Trump orders review of H-1B visa programme - Polidicks

[URL="https://www.rte.ie/news/us/2017/0418/868521-donald-trump-visa/"]https://www.rte.ie/news/us/2017/0418/868521-donald-trump-visa/[/URL] [QUOTE]US President Donald Trump has ordered federal agencies to look at tightening a temporary visa programme used to bring high-skilled foreign workers to the United States. Mr Trump signed an executive order on enforcing and reviewing the H-1B visa, popular in the technology industry, on a visit to the headquarters of Snap-On Inc, a tool manufacturer in Kenosha, Wisconsin, senior administration officials said. In the document, known to the White House as the "Buy American and Hire American" order, Mr Trump also seeks changes in government procurement that would boost purchases of American products in federal contracts, with one aim being to help U.S.steelmakers. The moves show Mr Trump once again using his power to issue executive orders to try to fulfill promises he made last year in his election campaign, in this case to reform US immigration policies and encourage purchases of US products. Senior officials gave few details on implementation of the order but Trump aides have expressed concern that most H-1B visas are awarded for lower-paid jobs at outsourcing firms, many based in India, which they say takes work away from Americans. They seek a more merit-based way to give the visas to highly skilled workers. "Right now, widespread abuse in our immigration system is allowing American workers of all backgrounds to be replaced by workers brought in from other countries," Mr Trump said. Companies that specialise in applying for H-1B visas on behalf of foreign workers, then connecting those workers with US employers, include Tata Consultancy Services Ltd, Cognizant Tech Solutions Corp and Infosys Ltd. Their business models could be affected by any changes to the H-1B system. Infosys, India's number two IT services firm, has said it is ramping up work on on-site development centres in the United States to train local talent in an effort to address the visa regulation changes under consideration. It warned last week that onerous changes to US visa rules could affect its earnings. [B]As he nears the 100-day benchmark of his presidency, Mr Trump still has no major legislative achievements.[/B][/QUOTE] It appears everything Trump has done so far has been through executive order. And yet he criticised Obama for this same fact.

Every day we tread closer to a corporate dictatorship under Trump. Not the worst way to be, mind, but every relevant fear has its backing.

[QUOTE] As he nears the 100-day benchmark of his presidency, Mr Trump still has no major legislative achievements. [/QUOTE] Ahahahaha wow This has got to be the most incompetent president since Herbert Hoover

[QUOTE=joshuadim;52121632]Ahahahaha wow This has got to be the most incompetent president since Herbert Hoover[/QUOTE] I don't disagree with the sentiment but credit must be given to Congressional Republicans who, in their stunning incompetence, failed to repeal and replace Obamacare after flogging it for 8 years

Isn't it good for us that it's by executive orders, because are they not easier to get repealed?

Yeah, go ahead and fuck the tech sector permanently instead of just temporarily this time. Making America great against through coal mines, oil pipelines, hotels and... regression?

Canada's in a good place to pick up the brain drain, so, do it at your peril, Trump.

[QUOTE=Jon27;52122581]Yeah, go ahead and fuck the tech sector permanently instead of just temporarily this time. Making America great against through coal mines, oil pipelines, hotels and... regression?[/QUOTE] It does point out the system is basically allowing for people to be paid below the market rate.

Haha this happened literally the day after Australia did the exact same thing.

Meanwhile, Australia nukes their similar 457 visa programme at the same time. Like, the visas have problems: companies use them to bring underskilled workers in that they can pay minimum wage to do jobs that should rightfully go to citizens. Those immigrants usually then get shafted like fuck - they have to agree to shitty conditions, or their employer has the right to revoke the visa and send them packing back home. But scrapping the program entirely is basically just economic suicide.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;52122588]Canada's in a good place to pick up the brain drain, so, do it at your peril, Trump.[/QUOTE] Canada is likely to pull the same number, especially with Temporary Foreign Workers as well because like Oz's 457 and US's H1-B, they were being horrifically abused by Indian coding sweatshops to bring substandard professionals (typically touting them as professionals, deliberately inflating their work experience to increase their hourly wages on paper, none of the money ever seeing the person itself and instead becoming a profit margin for the company itself) into the country. These people would lowball bid everyone, do shoddy jobs and end up leaving dangerous code that someone more competent would need to clean up. Meanwhile, the workers themselves were paid a pittance, had their balls in a vise about the company being able to let them process a Green Card to continue to stay, and getting another job while on an H1-B was a fucking nightmare. A lot of us here in India are also happy to see it's demise, because neither the best qualified nor the most capable were actually being sent "onshore" through these visas - it was usually the ones that were the best at brown-nosing and playing office politics.

[QUOTE=1239the;52122705]Meanwhile, Australia nukes their similar 457 visa programme at the same time. Like, the visas have problems: companies use them to bring underskilled workers in that they can pay minimum wage to do jobs that should rightfully go to citizens. Those immigrants usually then get shafted like fuck - they have to agree to shitty conditions, or their employer has the right to revoke the visa and send them packing back home. But scrapping the program entirely is basically just economic suicide.[/QUOTE] NZ just announced changes to its visa programme, enforcing pay levels etc.

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;52121518][URL="https://www.rte.ie/news/us/2017/0418/868521-donald-trump-visa/"]https://www.rte.ie/news/us/2017/0418/868521-donald-trump-visa/[/URL] It appears everything Trump has done so far has been through executive order. And yet he criticised Obama for this same fact.[/QUOTE] solid misunderstanding. trump is not governing via executive order like barack obama, hes well within the confines of the power of the executive branch. is it still dumb? yeah. but nowhere near the same level of authoritarian power abuse.

[quote]Companies that specialise in applying for H-1B visas on behalf of foreign workers, then connecting those workers with US employers, include Tata Consultancy Services Ltd, Cognizant Tech Solutions Corp and Infosys Ltd. [/quote] 20$ says these guys are major GOP donors and nothing happens since they've been identified as flagrant abusers of the system for like decades and nobody's done anything.

[QUOTE=Mitchd247;52123175]solid misunderstanding. trump is not governing via executive order like barack obama, hes well within the confines of the power of the executive branch. is it still dumb? yeah. but nowhere near the same level of authoritarian power abuse.[/QUOTE] He's totally governing by executive order or at least trying to. Did you not hear about the muslim ban?

[QUOTE=Sableye;52123288]20$ says these guys are major GOP donors and nothing happens since they've been identified as flagrant abusers of the system for like decades and nobody's done anything.[/QUOTE] that I can agree with, just like when the democrats toss money to planned parenthood because they donate money to democratic campaigns. hey, its almost like the government shouldn't have the power to interfere with business in any way so there aren't such horrible abuses of state power! its so crazy it may just work. [editline]19th April 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Lambeth;52123301]He's totally governing by executive order or at least trying to. Did you not hear about the muslim ban?[/QUOTE] notice my "well within the powers" part. and if you'd like me to take you seriously let's cut the buzzword bullshit right now. is it a stupid order? absolutely. is it a Muslim ban? absolutely not. disingenuous to call it that, and you know it.

[QUOTE=Mitchd247;52123311]that I can agree with, just like when the democrats toss money to planned parenthood because they donate money to democratic campaigns. hey, its almost like the government shouldn't have the power to interfere with business in any way so there aren't such horrible abuses of state power! its so crazy it may just work. [/QUOTE] Planned parenthood is non-partisan. They provide services to anyone that needs them, and the money given to them by the government isn't used for abortions, it's used to subsidize everything else they do.

[QUOTE=Mitchd247;52123175]solid misunderstanding. trump is not governing via executive order like barack obama, hes well within the confines of the power of the executive branch. is it still dumb? yeah. but nowhere near the same level of authoritarian power abuse.[/QUOTE] Ah yes, all of that authoritarian power abuse that was conveniently never declared an abuse of power by the supreme court and was undone with little to no effort on Trump's part. I'm curious as to how one can govern by executive order and still have one of the lowest total number of executive orders since Theodore Roosevelt.

[QUOTE=Anderan;52123995]Ah yes, all of that authoritarian power abuse that was conveniently never declared an abuse of power by the supreme court and was undone with little to no effort on Trump's part.[/QUOTE] The Supreme Court thing? Come on now you're just lying. [url]https://www.cato.org/blog/obamas-abysmal-record-supreme-court[/url] Also, of course Trump was able to easily undo Obamas orders, its the same office. Just because something can be easily rescinded later doesn't make it just in the present. The cult of personality surrounding Obama is truly mind boggling, I've seen you bash Trump supporters for blindly defending him on everything, why does your guy get a pass? [editline]19th April 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Anderan;52123995] I'm curious as to how one can govern by executive order and still have one of the lowest total number of executive orders since Theodore Roosevelt.[/QUOTE] Another lie man, are you messing with me or are you genuinely misinformed? Theodore Roosevelt issued over 1,000 executive orders, almost 5 times as many as Obama. The quantity of the orders doesn't particularly matter anyways, since the effects could be as mundane as a pay raise or cut for a federal agency. The issue was his unwillingness to compromise with the house opposition party in terms of policy. As far as he was concerned, it was his way or the highway. Now there's a precedent for that sort of reckless disregard of the system of checks and balances, thankfully Trump (comparatively) has kept his power relatively confined to what it should be. Again, I'm not saying I agree with his policy, but to say that hes a hypocrite for even issuing executive orders when he criticized Obama for issuing bad ones is dishonest.

[QUOTE=Mitchd247;52124034]The Supreme Court thing? Come on now you're just lying. [url]https://www.cato.org/blog/obamas-abysmal-record-supreme-court[/url] [/quote] Did you read your own source at all? Several of these cases don't even have anything to do with Obama himself, much less him exorcising an authoritarian level of abuse through executive orders. The first one it mentions is just from federal agents exceeding the scope of warrant, another was about when exactly the statute of limitations for filing civil penalty actions initiates. Wow, these sure showcase Obama abusing the shit out of executive orders. The article is just a libertarian think-tank going "look at all these cases the Obama administration lost! These numbers mean he's encroaching on civil liberties!". [quote] Also, of course Trump was able to easily undo Obamas orders, its the same office. Just because something can be easily rescinded later doesn't make it just in the present. The cult of personality surrounding Obama is truly mind boggling, I've seen you bash Trump supporters for blindly defending him on everything, why does your guy get a pass?[/quote] I'm calling you out for repeating the same baseless shit conservatives have been claiming for years. I'm not "giving him a pass", I'm stating a fact. [quote]Another lie man, are you messing with me or are you genuinely misinformed? Theodore Roosevelt issued over 1,000 executive orders, almost 5 times as many as Obama. [/quote] Except it's not a lie? Literally the only presidents to issue fewer orders than Obama are JFK, Ford, and Bush Sr. Again, these numbers are objective facts that you can see for yourself [url]http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php[/url] [quote]The quantity of the orders doesn't particularly matter anyways, since the effects could be as mundane as a pay raise or cut for a federal agency. The issue was his unwillingness to compromise with the house opposition party in terms of policy. As far as he was concerned, it was his way or the highway. Now there's a precedent for that sort of reckless disregard of the system of checks and balances, thankfully Trump (comparatively) has kept his power relatively confined to what it should be. Again, I'm not saying I agree with his policy, but to say that hes a hypocrite for even issuing executive orders when he criticized Obama for issuing bad ones is dishonest.[/QUOTE] Or maybe it was the house opposition that refused to compromise in terms of policy? This is an argument that could go in circle for days and never get anywhere and is purely your personal interpretation on the matter. People are criticizing Trump for failing to achieve any legislative success having only seen any "successes" through the issuing of executive orders.

[QUOTE=Anderan;52124100]Did you read your own source at all? Several of these cases don't even have anything to do with Obama himself, much less him exorcising an authoritarian level of abuse through executive orders. The first one it mentions is just from federal agents exceeding the scope of warrant, another was about when exactly the statute of limitations for filing civil penalty actions initiates. Wow, these sure showcase Obama abusing the shit out of executive orders. The article is just a libertarian think-tank going "look at all these cases the Obama administration lost! These numbers mean he's encroaching on civil liberties!". I'm calling you out for repeating the same baseless shit conservatives have been claiming for years. I'm not "giving him a pass", I'm stating a fact. Except it's not a lie? Literally the only presidents to issue fewer orders than Obama are JFK, Ford, and Bush Sr. Again, these numbers are objective facts that you can see for yourself [url]http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php[/url] Or maybe it was the house opposition that refused to compromise in terms of policy? This is an argument that could go in circle for days and never get anywhere and is purely your personal interpretation on the matter. People are criticizing Trump for failing to achieve any legislative success having only seen any "successes" through the issuing of executive orders.[/QUOTE] 1. The president directs federal agencies via executive order and through the justice department decides which cases to appeal. Learn more about the government. 2.I sincerely have no idea what you're talking about. 3. Again, content not quantity. 4. Trump has been in office for 3 months. The argument falls flat on its face before even leaving the gate. The president does not legislate either, the office exists to direct federal agencies. On your opposition thing, sure. But the fact of the matter is pretty much anyone in congress who you ask will tell you that Obama was a notoriously bad negotiator. He always believed he was the smartest guy in the room and would outright REFUSE to compromise with house republicans (who do represent a good majority of Americans, who, need I remind you, think the ACA is a steaming pile of shit. ) His young ideological arrogance was shown many, MANY times even during public speeches. Remember when he spent the election cycle bashing Trump not based on policy but based on the fact he didn't like him personally? Me too. If you'd like to take this debate to steam or private message, I'd love to. This is the last reply I'll make to you here though.

[QUOTE=Mitchd247;52124128]1. The president directs federal agencies via executive order and through the justice department decides which cases to appeal. Learn more about the government.[/QUOTE] So you really haven't read any of them have you. Or are you really trying to suggest that the act of appealing a case is some massive authoritarian overreach, or the fact that a case came up at all is expressly Obama's fault. But hey, lets look at each court case. [QUOTE]United States v. Jones - Federal agents exceeded the scope of a warrant when tracking a drug trafficker. Nothing to do with Obama abusing executive orders Sackett v. EPA - EPA accused people trying to build a house of violating the Clean Water Act. Nothing to do with Obama abusing executive orders. Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC - church teacher claimed a school that replaced her was in violation of Americans with Disabilities Act, court decided that the Free Exercise Clause prevents the government from interfering with the appointment of ministers. Nothing to do with Obama abusing executive orders. Arizona v. United States - Arizona attempted to give local agents more power to enforce federal immigration regulations, court found that parts were preempted by federal law but left parts intact. Nothing to do with Obama abusing executive orders. Gabelli v. SEC - SCOTUS found the SEC was too late in filing a suit against Bruce Alpert and Marc Gabelli of Gabelli Funds. Nothing to do with Obama abusing executive orders. Arkansas Fish & Game Commission v. United States - determined that controlled flooding counted as "taking" land under the 5th amendment and that compensation was owed to the property owner. Nothing to do with Obama abusing executive orders PPL Corp v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue - tax credit shenanigans. Nothing to do with Obama abusing executive orders. Horne v. USDA - applied that the "takings" clause of the 5th amendment applied to personal property. Arose out of a dispute about an act from 1937. Nothing to do with Obama abusing executive orders. Sekhar v. United States - determined that legal advice was not something that could be extorted. Nothing to do with Obama abusing executive orders.[/QUOTE] I could go on but I feel like I've proven my point, the vast majority of these cases are things that just came up during criminal cases or old rules being clarified because nobody apparently bothered to challenge them in the past. Literally the only case that has anything to do with Obama is National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning which was the result of him attempting to make appointments while congress was in recess because the Republicans kept calling sessions just enough to keep the recesses from being long enough for Obama to make the appointments, as he is allowed to make appointments during congressional recesses if they are long enough. I find it funny that you argue the amount of executive orders doesn't mean anything but try and defend your stance by pointing to the number of court cases the justice department lost during Obama's administration, despite the fact that few have anything to do with something done by Obama. [quote]3. Again, content not quantity. [/quote] So I guess you're not going to address the fact that you saying Obama issuing very few executive orders was a lie was in itself 100% false.