Thread: MD: A Floral Protest Over Job-Based Visas

sofedup said

For me, the worst part about watching the infrastructure and political system that my family contributed to for generations, being handed to foreigners both legal and illegal who are less qualified than I am, is their all too often arrogant claims that they are entitled to it and this is good for the country. Limited, targeted, justified immigration is, but unfortunately that's not really what we are discussing here.

Hi sofedup, welcome to ALIPAC! Your comments are on the money, and we can surely use another articulate voice of reason here. Betsy, Phred, and Kate need some backup!

I am so sorry to hear about your situation, especially since we have had somewhat similar experiences, ours in IT. My husband quit putting his MBA on his resume several years ago, but it didn't help much. He also was in his late 40s at the time, which is also a disadvantage. We have gone from a decent 1800 sq ft house to living in a mobile home over the past 6 years, so believe me, I know where you're coming from. We exhausted the 401K years ago.

Have you gotten to the point yet where employers tell you that your work experience in your field is not recent enough, but no one wants to give you the opportunity to get some more recent work experience?! After viewing the Cohen & Grigsby video, I have a much better understanding of what's been going on the past few years. Wish I could offer some helpful advice to go along with the commiserating, but we still struggle to keep food on the table and a roof overhead so we don't have any answers.

Your name is Legion - I can't tell you how many people I've run into like you. After I was laid off in 2001, it took me 10 months to find another middle class job. I had to take a big pay cut just to get working again. Every job I applied to had a 100 or more applicants. People who would not normally apply for my type of IT job were desperate for work, any work. There were people who had to leave their homes and move in with their children or relatives, or friends. There were more suicides than Kevin Flanagan. The guy who measured my graduating son for a suit was a former IT manager. I run into people like that all the time. We came to within an inch of homeless ourselves, and I know it could happen again. I cashed out my PERA retirement to keep a roof over my children's heads. This was in spite of having a skill set used in every office and institution that was up to date. I will never forget what those years were like, and that is why I am not complacent even though I am one of the lucky ones who got back to work. Many of our best and brightest were forced out of the field altogether. I was in grad school during those years, and my classes filled up with H-1Bs here doing ordinary IT jobs. Often, they sat in the same classroom with unemployed Americans who were trying to improve their employability by pursuing a degree. Maybe the Americans were in the same classroom with their replacements! I knew something dire was going on too, when I started seeing ads calling for 'recent' work experience. Those still out of work need not apply, is what that meant.

Hey Alipacers,

I am hoping this is not a duplicate post given its age. This professor argues for a coherent immigration policy concerning scientists because it is in the best interest of both countries:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/280/5362/386

Science 17 April 1998:
Vol. 280. no. 5362, pp. 386 - 387
DOI: 10.1126/science.280.5362.386

Prev | Table of Contents | Next
Association Affairs
Also see the archival list of the Essays on Science and Society.
ESSAYS ON SCIENCE AND SOCIETY:
Movement of the People
Roald Hoffmann

Roald Hoffmann is the Frank H. T. Rhodes Professor of Humane Letters and Chemistry at Cornell University and an expert in applied theoretical chemistry. He has written 430 scientific articles, two scientific books, two poetry collections, and several books about science in culture.

How shall we deal with "movement of the people" at the beginning of a new millennium? I believe emigration and immigration should be a matter of concern to American scientists. The intellectually exhilarating enterprise of science depends on free communication. And over the last 150 years science has only benefited from the movement of scholars between countries--I think of those Russian students in Bunsen's mid-19th century Heidelberg laboratory who, returning home, helped shape modern and Russian chemistry. What is new in the last 50 years is that study abroad, especially in the United States, often turns into emigration.

Science, open as it is, does not operate in a vacuum. It is done in countries, cultures, and economies. In the service of knowledge, scientists also train the most skilled component of the work force--at no cost to the employers. And the movement of these newly trained experts may deprive another country of its desperately needed human potential at a critical stage of development. Scientists in the United States, in their addiction to what gifted foreign hands and minds bring to their research groups, should not turn their eyes away from the negative effects that immigration of a scientist to the United States may have on the scientist's home country.

Here are some facts and feelings that shape my concerns about immigration:

* I was born in southeast Poland. Part of my family survived the Nazi occupation and the abiding anti-Semitism around us. The United States eventually received us, the true stateless refugees that we were. It did not receive us all that graciously--do you remember the racist immigration quotas of 1921 to 1965, which delayed our immigration by a few years and completely discouraged so many others? But once we came, the world was open to me, as it was to the rest of "Hitler's gifts to America."

* A foreign postdoctoral researcher has asked me to write a letter supporting her application to switch to permanent-resident status. She has consulted a lawyer, who sends along an oft-copied form, suggesting the extravagant language I should use.

* My research group has two postdoctoral associates or senior visitors from Germany, one from Morocco, one from Switzerland, one from Korea, and two from Argentina. Of my four graduate students one is Armenian, one Northern Irish, one Chinese, and one American. Thirty-nine percent of chemistry Ph.D.'s last year were not U.S. citizens or permanent residents. In engineering fields the percentage was much larger.

* If Cornell admitted its entering class of chemistry Ph.D. students without regard to language ability, and only on academic merit (measured as imperfectly as that may be), I estimate that our class of 32 students would have 24 students from the People's Republic of China (PRC), 3 Indians, 2 Russians, 1 Korean, 1 Taiwanese, and 1 American. In fact, in 1997 we enrolled a majority of U.S. citizens or permanent residents, 5 PRC students, 2 from India, and one each from Hungary, Israel, and Liberia.

* Ninety-five percent of the PRC graduate students now in the United States will probably try to stay here. The vast majority will succeed in doing so. Yet they will likely face discrimination. In hiring new faculty, U.S. universities may subtly discriminate against American-trained, Asian-born Ph.D.'s--to the benefit of industry, which pays Asian immigrant Ph.D.'s less than Americans. I feel the agony around emigration and immigration very personally--can I tell that Chinese or Russian student not to aspire to what came to me? When I talk to people about the problem, I typically hear: "Oh, in time it will be one world, and it does not matter where people work." Or, "If my students go back, they will never be able to do the science they are capable of doing here. I am actually saving them by helping them stay." Or, "It's up to the government to set immigration policy; that's not my job." And, "How can I say no to the pleas of an individual to help him change his visa? He's my student!"

I will argue against two of these responses, express some anger over the third, and respect the fourth. But let me begin with some observations about immigration to the United States.

Things we can agree on. The United States tolerates diversity and provides tremendous opportunities for immigrants. It is something to be proud of--our record on immigration is much better than that of any other developed country, except perhaps Canada. Not that immigration here is an unalloyed delight--it is often the most wrenching personal decision.

We depend on immigrants--mostly those at the bottom of the economic ladder--to be the nannies and cleaners in our society. And remarkably, we also depend on those at the top of the ladder--to provide the Ph.D.'s that American students, especially American males, now avoid--and that the economy craves. For the United States, immigration is an unquestionable boon.

Our immigration laws are capricious and porous. The national will to enforce them at the top (those Ph.D. students trying to change their visas) and bottom (illegal working-class immigrants from China and Latin America) is just not there. Illegal immigrants often manage to stay. And an interesting alliance of the affluent (industry) and the less wealthy (Hispanic political pressure groups) ensures this status quo.

Not all foreign researchers are flocking to the United States. For a blend of cultural, political, and economic reasons we do not seem to attract the elite from countries such as Italy, Morocco, Japan, and Brazil. But for other countries, such as Russia, China, and India, the brain drain is a reality. Without doubt the economic situation in a home country can sway the movement of the people over time. Most Taiwanese Ph.D.'s remained in the United States 20 years ago, whereas today most return. Some Irish are returning to a richer Ireland.

It will be one world. As international as science and commerce have become, the dream of completely free movement of labor forces, in one world, will probably not be achieved. In the experiment of European economic unification, what I see in the management of Hoechst, BASF, and Bayer--more than what I see in European universities--encourages me to dream on. The universities, the locus of much advanced scientific research (looking outward, to the world), are also the inward-looking repositories of national culture. They do not always welcome these foreigners.

At the same time, inequalities in the standard of living of nations will persist. Those who can, will head toward nations with higher standards of living, perhaps exacerbating the problems that hinder development. And since travel is so much easier than in the past, I suspect there will actually be a nervous sharpening of immigration restrictions; we see this in Europe already.

It's better for the best not to go back. When I see the working conditions in a Romanian or Indian university, I despair. The infrastructure is lacking, power failures are typical. How could one possibly do good science in that unsupportive setting? Indeed, the average U.S.-trained scientist will suffer at the very least a reduction in productivity on return--if he or she is not forced to leave science. And yet, while many returnees would be less productive (and more unhappy)--perhaps even unemployed--on the average I believe the country (not necessarily the individual) would gain. I am also encouraged by the ability of young people (trained to be flexible by us) to do credible, world-class research in difficult circumstances.

U.S.-trained Chinese scholars proved how critical the presence of these scientists can be. When our relationship with the PRC was normalized 20 years ago, a Cornell delegation to Beijing was greeted by a hundred aging alumni singing the alma mater. This was more than touching; those scientists and engineers were directing the enterprises of a vast China--it was they who maintained the standard of learning in those dark days of the Cultural Revolution, the standards that shaped the education of the thousands of brilliant Chinese students who have since come to the United States.

Immigration policy? Not my business! For a scientist to say, "It is up to the government to set immigration policy, it is not my business" is to evade social responsibility. Sure, it is up to the government, and--as imperfectly functioning as our democracy is--that means us. To say "It is not for me to think about the consequences of my actions" is a morally and politically risky act, because such refusal to engage in an ethical and social calculus turns others against science. And it drains science of its essential humanity.

Indemnities, obligations, and restrictions. In many countries--not including the United States--higher education is government supported. These countries ask why they should invest in the training of their best students to have us reap the benefits. Is it realistic for a country, or an employer, to pay an education indemnity to the country that trained an emigrant? I think so. Could one impose an obligation of service to one's home country on an emigrant--the subsidy of a fellowship back home, returning to lecture? Emigrants who are professionals, though they should know better, are sometimes not all that grateful--I've heard in India the flow of money from the Arabian peninsula (often from ordinary workers sending money to their families) is greater than that from America. And in the Philippines, despite relatively poor economic conditions, more than half the students trained in the United States return. Often not immediately, a friend tells me, but after having built some financial security. The high return rate may be the result of a strong sense of obligation to the country, inherent in the society and strongly reinforced in the schools and universities.

We must restrict scientific immigration to the United States, so as to improve the chances of scientific and technical development of the broadest range of countries. Distinctions can be made in the motives--economic, political, or personal--for emigration. Yet I am haunted by the presumption of a policy-setting committee making such distinctions, and by a quota ignoring the personal mix of motives that makes every individual's situation unique.

Suppose more U.S.-trained foreign scientists returned home. The industrial demand for U.S. students would rise, and so would the salaries offered. We might be able to recoup some of the "internal brain drain" we have suffered in the United States from science to medicine and business.

The ethical dilemmas. Substantive ethical questions are those in which agreed-on goods collide. Two such questions tear at me when I consider the problem of immigration--first, the proposition that immigration be restricted for whatever reasons; second, the problem of helping a particular foreign student to stay in this country. The conflict in each case has to do with the rights of an individual versus the obligations, real or perceived, to a state.

We live in states, by mutual consent. At times we forget the social contract that we have entered into by birth. Yet, without human beings yielding some of their individual rights to the state, civilized life would be impossible. It is within the framework of a social contract that we construct immigration laws. Yet these collide with the interests of the individual. A part of me argues, as I have done here, for immigration laws. Another part of me believes that a person in any country should have the right to leave that country. And yet that freedom may be in conflict with the legitimate interests of not one, but possibly two states!

Much the same goods collide in dealing with the anguished pleas of students to change their visa. The anguish is augmented by the personal bond between teacher and student. I will not tell you what you should do, only that there is no doubt as to what I would do. Even as I want that student to go back to his or her country, even as I think there are good reasons for restricting immigration, even as I believe that education indemnities and an emphasis on community and service can help--even so, I will write that letter. And make it as strong as I can.


The author is in the Department of Chemistry, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853-1301, USA.[/u][/i]

Originally Posted by sofedup

Hey fellow Alipacers -

Just had to chime in a little. First off, I would like to thank those who are more informed than I am for supplying me with the salient facts. I think PhredE is especially astute and BetsyRoss works diligently to bring us the articles we need. I would like to challenge Crikey a bit since he/she seems reasonable enough to listen. I live in San Jose and I meet up with H1Bs EVERYDAY. They are highly visible in these parts. Most are very upstanding people with great intentions, and are unaware of the damage H1B abuse has caused both sides. I have physics and materials engineering degrees, with honors, (which I earned surrounded by H1Bs, many of whom are friends) and I have been looking for 4 years for a job in my field. I am told, if I ever hear back, that I am over-qualified. I am living on my 401K from a previous marriage to another engineer to entered the field in 1995 when the job market was not skewed against hiring Americans. My money is running out, and I will be homeless in two months. I am working "under the table" at various positions because no one will hire me outright. Do I strike you as uneducated and limited in my abilities? For me, the worst part about watching the infrastructure and political system that my family contributed to for generations, being handed to foreigners both legal and illegal who are less qualified than I am, is their all too often arrogant claims that they are entitled to it and this is good for the country. Limited, targeted, justified immigration is, but unfortunately that's not really what we are discussing here. If you would like to help me get a job Crikey, I will send you my resume - you seem educated and well-connected. You will be shocked that I am unemployed, and maybe it will change your viewpoint that there just aren't enough Americans with advanced scientific degrees.

Sofedup, sorry I have been too busy of late, and I usually don't like to spend too much time on the internet. Its very sad to hear about your situation but can you elaborate a little more on your expertise and the kind of job you are looking for? I really doubt if I will be able to help but we can always try. I also want to know what you mean by working "under the table because no one will hire me outright". I am not too familiar with the job market for your area of expertise but San Jose is an expensive area, is it also the best place for physics and material science related jobs? You can PM me your resume if you like.
I will comment on your other points later as I am hard pressed to write even a few lines but I think the article you forwarded was very relevant, so thanks.

Hi Sofedup,

Originally Posted by The visa-expansion advocate

Its very sad to hear about your situation

Sad, all the way to the bank The companies represented by India's insidious NASSCOM enjoy revenues of over $33 billion dollars/year - revenue generated by the H-1B visa and outsourcing to Bangalore. Yeah, Sofedup, he'll be crying all the way to the bank!

Originally Posted by The NASSCOM staff member

but can you elaborate a little more on your expertise and the kind of job you are looking for?

To give the H-1Bs a resume to plagerize!

Originally Posted by CEO from Bangalore

I really doubt if I will be able to help but we can always try.

They'll help you - they'll help you to the nearest exit after you train one of their people - they call it knowledge transfer!

Originally Posted by The esteemed globalist demagogue

You can PM me your resume if you like.

Makes no sense - H-1Bs take the jobs that American citizens are forced out of.

Given that Bangalore body shops earn over $33 BILLION in annual revenues, what percent is funneled back to selected senators and congressmen?

Sofedup, I don't believe that the Tata representative would do you any favors - when you are working, you're in a job that really belongs to a Tata employee, and they're gonna un-ass you from it!

Good News from India!

Three Cheers for the Rupee !!!

NASSCOM president demands the Indian government stop the rise of the Rupee (against the dollar)
The rising Rupee raises the price of the NON-immigrant H-1B program and the cost of outsourcing our jobs to Bangalore, India!
Good News from the India Times:
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/RBI ... 237829.cms

The Rupee Nears a Nine Year High!
Hats off to the Sahara Samay News
http://www.saharasamay.com/samayhtml/Ar ... wsId=74602

Sorry to see you so stressed out my friend but maybe you missed sofedup's point that he is a Physics and Material Science major. That field of expertise has nothing to do with the IT industry in India or the US.

[quote=Coto]Hi Sofedup,

Originally Posted by The visa-expansion advocate

Its very sad to hear about your situation

Sad, all the way to the bank The companies represented by India's insidious NASSCOM enjoy revenues of over $33 billion dollars/year - revenue generated by the H-1B visa and outsourcing to Bangalore. Yeah, Sofedup, he'll be crying all the way to the bank!

Originally Posted by "The NASSCOM staff member":2ud5v9dz

but can you elaborate a little more on your expertise and the kind of job you are looking for?

To give the H-1Bs a resume to plagerize!

Originally Posted by CEO from Bangalore

I really doubt if I will be able to help but we can always try.

They'll help you - they'll help you to the nearest exit after you train one of their people - they call it knowledge transfer!

Originally Posted by The esteemed globalist demagogue

You can PM me your resume if you like.

Makes no sense - H-1Bs take the jobs that American citizens are forced out of.

Given that Bangalore body shops earn over $33 BILLION in annual revenues, what percent is funneled back to selected senators and congressmen?

Sofedup, I don't believe that the Tata representative would do you any favors - when you are working, you're in a job that really belongs to a Tata employee, and they're gonna un-ass you from it! [/quote:2ud5v9dz]

Originally Posted by Coto

The rising Rupee raises the price of the NON-immigrant H-1B program

It doesn't, it makes it cheaper because there are more dollars to the rupee.

That's not how the Indian companies are seeing it. There are now tons of articles on how India, Inc. is trying to cope with the rise of the rupee against the dollar. Many - a lion's share some say - of the H-1Bs are hired by Indian and international companies to staff projects they either have or expect to get. Contingent staffing and contract staffing practices are important to understand here.

Let's say TCS (Tata's American arm) wins a contract priced at (for the sake of simplicity) $100 US. In last year's rupees, that was about 4700 for them. In today's rupees, it's less than 4100. We can watch the rupee and its history in many places, my favorite is here: http://finance.yahoo.com/currency/conve ... it=Convert

Now would it have done much good to have priced the contract in rupees, because then 4700 would have become $116.40 and the customer would be grumbling. Some outsourcing firms are trying to renegotiate pricing, however, they don't seem like such a bargain to their American customers any more. Remember that relative salaries are not the only factor in outsourcing deals: there's lots of communication and managerial overhead to splitting up work, too.

What we see is a sharp decline around March of this year, which apparently came as a surprise to everyone. (except perhaps international finance wonks and dollar doomsayers).

But what about H-1Bs who were hired as regular staff by permanent companies? These fall into two categories. Those who planned on temporary work to save up a nest egg to take home, are now watching their savings lessen in value. Those who want to stay here have that much more incentive, for the same reason - they won't go back as rich as they'd planned.

India's government is trying to stabilize the rupee so it doesn't rise much faster, but the forces pushing it up are stronger every day. Not only that, but the beneficiaries of a weak rupee (exporters) are now pitted against consumers of imported goods (the common citizen, for oil and food). A weaker dollar will increase the financial viability of making and doing things here for American businesses and customers. A strong dollar makes it cheaper and more sensible the US to buy and hire foreign.

Also, Coto's remarks about tricking the US worker into revealing information are not as kooky as you may want to believe. As early as '01 on the job hunting boards we were hearing some odd stories, such as senior level people called in for screening interviews that consisted of 'how would you solve this' questions. Detailed notes of the candidate's answers were taken - and the candidate heard nothing more after that. Also resume theft - one expert security consultant found his vita online - with a foreign worker's name on it. Also, cold calls to our managers from staffing firms, first to discuss unfilled openings, then to broach the topic of replacing existing staff. I ran into a suspiciously high number of experienced professionals who were let go after giving HR an updated list of their skill sets to be 'put into PeopleSoft' - was their information used to generate a staffing RFP? Things like that happened often enough to give us chills.

right on Coto & Pistov!! Wow!! I would like to know what our state dept. & immigration service has been telling these pukes?

4_logical_immigration, you don't get it & never will! Why not? You are not an American and never will be. Your ad hominem attack on Coto for expressing his opinion in his own country about his country's business, (NOT YOURS) demonstrates your basic self-centered, and therefore immature nature. That doesn't get it in a christian democracy. You do not understand what this country is about, and that's obvious to every American who reads your comments.

Your appreciation and gratefulness for being allowed into our nation in the first place is totally and shockingly lacking. YOU DON'T HAVE A 'RIGHT' TO BE HERE, NOR ANY RIGHT TO ANY JOB HERE. Americans reject all UN definitions of rights. We don't need them, we have our own Bill of Rights, which does not apply to FOREIGNERS.

Despite the nonsensical propaganda the global schmobal traitors told you and your ilk, when all is said and done, we will be done with you and your kind. You will not be permitted to turn our country into a 3rd world piece of crap!