This is also why I as a US citizen strongly support green cards for everybody in the industry who's fractionally eligible for them - my working conditions are shaped by what they can get the labor force as a whole to put up with, and that's shaped by visa indenture.

Well, from the Gov's POV, they don't want to import wards of the state. If you arrive in a country, someone has to fund you. Tying it to an employeer guarentees that you're funded. Without that you're just filling up ERs and hostels, etc.

I know you post this canon of "but acktually, Congress didn't want skilled immigration" in all threads, so it's useful to point to the actual legislative record, AC21 (American Competitiveness in the 21st Century), which is the most recent passed legislation that covers a lot this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Competitiveness_in_th...).

That’s just a weird modern view tainted by recent nativist and populist sentiments. If you go back 20 years, in 2006, it would be utterly not controversial for a republican politician to support issuing green cards to anyone who completed a PhD in America.

If you don't have access to a 401k at work you can contribute pre-tax to a traditional IRA instead. It is weird to have both, though.

The idea that international socialists have that domestic labor conditions are made worse by a lack of protections for foreign workers (rather than the presence of the workers themselves) doesn’t pan out if you look at Canada; it’s quite rare for status in the country to be tied to a particular employment agreement, so immigrants are free to leave undesirable employers, but wages are substantially lower there due to the country having accepted about 3 million immigrants and temporary workers in the span of the last ten years.

Didn't healthcare get tied to employment due to union demands in the 60s or 70s?

I did go in details in another comment so I won't repeat myself because that comment is LONG.

But a nation couldn't ask more than a working age adult where you invested zero in education and health for 20 years and suddenly pay taxes with none of almost no benefits.

In the UK, which I raised numbers due to the discussion going on in there, visa workers generated yearly 12 to 20 Billions in direct taxes and fees and they use 4B in health (which technically they paid in fees a combined value of 6B upfront If my numbers are right)

But the real numbers lies on what other revenue they generate. It is estimated in my calculations that +50B-70B pounds are from immigrants on UK with a working visa.

That's no amount to shy considering about it is 8M people in that specific situation. And remember that none of them had to have their education covered by the government.

Someone in the other comment said that 8M British people would generate more taxes than that, but I did not find evidence of that. According to the public consultation documents UK gov released about immigration a couple of years ago, about 10% of the immigrants are responsible for more than 35% of the taxes collected. Hence the suggestion on curb immigration considering the salary range which might make sense or not depending on where you stand on the topic. I have no horses on this race and my impression as an outsider who just likes analysing data is that it seems as much of a claim as saying that EU took more money from UK than what it put in which turned out to be mostly incorrect.

He's speaking specifically about the green card process, at which point you've already been in the country for a long time and paid into U.S. taxes. Not people who might want to pay money to immigrate here (although for them, the EB-5 visa program exists).

I think the logic behind being anti-immigrant are "These people don't follow our culture" and "These people don't contribute to American society", then we should have objective criteria that addresses that. Time in U.S. is a proxy for acculturation; so measure that. And taxes paid is a direct financial measure of how much they have contributed to the American government. Both of these are extremely easy to ascertain from official records, so take the corruption and the human guesswork out of it and make clear and consistent rules that address the objectives you're trying to attain.

> Peak chud logic here to penalize the smallest and most productive slice of immigration.

I think the "chud" immigration logic is rather, take whatever win you can get in the general direction of restriction, because you've been losing every single battle for 5+ decades.

We are talking about Microsoft employees.

If they had wage parity there is zero disadvantage to a US citizen. The problem is not H1B's as a concept, it's making foreign workers indentured servants paid a fraction of the wage, thus incentivizing their hiring over US citizens.

> you can already get a greencard by paying less than $1mm in taxes.

Not really.

Your only generic option is EB-5, with $750k in direct investments. However, right now it takes 3 _years_ to process the initial application (https://egov.uscis.gov/processing-times - look at the I-526 form). And after the initial form is approved, you need to apply for the actual green card, adding another 1-3 years.

Approved I140 is almost standard across all companies. They abuse perm process for the MS->OPT->H1b pipeline and keep on extending

Its considered a dual-intent visa.

Surly the “corruption” is big corporations pushing for the H1B program in the first place, at a time (early 1990s) when decreasing immigration was overwhelmingly more popular than increasing it: https://news.gallup.com/poll/1660/immigration.aspx. Surely the “corruption” is the government looking the other way for years while Indian body shops imported massive numbers of foreign workers while ignoring the requirement in the law to advertise to americans?

And this is hardly new. Ross Perot was opposing H1B when he was running for President in the 1990s.