Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Government Technology Politics

Obama's Immigration Order To Give Tech Industry Some, Leave 'Em Wanting More 186

theodp writes: "The high-tech industry," reports the Washington Post's Nancy Scola, "will have at least two things to be happy about in President Obama's speech outlining executive actions he'll take on immigration. The president plans to grant the tech industry some, but not nearly all, of what it has been after in the immigration debate. The first is aimed at increasing the opportunity for foreign students and recent graduates from U.S. schools to work in high-tech jobs in the United States. And the second is aimed at making it easier for foreign-born entrepreneurs to set up shop in the United States. According to the White House, Obama will direct the Department of Homeland Security to help students in the so-called STEM fields — science, technology, engineering and mathematics — by proposing, per a White House fact sheet released Thursday night, to "expand and extend" the controversial Optional Practical Training program that now allows foreign-born STEM students and recent graduates remain in the United States for up to 29 months. The exact details of that expansion will be worked out by the Department of Homeland Security as it goes through a rulemaking process."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Obama's Immigration Order To Give Tech Industry Some, Leave 'Em Wanting More

Comments Filter:
  • Much cheaper than international outsourcing.

  • Seriously - the two biggest (ab)users of the H1B system are Tata and Infosys... and they're both Indian corporations.

    {rant}I guess in fairness to Obama, he managed to screw both blue and white-collar workers in one fell swoop...{/rant}

    Anyone know the lobbyist money trail for this bit of it, or can I safely guess Microsoft, Apple, Google, Intel, etc... ?

    • by Ralph Wiggam ( 22354 ) on Friday November 21, 2014 @04:21PM (#48436925) Homepage

      Why would Obama care about lobbyist money? As of two weeks ago, he's been freed of all political consequences to any of his actions. He can finally do what he thinks is right.

      • Why would Obama be fund raising? Once you retire from public office any money you have left over becomes yours.
      • by Agares ( 1890982 )
        Politicians will never do what is right. They are to power hungry and greedy.
      • by XxtraLarGe ( 551297 ) on Friday November 21, 2014 @04:52PM (#48437163) Journal

        Why would Obama care about lobbyist money? As of two weeks ago, he's been freed of all political consequences to any of his actions. He can finally do what he thinks is right.

        Apparently, he's can finally do what he thinks is wrong, too. [washingtonpost.com]

      • Why would Obama care about lobbyist money? As of two weeks ago, he's been freed of all political consequences to any of his actions. He can finally do what he thinks is right.

        He was personally freed from all consequences once re-elected. As he told the Russian President he would never have to face another election so he would be more flexible once re-elected.

        As for consequences to the democratic party he is no more free before the recent midterm election than after. What he did and what he will do will effect the party, be it helpful or hurtful.

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion
        • by nbauman ( 624611 )

          Eventually Obama is going to be a civilian again. If he pleases the right people, he (or his immediate family) can make tremendous amounts of money as a lobbyist, consultant, guest speaker, etc...

          Just look at the money that Chelsey Clinton earns from her array of jobs at various consulting, investment, educational, media and humanitarian companies and organizations. Her success was handed to her on a diamond platter as political thanks to her parents.

          I don't know if Chelsea Clinton's employers are getting

          • Eventually Obama is going to be a civilian again. If he pleases the right people, he (or his immediate family) can make tremendous amounts of money as a lobbyist, consultant, guest speaker, etc...

            Without lifting a finger, after he leaves office, his family will make $221,700 [wikipedia.org] a year for life: his presidential pension ($201,700) plus another $20,000 for Michelle. His family will receive free lifetime secret service protection. He will have a fund of $150,000 a year to pay for staff ("Here Malia, file these papers for Daddy, ok?") for the first 30 months, and $96,000 per year after that. ("Sharpen these pencils for Daddy, sweetheart...").

            Just his pension alone will put him well into the top 5% of wag

            • Plus he has a net worth of over $12 million, he'd get more from the interest than all the rest of that stuff put together.

              • by nbauman ( 624611 )

                Plus he has a net worth of over $12 million, he'd get more from the interest than all the rest of that stuff put together.

                That's peanuts. As I said above, Billy Tauzin got $2 million a year from the drug industry after he let them take as much as they want from the Medicare fund in the Prescription Drug Bill.

                GWB got $15 million from speeches, but he's got a long way to catch up with Bill Clinton, who got $100 million.

                As the parent said, if Obama pleases the right people, he can make a lot of money after his term expires. This writer http://www.salon.com/2013/07/1... [salon.com] is cynical enough to believe that there's a quid pro quo.

                Or a

        • Chelsey Clinton

          Is she a fan of Leslea Garret?

      • As of two weeks ago, he's been freed of all political consequences to any of his actions. He can finally do what he thinks is right.

        That statement actually is insightful, but not because it supports Obama. What it points out is that he's free to do what he wants because he doesn't need to worry about re-election. Any worry about being re-elected would be because what HE wants to do is NOT what the people who voted for him want him to do.

        In other words, he can do anything he wants because the people who elected him no longer matter at all. They no longer have a say in the matter. That's not a good way to run a democracy, I think.

      • Violate his oath to uphold the constitution and the laws of the land?

    • by ackthpt ( 218170 ) on Friday November 21, 2014 @04:27PM (#48436957) Homepage Journal

      Seriously - the two biggest (ab)users of the H1B system are Tata and Infosys... and they're both Indian corporations.

      {rant}I guess in fairness to Obama, he managed to screw both blue and white-collar workers in one fell swoop...{/rant}

      Anyone know the lobbyist money trail for this bit of it, or can I safely guess Microsoft, Apple, Google, Intel, etc... ?

      Hard time following this. The potential 4.7 million people contribute billions to the economy and without them we'd tank again. I heard the same screwing the american worker and milking entitlements myths repeatedly. It puts me in mind of what one commentator once referred to as "Factoids", arguments which have no truth at all, but people repeat over and over in hopes they will become true. Well, some of that is working, because some people are believing these tales as truths and would happily cut their own throats (mustard and onion extra) to act on these fantasies.

      Tech, agriculture, service industries, foot services, etc. all benefit from the well behaved illegals. And we, the people who buy goods or services from these people benefit, as well. It's a mystery to me that so much untruth is accepted these days. I figure it began with Rush Limbaugh and is now carried out by hundreds of others since, who wind up people for profit. Nothing seems to sell like telling people what they need to fear and whom they need to loath.

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Spy Handler ( 822350 )

        Tech, agriculture, service industries, foot services, etc. all benefit from the well behaved illegals.

        It's true, if by x_industries you mean "the business owners and shareholders of that industry". Flood of cheap labor drives down wages, so it wouldn't benefit existing laborers.

        I heard the same screwing the american worker and milking entitlements myths repeatedly.

        Correct, illegals are not milking entitlements currently. It's a myth, only a tiny percentage of illegals have the means to forge documents in order to receive welfare and other benefits.

        But Obama just made them legal, so they will be collecting entitlements in the near future.

        I understand the liberal mindset. I am not a cold hearted

        • by Dorianny ( 1847922 ) on Friday November 21, 2014 @05:28PM (#48437393) Journal
          They are being given 3 year work-papers they are not being given legal-immigrant status or even a path to that. Work papers simply allow you to work in the country legally. Of course fact don't work well with the Conservative mindset that the working poor whether U.S citizens or not, simply want to live on government handouts. It does make the injustice of wage disparity much more palatable I guess.
      • I heard the same screwing the american worker and milking entitlements myths repeatedly.

        Well they are lowering the market wage for farm labor.

      • Since you didn't like others facts I'm sure that you have citations for yours right? Immigration can be a net win (let in skilled immigrants) or a net loss (let in unskilled immigrants). US has chosen a losing immigration strategy.
    • by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Friday November 21, 2014 @04:35PM (#48437015)

      he managed to screw both blue and white-collar workers in one fell swoop

      Only if you believe the Lump of Labor Fallacy [wikipedia.org]. Real economies are not zero sum, and there is not a fixed number of jobs to be had. History has shown that countries with permissive immigration policies tend to have lower unemployment than more restrictive neighboring countries.

      What Obama did is not only more humane for the families directly affected, it is also good for the American economy, and good for American workers.

      • by lgw ( 121541 ) on Friday November 21, 2014 @04:58PM (#48437199) Journal

        Method matters. Obama's actions are appaling and well on the way to destroying the country for reason that have nothing to do with immigration. Immigration is a distraction at this point.

        It's the constitutional issues that matter - it's been 800 years of wars to establish in Western culture that parliaments, not kings, are ultimately in charge. Ignoring the will of Congress and just making proclamations is a serious structural problem. Now we'll see if congress will do anything about this, or simply give up their position as a co-equal branch of government.

        The House has the power to stop anything the government does, but they would have to actually take a stand for once. I'm not holding my breath for that: the idea that a majority of congresscritters would actually care more about governing than fundraising --- well, it's hard to take seriously.

        • by jxander ( 2605655 ) on Friday November 21, 2014 @05:21PM (#48437353)

          Which is all good in theory... until the parliament/congress becomes more interesting with infighting and navel gazing than actually improving the country.

          When was the last time that congress worked for the genuine benefit of the country, without a primary focus on how it will affect their reelection numbers?

          The system, as it currently stands, is broken. Beyond broken. And if it takes an unconstitutional tyrant to get us back on the proper track, so be it. Perhaps a smidgen of anarchy is necessary to remind us why we chose order

        • Congress has abdicated its responsibility to serve the public interest by openly declaring that it will oppose any initiative by the President just for spite. It's no wonder that he's forced to seek alternative solutions to get anything done.

          • by lgw ( 121541 )

            Congress has abdicated its responsibility to serve the public interest by openly declaring that it will oppose any initiative by the President just for spite.

            Open declaration? Surely you have a link to the speech about "just for spite"? You're not just making that up, right?

            Even so, the congress has that power under the Constitution. The Congress is in charge of America, per the Constitution. The President, as leader of the executive has the job of executing the laws created by Congress, you know, the legislative branch, the lawmakers.

            It's no wonder that he's forced to seek alternative solutions to get anything done.

            It's his job to "get done" those laws that the Congress passes. Simply choosing not to enforce those laws because he doesn't

            • It's his job to "get done" those laws that the Congress passes. Simply choosing not to enforce those laws because he doesn't like them is rather the opposite of his job.

              Well, he has the power to veto laws he doesn't like, so things are a little more complicated.

              Still, the complaint is not that he doesn't do anything with the laws that the Congress passes, the complaint is that Congress doesn't pass any laws that address important issues.

              • Still, the complaint is not that he doesn't do anything with the laws that the Congress passes, the complaint is that Congress doesn't pass any laws that address important issues.

                There are already plenty of laws addressing immigration that the President has chosen to ignore. Claiming that Congress should be passing more laws on the subject is a little silly -- if the President doesn't like them, what's to stop him from ignoring them too?

              • by lgw ( 121541 )

                Still, the complaint is not that he doesn't do anything with the laws that the Congress passes, the complaint is that Congress doesn't pass any laws that address important issues.

                No, the problem is that the congress has passed clear laws on the issue of immigration, but Obama doesn't like them. So he makes his own law through creative (lack of) enforcement.

                âoeThere are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply, through executive order, to ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as president.â - Candidate Obama

                ""the biggest problems that we'

        • we're a Republic. The principle reason we are not is that the wealthy landowners built our gov't not to spread freedom but to protect their land. They didn't even want a central gov't but feared without one they wouldn't have the strength to keep their land from being sized by the peasantry.

          Now, if this were Canada you might have a point...
        • Congress just makes the rules. But they cannot enforce it. They can persuade the relevant Federal agencies (and Obama) to do so by various means, but that's part of the politics.

          These are the checks and balances. And the things Obama has done are still within their bounds. As an example, Obama hasn't raised the H1B limitations because that's set in law by Congress.

      • I don't disagree with what Obama did in principle, but I disagree with the way he did it. We're still a nation of lex, not rex. Obama's changing of the rules via executive order are just as bad as Bush's changing of the rules via executive order.
        • I don't disagree with what Obama did in principle, but I disagree with the way he did it. We're still a nation of lex, not rex

          If Congress doesn't like what he did, they can pass a law and overturn it. Chance of that happening: 0%, at least in the next two years. In the absence of a law saying otherwise, Obama is free to run immigration policy as he sees fit.

        • The problem with this is not the way he did it - existing immigration laws have considerable latitude for the executive branch written in. The idea that this is illegal or unconstitutional is going to have a tough time getting through the courts.

          The problem with this action is that it's only a temporary patch on the real immigration issues. Maybe it's the best possible for the next couple of years but the real problem is the politics that is preventing real reform. In particular a system that financial rewa

      • that there will be more jobs, but I'm left questioning if there will be any _good_ jobs. Also, while there is not a fixed pool of labor supply and demand still apply, and increasing the supply reduces the value of labor; lowering wages in the process.

        There are also other impacts your not considering. The workers here are visas can be sent back at any time for any reason (with a black mark on their career to boot). They border on indentured servants. I know several that put in 50, 60 even 70 hours every
      • by swb ( 14022 )

        I'm curious how more competition for entry-level or low skilled jobs helps African Americans. Their unemployment rate is nearly 14%, probably higher in lower age brackets. And given the school "achievement gaps" and lower education attainment for African Americans, these are precisely the jobs they need to work their way out of poverty.

        Racism is a common argument for African American unemployment, but how does this stand up when the prime competitors for these jobs are non-white and in many cases marginal

      • I'm curious to know what countries you're talking about considering that the United States has some of the least restrictive immigration policies on Earth. Furthermore, east Asian nations (Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan) would contradict your claims as they've got highly restrictive policies and enjoy extremely low unemployment. Hell, it was less than 15 years ago that Taiwan even allowed foreigners to sign up with a mobile phone plan under their own name. Japan, with a long stagnant economy, is at 3.8% une

    • by khasim ( 1285 )

      I'm thinking that there should be some mechanism for funding X scholarships in STEM for X visas of the H1B1 type.

      Corporations receive 100 H1B1 visas this year, then 100 STEM scholarships are also provided this year. Funding via taxes on those corporations.

      At least it would make it easier to graduate in a STEM field without the massive debt.

  • That will help make them even cheaper to hire.

    • by Agares ( 1890982 )
      The only problem is that they can still go to the ER who can not turn them away legally.
      • Health policy should be an exception. If someone has ebola and they're turned away at the ER because they're not a legal citizen, ebola will spread in the community. Diseases don't care if someone is legal or illegal.
  • Find a partner and make a baby fast! Your child will be automatically a US citizen. That will child will be your ticket to legal residency in a few years, if you want it later.

    That was the key to one part of the plan that was announced: If you have a child who is a US citizen, you won't be deported.

    • by Nyder ( 754090 )

      Find a partner and make a baby fast! Your child will be automatically a US citizen. That will child will be your ticket to legal residency in a few years, if you want it later.

      That was the key to one part of the plan that was announced: If you have a child who is a US citizen, you won't be deported.

      On this note, looking for illegal ladies who want to have a legal baby.

    • by OzPeter ( 195038 )

      Find a partner and make a baby fast! Your child will be automatically a US citizen. That will child will be your ticket to legal residency in a few years, if you want it later.

      Why are you discriminating against gays?

      • Gays can't have kids?

        I'm pretty sure they can. Here is a hint. love means nothing in this context as child birth is a utility or tool to achieve an end- not the natural progression of opposite sexes mating.

    • Find a partner and make a baby fast! Your child will be automatically a US citizen. That will child will be your ticket to legal residency in a few years, if you want it later.

      That was the key to one part of the plan that was announced: If you have a child who is a US citizen, you won't be deported.

      Hmm... People just want to read only what they want to read, and then ignore the rest but rather misinform others with only what they read.

      From TFA

      If you’ve been in America for more than five years; if you have children who are American citizens or legal residents; if you register, pass a criminal background check, and you’re willing to pay your fair share of taxes -- you’ll be able to apply to stay in this country temporarily without fear of deportation. You can come out of the shadows and get right with the law. That’s what this deal is.

  • This has been proposed before, but perhaps not strongly enough or from an important enough source, which is too bad because it solves practically all of our worries.

    The premise is simple: the tech industry doesn't have enough good workers because our education system is not well suited to producing the necessary skill sets. Therefore, allow qualified talent to come in and fill that gap. Tax employers based on their salaries (for this to work, salaries must be lower rather than having the same salaries w

    • The premise is simple: the tech industry doesn't have enough good workers because our education system is not well suited to producing the necessary skill sets.

      Or perhaps we could just let the free market do its job by raising the wages of the labor that is in shortage until more people decide to take up that field. Worked just fine in the 1990s, everyone that could spell computer was enrolled in CS classes.

  • You don't see many IT professionals hanging out in front of the Home Depot.

    I'm just saying.

  • H1B is about giving a company a slave. These ppl are basically unable to shift to a different company until they get a green card. As such, companies pay these ppl well below average, and then block the green cards.
    BUT, if we change how we do green cards and go back to priority for those that we need, as opposed to saying that somebody has family here (which rarely helps), then we bring good ppl here that will work hard and be allowed to participate in real competition.
  • Although such a program could help create a stronger and more succesful nation I do have issues with it. There are many types of people and ways of life. How would an Amish person fare on such an entry program. In other words some people are being devalued due to religions, or ethnic modes of life. And then we have the cheap labor issue. We already have a situation in which farm workers are paid far less due to illegal workers and it goes further than that. If the farms paid more other jobs w

Truly simple systems... require infinite testing. -- Norman Augustine

Working...