[hildaman]

Ok - that "you are kidding" was an unwarranted swipe. I won't do it again.

Regarding "indentured servant" - that is the factually correct term to describe the situation. Even H-1B visa holders themselves use this term.

Here is a video of an H-1B visa holder using the exact term "indentured servant" with Congressman Darrell Issa at some policy event about the H-1B visa in Washington DC: https://youtu.be/2Tgc9m1IwNc?t=35m47s

The term "indentured servant" is exactly the right term to describe the employer-employee relationship between Guest Worker visa holders and their employer's. As demonstrated in the video, even the H-1B workers themselves are saying that they feel like indentured servants.

I personally feel that politically correctness is somehow having the effect of normalizing this very abnormal employee-employer relationship (at-least here in America).

As the guest worker in the video says, if he loses his job - he has to take his kids out of school, sell his car, sell his house and leave. This is not in any way a normal employee-employer relationship.

I would like to think the points I am raising are thoughtful. well researched and articulate. Apart the "swipes" - which I will tone down on - I don't think I am guilty of any other transgressions.

[dang]

The bigger problem is the one you didn't respond to. You're showing up in an HN thread with a single-purpose account armed with seasoned ideological talking points. That's very much not what this site is for, regardless of which battle it is and which side you're on.

[hildaman]

If this is what you want me to respond to:

> You could even, if you wanted to, make an argument that this has some things in common with what was historically called indentured labor. But to use a charged phrase as a rhetorical weapon in an ideological battle, which you clearly are doing, is the wrong kind of comment for HN.

You are right, I could have absolutely talked about the history of indentured labor in America - but I don't think that was germane to the implications of the Regulation or the implications for the current (sorry) state of Guest Labor in America which what this discussion was about.

Regarding: > The bigger problem is the one you didn't respond to. You're showing up in an HN thread with a single-purpose account armed with seasoned ideological talking points. That's very much not what this site is for, regardless of which battle it is and which side you're on.

I am a geek, who has frequented HN for a long time, and before that digg and before that slashdot (I still go there BTW).

I usually don't post very much.

And "seasoned talking points" - cmon. Doing my research before shooting my mouth off - is a GOOD THING and I would like to think that I am elevating the level of discourse.

Infact everyone else (except projectramo - who I did mishandle and doesn't disagree with my characterization of H-1B/L-1 workers) who has weighed in seems to think my comments are very apropos:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14746165 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14746303 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14746400 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14746592

Infact, in my view - you are the one who is flaming me and disrupting the discourse here.

[dang]

Probably I misunderstood you but this is because your posts don't differentiate themselves from someone using HN just for ideological purposes. If so, there's an easy fix.