[deyan]

>The out going administration had sold us (and indirectly hurting American workers) with the "Indentured servitude rules" to benefit the Tech companies and immigration attorneys.

The part that says "the outgoing administration" is demonstrably false. The facts are that the immigration policy of the US has not changed much under Obama (with a few notable exceptions like Cuba but that is not really related to the tech industry). Please stop spreading FUD.

The immigration policy is nonsensical, but Obama has little to do with it. Perhaps the only legitimate criticism you can make is that he was not able to reform it properly.

[suryacom]

>The part that says "the outgoing administration" is demonstrably false.

That is not correct. The G. W. Bush administration, just before leaving the office, gave all the legal immigrants "Job Mobility" (i.e., their H1B visa was not anymore tied to the employer). It is minor and easy step President could take under his executive power.

[foldr]

>gave all the legal immigrants "Job Mobility" (i.e., their H1B visa was not anymore tied to the employer)

Reference for this? I see that Bush proposed something like this in 2004, but I can't find any reference for it ever having been implemented.

[suryacom]

I did a quick google search but could not find any reference. Media barely covers any of our issues (no NYT no WashingPost, no noone). But, I personally know more than few of family friends were benefited.

Bush Administration made the "priority date current" for a short window; this allowed legal immigrants waiting in the line for Permanent Residency to file and obtain 485-EAD.

[foldr]

You're saying there was a major change to the H1B rules, and that Obama then reversed this change, and that there is no reference to this anywhere?

[suryacom]

They were allowed to move out of H1B visa to EAD status (non-visa legal status). The same legal status DACA recipients got from Obama administration. So, technically nothing was changed to the H1B rule.

[foldr]

Broadly speaking, this is allowed now, no? There is a route to an EAD for H1B holders (and various advantages and disadvantages to each).

https://www.murthy.com/2012/10/26/using-the-ead-as-an-option...

[suryacom]

mavelikara's comment blow has the references to Bush's changes: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13402891

[foldr]

Yeah, I saw that. But the way you initially described them was very inaccurate.

[mavelikara]

> Bush Administration made the "priority date current" for a short window; this allowed legal immigrants waiting in the line for Permanent Residency to file and obtain 485-EAD.

The priority dates became current abruptly for a month in July 2007 (see [1], [2] and [3] for Visa Bulletins for Jun/Jul/Aug 2007; "C" means current, "U" means unavailable). This was also the time period when "labor substitution" [4] was possible - i.e the employer could substitute a new prospective employee in the place of another who has an approved labor certification. Together, this enabled many people on H-1B to get an EAD [5]. EADs offer more or less the same flexibility as Green Cards for the purpose of employment.

This is probably what suryacom meant.

Labor substitution provision has since been revoked.

[1] Visa bulletin for June 2007: https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/law-and-policy/bul...

[2] Visa bulletin for July 2007: https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/law-and-policy/bul...

[3] Visa bulletin for August 2007: https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/law-and-policy/bul...

[4] http://www.kenreyeslaw.com/blog/2014/october/labor-certifica...

[5] https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/green-card-processes-and-pr...

[ojbyrne]

Google surfaces literally thousands of references to every little bit of US immigration minutiae, thanks to every immigration lawyer having public websites and forums, so I think that your path to EAD was likely wishful thinking.

The incoming administration has targeted the H-1B program and thanks to their control of the legislative arm and their embrace of the "southern strategy" I would expect things to get significantly worse for H-1Bs, especially those with the wrong skin color.

Here is a concrete example of something the Obama administration - the executive arm - did actually do for H1Bs - clarifying that there is a 60 day grace prior for switching jobs:

https://www.uscis.gov/news/news-releases/uscis-publishes-fin...

[mavelikara]

> Google surfaces literally thousands of references to every little bit of US immigration minutiae, thanks to every immigration lawyer having public websites and forums, so I think that your path to EAD was likely wishful thinking.

It was not. Please see my sibling comment.

Furthermore, Obama administration has explicitly declined to allow such provisions despite being well aware of this situation and after publicly promising relief.

In a memo[1] dated 11/20/2014 (right after the President's State of the Union address [2]), Jeh Johnson (Secretary of Dept. of Homeland Security) stated:

  As you know, our employment-based immigration system is
  afflicted with extremely long waits for immigrant visas, or 
  "green cards," due to relatively low green card numerical limits 
  established by Congress 24 years ago in 1990.
  ...
  The resulting backlogs for green cards prevent U.S. employers
  from attracting and retaining highly skilled workers critical to
  their businesses. U.S. businesses have historically relied on 
  temporary visas- such as H-1B, L-1B, or 0-1 visas-to retain
  individuals with needed skills as they work their way through 
  these backlogs. But as the backlogs for green cards grow longer, 
  it is increasingly the case that temporary visas fail to fill 
  the gap.
  ...
  To correct this problem, I hereby direct USCIS to take several 
  steps to modernize and improve the immigrant visa process.

After 2 years of dragging its feet on the issue, USCIS recently published its rule. It goes into 95 pages of legalese, but the TL;DR is that USCIS has not done pretty much nothing to address issues pointed out in Johnson's memo. The only good thing to have come out of it is what you said:

> clarifying that there is a 60 day grace prior for switching jobs

Notice how little the actual action was compared to the lofty initial rhetoric.

[1]: Executive Action: Support High-skilled Business and Workers - https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/14_1120...

[2]: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/01/28/presi...

[3]: USCIS Publishes Final Rule For Certain Employment-Based Immigrant and Nonimmigrant Visa Programs - https://www.uscis.gov/news/news-releases/uscis-publishes-fin...

[pm90]

Thank you for sharing this. I don't assume you're a lawyer or anything, but does this mean that after leaving a job on an H1B visa, a worker has 60 days to potentially find another job?

It is rather disappointing that more action has not been taken to remedy this increasingly byzantine process. Its rather frustrating to jump through all the hoops and then be told to wait for 10+ years for the legal right to work after having contributed thousands of dollars in taxes, social security etc.

[ams6110]

Accepting what you say, he didn't change it in 8 years, so now he has very much to do with it, IMHO.

[untog]

The President is not a dictator (fortunately). Almost any attempt at immigration reform in the last eight years has been shot down by the House, Senate or usually both. There is only so much he was able to do without them on-side.

[pm90]

The problem with this reasoning is that "Immigration reform" is tied directly to some way of providing relief to millions of undocumented ("illegal") immigrants in the US. It seems like the legal immigrants facing the brunt of the current arcane immigration policy (mostly legal immigrants from India/China) are neither politically active nor have the required numbers to influence the Legislature/White House to reform these policies.

It is this conflation that hurts the legal immigrants the most. I believe if a bill was introduced to reform the legal immigration process to permit more highly skilled workers to immigrate more easily, neither of the houses (nor the public) would have a problem with it.

[JumpCrisscross]

> if a bill was introduced to reform the legal immigration process to permit more highly skilled workers to immigrate more easily, neither of the houses (nor the public) would have a problem with it

When the Democrat leadership argues for "comprehensive immigration reform" they are shooting down separating skilled from low-skilled immigration.

"Senate lawmakers who are most involved with immigration legislation--the so-called Gang of Eight--would prefer to see a comprehensive deal. That's also the position President Obama has taken. The trick lies in corralling enough Republicans to support a total-package process, as opposed to striking a set of smaller agreements. Carving out skilled immigration might lead to an easy bipartisan win, but it would give ammunition to piecemealers and risk fracturing the Gang of Eight."

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/03/democrat...

[untog]

> I believe if a bill was introduced to reform the legal immigration process to permit more highly skilled workers to immigrate more easily, neither of the houses (nor the public) would have a problem with it.

I disagree. I think that a lot of politicians would refuse to sign any legislation with the words "permit" and "immigrant" in them. The public at large as misinformed enough that they're probably right to do so, too, if they want to be re-elected.

[prostoalex]

The original poster did not care about "immigration reform" at large (which in the US is a euphemism for green card / citizenship path for undocumented immigrants), just his/her specific scenario.

Yes, the executive branch got stalled on immigration reform, but it was executive branch's choice to roll all of the issues (illegal immigration per se, illegal immigrants with children legally granted US citizenship status, illegal immigrants who overstayed their temporary worker visa, F1 students with no path to immigration status, H1 temporary workers who faced employment loss, immigrant investor green cards) into one giant overarching "immigration reform".

It certainly did not have to be approached that way, unless someone specifically was looking for a way to get blocked on such omnibus approach and then throw up their hands at "lack of cooperation".

[jgalt212]

> facts are that the immigration policy of the US has not changed much under Obama

This is true for many, many things under Obama. For those of us who elected him as a "change agent" we are largely disappointed.