Damned if you do, damned if you don't. I've heard people here asking for curbs on H1Bs for years because of not only abuses, but also engineers who come with a ton of experience as entry-level hires. I know this very well, I was one of these engineers. I was a senior software developer from overseas hired on H1B at the same level/pay of US college hires. I'm a citizen now.

Now that Trump is trying to do something about it, I start seeing a flood of negative posts. We need to decide what we want.

▲

jemmyw 12 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Well different people on this very site want very different things. So you can't really ask us to decide what we want. Probably most folks commenting here want to be paid a good wage, but their view on H1B visas is then going to depend on their own situation. I personally live outside the US and contract for a US company, I hope that whatever happens doesn't interfere with my work or my relationship with that company.

▲

_fizz_buzz_ 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Probably not the same people.

▲

etchalon 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

// removing bad analogy

▲

Barrin92 12 hours ago | parent [-]

As a matter of rhetoric, comparing human beings to invasive ants in your house might be a reflection of the times but I think is probably not the best idea

	▲	etchalon 10 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I wasn't comparing human beings to ants, but the fact you read it that way means I should have picked a different analogy.
	▲	seivan 12 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[dead]

▲

andrewflnr 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

What part of this being a bad execution of the idea is confusing or contradictory? What "we want" is for the governance of our country, including but not limited to H1B reform, to not be a shambolic disaster.

I was prepared to accept this as one of the handful of semi-useful things Trump did, and I might still personally benefit, but the details quickly disabused me of the idea that it was actually good.

▲

Terr_ 12 hours ago | parent [-]

> What part of this being a bad execution of the idea is confusing or contradictory?

And even then, "bad idea" is what you get after the extreme charity of assuming the Trump administration is fundamentally lawful.

It's even worse if you believe they're bunch of crooks that will use the "special exception" clause to extort/bribe companies into corrupt favors. For example, granting access to snoop without a court-order, biasing their moderation policies, silencing voices or messages the administration finds inconvenient, etc.

	▲	andrewflnr 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I suspect that this actually is something they think is a "good idea", for their particular idea of "good". It'll get used for "deals" like everything else, but they don't need to introduce new pretexts just for that. ("They" being the Trump admin in general, since I'm not at all sure who in that morass is actually in charge.)