(Poll) Immigration: What should we do?

[Sarkus]

Since this is probably going to be an issue in the general election, what do people here think the US should do about illegal immigration?

[Lum]

What do you see as the difference between guest worker programs and amnesty? Just granting citizenship as a part of amnesty? Probably not a flier.

Also, "kick the illegals out" is impossible. There are estimated to be 12 million illegal migrants in the US and giving them all the boot at this point would require a level of "ethnic cleansing" that would tear apart the country.

[Sarkus]

Amnesty with full citizenship has been proposed, so it's a valid option. Guest worker would be "let them stay but they aren't citizens automatically." Personally, I think guest worker programs have serious issues in the long run. Look at some of the problems Germany has had with Turks that were brought in under those kinds of programs.

And "kick them out" has also been proposed, realistic or not. INS and the Border Patrol are doing this at a low level all the time.

I personally don't have a problem with immigration, but having a ucontrolled border with Mexico is contrary to national security concerns IMHO so I favor the amnesty/citizenship with tighter borders idea.

[MikeSofaer]

I think black markets in labor are bad, just like black markets in food are bad. We have to change our laws to reflect the way we actually operate.

[Ezdaar]

I think we should give amnesty to those already here and welcome anyone who wants to come into the country and work. In fact, I would go so far as to help set up a worker/job matching system for people who want to come here. Then I would kick the shit out of any company using illegal workers since it is so easy for them to find legal ones.

They are going to come any way, we might as well make sure they are working for at least minimum wage and paying taxes. Trying to keep them out is like fighting the war on drugs.

[Jason McCullough]

I don't think the options presented are actually coherent policies.

Why do people immigrate illegally? We don't let them immigrate legally, that's why. It's basically impossible for the vast majority of the kind of people who want to immigrate/the kind that employers want to employ to immigrate legally.

Why don't we let them immigrate legally? Nativism and concerns about labor market competition.

Why don't we stop them from immigrating illegally? First, there's a question of how much we could really stop them even if we wanted. Second, the people who would have the power to stop them - the politicians - simply don't have powerful coalitions that do want them stopped. The people who really want to stop immigration in both parties (nativists on the right, poor workers on the left) are basically powerless to get the result they want.

In context, whether you favor amnesty or guest workers or whatever is kind of meaningless, as none of them have a chance in hell of passing. The people who want immigration already have about what they want (cheap exploitable labor, can get here fairly easily), so they're not going to push for any changes, and the people who want less immigration are powerless, but they're not so powerless that politicians will gratuitously piss them off for an issue supporters don't care about that much.

It's kind of like international trade. The obvious solution that would make mostly everyone happy - building a society where workers don't have to fear each other's competition through a strong safety net and support - is basically DOA in the US's current ideological environment. So you're stuck with the status quo.

[Qenan]

How about: we let your people in if you let ours in. Otherwise, we declare a bounty.

More seriously, I'd just as soon let everyone in, but there are some ironies here. Mexico is not exactly generous about letting in immigrants across its souther border.

[metta]

Why do people immigrate illegally?

Economics. If Mexico's economy was as healthy as ours (Canada) you'd have the same issues on your southern border as you do on your north.

[Jason McCullough]

Well I assumed that, yeah. Since everyone frames this as "oh no, it's because they're eeeeeeeeelegal" I thought I'd start there.

[Lum]

This would all be fixed with a new highway. (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/27842)

[Sharpe]

The poll is deeply flawed as it fails to recognize the underlying problem: illegal employment. Yes, the meta-source of illegal immigration is economics, but the actual manifestation of it is illegal employment. Illegal immigrants come to the US because they are able to easily able to work here, even though it is illegal. Its easy for them to do because of a combination of very weak barriers to the falsification of documents, very very very lax enforcement on employers, and complete lack of focus on illegal employment by both major political parties.

My own preferred solution is: very heavy crackdown on illegal employment, followed by a reasonable waiting period to make sure it works (3 to 5 years during which we adopt a policy of "benign neglect" to the illegals presently here), then followed by a conditional amnesty for those here, with a requirement to pay a fine for back taxes (a modest one, not a heavy one) and to pass a test for citizenship / english language. In my view that is the only sane way out of the present mess but due to political problems on both sides of the aisle, no one is really talking about it.

[Sarkus]

Look, the poll can't cover every theoretical angle of how to deal with the problem. I think we can assume that "illegal employment" would be dealt with under any comprehensive attempt to change our immigration policy.

What I presented are the basic outlines of what is usually discussed in Congress and the press about our options. Sure, as Jason points out, this is a very complicated issue, but realistically any immigration reform that happens is going to presented in relatively simple terms.

Sharpe: your idea strikes me as rather non-benign to the illegals already here. If you actually cracked down, you're going to leave a lot of people out of work and relying on charity and public assistance, unless I'm misunderstanding something.

[Jason McCullough]

No one in this thread strikes me as overally nativist, concerned with labor market competition, so, uh, why do you guys think illegal immigration is a problem?

[Sarkus]

No one in this thread strikes me as overally nativist, concerned with labor market competition, so, uh, why do you guys think illegal immigration is a problem?

I'm mainly concerned about the security aspect of our border with Mexico. If, setting aside debates about Bush, our national security is really threatened then we can't have an uncontrolled border. So, I see immigration reform as a necessary first move towards tightening border security.

The only other desire I have is to see immigration be orderly. Having millions of people just show up leads to all kinds of problems and no modern, industrialized nation handles newcomers that way.

[Rimbo]

I wish we could see who voted for what. For the record, I voted for the first option.

[Sarkus]

I wish we could see who voted for what. For the record, I voted for the first option.

I think my comments make clear that I voted for the second option. Given the general tone of the board, I'm actually surprised there aren't more people voting for the first option and I'm surprised that the "guest worker" option is the most popular choice right now.

[Rimbo]

It's not too terribly surprising to me, because people tend to choose the dogma of their favorite party, and right now neither party is recommending the first option officially. McCain had to back off of his earlier stance to get the nomination.

I think those who favor the first option tend to fall along geographical lines; in general, you see this kind of belief more among folks from the Southwest -- Arizona, Texas and New Mexico -- because of the strong Hispanic cultural influences there. Note that both the Senator from Arizona and the former Governor of Texas have both been trying to open things up, in spite of all of the hoopla around security. Yeah, you have your weirdos in those states, too, but they comprise a very small minority.

[Sarkus]

I actually find this issue interesting because it splits both parties internally.

For Republicans, free trade and capitalism would suggest embracing very liberal immigration policies but nativists tend to flock to the party and they oppose it.

For Democrats their general principles promote immigration but they are also the party of the working class, who tend to be most impacted by and scared of immigrant "cheap labor".

[Rimbo]

Yep. And once again, I think that split is primarily regional. You could also say that it's an issue that unifies Democrats and Republicans in certain regions; Republicans and Democrats in Pennsylvania oppose it, and Republicans and Democrats in Texas support it.

Since you and I seem to be chatting at each other alone on multiple threads maybe we should be IM'ing these conversations instead. :)

[Aeon221]

Or you should go to bed! It's 3am!

[Jafisob]

Here is my choice.

Kick the illegals out**, tighten the border, create a liberal guest worker program aimed at those people who never broke the law, and encourage educated people from other countries to immigrate to this country and become citizens. No dual citizenship please. You want in it is all the way in.

** Allow illegals a free flight back to their country of origin along with an application for the guest worker program. Those that voluntarily comply will be allowed to participate in the guest worker program.

Continuing amnesties encourage illegal immigration and basically make our laws a joke. Why allow people who break the laws into our country when their are millions that actually obey the laws and try to come here legally and are denied? What message does this send?

[bigdruid]

I think that guest worker programs are the way to go, with fines/enforcement to go after people who hire outside the guest worker program. I say this, because this reflects reality. Any answer that starts with "kick the illegals out" isn't realistic.

There are still other big problems (funding the social service impacts of immigrants) which still need to be dealt with - but getting these workers and their wages above-board is the first step.

[Nick Walter]

My own preferred solution is: very heavy crackdown on illegal employment, followed by a reasonable waiting period to make sure it works (3 to 5 years during which we adopt a policy of "benign neglect" to the illegals presently here), then followed by a conditional amnesty for those here, with a requirement to pay a fine for back taxes (a modest one, not a heavy one) and to pass a test for citizenship / english language. In my view that is the only sane way out of the present mess but due to political problems on both sides of the aisle, no one is really talking about it.


I like that but why the back taxes thing? I was under the impression that illegals contributed taxes at a higher rate than equivalently poor citizen workers since a lot of employers make em cough up a fake social and withhold taxes from their paychecks just like everyone else. The difference being that illegals don't actually file with the IRS to get their refunds so they effectively pay taxes at a higher rate.

[Sharpe]

A lot of illegals are paid under the table so no taxes are withheld, ever. And for the segment that uses a fake social security number they will often file taxes and use that social security for legal purposes even though its a fake. I speak from experience in that I've seen many many fake SS#s used in work comp claims. In theory you would think people would not put fake SS#s on legally binding documents but they do, routinely. It's a demonstration of how laughably lax our enforcement is.

[magnet]

No dual citizenship please. You want in it is all the way in.
The US doesn't really have much control over dual citizenship. If the US grants you citizenship and another country grants you citizenship - you're a dual national! In fact, the official US policy is to "tolerate" this, even while formally not recognizing dual citizenship.

Theoretically the US could force you to formally "renounce" your previous country before granting you US citizenship (although this wouldn't prevent a native US citizen from acquiring a second citizenship elsewhere). The problem is that your previous country is under no obligation to pay any attention. In some countries (e.g. Syria), it is effectively impossible to renounce citizenship. Even when it's allowed, renouncing citizenship is usually incredibly complicated, since it's viewed suspiciously as a means of tax avoidance. And since these are internal matters, the US has basically no influence.

[Machfive]

I voted for option 1. Monitored, regulated immigration is the best way to know who is entering our country and whether or not they're a threat.

[Igor Muravyev]

My only problem with illegal immigrants is their consumption of public goods without paying taxes that support the goods (how could they, if they don't have an SSN?).

Any solution which involves the immigrants staying and helping our economy, but paying the taxes which make the government work, is fine with me.

It'd be nice if they had to pass a citizenship test too, since all the legal immigrants have to.

[magnet]

My only problem with illegal immigrants is their consumption of public goods without paying taxes that support the goods (how could they, if they don't have an SSN?).
They typically use someone else's, unbeknownst to the owner. That's because if their employers didn't submit payroll taxes for them, the employers would be in substantial legal jeopardy. The IRS doesn't seem to care, as long they're getting their share.

Of course, when it comes time to pay out benefits, those SSN's are scrutinized much more carefully. So illegal workers can spend a lifetime paying into Social Security, but they don't get anything back at retirement. C'est la vie, right?


The Social Security Administration’s (SSA) chief actuary estimates that three quarters of undocumented immigrants pay Social Security tax, an estimate that makes undocumented workers responsible for about 1.5% of total wages reported to the SSA.

Taxes paid by undocumented immigrants go into the SSA’s “suspense file,” when the Social Security number does not match SSA’s records. In 2002, the suspense file grew by $56 billion in reported earnings, with about $7 billion in Social Security tax and $1.5 billion in Medicare tax paid. This tax contribution represents about 10% of the current Social Security surplus—the difference between what is being collected in Social Security taxes and what is being paid out in benefits.

more details here (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/05/business/05immigration.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin)

[Funkula]

I voted #2, but "tighten the border" isn't exactly how I'd put it. I think that a major US/international program to improve the economic health of Mexico would be the height of enlightened self-interest. I believe that the border is currently the sharpest income gradient in the world, and it is in our interest to address that. I'd like to see programs to promote entrepreneurship, improve labor conditions, and mitigate official corruption in Mexico.

[Rimbo]

A lot of illegals are paid under the table so no taxes are withheld, ever. And for the segment that uses a fake social security number they will often file taxes and use that social security for legal purposes even though its a fake. I speak from experience in that I've seen many many fake SS#s used in work comp claims. In theory you would think people would not put fake SS#s on legally binding documents but they do, routinely. It's a demonstration of how laughably lax our enforcement is.

They're also paid less than the lowest taxable income, so it's not like their income would be taxed anyway.

[Jason McCullough]

I'm mainly concerned about the security aspect of our border with Mexico. If, setting aside debates about Bush, our national security is really threatened then we can't have an uncontrolled border. So, I see immigration reform as a necessary first move towards tightening border security.

The only other desire I have is to see immigration be orderly. Having millions of people just show up leads to all kinds of problems and no modern, industrialized nation handles newcomers that way.

Ok, this raises another thing I've never got a good handle on: what do people mean by "border security?" As far as I know, people usually mean 1) drug smuggling, 2) people smuggling, 3) criminals coming into the country, 4) terrorists coming into the country.....and that's it.

Of those, I don't care about 1 because I think our drug policies are insane and 3 doesn't seem to actually happen. 2 isn't a security problem. That leaves 4, which sounds like a post-9/11 joke more than anything else. We can't secure airplanes to keep terrorists from coming in, the border is going to be impossible.

[Sarkus]

Ok, this raises another thing I've never got a good handle on: what do people mean by "border security?" As far as I know, people usually mean 1) drug smuggling, 2) people smuggling, 3) criminals coming into the country, 4) terrorists coming into the country.....and that's it.

Of those, I don't care about 1 because I think our drug policies are insane and 3 doesn't seem to actually happen. 2 isn't a security problem. That leaves 4, which sounds like a post-9/11 joke more than anything else. We can't secure airplanes to keep terrorists from coming in, the border is going to be impossible.

Well, if you are going to require that we all go through the screening process we go through at the airport for domestic flights, not to mention international flights, putting people at the border under a similar measure seems pretty fair.

Post 9/11 security isn't just about keeping terrorists from hijacking airplanes.

[David Erikson]

They typically use someone else's, unbeknownst to the owner. That's because if their employers didn't submit payroll taxes for them, the employers would be in substantial legal jeopardy. The IRS doesn't seem to care, as long they're getting their share.

Of course, when it comes time to pay out benefits, those SSN's are scrutinized much more carefully. So illegal workers can spend a lifetime paying into Social Security, but they don't get anything back at retirement. C'est la vie, right?




more details here (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/05/business/05immigration.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin)

All this is correct, but IIRC based upon few articles that I've read on this subject, all these "free" taxes paid by illigal immigrants are significantly less than the money drain on the public services they and their family members are using (medicine, education for their children, social services, et cetera)

So at the end they drain more money from public servies than what they bring into the system. Also as other people already pointed out earlier, a lot of them do not pay any taxes, since they are working for unreported cash payments.

[Fooey]

I'm for more or less for open borders. Immigration is what's made this country great, and like probably the large majority of people here now, my ancestors first got here not that much more than a hundred years ago so I find it asinine for so many people with a similar background to now want to shut the border. And I think the whole "security" business is ludicrous. We have concrete cases of terrorists coming over the Canadian border (the guy caught in Seattle I think who wanted to bomb something on New Years in 2000 comes to mind). No one's talking about building a wall on the Canadian border, they just hate Mexicans and want to keep them out of the country and figure claiming terrorists are streaming across the Mexican border is a convenient cover story.

[drewl]

, my ancestors first got here not that much more than a hundred years ago so I find it asinine for so many people with a similar background to now want to shut the border. .

Did they come here legally?
Mine did......funny stories of Ellis island and all.

[Machfive]

People wouldn't be coming here "illegally" if the legal immigration system wasn't so fucked. We weren't telling very many people to turn back 100 years ago.

[shift6]

I voted Obam... uh I mean option #1. Let everyone in who wants in. At points of entry, simply document them with whatever ID they might have, passports and maybe fingerprints, and then say welcome to the United fucking States and hold the door open for them.

I'm a gung-ho pro-America flag waver and a jingoistic USA lover. But seriously, how is any other proposal not somehow classist or racist? Open borders, open trade.

[Machfive]

Amen, shift. This country was built on the backs of immigrants, and up until the last few decades, their grueling labor and work ethic was rewarded with a reasonable path to legal citizenship.

[Dirt]

This country was built on the backs of immigrants, and up until the last few decades, their grueling labor and work ethic was rewarded with a reasonable path to legal citizenship.

If only it were that simple, historically. Immigrants were often looked down upon by the local populace and there were plenty of acts passed in the 1920's and 1930's to limit immigration into the country. Irish, Italians, Chinese, you name it, they were persecuted to some extent.

[Machfive]

They were socially persecuted, yeah. I said this country was built ON THEIR BACKS, and I meant it both literally and figuratively. But they weren't persecuted by the law (except when they were wrongfully accused of crimes because of bigotry), they were able to eventually get citizenship, even if the rest of their new countrymen still treated them like shit.

[Sharpe]

Democrat Bill Foster just won a replacement election for Congress to fill Denny Hastert's old seat. His website has a section on immigration (http://www.foster08.com/2007/12/uncontrolled_im.html) which lays out a plan I would back pretty strongly. The devil is in the details but his attitude and priorities seem right, and that looks like a reasonable plan to me.

[Ex-S Woo]

The only part of this that I feel very strongly about is a provision that will grant amnesty/green card to all children of immigrants who have spent 4-6 years as a minor in the US.

I know a few personally and they're so integrated into US society that I won't give them lasting three months back in their home country...not to mention that they can't even speak anything else besides English...

In general I think a mix of amnesty and a guest worker program will work the best....so option 2+3? :)

[Jafisob]

Democrat Bill Foster just won a replacement election for Congress to fill Denny Hastert's old seat. His website has a section on immigration (http://www.foster08.com/2007/12/uncontrolled_im.html)which lays out a plan I would back pretty strongly. The devil is in the details but his attitude and priorities seem right, and that looks like a reasonable plan to me.

This was an interesting read. Thanks for linking it.

I have one comment besides generally liking what I read:
"The number of worker visas issued should reflect the actual unmet need for workers and not be used as a tool to drive wages down for U.S. citizens. "

Driving down wages for U.S. citizens? You mean like the H1B visa program?

[Rimbo]

This was an interesting read. Thanks for linking it.

I have one comment besides generally liking what I read:
"The number of worker visas issued should reflect the actual unmet need for workers and not be used as a tool to drive wages down for U.S. citizens. "

Driving down wages for U.S. citizens? You mean like the H1B visa program?

You know, at my last job, the bulk of the engineers were H1Bs, and I assure you that it wasn't because they were cheaper. Because they required sponsorship, they were actually more expensive for the company than US citizens would've been. (Plus, we paid them what they were worth.)

The reason for the huge numbers of H1Bs in engineering is because there just aren't that many really good engineers around, and nonsense like this is discouraging more from entering school.

[Jafisob]

You know, at my last job, the bulk of the engineers were H1Bs, and I assure you that it wasn't because they were cheaper. Because they required sponsorship, they were actually more expensive for the company than US citizens would've been. (Plus, we paid them what they were worth.)

The reason for the huge numbers of H1Bs in engineering is because there just aren't that many really good engineers around, and nonsense like this is discouraging more from entering school.

You have a misconception. The reason there are less engineers graduating is because they are being outsourced and there are less jobs. Why enter a field where you can't get a job? I am in IT and I know all about it first hand. I worked for one of the top groups supporting GM databases and a few years back we were all called in and told we were too expensive compared to overseas resources and imported labor. This was followed by a couple years of job cuts, no raises, and decreased benefits. I know several engineers who have the same opinions including an engineer with several published books and a doctorate who is one of the top engineers at Ford. She told her daughters not to go into engineering when they went to college. She and her colleages feared for their jobs because of outsourcing(ironically she herself is an immigrant).

I think what your company may be experiencing is that during the H1B boom, there were not a lot of jobs for US engineers. Many people dropped out of the engineering field or opted out of going into engineering based on this. The annual H1B visa quotas went down. Bingo, self inflicted shortage. Should more people go into engineering and then have the rugs pulled out from under them? Increasing the H1B annual visa quotas has been debated many times.

http://www.cis.org/articles/2005/back1305.html

In spite of the requirement that H-1B workers be paid the prevailing wage, H-1B workers earn significantly less than their American counterparts.

Overwhelmingly, the H-1B program is used to import workers at the very bottom of the wage scale. The wide gap between wages for U.S. workers and H-1B workers helps explain why industry demand for H-1B workers is so high and why the annual visa quotas are being exhausted.

Pretend to try and hire US workers so you can use an H1B worker. Why? Less cost.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCbFEgFajGU

The U.S. Doesn’t Lack Engineers, It Lacks Engineering Jobs
The tech sector and academe constantly warn that a shortage of engineers and scientists threatens the U.S.’s competitiveness, but the U.S. actually has a glut of science professionals, say some researchers quoted in the chronicle of higher education

http://blogs.wsj.com/informedreader/2007/11/12/the-us-doesnt-lack-engineers-it-lacks-engineering-jobs/

[Rimbo]

Note I didn't say "science professionals" nor did I say "IT workers." I said engineers. Meaning a guy to whom you could hand a spec and say, "Write code for this." Or a guy who could produce such a spec. Someone who can develop a networking protocol from scratch, say. Not a Physicist who took a C++ programming class. Not a guy who's looking to get employed based on his knowledge of ifconfig command-line options, apt-get and the /etc hierarchy.

If it's a misconception, then where were these engineers for the past 5 years when we were hiring? Why are my peers being stolen from their employers left and right -- and when their employers' companies fail, they find new and better-paying jobs a week later? I know of 9 guys -- nine -- just within the past 2 months who've either found new jobs after losing theirs within a couple of weeks, or who have found newer/better opportunities. I'm not seeing evidence that this is a misconception, and I'm seeing a terrible lot of evidence of the reverse, and that's pretty much been the way of things for the past 10 years I've been in the industry.

Do most companies pay H1B's less? Of course; they cost more to employ. But as for actual engineering jobs being shipped overseas, I think that's mostly perception, it always was perception, and the perception is making the reality a worse and worse situation. I mean a big part of the reason engineer salaries are so high to begin with is because there are so few of us.

So you can see where I might have acquired this misconception.

[Jafisob]

Note I didn't say "science professionals" nor did I say "IT workers." I said engineers. Meaning a guy to whom you could hand a spec and say, "Write code for this." Or a guy who could produce such a spec. Someone who can develop a networking protocol from scratch, say. Not a Physicist who took a C++ programming class. Not a guy who's looking to get employed based on his knowledge of ifconfig command-line options, apt-get and the /etc hierarchy.

If it's a misconception, then where were these engineers for the past 5 years when we were hiring? Why are my peers being stolen from their employers left and right -- and when their employers' companies fail, they find new and better-paying jobs a week later? I know of 9 guys -- nine -- just within the past 2 months who've either found new jobs after losing theirs within a couple of weeks, or who have found newer/better opportunities. I'm not seeing evidence that this is a misconception, and I'm seeing a terrible lot of evidence of the reverse, and that's pretty much been the way of things for the past 10 years I've been in the industry.

Do most companies pay H1B's less? Of course; they cost more to employ. But as for actual engineering jobs being shipped overseas, I think that's mostly perception, it always was perception, and the perception is making the reality a worse and worse situation. I mean a big part of the reason engineer salaries are so high to begin with is because there are so few of us.

So you can see where I might have acquired this misconception.

You make a compelling argument. I don't know your education, the type of work you do other than 'engineering', or the geographic area you are in so I can't comment specifically. My original comment on this issue was about H1B's in general and not specific to Engineering. I will say that the engineers I have talked to have had an experience that varies dramatically from yours, but most of those conversations are 4+ years old and before the lowering of the H1B cap. Also during an economic upswing the effect is less noticeable and all may seem good. Wait until a recession hits full on and then see how things are.

How well would you be doing without the H1B competition? What if your company and others raised wages until more people decided to go into engineering (almost like a market economy) rather than importing labor?

My own personal and first hand experience in the IT field is very real and was brutal for a few years (2000-2004).

And honestly, this link says it all. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCbFEgFajGU Companies deliberately trying to avoid hiring US workers so they can hire H1Bs. Your specific expertise/geographic area/age group may put you above the problem but this is not so for most.



I am an electrical engineer. I remember distinctly reading (in 2003) that in 2002, the unemployment rate for electrical engineers was higher than that for the general population. I remember it well, since I was out of a job at the time. I also remember reading the blather about there being a shortage of engineers at the same time.
Well, yeah, there will always be a shortage of good engineers who will accept low wages.



These comments are right on. I graduated from the Univ. of California, BSME with honors. I quickly found that engineering wages were nothing special; similar to what I had made working construction as a HS graduate. More important to me was the sense that I was viewed as just a dime-a-dozen clerical worker. So I changed careers. As a doctor I am a respected professional, yet I am still the same person as when I was an engineer.



Periodic shortages of labor are a normal part of a free market and does not need “fixing” by the government. “Fixing” means “importing desperate foreign labor” or other forms of government intervention.
.
A labor shortage means that labor is underpriced. So, if a company increases wages to the market equilibrium wage, then the company can find plenty of labor. Economic science is correct.
.
The problem is that many companies refuse to pay the market wage. They demand to be allowed to import foreign labor in order to avoid raising wages.

[Rimbo]

I'm a software engineer.

How well would you be doing without the H1B competition? What if your company and others raised wages until more people decided to go into engineering (almost like a market economy) rather than importing labor?

If H1B competition were eliminated, the lack of talent would prevent the companies I work for from even existing. They would have business plans, but no employees to execute them.

If wages were raised too much, they'd probably go out of business, as the costs of production would exceed the amount of money they'd make from their products. For almost every company I've worked for, salary is/was the #1 expense of the company.

What it comes down to -- and this is true for doctors and lawyers as well -- is that one must not only be skilled in one's art, but relevant and able to market one's skills. This means constantly educating oneself and understanding some basics of business. Education and experience alone do not demand a salary of any kind.

As for education, let me tell you about one prospect I interviewed. Something that really bothered me wasn't that he'd been looking for a job for over two years; it was that during those two years, he hadn't done anything. No side projects. No open source submissions. Nada. Zip. I can't even fathom this; even when I'm employed, I have things I like doing on my own time at home. It's not just to keep myself trained; it's because with the side projects, I get to do things that really interest me (http://rimbosity.com/scores.html) and that I enjoy. Not only was he not training himself while out of a job, but he made it clear to several of us that he had no concept of the economics of his profession by offering to work for free for a time. That kind of self-devaluation is a huge turn-off. (Now I've worked for myself and for others for free before, but only when there was a prior relationship.)

The "basics of business" really come down to three things.
1. Am I producing more value than I'm costing?
2. Have I been productive for the customers* lately?
3. Do my customers* know what I've done for them?

*(Typically when you're employed, your employer is your "customer;" this is meant to be a more general principle that applies no matter how you're making money.)

If the answer for any one of these is "No," you'd better have your resumé up-to-date. Even if the answer is "yes," you might find yourself looking for a job again soon anyway, because the market may have moved out from underneath you.

Now to bring this tangent back into the main trunk, I once (while between jobs) attended an EDD (http://www.edd.ca.gov/)-sponsored "Tech" job search forum. And after listening and looking at the crew there, I promised myself never to return to that group again, for fear that their attitudes would rub off onto me. They had outdated experience. They weren't doing anything currently to improve their skills, and even resented the idea that they would have to. They didn't seem to care about the thrill of building things, they just wanted paychecks. They had no concept of the need to produce something an employer/customer/industry values. And after I fled the meeting in horror, I knew why they were out of work. I wouldn't have hired any of them, either. They, even more than the guy I interviewed above, had nothing to offer.

The moral of the story is that there is always a gap between what the talent pool offers and what companies need to hire, and the size of that gap defines which people get offered which jobs. The reason H1B's get hired is usually because they offer more relevant skills, not because they are cheaper; and in fact, at every company I've been to (including my current one), given two folks of equal ability, they will ALWAYS choose the citizen, because the paperwork and costs of sponsorship are a pain in the ass.

[Jafisob]

This video says all you need to know about H1B:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCbFEgFajGU

I'm a software engineer.



If H1B competition were eliminated, the lack of talent would prevent the companies I work for from even existing. They would have business plans, but no employees to execute them.

If wages were raised too much, they'd probably go out of business, as the costs of production would exceed the amount of money they'd make from their products. For almost every company I've worked for, salary is/was the #1 expense of the company.

What it comes down to -- and this is true for doctors and lawyers as well -- is that one must not only be skilled in one's art, but relevant and able to market one's skills. This means constantly educating oneself and understanding some basics of business. Education and experience alone do not demand a salary of any kind.

As for education, let me tell you about one prospect I interviewed. Something that really bothered me wasn't that he'd been looking for a job for over two years; it was that during those two years, he hadn't done anything. No side projects. No open source submissions. Nada. Zip. I can't even fathom this; even when I'm employed, I have things I like doing on my own time at home. It's not just to keep myself trained; it's because with the side projects, I get to do things that really interest me (http://rimbosity.com/scores.html) and that I enjoy. Not only was he not training himself while out of a job, but he made it clear to several of us that he had no concept of the economics of his profession by offering to work for free for a time. That kind of self-devaluation is a huge turn-off. (Now I've worked for myself and for others for free before, but only when there was a prior relationship.)

The "basics of business" really come down to three things.
1. Am I producing more value than I'm costing?
2. Have I been productive for the customers* lately?
3. Do my customers* know what I've done for them?

*(Typically when you're employed, your employer is your "customer;" this is meant to be a more general principle that applies no matter how you're making money.)

If the answer for any one of these is "No," you'd better have your resumé up-to-date. Even if the answer is "yes," you might find yourself looking for a job again soon anyway, because the market may have moved out from underneath you.

Now to bring this tangent back into the main trunk, I once (while between jobs) attended an EDD (http://www.edd.ca.gov/)-sponsored "Tech" job search forum. And after listening and looking at the crew there, I promised myself never to return to that group again, for fear that their attitudes would rub off onto me. They had outdated experience. They weren't doing anything currently to improve their skills, and even resented the idea that they would have to. They didn't seem to care about the thrill of building things, they just wanted paychecks. They had no concept of the need to produce something an employer/customer/industry values. And after I fled the meeting in horror, I knew why they were out of work. I wouldn't have hired any of them, either. They, even more than the guy I interviewed above, had nothing to offer.

The moral of the story is that there is always a gap between what the talent pool offers and what companies need to hire, and the size of that gap defines which people get offered which jobs. The reason H1B's get hired is usually because they offer more relevant skills, not because they are cheaper; and in fact, at every company I've been to (including my current one), given two folks of equal ability, they will ALWAYS choose the citizen, because the paperwork and costs of sponsorship are a pain in the ass.

Good points. There are plenty of bitter displaced tech workers who had substandard skills and internet tech forums is where they seem to hang.

I do have a few questions. Are you in HR or upper management? Are you privy to the salaries being paid and the US resumes coming in? If not maybe some of your points are based on what you have been told and don't really reflect what is going on 100 percent.

I will bring the whole thing back to Market economy.

Forgive me for repeating myself. This probably violates netiquette.
"Periodic shortages of labor are a normal part of a free market and does not need “fixing” by the government.

A labor shortage means that labor is underpriced.

The problem is that many companies refuse to pay the market wage. They demand to be allowed to import foreign labor in order to avoid raising wages. "

My take on H1B is to allow these guys to come in but give them significantly more leeway in getting another job and being without a job. Also put forth a better effort in preventing H1B fraud, ensure market prices are being paid and give citizens better access to these H1B jobs. This makes H1Bs less reliant on the companies that hire them which means they will get paid closer to the market costs which will prevent crap like what is going on in the video above.


=====Non H1B
As far as immigration as a whole the link provided by magnet is interesting. I like this statement:

"Do not reward those who jumped in line. Those who crossed the border illegally should be in line for citizenship behind those waiting in their home countries, and those undocumented immigrants who qualify and choose to stay in the U.S. as part of a worker-visa program should be subject to the non-citizen "Impact Fees" until such time as they may qualify for citizenship."

This statement encompasses my strong dislike of amnesties. Screwing people who are going through the legal immigration process is just wrong. Rewarding law breaking is just wrong.

If we want more people in the country then let us let more people in who follow the laws. Believe me there are millions of people in Mexico who have not broken the laws who will come over legally if we change the laws.

[VegasRobb]

Seems like the population numbers for illegal immigrants are *way* off. I don't think the government and society as a whole realize just how many people are already here.

I remember proposing that the United States and Mexico just merge into one country ala East Germany and West Germany.

I think any overt crackdown on illegals will be seen as racism and politicians really don't want to deal with that first hand (re: California).

I believe we should open the door and encourage the immigrants to become citizens.