Judge sends two to prison for 7 years for H-1B fraud

Post by golergka » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 6:43 AM UTC

epicureanideal wrote: post #75

vostok wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can still hire devs. They just need to pay more. Total comp is not adjusted for cost of living for doctors, salesmen, traders, bankers, attorneys, and managers. Why do you expect it to be adjusted for software developers? This is less than intuitive for me.

It's a way of justifying keeping salaries as low as possible for engineers, but somehow managing to cough up more money in some locations. An equally good engineer in Chicago should be worth the same amount as an engineer in SF, but they're paid less... simply because the employer has more negotiating power in both cases. In both cases, the employer pays enough to give the engineer a reasonably good living for the lo…

Post by mavelikara » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 7:19 AM UTC

vostok wrote: post #33

chrisper wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also many of these consultancy firms just flood the H1B application pool and then just take whoever got accepted. Very unfair.

This is why I strongly believe that H1Bs should be given out to employees that are offered the highest salary. Clearly there is no shortage if you are not willing to pay one of the highest salaries. Yea, this wouldn't be perfect, but it's much better than the significantly more gameable lottery system we have now.

Post by mavelikara » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 7:29 AM UTC

unclebucknasty wrote: post #104

enraged_camel wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>This is because the program as-is does not restrict people from changing jobs. It just requires a sponsorship. It doesn't technically restrict them, but the window for changing jobs is so short that the employees are practically anchored to the employer. In addition to the short window, changing jobs during H1B also resets the immigrant's place in the green card queue, which can cost them years and years of progres…

You didn't process my comment fully. I was referring to the downward pressure on all wages (and U.S. workers in particular), not those of H1-B holders. This (and my entire comment) was a rebuttal of the GP and should be read in that context. Having workers stay in the country without jobs increases labor supply, which means lower wages for U.S. workers, contrary to the GP's counter-intuitive assertion. It's simple su…

    Dual intent is a United States immigration law concept. It generally 
    refers to the fact that certain U.S. visas allow foreigners to be 
    temporarily present in the U.S. with lawful status and immigrant 
    intent. This allows those visa holders, particularly H-1B 
    professionals, to enter the U.S. while simultaneously seeking 
    lawful permanent resident status (green card status) at a port 
    of entry. Otherwise, visa holders may be presumed to have 
    immigrant intent and can be kept from entry (summarily excluded) 
    as a matter of law.

Post by jon-wood » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 7:36 AM UTC

SilasX wrote: post #136

megablast wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it doesn't. San Fran has higher salaries across the board, to go with the higher cost of living. It doesn't mean other areas don't need devs.

Arguably the effect goes the other way: engineers are more productive in SF, so they're worth paying more in SF. (If that weren't the case, then you wouldn't be able to pay engineers enough to want to live there while still making s profit.) So the GP's policy would still fit the spirit of the H1B program, which is to allow slots for high-output roles.

Post by imtringued » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 8:07 AM UTC

eru wrote: post #126

unclebucknasty wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not that I'm in favor of the current system, but your argument is flawed. How? Loosening restrictions on sponsorships would invariably result in a net increase in the available labor pool, which would put downward pressure on wages for everyone. This is because the program as-is does not restrict people from changing jobs. It just requires a sponsorship. So, what you are really advocating is that people without jobs…

> Loosening restrictions on sponsorships would invariably result in a net increase in the available labor pool, which would put downward pressure on wages for everyone. The labour market doesn't work like that..