. That way you can qualify for residency independently from your employer's whim, and the government can manipulate the point value of different skills to fill holes in expertise.
My brother is a Canadian evolutionary biologist and he personally has no interest in going to the US to study for the same reasons - funding and insular attitudes.
He also happens to know many peers who have fled from the US to countries like Canada and Australia, where funding is actually attainable, and you don't get harassed by the pious brigade.
The impression I get talking to him is that the US is fast becoming a scientific backwater, especially when it comes to basic research. Sadly, I think the "they're takin 'er jerbs!" crowd is finally having an effect.
Finally having an effect?? Tell that to the immigrants of 200 years ago. I'm sure they'll attest that the effect was much stronger back then.
The US has a ton of room for improvement on how it treats immigrants, but I think it's safe to say that the trend is actually in the right direction, not the other way around.
It's anecdotal, but my wife moved here 1.5 years ago and before she quit her job to move here with me, she was a Global Application Manager for DHL International (Deutsche Post). She was responsible for a team of software engineers and support technicians whose app was installed in 9 countries, at 20 locations all over the world. She has expertise in Oracle and is fluent in Spanish as well as English. The software controlls automotive sequencing (just in time part delivery) for Chrysler, Volkswagen, Seat, Ford, and GM where the supplier can be charged > $10,000 per minute of downtime. We met through work and she was always the person who could be counted on to troubleshoot any issue even outside her area of expertise.
In one and a half years, she has had two interviews and no offers.
It's pretty clear that her resume is almost immediately rejected because she isn't a U.S. citizen (she's a permanent resident) and because her experience is with "foreign" companies.
It's pretty clear that her resume is almost immediately rejected because she isn't a U.S. citizen (she's a permanent resident) and because her experience is with "foreign" companies.
That's not clear at all to me from the facts stated. There is a global recession going on right now, which began a while ago.
Best wishes to your wife in finding suitable career employment.
That's not clear at all to me from the facts stated. There is a global recession going on right now, which began a while ago.
I don't have any hard evidence on why her job search is not yielding results, that's true. However, I've seen people with similar skill sets (or less) with multiple opportunities. I recently put some feelers out for contract work, just to see what the environment was like and she was astonished when I had 3 full-time and 2 part-time offers in less than one week. I know it's cliche, but I don't think being a woman in IT is particularly helpful either.
Best wishes to your wife in finding suitable career employment.
It's odd that a permanent resident would get that, since they don't have any restrictions on being hired. Foreign students, however, are normally not permitted to work in the US except for 12 months (29 months if you're doing sci / tech / engineering / math). This is called Curricular Practical Training if you're still in uni doing a co-op or summer internship and Optional Practical Training if you're doing it after.
I'm a foreign student in the US, and what most of my fellow foreign students can do to work long-term in the US after graduation is to get an H-1B visa. This is basically a way for companies in the US to be able to hire foreign workers in specialized job areas.
The article says it "requires only a bachelor's degree". While this is true, the process is much more painful that you can imagine. Companies shy away from selecting foreign students, but not because they're bigoted or prejudiced: It's the amount of red tape involved. I've seen lots of companies explicitly say that they are not considering foreign students (I don't blame them).
When getting an H-1B, you can't just apply for one and then find a job. You need to find a company that wants to go through the H-1B process with you. And then your Visa is only valid while you work for that same company. If you quit, you'll need to go through the whole process again.
I can see why the US doesn't want to let in tons of people but then again, a good amount of these people are at the very least moderately skilled. Since the barrier for entry is already high, it would be cool if at least the H-1B wasn't so restrictive about what happens after you get it so H-1B workers wouldn't be stuck at jobs where they're unhappy or they could easily be entrepreneurs.
I'm a permanent resident as well, and its never stopped me from getting swamped with offers once I place my resume up online. (My resume states I am a Green Card Holder).
Perhaps its a geographic issue (I'm in the NY area), I'd also suggest getting someone professional to take a look at the resume, a lot of terms used might need changing for the US Market, for example "Global Application Manager" sounds like it should be a Director level role at least over here, so you might want to indicate this?
I did have one or two issues when I first had my EAD but not the green card (I moved here through marriage as well). But if she has a Green Card I don't see this being the problem.
I've been on both sides of the employment fence and one big mental block for employers is having to go through all the legal paperwork to hire someone on a visa. As far as employment is concerned there is zero difference between a US citizen and a permanent resident so I am not persuaded that is the reason (unless it's a defense company and security clearances are a hassle for non-citizens). I can't really speak to the 'foregin' company experience though - however that's orthogonal to visa status.
Has she considered using the phrase "Authorized To Work In The U.S." instead? Maybe I'm oversimplifying the issue, but that probably puts out a better perception than "permanent resident".
I've had the opposite experience, actually. Being a permanent resident usually sparks a short conversation during the interview about the difference in educational systems and my life experience - usually I've felt that the conversation was a factor in a successful interview.
edit: but then again, I haven't had much work experience outside of the US, and due to very different management styles in the US and elsewhere, that may be a key difference in our situations.
I have a friend who studied Business (with a concentration on Entrepreneurship) at Notre Dame (2nd best in Business according to BusinessWeek). While at Notre Dame he could not get decent internships at big companies because these companies either had a policy to not hire foreigners (at least not for internships), or because it was such a hassle that they'd rather not. Many of those companies were also in the process of shutting down their "immigration departments" because it's become increasingly difficult to get visas for their foreign workers, hence for them it's pretty much like playing the lottery when they apply for an H1B visa for one of their workers, and having dedicated staff for this very uncertain process is a big cost.
While finishing school, my friend was unable to secure a job with any company, he had an offer from PWC, but it was finally withdrawn, while his friends were hired. At the end he decided coming back to Chile, where he now has a job at one of the top VCs in the country.
This is only one case, but I think it represents what a lot of immigrants in the US have been experiencing.
In the US it is supposed to be illegal to discriminate in hiring on the basis of national origin, which sometimes prohibits discrimination on the basis of citizenship:
This has nothing to do with work visas which is what his friend was unable to get. EEOC policy states you can't discriminate on race, country of origin, skin color, etc. But if you don't have the right to work the EEOC won't protect you from not getting hired, or fired for not having the proper documentation.
National origin and citizenship, you're right. But when it comes to immigration status, I've always had the "are you eligible to work in the United States?" question asked of me for every job I've applied to.
It is not illegal to discriminate on the basis of immigration status. In fact "Sorry, we can't hire anyone other than citizens and permanent residents" is so common a response, it's usually part of the job ad itself.
Good article. The EE Phd mentioned in the beginning sounds like a very skilled person, and it's hard to replace someone like that. Hard to see how that guy is taking a job away from anyone, and he is likely creating wealth and jobs for others. We want him here, no doubt.
One factor - I was once a PhD student in engineering at Berkeley, and in my opinion, it's much a harder path than a JD or MBA, more uncertainty and lower pay. While the "100K" salary the EE PhD in the article was earning isn't bad, it's actually quite low compared to other professional degrees that can be earned in half or even a third of the time (with less rigorous undergrad preparation to boot). To me, there's little doubt that universities and employers use the desire for a green card to keep these spots filled without becoming "competitive" with other professional degree programs (the RAND institute recently did a study that supports this view).
What to do? Well, maybe we should just set a minimum pay rate for a green card. Perhaps a company needs to commit to a high salary to prove the worker really is highly skilled. Given that starting salaries at top law firms exceed $150 for a three year degree, I don't think that 100K is quite enough for the company to claim that the worker is "critical" and "can't be found anywhere". So I think this salary threshold needs to be very, very high.
If they were paying him 200K, I'd have no trouble granting the green card, because then the absence of americans would be easier to attribute to a "skills gap" rather than a desire to pay salaries that are not competitive with other (often easier) career choices.
> So I think this salary threshold needs to be very, very high.
Anytime you link a legal requirement to salary levels, you end up with geographic cost-of-living disparities. 100K in NYC/SF is no big deal, 100K in Clearwater, Florida is. A person who can easily get a greencard in NYC can't do so in Florida. This makes the law unfair to states with lower cost-of-living because employers cannot hire and keep skilled employees even when they are willing to pay very competitive rates.
Well, any time the government gets into micro-managing salaries, the whole thing is fubar, guaranteed. The problem is that the government decided that there was a shortage and decided to start tinkering with employment levels, which set off the chain of events leading to this kind of discussion.
Anyway, you make a good point about cost of living issues, so some sort of local indexing would be a good idea.
To me, the most important thing is that we include other professions in the "market rate". As it stands, even if H1Bs pay market rate, they can still put a damper on wage growth, while other fields without extensive guest worker programs sprint ahead. So I'd say "if there's indeed a shortage, what other professional degree paths are getting these students?" So in this case, they'd need to make sure that grads of top engineering schools who get visas are not paid significantly less than grads of comparably ranked law and business schools. This would protect against the use of visas to cause wage stagnation in engineering relative to other professions.
Because a $100k salary in NY is easier for employers to meet (that's closer to what they're already paying) than the same salary in Florida. Florida then gets fewer immigrants this way.
I like your idea, but rather than a hard limit across the country it should be a percentage higher than the local market rates.
Also if we are talking about temp working visas like the H1B, then the gov could remove the social security tax (Which employers pay 50% off). And that savings could be used to meet the additional wage cost.
So where are immigrants concentrating themselves if not the US? I am not looking for the response, 'They are going home,' but surely the intelligentsia is concentrating in some area so where is it? Is it just that the distribution is more even with respect to country (in which case the US would still be the lead) or is there a new, hot area (maybe parts of europe)?
I think that immigration to Canada is still on the rise. I can't source it, but I think I heard that immigration to Canada from American citizens has tripled in the last few years... As an educated professional with a college degree and whatnot, and one who speaks fluent English (or French), entry into Canada is almost a no-brainer under the skilled workforce immigration policy.
This is really an attitude thing. In the beginning the US was the place to be, so as non-Americans we all put up with the rampant bullshit you had to go through to get in the door. Now, there are choices, and the xenophobic attitude and the circus-like hoops you have to jump through to get in are no longer as attractive.
Not to mention that the US is now dealing with some major social changes (read: problems) that other countries have managed to avoid... health care for one...
Actually Canada actively recruits US immigrants. Send an email about H-1B visas using Gmail and soon you'll see an ad on the top saying something like "Stuck in an H1B visa? Canada will give you an expedited residency if you are a qualified immigrant". And it's goes to a Canadian govt. website with a form asking for your phone number. THEY contact YOU!
If I could bear the cold I'd skoot over to Toronto in the blink of an eye.
To be fair, get ready for a rude income shock. I am one of the (few?) Canadians who recently came to the US to work. Why? Honestly, because I got an offer that was double what any Canadian company was willing to offer me.
Software in Canada is second class - salaries are nowhere near the US levels, and much of the work is "scrap" from Americans.
Everywhere I look in Canada I see satellite offices to large American software companies. Invariably these offices do the boring, mundane code that nobody wants to pay $150K to a Californian to do. That's what I mean when I say "scrap" - monkey work, not real dev. It's hard to find a Canadian shop that writes real, meaningful code.
Good point. I want to work for my own startup though so access to a large number of customers is more important to me. I don't yet know how this compares (the ease of finding new customers in Canada as well as traveling to the US as a Canadian resident to meet customers) but I am looking into it.
Customer-wise stay in the US I say :) Canada doesn't really have a consumer culture to the tune of the USA, and because of lower income and higher taxes, you need to sell harder to get our money.
For tech companies focusing on mobile apps this is especially troublesome. Telecommunications in Canada is expensive as hell, and come with a ludicrous number of strings attached. Want to do a high-bandwidth site like Hulu? Forget it, your customers get hit with overage fees from their ISP like the plague. Want to do a mobile app? Sky high costs for data plans means your customer base is severely limited, and even the ones that do have it are apprehensive about going over their paltry (500MB to 2GB!) monthly limits.
I wouldn't consider doing a Canadian startup that sells to Canadians. I would, however, consider a Canadian startup that sells to Americans :)
This really bothers me. It's like the U.S. is a football team, and we train one of these immigrants; we make them hit the gym, show them the ropes, teach them the intracacies of the game, let them know some good techniques, then say, "Now get out of here, we don't want you to play for our team."
At the other hand, the law makers can say that this is how we intend to make all countries around the world to be as good as United States by giving their brains back. We are spreading Lord's wisdom and grace to everyone on earth by being altruistic.
But in many cases, it's throwing them back to a relative wilderness, where much of their training is of little use. The density of excellence, the concentration of experts in a physical area, can make a significant difference to getting something new off the ground.
Yeah, I can see how you're spinning it to be a positive thing, but when you hear how these guys are getting frustrated, I don't think this is quite what they want to hear.
Now you get my joke. You see how ridiculous the feeling is!
Unfortunately immigration is the thing that politicians either don't know anything about it or don't care about anything about it.
Because until immigrants naturalize themselves as citizens, immigrants have no voting right and politicians have no use of immigrants (Of course politicians may still want immigrants to donate hard earned money to their campaign fund under corporate names)
Maybe Obama will be smart enough to start handing out green cards to anybody with an H1B who can hold a permanent position for two years. I'd much rather employ somebody who's motivated enough to leave their home country in search of opportunity.
Obama will be painted as weak-on-immigration by the right regardless. So there's no up-side to him ignoring the larger immigration problem or H1B in particular.
(H1B should be a short path to a green card. Letting them be taken advantage of and then sending them home is a bad policy.)
In the long run, one might suspect that it helps most workers (being part of the economy in general) to have a larger pool of skilled labor doing productive work.
It's unlikely. Most democrats oppose this (protectionism) and many republicans oppose it as well (anti-immigration stance). It's lose-lose for immigrants.
Regardless of whether politicians "support" it, I expect that most of them know that it's really good for the country in the long term. That's why I said that I hope Obama, who's been all about change, will have the brains (and the balls) to actually do the right thing.
'Senator Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), chairman of the Senate immigration subcommittee, said in June that U.S. policy will aim to "encourage the world's best and brightest individuals to come to the U.S. and create the new technologies and businesses…but must discourage businesses from using our immigration laws as a means to obtain temporary and less expensive foreign labor."'
I'm curious for the opinion of Hacker News readers on Schumer's statement. Do you agree or disagree that this should be the goal for U.S. immigration policy? (and why)
I'd sell Green Cards, with a portion of the fee going into a background check (more to buy off the Republican Party than anything else). I think about $50k is fair, but you could calibrate the number as desired. Heck, if you want, impose a quota, issue securities entitling the bearer to one green card, and then auction them like T-bills. Transferable or non-transferable, your call.
This system is easy to understand, transparent, and offers certainty that the patchwork quilt of immigration statuses does not. You'd hear a lot less whinging from the nativist set if they were automatically $50k less expensive than the next guy. This would essentially eliminate any abuse of (legal) foreign labor, as employers would no longer hold any particular power over the fates of their employees, other than the usual ones accorded by contract law. (I can see Microsoft or whomever offering to foot the bill if they were guaranteed 3 years of service, and have absolutely no problem with that arrangement.)
It would also be easier for desirable foreign laborers to interface with. Believe me, I can tell you from personal experience, NOTHING scares me like a routine visit to get my visa renewed. It is the only time when I am ever totally at the mercy of a clerk who has a Destroy My Life button on his computer. Folks trying to fit an extended stay in the US into their near-term life plans must have similar emotions. This would quiet them. Pay the license fee. Get the green card. Simple, easy, fullproof.
Besides, you can essentially buy your way around immigration laws anyhow, so we might as well be honest about it.
Just auctioning off green cards to people who meet basic requirements (background checks, English fluency) seems to be the fairest way to allocate a scarce resource.
I'm not sure if residency (or even citizenship) is naturally or artificially scarce; I don't think rich retirees, or smart entrepreneurs, lower the quality of life for existing citizens, but an argument could possibly be made that lower skill employees might increase supply and thus depress wages for certain categories of labor (especially positions with an inelastic demand).
I would certainly prefer 100k immigration slots going to 100k predominantly indian and chinese engineers than 10k indian engineers, 10k chinese engineers, and 80k family members of existing immigrants from around the world of varying education, skill, and wealth.
Except the American economy is aimed at, and thrives on people of a certain "education, skill, and wealth". Those 100k indian and chinese engineers are going to buy German/Japanese cars, watch european films and eat foreign food and possibly even french wine. The 80k poor relatives are going to shop at McDs and Walmart, watch FOX, support the local politician with the largest belt buckle - and generally integrate perfectly into American society.
I believe they have special visas for investors, entrepreneurs, and the fabulously wealthy. In fact, most developed countries have this visa. A friend of mine, with a couple million $ in the bank, basically got the red carpet treatment when he applied for his visa. He had his lawyer do most of the dirty work but when it was time for the big meeting he told me how hassle-free it was. I reminded him he wasn't waiting in line with the chattel.
E-2 non-immigrant visa, for treaty investor visa, renewed every year.
EB-5 permanent resident visa, for investors who invest 1 million and create 10 jobs or invest 500k and create 5 jobs in economical hardship area (I guess such as Detroit?)
No special visa for penniless entrepreneurs though.
Hire top flight (expensive) immigration lawyers to handle your case, fly back to your country of origin on your private jet four times a year to turn the Visa Waiver program into a non-working visa of arbitrary length, structure your corporate/employment affairs such that while you sure look like you're working at a desk in America legally speaking you are employed in Zurich and merely on a business trip, etc etc. Or, heck, just look at investors' visas, which is literally "You have a lot of money? WELCOME TO AMERICA!"
Pay someone to marry you. A friend of mine did this. Tho' there's nothing sleazy about it, he's gay and married a lesbian. He, his boyfried, her and her girlfriend share a house in SF.
I'm not sure you can be for or against it, because it doesn't make much sense. How are you going to decide if a businesses is hiring the best or the cheaper? Isn't best a function of price? Aren't all business trying to maximize profits?
A law prohibiting employers to hire foreigners for a salary under the median income of US citizen professionals of similar profession and experience in the same area would probably do it.
I think a way to improve the situation would be to change the way income-tax scales. To citizens, it increases percentage as wage increases, scaling exponentially. To foreigners, it could scale sub-linear-ly, by lowering percentage as wage increases. This would encourage foreigners to take high-paying jobs in the US, but not low-paying ones.
The brain drain from developing countries was aggravating their problems. Now as the the US struggles itself those nations that need experts the most can keep them.
The bioscience people left the US long ago for countries where 4000year old mythology didn't dictate what you could work on, the physical scientists are going now.
Still if you get rid of all the immigrants the US will be a world leader in beaded blankets and feather headresses.