We should keep the system in place that we have at the US federal level, but add initiative, referendum, and recall.
This allows the citizens to "correct" the legislators, and
allows more controversial laws to be passed which legislatures typically avoid.
The only problem I see with this is keeping the moneyed
special interests at bay.
The "Opulent Minorities" rights should be balanced with mob rule. Unfortunately in the US today, the Opulent Minority decides the laws for the rest of us, unless there is nearly unanimous dissent.
I wasn't necessarily referring to just the "Opulent Minorities", i.e. the rich unless you are referencing something else I'm not understanding. There are plenty of examples where mob rule overruns the rights poor/disenfranchised minorities too.
If I weren't in San Diego and in SV or SF instead, I'd move to another city like Los Angeles, or where I am now. Most other US states allow noncompetes. I won't sign a noncompete
so unless they'll let me work without one, I won't be working outside of California.
Additionally, California labor laws are more employee friendly when compared to other states.
I know this limits my choices as businesses are leaving California due to the employee-friendly labor laws and the high cost of housing, but I'm semi-retired anyway so it doesn't matter to me. I can be choosy when it comes to taking a job.
The elected federal government officials need campaign contributions to stay in office, and most campaign financing comes from the businesses. Until we curtail this, you will not see any meaningful reform to the H-1B visa.
Actually, I doubt restricting campaign spending by businesses will help the OP in his case.
The OP was talking about how restrictive and capricious the skilled immigration laws were on him. A person elected by nativist populist voters will likely try to take away the OP's freedom (and ability to stay here), and make his life worse.
One organization working for the OP's benefit, and the benefit of all skilled immigrants, as well the as the many undocumented is Fwd.us: http://www.fwd.us/ They're funded by Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, etc. Just as a note, many of these people have signed the Giving Pledge, so they're not the evil billionaires people like to make them out to be: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Giving_Pledge
Other pro-immigration organizations, like the Chamber of Commerce, are also funded by big businesses. The Koch brothers are pro-immigrant, and have said they support legalizing the 11-12 million undocumented here. There is a lot of broad support in the business sector for making our laws more immigrant-friendly.
It would have made our immigration system a couple of order of magnitudes better, and made life for skilled immigrant especially better.
It didn't pass, not because of business opposition to it, but because of right-wing tea-partyer grassroots nativist sentiment, and congressmen who were beholden to them.
Just as a note, the "evil billionaire" reputation comes from how the billions were earned, not how they are spent later on. Future good cannot "greenwash" present evil, but given the fait accompli, we also shouldn't let past misdeeds taint present good.
I don't want to start a big off-topic thread about philanthropy, just point out some nuance that was missed by your note.
And of course the objections to your idea highlight the point that hb1s have generally not been about finding people with unique skills but rather about getting cheap labor on a tight leash.
Maybe you should have paid them as much as what they would make at Google then. Having to compete on salary,benefits, and working environment is the true meaning of an open and free market, not a rigged market as the current H-1B system is.
Google in a hypothetical case would then offer a lower salary to cover the visa cost, and/or deem it too much trouble to bring the H-1B on board. This leaves the H-1B worker operating in a suboptimal market. The issue of visa fees does not confront the H-1B employee, only the employer which sponsored them in the first place. Besides it should cost slighly more to bring in an H-1B than current parket rates. Maybe then more natives would be hired.
Is should be slightly more expensive to bring in immigrants
because one of the governments missions voters expect is to ensure that there is a job market where there are good well-paying jobs, not a market where it is flooded with immigrants that have driven down wages. Having American citizens and green card holders idled or having to work in a lower paying job is not a true free market because only the employers are benefiting.
Once the domestic pool of potential employers has dried up, then employers will bring in the slightly more expensive foreign labor.
The idealised government's role has always been acting in the interest of its citizens.
More importantly though: how is not letting Indians into the US harming them? Are Indians incapable of creating a US-like environment in their own country? If so, that's an argument to keep them out. If not, why wouldn't they do just that instead of moving half-way around the world?
Why don't we pass laws saying it's illegal to move out of Flint, MI. Would such a law harm the people living there who might like to move?
Black Americans in Flint seem incapable of creating a NYC-like environment in their own city. Is that an argument to prevent them from moving to NY?
And none of this explains why American consumers should pay extra. Apparently Indian humans count for less than 3/5, but don't American consumers count as full humans? Why should labor sellers be privileged over consumers?
First, it's dishonest to compare a law stopping foreigners from moving in and a hypothetical one making Flint residents prisoners in their county.
Second, New Yorkers routinely enact regulations to stop unapproved immigrants from moving in through housing cooperatives for example. And Americans all around the country do with gated communities.
I lost track of what you're arguing. Are you arguing against freedom of association? For some sort of forced integration where everyone should be allowed to move wherever they please regardless of the opinion of people already living there?
Why is it dishonest? Why is it wrong to make people prisoners in their county, but not prisoners in their country?
I lost track of what you're arguing. Are you arguing against freedom of association? For some sort of forced integration where everyone should be allowed to move wherever they please regardless of the opinion of people already living there?
I'm arguing that it's wrong for person A to use violence to prevent person B from hiring person C, even if that undercuts the wages of person A. I believe this to be true even if person C was born into an unfavorable group.
None of the arguments you've made explain treating Indians different from Flintians.
Maybe you are arguing that some arbitrary lines on the map (e.g. countRy boundaries) deserve moral weight, but not others (e.g. county boundaries)? Is that your claim?
It's not really an argument to keep them out. We should let them in when real demand is there. Right now, its a race to the bottom in this country due to job market manipulation by business.
Also I'm all for letting Indian entrepreneurs into the country because they will create jobs.
Sizeable number of visa interviews sponsored by startups are rejected at the consulate. They find it very difficult to differentiate an authentic startup from a phony body shop.
The issue is that companies won't take on the risk and hassle of sponsoring a visa. Employees will arbitrage this by taking any job they can get until they can get sponsored, then leave.
It's not necessarily about pay, it's about wanting to work for a big name like Google.
I think the best solution, as others have suggested, is that the new employer has to buy out the visa costs. This is the deal I made when my employer paid to relocate me to the Bay Area -- if I left in the first two years, I would have had to repay my moving costs.
Now you know the real reason why the republican party is doing all it can to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Controlling access to benefits keeps people in jobs they really don't like. Benefits need to be decoupled from work.
Which may explain why the unemployment rate is so low in Texas. Anybody who already lives there is employed if they want to be, and are employable. Texas has trouble attracting talent from outside of the state for the reason you mentioned, and the backward labor laws in the state.
The only problem I see with this is keeping the moneyed special interests at bay.