The H-1B program definitely needs more regulation to prevent abuse by companies (especially when it comes to salary negotiations). But if anything we should increase the number - it's not like those people are just going to not work if they don't come to the U.S. They'll just work in different countries, either driving more offshoring of labor by American companies, or just competing with them directly. It's in the U.S.'s best interest as a whole to get as many of the best and the brightest in the world to work here, and then do everything we can to get them to stay.
Currently, 48M+ people in the U.S. were born outside the U.S. and we welcome a larger total number (like 1.2M+) of immigrants per year than any other country in the world. By far - it's like double the closest country easily, year in and year out. Basically all of Western Europe combined. Might as well have a lot of them be PhDs and other highly skilled/educated people.
Besides, half of Silicon Valley was started by immigrants or children of immigrants - maybe more. In my experience, third+ generation Americans tend to take what they have for granted. If you've worked your ass off and crossed the world to get to the U.S., you're the type of person we want here. It's been that way for literally generations. To quote Hamilton (which I just saw this weekend), "Immigrants. They get the job done."
Increase the count and also the minimum salary. It's bonkers that the $65k minimum from 1989 has never been updated, especially given which cities many H1B immigrants need to live.
It’s already calculated based on median income for the same job title in the area. What they should do is include all compensation (stock, bonus healthcare, food, etc) in the calculations. I doubt it’s been a significant depressing factor though...
I think most people that grew up in the Bay Area would prefer it if there was reduced traffic and lower rent that you'd get having had less high-skilled immigration. Then California wouldn't have such a large working class exodus. Santa Clara county is 38.07% immigrant. Without that immigrant population, working-class Californians would have more disposable income after rent, faster commutes, and more free time.
The locals seem to agree -- it has been Bay Area communities' policy to hinder international and interstate migration into the area by limiting new construction, on the grounds that more people makes the community a worse place to live.
Literally everyone who lives in California came from somewhere else. Who gets to decide when the music stops forever, and everyone who found a seat gets to stay, and everyone else has to find somewhere else to live?
I've been here 25 years now... Do I count? My son grew up here, does he count even though he's my son? I'm sure the Native Americans or the Spanish after them would love to chat about your ideas on immigration. This state would be a pristine garden without all the northern European descendents mucking up the place.
How far back do we need to go? Talk about no commute and lots of free time! Get rid of all the immigrants and this place would be heaven. Sadly, all the people who consider themselves "local" would have to go as well.
In your first post, you were arguing that immigration improves the place. Now you're arguing that we should allow immigration even if it doesn't.
Huh.
If the population is really sparse, immigration really does improve the society -- it allows for specialization, with supermarkets, karate studios, and the like. Then, as the population gets more dense, the marginal benefit of population growth, assuming random average people, decreases. Eventually, it goes negative. At that point, you need to raise the bar -- e.g. only admit high quality immigrants, or family reunification (which benefits citizen family members). The higher the population, the higher the bar needs to get raised.
The problem with your analysis is that it doesn't take into account the total population number. Any advocacy for immigration that doesn't differentiate between a national population of 100 million, 350 million, and 900 million, if that advocacy argues that it benefits the country, is intrinsically defective,
H-1B1 is not the visa type for the best and brightest. That visa type is EB-1.
H-1B is about skills in high demand not extraordinary ability.
Many personal friends of mine are H-1B and they would not be even considered the best or brightest in their own household.
Of course, you have to be somewhat smart to meet the basic requirements: bachelor's degree or equivalent. But that does not mean you are among the best.
I have a friend with an EB-1 visa. She's good ("alien of exceptional ability") at her job I suppose, which is being a porn actress. Somewhat hilariously it was rather easy for her to meet the criteria (international prizes, being highly paid compared to peers, commercial success, being published in media etc.).
I’ve worked with a handful of EB-1 holders. I wouldn’t qualify a single one as “exceptional.” Fine coworkers, sure, but to a one the justification for EB-1 strained credulity.
I have however worked with several H1-B holders of whom I would say the opposite.
The spirit of the visa is for Nobel prizes, Olympic medals and such, but in practice, it is a visa for people with immigration lawyers of exceptional ability.
I very much doubt that she's the only one. Apparently Melania Trump had one, too - I suspect that a good immigration lawyer can be very helpful in this sort of thing if some conceivable way to argue that you meet the requirements exists.
I don't doubt the fact that an EB-1 visa could be awarded with a person with that background. I doubt about their alleged personal relationship with an adult entertainer. That guess is based on the fact that adult entertainers worthy of an EB-1 visa are a tiny, tiny fraction of the general population.
Not going to dox myself to prove it, sorry (actually it would be provable by doing some sleuthing over my posting history here, but I'm not going to point out exactly how either).
The H1B is not directly comparable to EB-1. The former is a non-immigrant visa, is easier to qualify for (just need to have a bachelor's degree in a "specialty occupation") except for the lottery part and less costly to obtain (around $5-7k total in fees). The latter an immigrant visa, costs quite a bit more to obtain ($10-20k in total fees) and requires more regimented labor market testing process to prove there are no willing, able and qualified US workers for that position. A better comparison would be between the H1B and O1. Both are non-immigrant visas and the O1's requirements are quite similar to EB-1.
She was a working model back then, not a supermodel. There are plenty of questions around how she qualified for it. Trump promised a press conference on it and of course it never happened.
Currently, 48M+ people in the U.S. were born outside the U.S. and we welcome a larger total number (like 1.2M+) of immigrants per year than any other country in the world. By far - it's like double the closest country easily, year in and year out. Basically all of Western Europe combined. Might as well have a lot of them be PhDs and other highly skilled/educated people.
Besides, half of Silicon Valley was started by immigrants or children of immigrants - maybe more. In my experience, third+ generation Americans tend to take what they have for granted. If you've worked your ass off and crossed the world to get to the U.S., you're the type of person we want here. It's been that way for literally generations. To quote Hamilton (which I just saw this weekend), "Immigrants. They get the job done."