No - that's not right - they can't discriminate against people who have work-status, but they absolutely can discriminate against people who don't have status aka arbitrary foreign nationals.
And it would be absurd if they could not.
Also, in some cases, employers should be able to discriminate, it's totally different to hire someone on an n-month visa vs full time.
Granted, it's different if they are Green Card.
It's also perfectly normal to want to hire locals, if it can be done on a national basis, then I think for some roles, state ought to be fine as well. If state governments had a state preference for in-state nationals, that would be fine, for example.
The issue here is by far and away mostly one of transparency and efficiency - the rules should be clear and the bureaucracy should just function normally.
The fact that anything takes months, or that you need lawyers etc is a sign of dysfunction.
It should be about as complicated as getting a prescription. 'One trip to an office and done'.
There is no obligation[1] to consider any candidate who needs visa sponsorship. Green cards are different. In hiring they must be considered like any citizen candidate.
Most immigration is based on hiring people into jobs for which the skills exist locally but which demand higher wages than immigrants. This is called a labor shortage by employers who prefer not to think of it as a salary shortage.
This is based on my experience in working with good immigrant coders who got the job over about equally capable locals, but more cheaply. The immigrants (mostly Indian and Chinese) tended to have weaker English communication skills but stronger work ethics.
This idea that paying more would magically create a pool of trained workers is a a form of fallacy as well.
There's obviously some degree of reality to it, but the equilibrium doesn't always work that way, and, shifting it would require sometimes a decade, and integration with other parts of the supply chain, like literally opening / expanding new schools, training programs, certification, convincing young people before they even select a college major - etc.
It's a very different equation for specialized work than for unskilled labour.
And should add - communication skills matter a lot, and I don't mean just 'vocabulary'.
I've hired tons of teams from India and it's often really hard, the cultural gaps are huge.
There's a reason that almost zero startups on limited budgets 'go to China or India' to hire.
Big budget and small budget films immediately choose lower wage centres to produce films, but it's not the same for certain skilled work.
And yes, 'funny accents' can cause people's otherwise great work to be overlooked, or for them to be devalued, obviously that one is as old as time.
The entire Silicon Valley would not exist were it not for immigrants behind he scenes, obviously, and speaking from direct experience there as well.
Many job reqs are scams intended to satisfy the "doesn't exist locally requirement" (superficially) so that exploitable foreigners are importable.
Nobody has 20 years of React experience, of course, but that doesn't stop people from listing this as a requirement - or a pre-selected group of people on the other end from asserting this experience.
This is just false. There are lot of reasons people hire immigrants, very few are truly incredible, singular talents. I lived with a bunch of Indian immigrants when in SF and it was universally guys not as skilled as me hired because there was a pipeline for Brahmin to the US.
Of not violating the law? Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, a company can't use a candidate's citizenship in hiring decisions.
No - that's not right - they can't discriminate against people who have work-status, but they absolutely can discriminate against people who don't have status aka arbitrary foreign nationals.
And it would be absurd if they could not.
Also, in some cases, employers should be able to discriminate, it's totally different to hire someone on an n-month visa vs full time.
Granted, it's different if they are Green Card.
It's also perfectly normal to want to hire locals, if it can be done on a national basis, then I think for some roles, state ought to be fine as well. If state governments had a state preference for in-state nationals, that would be fine, for example.
The issue here is by far and away mostly one of transparency and efficiency - the rules should be clear and the bureaucracy should just function normally.
The fact that anything takes months, or that you need lawyers etc is a sign of dysfunction.
It should be about as complicated as getting a prescription. 'One trip to an office and done'.
There is no obligation[1] to consider any candidate who needs visa sponsorship. Green cards are different. In hiring they must be considered like any citizen candidate.
For those seemingly not believing this, read: [1]https://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/can-a-company-refuse-to-c...
Looks like people are downvoting facts, in the hope that this will change the facts.
Companies can though use proxies like whether a candidate would require visa sponsorship now or in the future.
> Companies can though use proxies
So it's a decision between violating the law and acting unethically?
4 replies →
Most immigration is based on hiring people into jobs for which the skills don't exist locally, based on what I've read.
So, yes, they could hire a citizen, but then they probably wouldn't be able to do the job they were hired for.
Most immigration is based on hiring people into jobs for which the skills exist locally but which demand higher wages than immigrants. This is called a labor shortage by employers who prefer not to think of it as a salary shortage.
This is based on my experience in working with good immigrant coders who got the job over about equally capable locals, but more cheaply. The immigrants (mostly Indian and Chinese) tended to have weaker English communication skills but stronger work ethics.
This idea that paying more would magically create a pool of trained workers is a a form of fallacy as well.
There's obviously some degree of reality to it, but the equilibrium doesn't always work that way, and, shifting it would require sometimes a decade, and integration with other parts of the supply chain, like literally opening / expanding new schools, training programs, certification, convincing young people before they even select a college major - etc.
It's a very different equation for specialized work than for unskilled labour.
And should add - communication skills matter a lot, and I don't mean just 'vocabulary'.
I've hired tons of teams from India and it's often really hard, the cultural gaps are huge.
There's a reason that almost zero startups on limited budgets 'go to China or India' to hire.
Big budget and small budget films immediately choose lower wage centres to produce films, but it's not the same for certain skilled work.
And yes, 'funny accents' can cause people's otherwise great work to be overlooked, or for them to be devalued, obviously that one is as old as time.
The entire Silicon Valley would not exist were it not for immigrants behind he scenes, obviously, and speaking from direct experience there as well.
Many job reqs are scams intended to satisfy the "doesn't exist locally requirement" (superficially) so that exploitable foreigners are importable.
Nobody has 20 years of React experience, of course, but that doesn't stop people from listing this as a requirement - or a pre-selected group of people on the other end from asserting this experience.
This is just false. There are lot of reasons people hire immigrants, very few are truly incredible, singular talents. I lived with a bunch of Indian immigrants when in SF and it was universally guys not as skilled as me hired because there was a pipeline for Brahmin to the US.
Some of the worst programmers ive ever met have been h1b visa programmers.