I still think the best possible practice is to use a password manager. I've been using one for a couple years I haven't ran into any issues so far. My passwords are long, complex,with symbols and unique. I use the phrase trick for the master password.
Importantly, your password manager file can stay on your device, not in a network-connected database that can be hacked, downloaded, and brute forced. Having millions of targets in one place is tempting, your personal files aren't.
I use Keepass, I store the databases on Dropbox, I memorize the passphrases, and I store their private keys on a thumbdrive.
I do worry about someone analyzing each and every change to the database for some kind of information leak, but I also change the compound key every 6 months which should help.
One thing keeping me from using a password manager as a comprehensive solution is my Chromebook. I have to manually sign in every morning when I open it up, and I can't use a password manager on the sign-in screen.
Setting aside your incredibly patronizing tone, this is actually kind of important. My google account is by far my most important account, and I already have it connected to several other accounts such as Goodreads, Stack Exchange, and others.
Yes, I've backed things up, saved my contacts, etc. But insofar as a password manager is supposed to be a comprehensive solution, it's a solution that forces people to choose between their Chromebook and their password manager.
Most people who speak fluent English learned it out of their own initiative, outside of school, by attending courses or taking private lessons. Not everybody's parents could afford paying for it, though.
English at school isn't taught properly as I said, or at least it wasn't back in the 90s (I was born in 1981). I suppose things must have improved since then, but not radically.
Most English teachers were requalified Russian teachers back then, since Russian used to be a compulsory subject under communist regime and they'd be out of work had they not switched to English. There were hardly any qualified English teachers, so, no competition for the job.
You can imagine the outcome. What's more, the didactic method was terribly obsolete. As early as in primary school we would have to memorize loads of grammar rules for past perfect continuous and whatnot, while lacking the most basic vocabulary.
Older generation (+40 yo) never even had that, and living behind the iron curtain one did not have a strong incentive to learn English in the first place.
Given the long wait times for Green Cards. Wouldn't that effectively double the h1b quota ?
H1B's have to go though long process of LCA's, ads in the newpapers, notices etc before their visa is approved. Would H4's have to go though this also? If not I can see this being abused by offshoring companies as loophole in the system.
I don't see how this is 'first step' towards a better immigration policy. Current H1B system is not used in the way it is intended for the most part. Its modern day serfdom used to attract desperate educated people from poor countries. Why not give them green cards and let them actually take advantage of american system and create jobs instead of treating them like 2nd class citizens with no rights, no voice, no dreams.
Well according to the DHS site, the H1-B employee need to have started the process of becoming a permanent resident so it seems less susceptible to being abused by companies trying to bring in people from abroad and using this to double their quota.
There are only long green card wait times for people born in India and China (maybe the Philippines?). Most other people should be able to get a green card in a year or two with a decent lawyer.
You have a very optimistic view. Everyone I know that went through the process took between six and ten years, in large part because INS/USCIS is so backlogged. None of them were from India, China or Philippines.
9 yrs and counting... :). I've lost all motivation to do anything fun/innovative with my life at this point with my 20's spent stuck in green card queue. I just feel like a resentful shell of my former self, a product of a failed nation/people.
Not really. Most people I know from the non-backlogged nations get their green cards in a few years. Part of having a good lawyer is knowing which processing centres to use. Some are definitely backlogged a very long time. I got mine in less than two years.
As whitenoise mentions below, it's only if your I-140 has been approved or your H1B has been extended that your spouse can work.
Even if you are getting your H1B this October, and assuming that you could qualify for EB-2 in ROW and that your company starts the green card process the day you start working (more likely it's gonna take 6 months to a year), your wife still won't be able to work for another 2 years. Just getting the PERM these days can easily take a year.
Indeed. Sounds like it would take before your spouse could be eligible to work but it does seem to be an improvement over the current situation especially for citizens of countries with long backlogs in the permanent residency process (India, China, etc...) where getting the green card can take 10 years or sometimes more.
The only thing now is to ask your company to sponsor your green card as soon as you can. They might want to postpone it for a few good years but it is up to you to negotiate.
I disagree with all the opposition that I can muster. America needs to get its head out of its own ass, abandon police state fascism, and suck the brains out of the rest of the world by offering principled people the priceless treasures of liberty and self-determination.
The one qualification for immigration should be this: will the country be better with this person in it? Does the person have a net positive value to society?
Thanks to technological progress, that is not a difficult bar to pass. The problem is entirely with American politicians that use immigration as a wedge issue. They blame immigration for any weaknesses in the economy, when in reality, they are the ones sucking value out of the economy, pocketing some, and burning the rest on a pyre.
People who come to your town wanting to work for their living are not your enemy. They are the ones multiplying your trade opportunities and business potential. No one is taking your job. Those jobs belong to the company. If you want to own a job, you have to own your own business. And if you can't do that, it is the people setting up tollbooths and roadblocks between you and business ownership that are ultimately at fault. Look hard at them. They are not immigrants.
I would say that immigration is complex. Also there are clear differences in what different types of immigrants bring to the US. Clearly immigration helps some and hurts some. For some low wage workers clearly bringing in more low skilled and semi skilled works does hurt them. That being said grabbing the cream of the crop from around the world is mostly good for the US.
Problem is, H-1B is little more than an indentured servant program. If we were immigrating only the best and brightest, as free men (women), that would be a bit different.
It seems that many equate H-1B with bringing in cheap labor from abroad. The truth is if you are an international student in the US and would like to stay in the US afterwards then applying for an H1-B (presumably after being on a F-1 student visa) and then getting the permanent residency is often the best way forward.
Changing jobs while on H1B is a massive -- massive -- pain in the ass. You need to basically find a company who wants to deal with the headache and the legal expenses, and hope that USCIS accepts your transfer. This significantly limits a visa-holder's choices in terms of employment. Startups are pretty much out of the question, and most medium-sized companies as well, unless you're well-known in your field.
Immigration may be complex, but the essentials of the current situation are: 1) We are taking in over a million people a year. 2) There is very little job growth. 3) Projected population growth is ecologically unsustainable. 4) The vast majority of these immigrants present at best a break-even economic proposition for those already here. They tend to be net tax drains, in fact. 5) The native population overwhelmingly favors much reduced immigration, but powerful interests press for more.
The only way this disastrous situation will get fixed is with a year zero restart. The current set of interest groups are too entrenched for meaningful policy change. We need a period of zero immigration for five or ten years, after which other policies might be worth considering.
Out of those 1 mil people that get in only 140000 (14%) are employment based. The majority is family-based. H1Bs are not the bulk of that 1mil per annum, not by far.
It is in practice impossible to discuss isolated aspects of immigration like H1B. H1B stuff and chain migration and birthright citizenship and illegal immigration all wind up inextricably intertwined both in practice and in policy matters.
>We need a period of zero immigration for five or ten years, after which other policies might be worth considering
There most probably wouldn't be a need for any stricter policy after 10 years, for skill based employment. By that time, many companies would either move or have big offices in other locations in order to attract global talent so the US wouldn't be as attractive to come in anymore. Also, there are a lot of companies that are started by immigrants, so some other country is suddenly going to be a hub just like Silicon Valley now.
Looks like your proposal affects students too. That means a lot of folks like the Google and Yahoo founders. Do you even realize how much R&D at universities and companies is driven by immigrants?
Don't think it will happen? What if I tell you it's already happening to a certain extent even with the current policies?
I am very comfortable with multinational corporations and research organizations setting up shop near where the skilled people are. I don't see how it makes sense for them to have to import the people to America. Is there something magic about American soil? Why would you object to organizations having a larger international presence? Really, this would better serve both the foreign countries and American global interests.
>I am very comfortable with multinational corporations and research organizations setting up shop near where the skilled people are.
You don't think this is going to hurt employment in the US? If India open up immigration in response and Bangalore becomes a bigger startup hub than Silicon Valley, you don't think that hurts US workers? If US workers move out too, it's just brain drain that hurts the country.
There are a lot of synergies that come together to make technology hubs.
>Really, this would better serve both the foreign countries and American global interests.
How would large tech companies' IT workforces being international help American global interests? Imagine if other countries had access to all your internet searches and email.
Oh noes, all the startup multimillionaires and VC types might move to Bangalore. This is just LOL for a host of reasons. It's a laughable bluff. In reality, for the most part, companies would simply be forced to pay American workers more.
But even if I'm wrong, I don't really care. The high skill tech stuff people on here fixate on is not relevant in the bigger employment picture.
With the boomer swell and the possibility of prolonged stagnation, I don't see why you'd want to prevent skilled and innovative people from entering your country.
Then look at it in details. I didn't read the article, but in the submission title there is one suspicious word "some", which could mean anything from "almost everyone" to "almost noone" would be allowed.
