In Silicon Valley, Recruiting Clashes With Immigration Limits(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
In Silicon Valley, Recruiting Clashes With Immigration Limits
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/12/business/12immig.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
7 comments
I am the textbook example of Canadian immigration done right, I think. My parents came to Canada on the skilled immigration track. My father is a successful DBA in a major Canadian company, and my mother is an entrepreneur for arts and crafts supplies. Both pay oodles of taxes to the government (a lot more than the average Canadian anyhow), and both contribute to their communities.
Out of their kids, one is an engineer and the other is a PhD researcher in biology.
I remember my parents applying for immigration to the US. It was a long shot, but it was our first choice. Obviously we didn't make it, and looking at how we turned out I honestly believe that it was America's loss.
Out of their kids, one is an engineer and the other is a PhD researcher in biology.
I remember my parents applying for immigration to the US. It was a long shot, but it was our first choice. Obviously we didn't make it, and looking at how we turned out I honestly believe that it was America's loss.
"In addition, the Canadian system is biased in favor of skilled workers. The vast majority of American immigrants are unskilled laborers allowed in through the 'family reunification' program. Canada does have a similar program, but the majority of our immigrants are skilled."
Care to speculate on the reason for this discrepancy, given that the US and Canada have similar family reunification programs? I mean, you say that most of the US's unskilled immigrants come through the family reunification program, but then go on to say that Canada has a similar program so I don't see how that explains the difference.
Care to speculate on the reason for this discrepancy, given that the US and Canada have similar family reunification programs? I mean, you say that most of the US's unskilled immigrants come through the family reunification program, but then go on to say that Canada has a similar program so I don't see how that explains the difference.
Canada doesn't have a quota system like the US, but priority is given to skilled immigrants and their immediate relatives. A skilled immigrant can get a permanent residency visa in 1-3 years, whereas a grandparent might need 5-10 years. In the US, the quota system is disproportionately biased in favor of relatives - something like 70% of all immigrants. The only path for skilled immigrants is H1-B, which has an annual cap of 65,000 visas.
For example, Canada issued about 250,000 PR visas last year. 150,000 went to skilled workers and entrepreneurs, whereas only 65,000 went to family members. (Of which, 44,000 were spouses)
The statistics are here if you're curious: http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/statistics/facts2008/...
For example, Canada issued about 250,000 PR visas last year. 150,000 went to skilled workers and entrepreneurs, whereas only 65,000 went to family members. (Of which, 44,000 were spouses)
The statistics are here if you're curious: http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/statistics/facts2008/...
Afaik there is a quota, something like 60:40 economically active to non-economically active; so priorities are firstly skilled workers (or where there are shortages), then most immediate family, and lastly other family (eg parents, grandparents).
Also should perhaps be pointed out that Canada does in fact issue temporary work visas too (not just residency visas), and then there would in fact be constraints on staying with an employer etc. Depending on where one applies from, this is often a faster process than residency; and from that there are avenues such as the provincial nominee program, that allow for expediting the residency process.
Also should perhaps be pointed out that Canada does in fact issue temporary work visas too (not just residency visas), and then there would in fact be constraints on staying with an employer etc. Depending on where one applies from, this is often a faster process than residency; and from that there are avenues such as the provincial nominee program, that allow for expediting the residency process.
[deleted]
Double ditto to the parent...
"The problem with the immigration debate in the US is that it's fundamentally dishonest. Employers lionize immigrants, but the last thing they want is a system that treats them fairly."
Say the above magic incantation three times and the shills turn to smoke and drift away ...
"The problem with the immigration debate in the US is that it's fundamentally dishonest. Employers lionize immigrants, but the last thing they want is a system that treats them fairly."
Say the above magic incantation three times and the shills turn to smoke and drift away ...
To Mr. Berry, 50 — who lives in Sacramento, where he was born — it is unfathomable that Google, which receives one million résumés a year, cannot find enough qualified Americans.
Drawing on my own personal experience, this is flawed reasoning. His argument might hold for rank-n-file programming jobs, but the Indian native profiled in the article does not fill a rank-n-file job. The second-best candidate for his job is likely an order of magnitude less qualified.
I'm in a CS department at a large state university. I've done an internship in the research division of a large company that depends on innovation to survive. Most of my colleagues are foreign-born. In the case of the company, if those colleagues weren't employed, the work wouldn't get done. These people have unique skills and expertise - that was, not coincidentally, honed at American universities. Filling their positions with the closest qualified American you can find wouldn't result in a slight delay. The project they're on would collapse.
Drawing on my own personal experience, this is flawed reasoning. His argument might hold for rank-n-file programming jobs, but the Indian native profiled in the article does not fill a rank-n-file job. The second-best candidate for his job is likely an order of magnitude less qualified.
I'm in a CS department at a large state university. I've done an internship in the research division of a large company that depends on innovation to survive. Most of my colleagues are foreign-born. In the case of the company, if those colleagues weren't employed, the work wouldn't get done. These people have unique skills and expertise - that was, not coincidentally, honed at American universities. Filling their positions with the closest qualified American you can find wouldn't result in a slight delay. The project they're on would collapse.
I agree with you in the short term. But I think that the long term absence of employable Americans may be caused, in part, by the programs that make it easy to hire foreign nationals instead of Americans in engineering and science.
There are a lot of really smart Americans working in law, finance, medicine, and so forth. Do you think these folks are too dumb to work in software? Or are they just rationally responding to a market glut, driven in part by the presence of the H1B program?
I think our policy has driven young Americans out of engineering. To just consider the few Americans who did get these degrees is shortsighted. You have to consider the eighth graders, high school students, and first year college students who have been deterred from entering the field. Because we controlled the wages of engineers with a visa program, but not finance or legal professionals, we deterred our own from going into these fields (creating a more severe shortage, necessitating more visas, creating an even worse shortage, until we had finally reached the point where Americans were no longer even remotely interested in this field).
Basically, America "foreignized" engineering to the point where we no longer have a home grown, self sustaining engineering profession. This has left us extremely vulnerable - even if we do offer the visas, there's no guarantee we can staff these jobs in the US anymore.
By the way, I do think that a robust home-grown engineering field would be enhanced by the presence of many foreign born practitioners. But I think we pushed it to the point where actively undermined the careers of young Americans in engineering, and the next wave of students voted with their feet.
Yes, allow in talented engineers. No, don't leave the level so high that Americans are deterred. A bit of a shortage that causes wage growth and stimulates interest would be a good thing.
Just remember: once bitten, twice shy.
There are a lot of really smart Americans working in law, finance, medicine, and so forth. Do you think these folks are too dumb to work in software? Or are they just rationally responding to a market glut, driven in part by the presence of the H1B program?
I think our policy has driven young Americans out of engineering. To just consider the few Americans who did get these degrees is shortsighted. You have to consider the eighth graders, high school students, and first year college students who have been deterred from entering the field. Because we controlled the wages of engineers with a visa program, but not finance or legal professionals, we deterred our own from going into these fields (creating a more severe shortage, necessitating more visas, creating an even worse shortage, until we had finally reached the point where Americans were no longer even remotely interested in this field).
Basically, America "foreignized" engineering to the point where we no longer have a home grown, self sustaining engineering profession. This has left us extremely vulnerable - even if we do offer the visas, there's no guarantee we can staff these jobs in the US anymore.
By the way, I do think that a robust home-grown engineering field would be enhanced by the presence of many foreign born practitioners. But I think we pushed it to the point where actively undermined the careers of young Americans in engineering, and the next wave of students voted with their feet.
Yes, allow in talented engineers. No, don't leave the level so high that Americans are deterred. A bit of a shortage that causes wage growth and stimulates interest would be a good thing.
Just remember: once bitten, twice shy.
I went to a liberal arts college where 50% of students never take a math or hard science course. Many of them are lawyers or financiers (well, ex-financiers ;-)) now.
I don't think this is at all a rational response to economic incentives. There was just a thread among a bunch of young lawyers in the alumni network, giving advice to another alum who was thinking of going to law school. They seem significantly less satisfied with their jobs as lawyers than I do with mine as an engineer. They don't make appreciably more money either. Many of them would love to do engineering - if it didn't involve math. If you ask them why they didn't learn more math in high school & college then, almost all will say that at some point, they fell of the train and just "didn't get" math.
I think the problem is more that good engineers are too successful. They have every incentive to remain an engineer and zero incentive to train the next generation. This has gone on for about two generations, which means that the pipeline of home-grown American talent is just about dry.
I would kinda like to teach. I come from a family with three generations of teachers on my mother's side. I like working with kids. But there is no possible way that I could rationalize giving up a six-figure Google job where I can get in to work at 11:00, the feed me, I get cool data to play with, and everyone sees my work, for a $30k/year teaching job where I work from 8:00 AM to 4:30 PM, have homework, and deal with parents who threaten to sue me.
I think a major difference between Asian cultures and here is that teaching is a high-status profession in Asia. Here, the assumption is that people become teachers because they can't get hired anywhere else, and they're paid accordingly. This becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, as everyone who can get hired elsewhere chooses to work elsewhere, and the only math/science teachers you get are the ones that can't hack it in industry or academia (& a couple saints that just don't want to work there, for any amount of money).
I don't think this is at all a rational response to economic incentives. There was just a thread among a bunch of young lawyers in the alumni network, giving advice to another alum who was thinking of going to law school. They seem significantly less satisfied with their jobs as lawyers than I do with mine as an engineer. They don't make appreciably more money either. Many of them would love to do engineering - if it didn't involve math. If you ask them why they didn't learn more math in high school & college then, almost all will say that at some point, they fell of the train and just "didn't get" math.
I think the problem is more that good engineers are too successful. They have every incentive to remain an engineer and zero incentive to train the next generation. This has gone on for about two generations, which means that the pipeline of home-grown American talent is just about dry.
I would kinda like to teach. I come from a family with three generations of teachers on my mother's side. I like working with kids. But there is no possible way that I could rationalize giving up a six-figure Google job where I can get in to work at 11:00, the feed me, I get cool data to play with, and everyone sees my work, for a $30k/year teaching job where I work from 8:00 AM to 4:30 PM, have homework, and deal with parents who threaten to sue me.
I think a major difference between Asian cultures and here is that teaching is a high-status profession in Asia. Here, the assumption is that people become teachers because they can't get hired anywhere else, and they're paid accordingly. This becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, as everyone who can get hired elsewhere chooses to work elsewhere, and the only math/science teachers you get are the ones that can't hack it in industry or academia (& a couple saints that just don't want to work there, for any amount of money).
We'll see if the collapse of the financial industry encourages more young Americans into engineering.
That said, I actually went to law school (Columbia) for one semester before dropping out and enrolling in a PhD program in engineering (at Berkeley). The law school is, of course, about 95% American, whereas in the Engineering school, I became very accustomed to being the only person in the room who spoke English as a first language.
I think it's great that Engineering is a profession where you are likely to work alongside people from all over the world. But I think it's bad that it's become(ing?) a profession where you're unusual if you're a native Californian in graduate programs with names like "The University of California".
I'll say this - in spite of all the hand-wringing, I don't see even the slightest commitment from Berkeley to bringing in more Americans. And as long as they can wave the magic wand and get more students from overseas, neither they or the employers who want to keep this pipeline will ever bother finding ways to get more Americans into the field.
As for law: yeah, they may be unhappy, but I earned 75K/year my first year out of Berkeley at Sun Micro. Kids from the law school were starting at $125-150K/yr.
I actually disagree that the Americans you mentioned can't learn math. I didn't take my first calculus class until I was 24 years old, and I got A's all the way through. The incentives just aren't there relative to other fields. And as long as we import hundreds of thousands of H1B workers ever decade, it won't be.
Now, we're getting a good sense of what happens when you destroy a homegrown profession and replace it with foreign nationals.
That said, I actually went to law school (Columbia) for one semester before dropping out and enrolling in a PhD program in engineering (at Berkeley). The law school is, of course, about 95% American, whereas in the Engineering school, I became very accustomed to being the only person in the room who spoke English as a first language.
I think it's great that Engineering is a profession where you are likely to work alongside people from all over the world. But I think it's bad that it's become(ing?) a profession where you're unusual if you're a native Californian in graduate programs with names like "The University of California".
I'll say this - in spite of all the hand-wringing, I don't see even the slightest commitment from Berkeley to bringing in more Americans. And as long as they can wave the magic wand and get more students from overseas, neither they or the employers who want to keep this pipeline will ever bother finding ways to get more Americans into the field.
As for law: yeah, they may be unhappy, but I earned 75K/year my first year out of Berkeley at Sun Micro. Kids from the law school were starting at $125-150K/yr.
I actually disagree that the Americans you mentioned can't learn math. I didn't take my first calculus class until I was 24 years old, and I got A's all the way through. The incentives just aren't there relative to other fields. And as long as we import hundreds of thousands of H1B workers ever decade, it won't be.
Now, we're getting a good sense of what happens when you destroy a homegrown profession and replace it with foreign nationals.
"Kids from the law school were starting at $125-150K/yr."
That's only for people coming out of top law schools and going into top corporate law firms. The engineering analogue would be a Stanford or MIT grad who works for Google for 3 years and then joins a well-funded startup. Considering that it's not unusual for people with 3 years experience at Google to pull in $130-140k including bonus, and someone else on-thread was saying that he knows lots of firms that'll gladly pay $150K+ for top engineering talent, and I don't think $125-150K is unreasonable for a top engineer.
The majority of law students - the ones that don't go to a big-name law school - often end up setting up a private practice or working for a boutique firm for much, much lower salaries. Small-town divorce attorneys often make only about $50K/year, according to some of the alums on that thread, and it sounded like lawyers at "boutique", non-big-name law firms pulled in about $80-90K.
That's only for people coming out of top law schools and going into top corporate law firms. The engineering analogue would be a Stanford or MIT grad who works for Google for 3 years and then joins a well-funded startup. Considering that it's not unusual for people with 3 years experience at Google to pull in $130-140k including bonus, and someone else on-thread was saying that he knows lots of firms that'll gladly pay $150K+ for top engineering talent, and I don't think $125-150K is unreasonable for a top engineer.
The majority of law students - the ones that don't go to a big-name law school - often end up setting up a private practice or working for a boutique firm for much, much lower salaries. Small-town divorce attorneys often make only about $50K/year, according to some of the alums on that thread, and it sounded like lawyers at "boutique", non-big-name law firms pulled in about $80-90K.
Are UCLA, Boston College and University of Minnesota top law schools?
Because I have family and friends who went to those schools and they made $120K starting salaries. I also have a cousin who went to probably the worst law school in the country and she made 80K straight out of school.
Because I have family and friends who went to those schools and they made $120K starting salaries. I also have a cousin who went to probably the worst law school in the country and she made 80K straight out of school.
Interesting. I wouldn't have thought so. I could be misinformed.
"a major difference between Asian cultures and here is that teaching is a high-status profession in Asia. Here, the assumption is that people become teachers because they can't get hired anywhere else, and they're paid accordingly."
At least in India, many people become teachers "because they can't get hired anywhere else, and they're paid accordingly." This is particularly true in Engineering/Science/Mathematics.
Most teachers have zero industry experience, have never worked as engineers, have never done any significant engineering/science etc etc and do choose teaching because they couldn't hack in the industry. [except for a few really good teachers at say the IIT's - which have their share of terrible teachers - but you could find equivalent folks in say MIT]. As you said "(& a couple saints that just don't want to work there, for any amount of money)."
So maybe you are talking of China/other parts of Asia?
At least in India, many people become teachers "because they can't get hired anywhere else, and they're paid accordingly." This is particularly true in Engineering/Science/Mathematics.
Most teachers have zero industry experience, have never worked as engineers, have never done any significant engineering/science etc etc and do choose teaching because they couldn't hack in the industry. [except for a few really good teachers at say the IIT's - which have their share of terrible teachers - but you could find equivalent folks in say MIT]. As you said "(& a couple saints that just don't want to work there, for any amount of money)."
So maybe you are talking of China/other parts of Asia?
Yeah, I was mostly talking about China, as that's (half) my cultural background. I think it applies in Japan/Vietnam/Korea as well, knowing some Japanese/Vietnamese/Korean families.
Because we controlled the wages of engineers with a visa program, but not finance or legal professionals, we deterred our own from going into these fields
This is the key, really. Why should only engineering in general and computer programming in particular be "special"? Why isn't the US importing medical doctors (for example) hand over fist? There is a very deliberate attempt to treat programming as not one of the "professions" but as labour.
This is the key, really. Why should only engineering in general and computer programming in particular be "special"? Why isn't the US importing medical doctors (for example) hand over fist? There is a very deliberate attempt to treat programming as not one of the "professions" but as labour.
The USA does import medical doctors from overseas to work in healthcare in rural areas under the J-1 visa program. Virtually no american born doctor will work in rural under-served areas anymore , even though the pay can be 3x as much as in big cities. If you go to a GP in South Dakota chances are she will be from Pakistan.
It's R&D versus labour. You don't want to import labour (e.g. doctors), but you want to import as much R&D personnel as you can get your hands on (this includes other professions such as biologist, physicist, etc).
The idea is that depriving, say, China of doctors doesn't really accomplish anything except generate more sick Chinese people, which doesn't really pose a major strategic advantage to the US. The only incentive to import them is if there is a major shortage locally (and so far there isn't).
On the other hand, depriving China of engineers can give a significant competitive boost to the US. The more researchers and developers you import the higher chance you have that something that would've been invented in a competing country is invented here instead.
The idea is that depriving, say, China of doctors doesn't really accomplish anything except generate more sick Chinese people, which doesn't really pose a major strategic advantage to the US. The only incentive to import them is if there is a major shortage locally (and so far there isn't).
On the other hand, depriving China of engineers can give a significant competitive boost to the US. The more researchers and developers you import the higher chance you have that something that would've been invented in a competing country is invented here instead.
But the typical H1B isn't in R&D - he's cranking out code for a large IT shop. The R&D side of things is taken care of with academic visas.
If the US is short of doctors and dentists - and it is, otherwise their salaries wouldn't be so high - then there's no economic reason not to import them.
If the US is short of doctors and dentists - and it is, otherwise their salaries wouldn't be so high - then there's no economic reason not to import them.
Medical and dental wages are high in large part due to licenture, same as lawyers. They all have guilds, where a union also certifies, so they limit supply to the benefit of incumbents and the detriment of potential entrants and clients.
But that's a circular argument. Programmers are in demand and also have wages artificially controlled by manipulating the supply. There's no reason the government - because they are the government - couldn't break the stranglehold of the AMA, it would be at least as much in the public interest as the H1B programme, if not a great deal more so.
What bothers me about the immigration caps is that they appear to be completely arbitrary, as opposed to being in tune with the industries they "serve" or based on some up-to-date metrics. At the very least, they are not rechecked frequently enough.
Is it really good for the economy when a company is unable to hire 10 people, because of a "cap" that sounds like it was pulled out of a congressman's left ear? They market these restrictions as trying to "save U.S. jobs", but ironically the caps will kill U.S. jobs when whole companies fail to remain competitive.
Is it really good for the economy when a company is unable to hire 10 people, because of a "cap" that sounds like it was pulled out of a congressman's left ear? They market these restrictions as trying to "save U.S. jobs", but ironically the caps will kill U.S. jobs when whole companies fail to remain competitive.
They are indeed arbitrary. Moreover, there is no ranking of the applications; Apart from requiring they meet the minimum requirements they are just processed in the order received.
Since the minimum requirement for an H1B is just a bachelor's degree, it seems hard to motivate that all those are essential. It seems the process could be improved by either ranking the applications by merit or instead of a quota establishing a higher minimum standard such that those accepted are really outstanding. Another alternative would be to simply uncap the category for those with US advanced degrees -- that cap truly makes no sense. (I should disclose that I'm biased here -- I was denied an H1B last year because of the quota.)
That said, none of that would help the person in the article. The simple change of letting H1B dependents work would fix that.
Since the minimum requirement for an H1B is just a bachelor's degree, it seems hard to motivate that all those are essential. It seems the process could be improved by either ranking the applications by merit or instead of a quota establishing a higher minimum standard such that those accepted are really outstanding. Another alternative would be to simply uncap the category for those with US advanced degrees -- that cap truly makes no sense. (I should disclose that I'm biased here -- I was denied an H1B last year because of the quota.)
That said, none of that would help the person in the article. The simple change of letting H1B dependents work would fix that.
there is no ranking of the applications; Apart from requiring they meet the minimum requirements they are just processed in the order received
okay, all H1-B holders who want their applications held up for a year while a reasonable basis for comparison is accumulated, raise their hands
okay, all H1-B holders who want their applications held up for a year while a reasonable basis for comparison is accumulated, raise their hands
Canadian immigration does do ranking in a fairly efficient way: applicants must support documentation on a wide array of subjects, such as educational background, linguistic capability, etc. This is backed up by verification during the (later) interview process.
The idea is that each applicant is scored based on things such as English/French fluency (bonus points for both), educational background, field of expertise, etc.
You don't need to carefully pore over every case to do some reasonable level of ranking.
The idea is that each applicant is scored based on things such as English/French fluency (bonus points for both), educational background, field of expertise, etc.
You don't need to carefully pore over every case to do some reasonable level of ranking.
> What bothers me about the immigration caps is that they appear to be completely arbitrary, as opposed to being in tune with the industries they "serve" or based on some up-to-date metrics.
They're not arbitrary, they're just not aimed at a goal that you recognize.
Always remember that the first priority of a congress critter is to get re-elected.
They're not arbitrary, they're just not aimed at a goal that you recognize.
Always remember that the first priority of a congress critter is to get re-elected.
I work with many Indian co-workers, each in various statuses of their citizenship process from H1-B/green card/naturalized. I can honestly say that, as someone born in the U.S., I don't truly appreciate what it means to hold U.S. Citizenship, even after seeing the paperwork/"identured-servitude" to sponsoring company stuff I've seen. In America, the freedom to quit your job and find a new one, does not necessarily translate to those of H1-B status.
Those on visa:
- Typically do not quit their jobs (and fear losing them), because their next employer must be found quickly and be willing to sponsor their stay. If they cannot find such an employer, they must leave the country.
- Run a (small) risk every single time they travel that they will not be allowed back into the country, to some extent at the discretion of a border guard.
- Must jump through hoops just to have family members present, and there have been cases where stupid things happen (like wife is allowed in, but one of two children is not; or, the family members are granted entry at completely different times that may be months apart).
- Are charged huge fees for government forms and by the lawyers who are often necessary to prepare forms (costs which might be covered by their company, if they're lucky).
- Can wait years...and years...and years...for a green card, for no apparent reason. The government can be silent for many months, and only periodically ask for more information when the application reaches the next stage. Oh, and the information prepared in advance for each stage, such as a medical exam, can expire if they don't reach it soon enough.
Most of these steps, in my opinion, are not really "helping", they are just adding bureaucracy and causing unnecessary frustration for human beings who are trying to live their lives.
- Typically do not quit their jobs (and fear losing them), because their next employer must be found quickly and be willing to sponsor their stay. If they cannot find such an employer, they must leave the country.
- Run a (small) risk every single time they travel that they will not be allowed back into the country, to some extent at the discretion of a border guard.
- Must jump through hoops just to have family members present, and there have been cases where stupid things happen (like wife is allowed in, but one of two children is not; or, the family members are granted entry at completely different times that may be months apart).
- Are charged huge fees for government forms and by the lawyers who are often necessary to prepare forms (costs which might be covered by their company, if they're lucky).
- Can wait years...and years...and years...for a green card, for no apparent reason. The government can be silent for many months, and only periodically ask for more information when the application reaches the next stage. Oh, and the information prepared in advance for each stage, such as a medical exam, can expire if they don't reach it soon enough.
Most of these steps, in my opinion, are not really "helping", they are just adding bureaucracy and causing unnecessary frustration for human beings who are trying to live their lives.
Your second point is the most salient for me - I've worked in the US on a J-1 visa and will be returning soon on a TN... going home to see my folks is a concept that scares the bejeesus out of me.
Something most Americans don't fully appreciate is just how bad their border situation is - power-tripping customs officers who will turn a non-citizen around for no reason at all. Unreasonable searches, rudeness, and downright being an asshole.
I cannot recall a single instance of crossing the US border where the customs officer was courteous. When I crossed via Vancouver airport, there was an elderly gentleman who had trouble walking, and was shuffling slowly up to the counter when called. The officer in charge berated him as he walked to the counter, and insulted his inability to walk.
This is what we, non-Americans, deal with when we visit your country. FIX THIS.
Something most Americans don't fully appreciate is just how bad their border situation is - power-tripping customs officers who will turn a non-citizen around for no reason at all. Unreasonable searches, rudeness, and downright being an asshole.
I cannot recall a single instance of crossing the US border where the customs officer was courteous. When I crossed via Vancouver airport, there was an elderly gentleman who had trouble walking, and was shuffling slowly up to the counter when called. The officer in charge berated him as he walked to the counter, and insulted his inability to walk.
This is what we, non-Americans, deal with when we visit your country. FIX THIS.
On the other hand, I never had problems, I've entered several times though NYC, Miami, and Atlanta
border guards are one step up from prison guards. just hold your nose, blow some sunshine up their asses, and move on.
That's what you have to do in America - that's not what you have to do in any other country. My coworkers in the US have remarked on this also - they visit Canada often and have never been given shit by a border guard; even when hassled, Canadian border guards are always polite.
Consider that for many people this will be their first interaction with an American at the beginning of their trip, it should be a higher priority that these people behave themselves.
Consider that for many people this will be their first interaction with an American at the beginning of their trip, it should be a higher priority that these people behave themselves.
You get shit all the time from Canadian border guards if you're under 25 and driving across the border.
Well, they have that freedom in India, of course.
Oh yes, definitely, that option is there for us.
But sometimes when the immigrants(like me) have lived a major part of his youth life in a different culture and adjusted there with the society, people, etc, they tend to feel associated with the new country. (I think it all depends on the age you came to the country)
I think the US immigration system needs a new and improved modern look. I would not deny the fact that certain companies/people do exploit the H1-B Visa due to loopholes in it. This definitely brings a bad name to entire group and also puts into question the validity of the H1-B program and I am totally with my American Citizen's on that, but in certain situation they do need foreign talent. The H1-B program needs a fine tuning.
But sometimes when the immigrants(like me) have lived a major part of his youth life in a different culture and adjusted there with the society, people, etc, they tend to feel associated with the new country. (I think it all depends on the age you came to the country)
I think the US immigration system needs a new and improved modern look. I would not deny the fact that certain companies/people do exploit the H1-B Visa due to loopholes in it. This definitely brings a bad name to entire group and also puts into question the validity of the H1-B program and I am totally with my American Citizen's on that, but in certain situation they do need foreign talent. The H1-B program needs a fine tuning.
This is a great article. And thanks to jey for posting this. On a side note, reading it I found out that Sanjay is based in Toronto currently, which is where I am, so I just reached out to him and would be chatting with him a bit more about startups, immigration, etc soon. Small world, and thanks HN! :)
Stories like these are often a pretext for pushing laws that flood the U.S. market with cheap foreign labor. If you're hurting for a niche expertise and can't "find" someone here, fine, open an office in wherever you think the grass is greener talent-wise. Google can afford that, right?
I think I have a better use for my startup capital than an immigration lawyer; plenty of good people here, I mean, after all, they only built the greatest economy in the world.
If any American wants to down-vote me for this, just go ahead and try to get a _job_ overseas. Your ass will be chewed by local taxes, foreigner taxes and nationalist laws. And I say this as a _recent_ U.S. national; I came here with just a carry-on bag and $50 when I was 16.
I think I have a better use for my startup capital than an immigration lawyer; plenty of good people here, I mean, after all, they only built the greatest economy in the world.
If any American wants to down-vote me for this, just go ahead and try to get a _job_ overseas. Your ass will be chewed by local taxes, foreigner taxes and nationalist laws. And I say this as a _recent_ U.S. national; I came here with just a carry-on bag and $50 when I was 16.
"If any American wants to down-vote me for this, just go ahead and try to get a _job_ overseas."
The failings of other, less-wise countries is not an excuse to fail along with them. They are xenophobic and protectionist, and turn away talent that can increase their nation's competitiveness... the US should not make that same mistake.
And keep in mind that a disproportionate number of big players who "built the greatest economy in the world" are themselves immigrants. Your argument that home-grown talent alone will suffice holds no water - historically the US has always relied on heavy talent import, and there is nothing wrong with this.
The failings of other, less-wise countries is not an excuse to fail along with them. They are xenophobic and protectionist, and turn away talent that can increase their nation's competitiveness... the US should not make that same mistake.
And keep in mind that a disproportionate number of big players who "built the greatest economy in the world" are themselves immigrants. Your argument that home-grown talent alone will suffice holds no water - historically the US has always relied on heavy talent import, and there is nothing wrong with this.
greed is downvoting you
There are lots of great programmers in the United States, they just want to be paid more than immigrants, so the companies lobby congress to allow them to import more cheap softare factories.
It's the same at every level of society.
It's the same at every level of society.
If you had actually bothered to read the article, you will find that the person featured has been educated in US from when he was 14. He went to Harvard. Now do you want such a person to be just sent back because he is an "immigrant" or that his skill and intelligence be recognized and make it such that it is easy for him to work in US, contributing to the US economy.
The US attracted the best and the brightest. If you insist on sending them back because they are "immigrants" then the loss is not just theirs.From the article "Many innovators in Silicon Valley come from overseas; 42 percent of engineers with master’s degrees and 60 percent of those with engineering Ph.D.’s in the United States are foreign-born."
Do you know why Chinese and Indians population in Universities are increasing? Because in those cultures being a geek is cool, unlike in US. In China and US, the topper in the school is the super star unlike in US where it will be the college football captain. The toppers from such places come to US because the US universities are far ahead in higher education. But if you send these people back, this lead in education will slowly evaporate as the best students go back to their country instead of staying on and becoming entrepreneurs and professors.
The US attracted the best and the brightest. If you insist on sending them back because they are "immigrants" then the loss is not just theirs.From the article "Many innovators in Silicon Valley come from overseas; 42 percent of engineers with master’s degrees and 60 percent of those with engineering Ph.D.’s in the United States are foreign-born."
Do you know why Chinese and Indians population in Universities are increasing? Because in those cultures being a geek is cool, unlike in US. In China and US, the topper in the school is the super star unlike in US where it will be the college football captain. The toppers from such places come to US because the US universities are far ahead in higher education. But if you send these people back, this lead in education will slowly evaporate as the best students go back to their country instead of staying on and becoming entrepreneurs and professors.
I came in 2001(18 yrs) for my BS in Comp Sc and I am currently in my H1-B. The Green Card process is long and far away, so I don't even think about it. However, I see a few drawbacks of being on H1:
i. It hampers my capability to jump jobs to risky startups, because if that startup goes bust, I need to find a job in 2 months to stay in the country. Especially with a recessionary season, it adds to the risk while your existing employer is pretty strong.
ii. I am always looking for avenues to work on Ideas, and I do that too. But, because I need to be employed to maintain my Visa Status, I can only devote my evenings and weekends.
iii. I am also worried about the Laws (Immigration and other) that may prevent me from having my own venture etc.
I have been in the US for close to 10 years(8 years now and 2 years when I was a Kid). So, I have lived most of my decision making, understanding the world, ups/downs of life here in the US and I feel really connected to this country and really love it. I even pay good amount of Tax dollars plus work for a US company that works towards the growth of the US economy even in this downturn. But my fate still lies on the Immigration Policy.
Another point I wanted to mention was about my experience in College. In my freshman year I realized hanging out with kids that went to Highschool here that being Smart in school equates to being a Geek, which is not considered Hip and Cool. On the contrary back home in India where I grew up, being smart(not necessarily Geek) was considered Cool and everyone wants to be friends with the Smart Kid. Luckily, it worked out good for me as I had a solid academic background from India and then had cool friends out here.
i. It hampers my capability to jump jobs to risky startups, because if that startup goes bust, I need to find a job in 2 months to stay in the country. Especially with a recessionary season, it adds to the risk while your existing employer is pretty strong.
ii. I am always looking for avenues to work on Ideas, and I do that too. But, because I need to be employed to maintain my Visa Status, I can only devote my evenings and weekends.
iii. I am also worried about the Laws (Immigration and other) that may prevent me from having my own venture etc.
I have been in the US for close to 10 years(8 years now and 2 years when I was a Kid). So, I have lived most of my decision making, understanding the world, ups/downs of life here in the US and I feel really connected to this country and really love it. I even pay good amount of Tax dollars plus work for a US company that works towards the growth of the US economy even in this downturn. But my fate still lies on the Immigration Policy.
Another point I wanted to mention was about my experience in College. In my freshman year I realized hanging out with kids that went to Highschool here that being Smart in school equates to being a Geek, which is not considered Hip and Cool. On the contrary back home in India where I grew up, being smart(not necessarily Geek) was considered Cool and everyone wants to be friends with the Smart Kid. Luckily, it worked out good for me as I had a solid academic background from India and then had cool friends out here.
To add to code_devils list, I don't think you are allowed to earn any money in the US other than from your employer. I am not cent percent sure on this, but I think this might even prevent you from something simple as putting advertisements on your blog.
okay come on you have totally warped expectations of what a work visa provides. work visas are not created to allow you to wonder silicon valley looking for cool startups to join. nor should it. thats what residency visas are for. a work visa should be tied to an employer. you seem to think you need a work visa in order to get a residency visa...no. tens of thousands of people every year become US citizens simply because they want to.
Unless you know something the rest of us don't, I think you're grossly misinformed. There's no skilled labour immigration track in the USA, and the only way to live/work in the country for many people is on the H-1B and TN visas. The latter does not lead to permanent residence, while the former does (and chains to your sponsor company as a wage slave).
The point that the article (and other posters here) are making is that you should be allowing these people to wander Silicon Valley looking for jobs. Instead of treating them as temps who must leave the country shortly, they need to be welcomed and given the opportunity to become Americans.
The point that the article (and other posters here) are making is that you should be allowing these people to wander Silicon Valley looking for jobs. Instead of treating them as temps who must leave the country shortly, they need to be welcomed and given the opportunity to become Americans.
I'm Curious about where your Habit of Capitalizing so many Words come from?...
Thinking about it, the founder visa idea that pg proposed is aimed at the kind of people like the guy featured in the article.
Actually, if you had bothered to read the article, you'd have seen that the person featured was totally legal in the United States. He wasn't "sent back."
He chose to move to Canada because his WIFE was not legal in the U.S. and she didn't have any skills to import.
He chose to move to Canada because his WIFE was not legal in the U.S. and she didn't have any skills to import.
This is pretty much true at any level of supply (increase supply and the price will drop). You could just as easily argue that if more students study engineering its hurts those currently in the industry, that alone is not a reason to be against it.
From talking to my other friends with startups in the Bay Area it is apparent that there are not enough good engineers here. I had a conversation last weekend with one of my friends who always struggles to find good Ruby engineers, even at above market prices, and using every recruitment method available.
As the founder of a company originally started to help companies hire technical talent I've seen this firsthand. Everyone is frustrated with recruiters piping them lots of unqualified resumes, Dice, Monster, and Craigslist also provide high volume, but often low quality. Even the niche boards are underperforming.
If there are really "lots of great programmers" in the US where are they? I know a lot of companies around here who would gladly pay $150k+ for a truly "great" programmer, if they could only find them.
Maybe part of the problem is the vast difference between "decent" and "great" in terms of on-the-job performance and the unwillingness of many companies around here to settle for less.
From talking to my other friends with startups in the Bay Area it is apparent that there are not enough good engineers here. I had a conversation last weekend with one of my friends who always struggles to find good Ruby engineers, even at above market prices, and using every recruitment method available.
As the founder of a company originally started to help companies hire technical talent I've seen this firsthand. Everyone is frustrated with recruiters piping them lots of unqualified resumes, Dice, Monster, and Craigslist also provide high volume, but often low quality. Even the niche boards are underperforming.
If there are really "lots of great programmers" in the US where are they? I know a lot of companies around here who would gladly pay $150k+ for a truly "great" programmer, if they could only find them.
Maybe part of the problem is the vast difference between "decent" and "great" in terms of on-the-job performance and the unwillingness of many companies around here to settle for less.
'If there are really "lots of great programmers" in the US where are they? I know a lot of companies around here who would gladly pay $150k+ for a truly "great" programmer, if they could only find them.'
They already have jobs that they're happy with.
They already have jobs that they're happy with.
which means undersupply, exactly my point
I know a lot of companies around here who would gladly pay $150k+ for a truly "great" programmer, if they could only find them.
People say this all the time but $150K is a rare salary for a programmer. You have to work at Google for years to be paid that much as a base salary. If a company is offering $150K but can't hire anyone it usually means the company sucks. I.e. it's an overfunded VC time bomb, a boring telecom/security job or something semi-shady.
People say this all the time but $150K is a rare salary for a programmer. You have to work at Google for years to be paid that much as a base salary. If a company is offering $150K but can't hire anyone it usually means the company sucks. I.e. it's an overfunded VC time bomb, a boring telecom/security job or something semi-shady.
Hey now, telecom isn't boring.
</telecom-related startup founder>
</telecom-related startup founder>
"I had a conversation last weekend with one of my friends who always struggles to find good Ruby engineers ..."
Well then, doesn't it see that perhaps he is creating his own limitation by focusing on Ruby?
Just because a particular language may have too few experts in the USA does not mean there's a shortage of qualified programmers in other languages! I'm an exceptional programmer in the language I know best, but it is not Ruby. Your friend would not consider hiring me because of this too I'll bet -- yet I could probably build his site twice as fast as the best Ruby programmer.
You live with the limitations you impose upon yourself.
Well then, doesn't it see that perhaps he is creating his own limitation by focusing on Ruby?
Just because a particular language may have too few experts in the USA does not mean there's a shortage of qualified programmers in other languages! I'm an exceptional programmer in the language I know best, but it is not Ruby. Your friend would not consider hiring me because of this too I'll bet -- yet I could probably build his site twice as fast as the best Ruby programmer.
You live with the limitations you impose upon yourself.
Wait wait wait. You expect your employers to tailor their required skill set for you, instead of following market trends and acquiring new, relevant skills for yourself?
I really have a hard time telling if you're trolling or serious.
I really have a hard time telling if you're trolling or serious.
It seems to me that businesses need to adapt to the nature of the labor market as much as vice-versa. Complaining about the lack of X programmers isn't going to generate any.
Perhaps, but that is a decision that has to be made with foresight, because even though it may be hard to find a developer in X language, its probably a lot more work (and cost) to migrate an established product from one language to another.
" I'm an exceptional programmer in the language I know best, but it is not Ruby." "Your friend would not consider hiring me because of this "
I don't know how exactly you define exceptional, but if you are indeed exceptional in the sense of being in the top 5% (say) of developers in your chosen language, and assuming your language is not some forgotten relic from the 60's, then you should be beating off employers every day.
If I wanted a game written in Java (for whatever reason) and John Carmack wanted to take the job but he knew only C/C++ (but was ok with learning java) I couldn't imagine turning him down because I have Joe Blow's cv showing 10 years experience in java. If you are really exceptional in your language, I doubt someone would turn you down just because you'll take a couple of weeks to pick up ruby.
Moving on, I wonder how came to the conclusion you are "exceptional"? This isn't a mocking question. I am just curious because even though I am a good programmer (if I do say so myself), and I have improved a few quanta of magnitude in the last few years, I always find that there are many people much better than me,no matter what level of proficiency I attain.
Maybe I just don't work hard enough but I am very interested in knowing at what point one would classify oneself as exceptional (vs other people making that judgment).
What have you achieved in your language of choice that made you conclude this? Maybe you have some code out there we can look at?
"Your friend would not consider hiring me because of this too I'll bet -- yet I could probably build his site twice as fast as the best Ruby programmer."
This doesn't compute. The best ruby programmer in the world (whoever he/she is) should be massively productive. What enables you to get a 100% boost as compared to him?
EDIT: On judging oneself exceptional. There is a local legend that goes like this.
Once upon a time, long ago, a prince told his father(the king) that he wanted to become a martial arts expert and an exceptional warrior. So the king apprenticed the prince to the best martial artist in the kingdom. The master was a greet teacher and the prince was very talented and diligent, and he threw himself into the training. The king got regular reports from the teacher that the prince was steadily advancing in his proficiency.
A year later, the prince came home for a holiday and the king asked him how his training was going. he replied " I've learned a lot. I could take on a 100 opponents at a time and win, easy". The king said " That isn't good enough. You need more training"
The next year the king asked the same question and the prince replied " well I've learned a lot more and I've changed my estimate. 100 people may be a little tough but I can take on 50 and win" and the king just shook his head sadly and asked him to train more.
Every year after that the king would ask the same question and the number of people the prince thought he could fight simultaneously kept coming down till after many years he replied "I think I could handle one opponent, maybe, but if possible I'd rather fight a duel only when absolutely necessary, because you never now what the result will be. There is always the possibility that your opponent totally outmatches you."
And the king replied " Now your training is complete". (And by then the prince was indeed a deadly fighter, the best in the kingdom).
fwiw.
I don't know how exactly you define exceptional, but if you are indeed exceptional in the sense of being in the top 5% (say) of developers in your chosen language, and assuming your language is not some forgotten relic from the 60's, then you should be beating off employers every day.
If I wanted a game written in Java (for whatever reason) and John Carmack wanted to take the job but he knew only C/C++ (but was ok with learning java) I couldn't imagine turning him down because I have Joe Blow's cv showing 10 years experience in java. If you are really exceptional in your language, I doubt someone would turn you down just because you'll take a couple of weeks to pick up ruby.
Moving on, I wonder how came to the conclusion you are "exceptional"? This isn't a mocking question. I am just curious because even though I am a good programmer (if I do say so myself), and I have improved a few quanta of magnitude in the last few years, I always find that there are many people much better than me,no matter what level of proficiency I attain.
Maybe I just don't work hard enough but I am very interested in knowing at what point one would classify oneself as exceptional (vs other people making that judgment).
What have you achieved in your language of choice that made you conclude this? Maybe you have some code out there we can look at?
"Your friend would not consider hiring me because of this too I'll bet -- yet I could probably build his site twice as fast as the best Ruby programmer."
This doesn't compute. The best ruby programmer in the world (whoever he/she is) should be massively productive. What enables you to get a 100% boost as compared to him?
EDIT: On judging oneself exceptional. There is a local legend that goes like this.
Once upon a time, long ago, a prince told his father(the king) that he wanted to become a martial arts expert and an exceptional warrior. So the king apprenticed the prince to the best martial artist in the kingdom. The master was a greet teacher and the prince was very talented and diligent, and he threw himself into the training. The king got regular reports from the teacher that the prince was steadily advancing in his proficiency.
A year later, the prince came home for a holiday and the king asked him how his training was going. he replied " I've learned a lot. I could take on a 100 opponents at a time and win, easy". The king said " That isn't good enough. You need more training"
The next year the king asked the same question and the prince replied " well I've learned a lot more and I've changed my estimate. 100 people may be a little tough but I can take on 50 and win" and the king just shook his head sadly and asked him to train more.
Every year after that the king would ask the same question and the number of people the prince thought he could fight simultaneously kept coming down till after many years he replied "I think I could handle one opponent, maybe, but if possible I'd rather fight a duel only when absolutely necessary, because you never now what the result will be. There is always the possibility that your opponent totally outmatches you."
And the king replied " Now your training is complete". (And by then the prince was indeed a deadly fighter, the best in the kingdom).
fwiw.
The problem here is that they want a candidate that is already perfect for the job and can jump straight in, and are unwilling to do any sort of training. Hence they let a position stay open for months out of irrational fear of spending a few weeks on training a smart but imperfect candidate.
edit: also, if there's really a 10x difference in productivity between the worst and the best programmers, isn't a truly great programmer theoretically worth more like 300-400k a year, rather than 150k?
edit: also, if there's really a 10x difference in productivity between the worst and the best programmers, isn't a truly great programmer theoretically worth more like 300-400k a year, rather than 150k?
Why should they spend time training? Isn't increasing the money on the table enough motivation for people to train themselves on whatever skillset is required and apply for the position?
Part, if not whole, of the truth is that the learn-unlearn-learn cycle in itself is a skill. People who posses that skill acquire new skillsets and stay relevant; people who don't have to wait to be trained.
You could just as easily argue that if more students study engineering its hurts those currently in the industry, that alone is not a reason to be against it.
You're so wrong. The whole purpose of bar exams and similar certification requirements in most trades is to limit supply. Almost every profession does this in one way or the other, except engineers.
You're so wrong. The whole purpose of bar exams and similar certification requirements in most trades is to limit supply. Almost every profession does this in one way or the other, except engineers.
[deleted]
It limits unqualified supply, I'm not against that. The bar doesn't set a hard limit on number of new lawyers per year AFAIK.
Sure, cheap idiots shouldn't be allowed to immigrate into the USA. I'm totally against the trend of mass produced know-nothing "programmers" who were imported into the US in the late 90's and early 2000's. But there's a lot of legitimately intelligent and capable people out there, and it's in our best interest to try and get them to play for Team USA.
You speak the truth, but hesitate to enumerate on the reality.
The key difference between our systems is that Canada issues residency visas, not temporary work visas. Once you have your Canadian permanent residency visa you can work for any employer. Immigrants aren't shackled to a sponsor, so they don't have the same motivation as H1-Bs to accept below-market wages and working conditions.
In addition, the Canadian system is biased in favor of skilled workers. The vast majority of American immigrants are unskilled laborers allowed in through the 'family reunification' program. Canada does have a similar program, but the majority of our immigrants are skilled. There is even a fast-track classification for US H1-B holders.
The problem with the immigration debate in the US is that it's fundamentally dishonest. Employers lionize immigrants, but the last thing they want is a system that treats them fairly.