←back to thread

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

183 points proberts | 8 comments | 17 Oct 24 16:01 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | 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.

Show context
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 #
1. 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 #
2. 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 #
3. 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.

4. gangstead ◴[17 Oct 24 19:53 UTC] No.41873135[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...

5. 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.

6. bubblethink ◴[17 Oct 24 23:51 UTC] No.41875007[source]▶
Not necessarily. You need farmers and scientists. Can't do a descending sort by salary.
replies(1): >>41875381 #
7. Detrytus ◴[18 Oct 24 00:55 UTC] No.41875381{3}[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 #
8. bubblethink ◴[18 Oct 24 03:45 UTC] No.41876170{4}[source]▶
The executive can't do anything. It has to be passed by Congress. Congress hasn't passed anything in 30+ years.