Immigration

Shikha Dalmia in Bloomberg View on the Gang of Eight's Plans to Screw Up the High-Tech Visa Program

|

No one in their right mind would expect the current round of immigration reforms to fix everything that's wrong with America's byzantine and broken system. But it is not too much to expect that these reforms at least not make matters worse. That, however, is exactly what the Gang of Eight's reform proposal would do with respect to high-tech immigrants. In the name of protecting American jobs, it basically hands control of the H-1B program to Department of Labor bureaucrats — and their union bosses — to pummel employers who dare hire foreign techies. Explains Reason Foundation Senior Analyst Shikha Dalmia in her latest Bloomberg View column:

Since 1998, "H-1B dependent" employers — those with 15 percent or more of their workforce on H-1Bs — have had to attest that they are hiring foreign nationals only after making a good-faith effort to recruit qualified Americans. This includes advertising through channels prescribed by the Labor Department and interviewing a requisite number of candidates.

The employers must also be prepared to justify the discharge of any American worker 90 days before or after hiring an H-1B employee. They have to demonstrate either that the employee's departure was voluntary or caused by poor performance or unacceptable behavior. A company that is found to be willfully violating the law can be barred for three years from hiring foreign workers and slapped with thousands of dollars in fines.

Instead of freeing companies from such mandates, the Gang of 8's plan would impose them on every company that hires even a single H-1B visa holder.

But that's just the tip. It gets worse. Much, much worse.

To find out how, go here.

And go here now to buy a copy for just $2.99 of Reason's new guide to "Humane and Pro-Growth" immigration reforms that features its best coverage over the last seven years, including pieces by Kerry Howley, Nick Gillespie, Ron Bailey, Mike Riggs and Shikha Dalmia.

Advertisement

NEXT: UN Approves Mali Peacekeeping Force

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Of course they are going to fuck it up. Does anyone honestly think some bit partisan thousand plus page bill written piece meal by idiot son staffers and lobbyists and voted on without hearing by Congress creatures trying to be “bipartisan” is going to do anything but make things worse?

  2. I am in favor of an immigration auction. Immigrants can buy their way in for cash, with the proceeds being used to pay down the national debt.

    Hi-yooooooo, Siiiilverrrrrrr!

    *fires ivory handled Colt SAA sixshooters in air, gallops off on unicorn*

  3. It’s amazing what a coward John McCain is; That man is terrified of freedom; He clearly thinks his countrymen must be viciously and repeatedly threatened to avoid the collapse of society.

  4. That’s not an ‘immigration reform bill’, it’s the trial lawyers’ retirement fund.
    ‘How many US citizens did you interview? Let’s see the report forms. ALL of them’.

    1. Stockholm Hanoi Syndrome maybe?

      “I lost my freedom in Viet Nam. Now it’s YOUR turn!”

  5. Already on page 13 of 844 is this cute little legal Easter Egg:

    Page 13
    12 (e) FEDERAL COURT REVIEW.?
    13 (1) IN GENERAL.?The district courts of the
    14 United States shall have exclusive jurisdiction to
    15 hear all causes or claims arising from any action un-
    16 dertaken, or any decision made, by the Secretary
    17 under subsection (d). A cause of action or claim may
    18 only be brought alleging a violation of the Constitu-
    19 tion of the United States. The court does not have
    20 jurisdiction to hear any claim not specified in this
    21 paragraph.
    22 (2) TIME FOR FILING COMPLAINT.?If a cause
    23 or claim under paragraph (1) is not filed within 60
    24 days after the date of the contested action or deci-
    25 sion by the Secretary, the claim shall be barred.
    Page 14
    1 (3) APPELLATE REVIEW.?An interlocutory or
    2 final judgment, decree, or order of the district court
    3 may be reviewed only upon petition for a writ of cer-
    4 tiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States.

    Am I correct in assuming that this makes it extremely difficult to get judicial relief of harm caused by diktats of “The Secretary” as this juggernaut rolls forward?

  6. No one in their right mind would expect the current round of immigration reforms to fix everything that’s wrong with America’s byzantine and broken system anything.

  7. Why isn’t the clause “For every H1-B, you must train a citizen to replace them at the end of their tenure”? If it is about getting someone who can do the work, and you claim to not have any citizens who can do the work, have the imported talent make one.

    I’ve run into too many companies who’ve lied just to get someone cheaper than the going rate for citizens. If you’re doing business here, do business here. If you’re doing business there, do business there.

    1. Why doesn’t the US simply allow US employers to employ more talent?

    2. Maybe the going rate for citizens is overinflated?

      1. Only if you subscribe to the theory that there is a global market. I refuse to degrade myself because so much of the rest of the world is a crappy place.

        1. To be precise, you refuse to allow other people to employ people who because you believe that so much of the rest of the world is a crappy place.

          How this would degrade yourself is a mystery to all.

          1. I’d have to stoop to their standards of living to compete.

            If they have these skills, they can start businesses back home providing services to their countrymen. [sarc]Why do you want to impede overseas development?[/sarc]

            What I don’t want is to reward people who lie and claim no ciztens have what they’re looking for simply because it’s in their economic best interests to undermine my economic best interest.

            1. *citizens

              1. Don’t insult me.

            2. “What I don’t want is to reward people who lie and claim no ciztens have what they’re looking for simply because it’s in their economic best interests to undermine my economic best interest.”

              You don’t have a right to a specific job at a specific wage

              1. Tulpa had never understood that the rest of society doesn’t have any duty to mold itself to his pleasure.

                I’ve observed him to have many character defects, and that one is the biggest one of the lot.

              2. While I don’t have a right to anything, it is my obligation to do what I can to improve my circumstances by whatever means are available. This is why I state outright I am not a liberatrian, I will only agree with your philosophy when it is in my best interests to do so.

                My main character flaw is honesty, I admit I’m an evil-self centered person, but that’s what has led to me clawing out of that sludge pile called the lower class.

                1. I repeat by whatever meants are available If this means exploiting the force of government to impair the competition, so be it. If this means combatting the government, so be it. My only duty is to me.

                2. So the only thing restraining you from murder, tulpa, is the fear you’ll get caught.

                  I’ll bear that in mind if we ever meet IRL.

                  1. Do you seriously think I’m him, or are you using it as an insult due to my prior comment. I’d like some elaboration.

                    And if you’re not in my way, or a threat to me, why would I need to dispose of you?

                    1. If you were in competition for a promotion with someone else at work, and you felt the other person was likely to get it, would you murder him?

                    2. No, the risk/reward ratio and the amount of effort required wouldn’t be worth it. It requires a lot more reward to make me put together and enact a plan to end someone. There are much easier paths available.

                    3. Let’s assume you know you wouldn’t get caught, and took minimal effort to execute. You’re dodging the question

                    4. Those are big assumptions.

                      If I’m dodging the question, then you’re really asking me, to what level has my empathy degraded and would I fail a Voight-Kompf test?

                    5. I’m asking if the reason you don’t murder people is because you think it’s morally wrong or because it’s not sufficiently personally advantageous?

                    6. I don’t know.

                    7. Oh Tulpa, you’ve given yourself away completely. Your inability to tolerate people thinking differently than you doomed your little subterfuge from the beginning.

                      You’re like the unfortunate fugitive in this commercial..

                      And, you just admitted that if you thought it would benefit you, you’d do anything. That seems to mean that if you would benefit even by a penny of profit, killing me would be just fine and dandy. It’s a fascinating insight into your defective mind.

                    8. Oh you’re a moron, fuck off.

                      I was alerted to this site’s existence during the initial SAFE act debacle, and lurked for a while because Libertarians make useful allies in keeping some things which people would want to deprive me of, and it was nice to hear a different point of view from the crap New York media keeps spewing.

                      The fact that that disarmament nut threw a hissy fit recently is your problem. I started throwing snarky comments in before he stormed off. I have no problem with you thinking however you please, most of the time it doesn’t impact me in the slightest. I will however, take my stands when your actions or professed principles run counter to what I regard as being the best course for me. I won’t agree with you, but I’ll only get offended when you start accusing me of being someone else.

                      Hate me for who I am, not for what some long term nut has done before I stopped by.

        2. I’m pretty sure you don’t work for my company.

          For that, I’m happy.

          1. After seeing the ugly turn of events upthread, I’m sure you are even more happy.

    3. I have a better idea. LEt’s start treating immigrants into Massachusetts identically regardless of whether they hail from Quebec or New Hampshire.

      It would reduce tax burdens, fuel an economic boom and improve everybody’s lives except for lawyers and government bureaucrats.

      1. Or we could burn Mass. to the ground. Nothing is safe until everything in Lovecraft country has been killed by fire.

        1. You’re definitely on the list now.

          1. Which one?

  8. Between this type of government intrusion on business and obamacare, I think I will just stick with hiring contract software developers on an as needed basis. Cuts out a HUGE headache in the end. Although, profits are smaller…oh well.

  9. In the name of protecting American jobs, it basically hands control of the H-1B program to Department of Labor bureaucrats ? and their union bosses ? to pummel employers who dare hire foreign techies.

    What a shocking suprise. They don’t want skilled immigration, they want welfare jockies. How the hell any libertarian could expect our government to actually make things better with legislation is the confusing part.

  10. Seriously did anybody expect that this bill wasn’t going to be shit?
    How would the current GOP and current Dem together pass an act that is remotely libertarian?

    1. I don’t think anyone here expected a good bill. Reason has promoted the concept of immigration reform and a large percentage (if not a majority) of commentators are pro-open borders but I don’t remember anyone expecting Congress to pass a good immigration bill.

      1. Well Shikha wrote this:

        But it is not too much to expect that these reforms at least not make matters worse.

        Um yes it is?

        1. Well I would say we should be able to expect that, but I would agree with you that given Congress’s track record, we shouldn’t expect that.

          1. When was the last time “reform” wasn’t code for increasing government power?

            1. Dude, I’m not disagreeing with you. I’m saying that in a just world, we would be able to expect Congress to pass a reform law that doesn’t make matters worse. I’m not suggesting we live in that world.

  11. The employers must also be prepared to justify the discharge of any American worker 90 days before or after hiring an H-1B employee. They have to demonstrate either that the employee’s departure was voluntary or caused by poor performance or unacceptable behavior.

    Instead of freeing companies from such mandates, the Gang of 8’s plan would impose them on every company that hires even a single H-1B visa holder.

    So, basically the Department of Labor becomes empowered to review effectively all employment termination decisions. Since it’s virtually impossible for many companies to avoid having someone leave within 90 days of hiring an H1-B worker. It’s pretty much statistically impossible if yo uahve enough employees.

    That’s what Ameirca really needs. A bunch of commissars monitoring who gets hired and fired.

    1. That’s what Ameirca really needs. A bunch of commissars monitoring who gets hired and fired.

      Yes because of TEH KKKORPORSHUNS!!!

    2. You don’t need a bunch of commissars — just pick one H1B Employment Czar.

  12. How the heck do them guys do that? Makes no sense man.

    http://www.GotzMyAnon.tk

  13. And go here now to buy a copy for just $2.99 of Reason’s new guide to “Humane and Pro-Growth” immigration reforms that features its best coverage over the last seven years, including pieces by Kerry Howley, Nick Gillespie, Ron Bailey, Mike Riggs and Shikha Dalmia.

    Well now! That’s certainly a bunch of names you can trust to be looking out for the best interests of the country and it’s citizens!

    *snicker*

  14. Immigration bill to bring in at least 33 million people
    http://dailycaller.com/2013/04…..z2RmArgmg1

    The majority of these people will be big government dependants, supporters and voters. This should advance the libertarian agenda, now and in the future.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.