Most active commenters
  • gangstead(3)

←back to thread

I'm Peter Roberts, immigration attorney who does work for YC and startups. AMA

183 points proberts | 11 comments | 17 Oct 24 16:01 UTC | HN request time: 0.256s | source | bottom

I'll be here for the few hours and then again at around 1 pm PST for another few hours. As usual, there are countless possible topics and I'll be guided by whatever you're concerned with. Please remember that I can't provide legal advice on specific cases for obvious liability reasons because I won't have access to all the facts. Please stick to a factual discussion in your questions and comments and I'll try to do the same in my answers. Thanks!

Previous threads we've done: https://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=proberts.

1. gangstead ◴[17 Oct 24 17:19 UTC] No.41871598[source]▶
One idea to replace the H1-B lottery that I've seen on HN is to sort the applications by salary and let in the top XX highest paid.

Do you have any thoughts on that? Is this one of those "why don't they just..." type of ideas that people with first hand knowledge know is majorly flawed?

replies(2): >>41871728 #>>41873823 #
2. proberts ◴[17 Oct 24 17:32 UTC] No.41871728[source]▶
I just don't see how the value - from a benefit to the U.S. economy perspective - is tied to salary so that doesn't make sense to me as a line to draw. If the H-1B program were to be limited in any way (which is not something I necessarily agree with), one option is to list occupations that are in short supply each year and to prioritize those. Many countries do this.
replies(3): >>41872675 #>>41873060 #>>41874584 #
3. jefftk ◴[17 Oct 24 18:58 UTC] No.41872675[source]▶
> one option is to list occupations that are in short supply each year and to prioritize those

That's a lot of what prioritizing slots by pay does: pay is higher for jobs with low supply relative to demand.

replies(2): >>41873135 #>>41875007 #
4. gangstead ◴[17 Oct 24 19:43 UTC] No.41873060[source]▶
Doesn't salary at least set a floor on what a company thinks that employee is going to add in value? They wouldn't spend dollars on salary to get dimes of extra revenue.

I would also argue that prioritizing the highest paid jobs makes displacement of US workers less likely. It would raise the bar for everyone.

5. gangstead ◴[17 Oct 24 19:53 UTC] No.41873135{3}[source]▶
I suspect that the real problem with prioritizing by pay is that it shows that a lot of employers are using H1-B workers to put downward pressure on wages.

Also there are a lot of parties involved in gaming the complex system whose services wouldn't be needed if the solution was that simple. I think Upton Sinclair's quote applies here. https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/21810-it-is-difficult-to-ge...

6. pnw ◴[17 Oct 24 21:09 UTC] No.41873823[source]▶
US residency and citizenship is in extremely high demand, so whatever immigration system is put in place will ultimately be gamed. Creating a visa category that is solely based on salary would be attractive to some cohort of people who want to live in the US regardless of the costs.

We saw similar things with previous "investor visas" where there was no intention to start a business and the USCIS had to stop issuing them for many years because of the pervasive fraud on both sides of the equation. I can guarantee that some creative lawyer out there was already thinking about how to game the US "startup visa" when that was proposed a few years back.

replies(1): >>41875289 #
7. casenmgreen ◴[17 Oct 24 22:46 UTC] No.41874584[source]▶
I had two H1-Bs.

The process is completely divorced from reality.

The questions and requirements are meaningless.

To my eye, there is zero rationality in the process.

As far as I can see, the and the only effect of the visa programme is that there is a limited number of visas, and so this acts to prevent businesses from hiring the people they want to hire, and that's not freedom; and in the process of doing so, causing untold disruption to lives and businesses and direct and indirect costs to businesses, individuals and economy as a whole.

8. bubblethink ◴[17 Oct 24 23:51 UTC] No.41875007{3}[source]▶
Not necessarily. You need farmers and scientists. Can't do a descending sort by salary.
replies(1): >>41875381 #
9. kccqzy ◴[18 Oct 24 00:40 UTC] No.41875289[source]▶
A salary-based requirement is a lot less easy to game. After all salaries are reported to the IRS on W-2s. Any fraud in the amount of salary can be easily detected without sophisticated investigation.

The only difficulty I see is that salary isn't necessarily proportional to a person's usefulness to the economy or the country. A person can start a company and pay himself a million dollars a year while the person and the company does nothing at all. Sure the IRS gets to collect a bunch, but at that point we might as well create a class of visas that are sold in an auction.

10. Detrytus ◴[18 Oct 24 00:55 UTC] No.41875381{4}[source]▶
Wasn't Trump's proposal few years ago "95th percentile salary for their profession"? So you still have room for farmers and scientists provided that they are exceptional (or at least exceptionally well paid) farmers and scientists.
replies(1): >>41876170 #
11. bubblethink ◴[18 Oct 24 03:45 UTC] No.41876170{5}[source]▶
The executive can't do anything. It has to be passed by Congress. Congress hasn't passed anything in 30+ years.