studying here is no guarantee you'll get to stay, even if you did a phd.
All of this should to a little extent alleviate some of the concerns.
The weighted system should still work since the candidate pool (from within the US) is likely mostly students on OPT. They should have comparable salaries, unless they are hired by rotten companies.
Now that Trump is trying to do something about it, I start seeing a flood of negative posts. We need to decide what we want.
I was prepared to accept this as one of the handful of semi-useful things Trump did, and I might still personally benefit, but the details quickly disabused me of the idea that it was actually good.
And even then, "bad idea" is what you get after the extreme charity of assuming the administration is fundamentally lawful.
It's even worse if you believe they're bunch of crooks that will grant "special exceptions" to the new costs for a company that agrees to do them corrupt favors.
I would prefer they not burn down my house to do it.
By the way, this is total bullshit pushed by people who are upset that the loss of H1B labor will mean that they have to pay labor more.
If the offshoring was a comparable product and cheaper, they would have already done it. But guess what - everyone already knows outsourcing leads to a lower quality product!
Fine with me, if so!
Charging a yearly fee to offset how H1-B is abused for cheap labor instead of high performers makes sense. Making that fee $100,000 with arbitrary waivers for friends of the administration is absurd.
In my view, the real problem with the H1-B program stems from the sponsorship system which ties each employee to a particular company and role. Unable to leave their position without threatening their residency, they are more willing to demand abuse (e.g., long working hours, poor leadership, subpar compensation) than the labor market requires.
An improvement to the program would make it easier for people to change job. Perhaps the government could permit highly skilled individuals to qualify personally for the visa so long as they sustain employment in their field.
Its supply and demand. If you think any of these changes will cause fewer than 85,000 H1-B applications, then that is a good reason to believe that these changes might negatively impact the United States as a migration destination. However, with that added context and framing, I hope you'll agree that it won't; there's still going to be a smaller, but growing, number of people applying for the H1-B every year.
Increasing the number of H1-B visas has very little support from both sides of the isle. The 65,000+20,000 number was set, if you can believe it, 35 years ago. There were one or two temporary increases, but since 2005 its stayed at that 85,000 number.
DaveZale•1h ago