[WisNorCan]

“Immigration support: We will set the termination date for March 1, 2023, giving those with visa applications (and a desire to stay in the US) as much time as possible to find a new job”

Every company should do this to help employees on H1B that are laid off.

The standard terms are one of the horrific things about US immigration policy; suddenly uprooting families including kids attending school in the US.

[willcipriano]

That's by design, the H1B program is similar to illegal immigration like that. Create a underclass of workers that are more vulnerable with less rights and beat the domestic workers over the head with them to drive down wages.

[boringg]

While that might be what's happening in some regards - it definitely wasn't by design. Your giving too much credit to policy builders and far too much weight to cynicism.

Occam's razor can probably finesse your logic on this one. You are adding too much complexity to the origin's of H1B to push your narrative.

[lotsofpulp]

When the consequences are trivially visible and remain for this long, then it becomes by design by way of inaction by the people who make the rules.

[boringg]

Again Occam's razor. Your are applying to much to it.

There's been no push to overhaul H1B as it has little political value for the politicians. I see what people are frustrated about especially those on H1B but I don't think it is some cynical reason by the politicians - its more that it has little to gain for them.

It's a non-voting group of people and it isn't a large enough issue for any of their voting base.

It is not some weird theory about keeping H1B an underclass and putting downwards pressure on domestic employees.

[lotsofpulp]

> its more that it has little to gain for them.

But it will cause them a loss from the big donors that do benefit from H1-B people having less negotiating power, which is why the cynicism is warranted.

“Occam’s razor” is for situations where something is happening unintentionally. There exists intention here, however indirect.

[boringg]

Occam's razor: "It is generally understood in the sense that with competing theories or explanations, the simpler one, for example a model with fewer parameters, is to be preferred."

[dkarl]

The mass of people who provided popular, democratic support for visa restrictions were motivated by the nativist concern of protecting American workers from foreign competition. You can always attribute popular sentiment to mustache-twirling elites pulling the people's puppet strings, but there's no getting around the widespread, populist fear that American workers would lose their jobs to foreign, racial others who were inhumanly smart and/or inhumanly hard-working and/or willing to live in inhuman conditions.

Liberal economic elites would have preferred unrestricted, laissez-faire access to technically skilled immigrant labor rather than being forced to deal with the caps, lotteries, and bureaucracy associated with the H1B program.

[lotsofpulp]

> The mass of people who provided popular, democratic support for visa restrictions were motivated by the nativist concern of protecting American workers from foreign competition.

Why would they support H1-B then? It is literally increasing supply of workers who have less negotiating power than the “mass of people” I presume you are referring to. Surely they would be better off with immigrants whose legal status was not tied to employers.

[willcipriano]

A common refrain you will hear is "Americans don't want to do those jobs", but what that misses is if you gave a immigrant the same rights and opportunities as a citizen they won't want to do that job either (at the price and on the terms offered). Relatively open ended immigration programs with minimal restrictions are defensible, but this caste system is not.

[lotsofpulp]

I am not sure how that is related, but the last part of that phrase is often left out. “Americans do not want to do those jobs at a certain price”

>Relatively open ended immigration programs with minimal restrictions are defensible, but this caste system is not.

Yes, that was my point. The only population benefiting from H1-Bs reduced negotiating power due to their immigration rules is business owners.

[dkarl]

> It is literally increasing supply of workers who have less negotiating power than the “mass of people”

It restricts the number of workers that are able to work in the U.S., and forces companies to jump through hoops to hire them. The idea was that companies would be forced to hire American workers whenever they were available, and only rely on foreign workers as a fallback. Obviously corporations were able to somewhat neuter the law so that it wasn't as much of an obstacle as it was sold as.

> less negotiating power

Protectionists were convinced that foreign workers would undercut them by working harder for less money in worse conditions; the idea of foreign workers actually helping improve working conditions would have sounded ridiculous (if not faintly sinister) to them.

[lotsofpulp]

> It restricts the number of workers that are able to work in the U.S., and forces companies to jump through hoops to hire them.

Restricting workers would be denying them entry into the country to work in the first place. And forcing companies to jump through hoops simply means instead of lower paying employers taking advantage of the visa, higher paying employers take advantage. Either way, there is going to be an increase in labor supply of people willing to work for lower wages (since they cannot shop for other employers), and that negatively effects all workers.

[dkarl]

I think you're talking about the truth of the matter, but I'm talking about what motivated the creation of the program in the first place. Economic liberals wanted unrestricted access to labor regardless of borders, protectionists in the U.S. did not want to compete against labor from other countries, and the H1B visa program came out of that conflict.

[throwayyy479087]

fwiw, this is because H1B has evolved far from its initial purpose. Most tech H1Bs really should be on EB-1A, which has more reasonable regs.

[giaour]

I admire this approach, but I am a bit worried that making big public announcements of doing so will trigger a crackdown (especially if Stephen Miller or his ilk are ever in charge of US immigration policy again).

[pastor_bob]

So long as it is applied evenly to all laid off.

Personally, I find the health benefits extension to be much more meaningful

[dncornholio]

Ugh.. It shouldn't even need to be said.. companies überhaupt shouldn't be doing mass lay-offs..