The lure of H1-Bs is the money savings, and the fact that if you're on an H1-B, you're practically an indentured servant (Yes, things have changed recently and it is easier on paper to switch jobs while on H1-B). It used to be that if you lost your job as an H1-B, you had 30 days to uproot your life and get out of the US otherwise you'd be in violation of immigration laws.

Your country sold you down the river 30 years ago.

> Tesla prefers to hire these candidates [H-1B workers] over U.S. citizens, as it can pay visa-dependent employees less than American employees performing the same work, a practice in the industry known as “wage theft.”

> At the same time Tesla applied for these visa applications, it laid off more than 6,000 workers across the United States. On information and belief, Tesla laid off these workers, the vast majority of whom are U.S. citizens, so that it could replace them with non-citizen visa workers.

> The email also bluntly stated that the Tesla position was for “H1B only” and that “Travel history/i94 are a must” (i.e., proof of legal entry into the U.S.).

[1] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71325887/taub-v-tesla-i...

[2] https://www.straitstimes.com/world/united-states/lawsuit-say...

It was usually related to them recruiting a certain specialist or acquiring a team at another company. But the only way to get these people visas was to post the jobs publicly and hide them as much as possible. They did this by the hundreds, and it wasn't really a cost saving measure - if you are trying to get anybody in particular from Microsoft or Amazon and they are already here on a Visa, you have to go through the process all over again to sponsor them.

So it was less about racism and more about hoops to jump through to hire someone that you have already basically hired. If you've ever had experience with how a government RFP works, maybe don't throw rocks from glass houses.

Is it unfair? Maybe. But in my opinion anything is fairer than our country's evil immigration requirements.

The recruiter told, "I have no idea how you applied for this job, but its not available for you. let me have you interview a different, but similar, role."

What was I supposed to do other than say, "ok! Send over the other job description."?

I can't say if that's true or not, but it does suggest that the best path out for tech workers in the US might be to unionise. Because hateful though it is, and I remain a steadfast "remainer" .. brexit happened.

If you don't like H1B rules, organise. But bear in mind who you will be associating with promoting a closed labour market.

Personal anecdote: I hired an exceptional H-1B worker to a role while I worked in SF, but was legally required to first advertise their role in 2 places. We put it in a 2am TV spot and a Modesto newspaper ad. But the whole thing was a legally required farce. We already knew from months of aggressive sourcing that no other qualified candidates existed - in fact we were over the moon to hire this person.

This is a huge dealbreaker for campus hires, and specifically masters/PhDs who are, well, by definition, specialized in their field and hence very rare.

So you recruit at her graduation the girl who has done groundbreaking research in deep neural nets and is the key to one of your big projects. She happens to be non-American (because the majority of graduates are non-Americans).

Now what? You know that there is nobody else on the planet that has done this research, yet you have to start recruiting for this position for Americans.

What is the incentive you have as a company to pour a ton of resources on this effort? Recruiting is very expensive. Time is also very expensive when you are at the forefront of innovation.

A zinger of a concluding line if ever there was one.

I always wondered how they made sure no one applied to the position they wanted the H1B to fill

As per PERM regulations (20 C.F.R. §656.17):

For professional positions (those requiring a bachelor’s degree or higher), the employer must conduct two Sunday newspaper advertisements in a newspaper of general circulation in the area of intended employment.

For non-professional positions, at least one Sunday ad is required.

We need to put execs behind bar, before they'll ever respect labor or competition laws.

-second, what is wrong with free competition on the job market between US- and non-US citizens? Competition is good for the business, isn’t it?! It should be a competition on qualification and wage, not races, your skin color or some rubber stamp on a paper. Protecting domestic workers by artificially restricting competition risks creating complacency, higher costs, and slower growth.

- I hear you say: but it’s our country! We (or our parents) paid tax to build it. Yes, but if companies hire non-US employees, they will pay good tax, rent housing, spend in local economies, and contribute to Social Security and Medicare, too, while often receiving less in return.

- many foreign students already invest heavily in the U.S. by paying high tuition and living expenses, without subsidies. This is not charity; it’s a deliberate transfer of wealth into American universities and communities. Denying them a fair chance to compete for jobs means taking their money while closing the door to long-term participation, which is both unfair and economically wasteful.

- intentionally barring foreign talent to artificially inflate wages for domestic workers undermines U.S. competitiveness. High labor costs without corresponding productivity gains make companies sluggish and less adaptive to global competition. The U.S. became great by being open to talent and ideas from everywhere, reversing that openness risks slow growth and stagnation.

The real solution is domestic reform, not exclusion, for example by redistributing wealth more fairly through tax reforms that ensure the rich contribute proportionally.

America grew strong by opening its doors to talent and competition. Shutting out qualified foreign workers to protect wages may feel safe in the short run, but in the long run it weakens our economy, breeds complacency, and wastes the very investment we’ve already taken from those who studied and contributed here. If we want Americans to compete better, fix student debt and inequality at home, but don’t impede the nation by closing the market to global talents.

"And this has given rise to a cottage industry of chronically-online types — in other words, typical tech workers — seeking to expose them."

Ok, come on, this is just an insulting "kids these days" throw-away line that is absolutely not necessary.

I mean, you know, if you already have an employee working on H1B, why would you take the risk to hire someone else to replace them? The perm process is pretty broken in that way.

I know I'm out here in my own space capsule, but it seems like a non-sequitur. Again, perhaps this is my own bias speaking, but wouldn't you prefer to solve your own business problems as an entrepreneur, rather than battle to be employed by someone who has the intent to screw you, so that you might have the privilege to solve biz problems for them? In both cases you have problems, but only one gives you autonomy.

Alternatively, you might look towards employers who want you and do not desire to screw you.

And by that I mean mostly gone/offshored?

I think Trump’s position of forcing companies to pay a substantial fee in exchange for a fast tracked green card is really the most sensible position instead of H1B. It should be less than $5 million, but I think if a company had to pay $300k not have any or limited protection against that person quickly finding a job in the. united states, then companies would generally prefer american workers in a way that makes economic sense, because talented workers can be acquired for a price, but not be kept for peanuts in exchange for less than an American worker, because they are stuck with the employer for 20 years if they come from a quota country.

That's why I keep saying and repeating: the tech industry and especially the engineering one should be further regulated and restricted just like other professions out there, otherwise, you are only allowing anyone to scam and game the system with any potential bubble currently happening.

On one hand, H1B holders can be paid below market rates because it is very hard for them to switch jobs. For this reason, they create resentment from American citizens.

On the other hand, it would be extremely detrimental to the US to kill the golden goose of our tech industry by turning it into some kind of forced welfare for citizens. Another country which is able to hire the best from around the world will take our place.

And then of course, the entire program is structured in an extremely bureaucratic way, with all this nonsense about publishing job ads in secret newspapers.

It seems that these issues could be addressed very simply by tweaking Trump's proposed "gold card" system: anyone can get a work visa, by paying $100,000 per year. This is not tied to a specific employer. The high payment ensures that the only people coming over are doing so to earn a high salary in a highly skilled field. There is no tying the employee to a specific company, so it is fairer for citizens to compete against them.

In Savannah, the local unions got the Koreans deported from the Hyundai factory.

But it's the height of stupidity to employ ICE "thugs" to hunt down and round up poor laborers doing jobs that most Americans don't want to do, while letting big companies hire lots of foreigners on H1Bs for SWE jobs, while at the same time you have Americans graduating from college and unable to find jobs.

The US should get rid of ICE and drop the H1B program altogether -- (maybe with some narrow exceptions and not even sure about that). For exceptionally talented people wanting to work in the US there's the EB1 and EB2 programs. That would both largely solve the "illegals are taking our jobs!" problem and stop us acting like some 3rd world police state with masked police acting like the Stasi.