Software engineer describes his experience with H1B.

My friend @JoshuaSteinman is dropping bombshells about H-1B visas, and I’ve got a story to add.

I spent years in India, working directly for one of the country’s wealthiest individuals. He recruited me for my computer skills to lead some of the most ambitious, technically challenging projects ever attempted.

We broke world records and unlocked trillions in wealth. My boss? He now lives in a skyscraper in Mumbai.

Toward the end of the project, he told me his best engineers were leaving for Silicon Valley, lured by unbelievable salaries. So, on his recommendation, I packed up my family and moved to California.

Here’s where it gets weird: I was (at least for short periods of rime) chief of that massive project, with ultimate responsibility. But guys several rungs below me - men way less qualified for any job - were getting H-1B visas and landing incredible salaries in tech.

1.I told the truth. The foreign visa applicants? Many claimed to work in different departments or roles to fit the narrative. I admitted I worked on oil & gas projects. That’s considered “dirty” and “irrelevant” in tech. http://2.My school wasn’t on “the list.” I graduated from @MaritimeCollege —what @stevenujifusa calls “the Harvard of Maritime.” Highest attrition rate in the country. 185 credits. Classes like spherical geometry. But it’s a state school in The Bronx.

Tech doesn’t care. They rely on lists of “approved” “Ivy Plus” schools, as @bhorowitz admits in The Hard Thing About Hard Things.

•Wrong degree? Ask the school to reword your transcript or reframe it as a minor.

As an American, it’s incredibly difficult to lie. HR WILL call my references and confirms every detail of my background.

But for foreign applicants? That’s a lot harder to verify, so they get a pass.

Read any book about the industry, and you’ll find a near-religious obsession with maintaining “culture.” It’s a startup mantra: hard work, positivity, willingness to take risks.

But the dirty secret? “Tech culture” also harbors disdain for: •“Dirty” industries like oil & gas. •Christian values or Republican politics. •Anything less than an Ivy League education.

This isn’t just about H-1Bs. It’s about arrogance baked into an industry that weeds out Americans for not fitting their mold.

I’m not surprised that zero of Josh’s friends from the Trump administration got hired in tech, even at the highest levels.

If you’re a foreign conservative? They’ll hire you because it doesn’t code against “tech culture.” (E.g. I have several ultra conservative very religious Hindu friends who don’t have this problem) But if you’re an American who doesn’t fit their narrative? They’ll weed you out.

It’s time to talk about the serious cultural problem in tech—and how it’s harming American workers.

Tech has serious biases. They either need to toss them out and hire the best candidates or figure out how to properly vet foreigners who don’t fit their BS culture.

P.S. I did find a way around this BS. Start a company yourself m. I did and raised over $6M for one company.

How did I do it? I dropped any mention of my religion, politics, oil drilling experience and state school education from my capital raising meetings. Worked like a charm.

As an American it’s literally easier to get million dollar checks than a middle level job at Facebook or Apple.

H-1B’s and political discrimination by Big Tech

DiogenesLamp: "I know people like to blame Georgia and South Carolina, but my take is that they were the vocal states, and others, who may have felt the same as they do, didn't bring it up, but might have if someone else hadn't objected.
I find it odd that a Union of which the vast majority were slave states, would only have two of their number objecting to the anti-slavery language, when it applied to all states except Massachusetts, at the time."

Jefferson himself claimed that some Northerners had also objected to his proposed anti-slavery section of the Declaration, though he didn't identify them by name or state.

So, several points to make here:

Under the British, all US colonies were legally slave states, but not all colonists owned slaves.
Of those who signed the 1776 Declaration of Independence, roughly 1/3 did not own slaves, including nearly all signers from Connecticut, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania.
States where all signers did own slaves included: New York, Maryland, Virginia and South Carolina.
States with one non-slaveholder delegate included: New Hampshire, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware, North Carolina & Georgia.
By the time of the 1787 Constitutional Convention, every New England state plus Pennsylvania had begun to abolish slavery.
Fewer than half of those who signed the 1787 Constitution were slaveholders, with non-slaveholders including nearly all the delegates from New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey & Delaware.

My point here is that even in 1776, and especially by 1787, many leading Americans, North and South, took slavery very seriously and were doing what they could to abolish it wherever possible.

I think at this point over a century and half where we are at it is irrelevant.

So you are suggesting old injustices should be ignored?

I tend to be an absolutist. We should not meekly accept a situation created by someone ignoring constitutional law and doing whatever they want simply because they have power.

Wait. Isn't that your *EXACT POINT* regarding how the 14th amendment is misinterpreted to allow all the nonsense?

You are saying the creative "interpretation" of the 14th to allow "gay marriage", anchor babies, abortion and banning prayers in school is a "lie".

Why isn't the creation of the 14th also a lie?

An absolutist reading of the Constitutional Amendment process does not allow the Federal government to control states and *FORCE* them to vote for things their people do not want.

If you complain about people misusing the US Constitution, does not what they did to create the 14th amendment also fall into the category of misusing the constitution and lying about it's meaning?

Heh. These words from the guy who says he thinks thinks that a slavery amendment after a war not fought over prayer in schools would authorize ending prayer in schools.

Stop putting your words in my mouth. I absolutely reject the idea that those things come out of the 14th amendment, but I recognize that the courts *SAY* the 14th amendment created those ridiculous results.

*NONE* of us agree with using the 14th amendment to create any of those results, but we recognize that the courts who created them, claim it was the 14th amendment which gave them the power to do so.

Why do you keep trying to accuse us of supporting ideas we don't support?

By the time of the 1787 Constitutional Convention, every New England state plus Pennsylvania had begun to abolish slavery.

They had mouthed a bunch of formalities and passed a bunch of laws that said they would abolish it at some point in the future.

I tend to be an absolutist, and I don't consider stating intentions to be the same thing as doing the deed.

My measure of the abolition of slavery is that it no longer exists in any form within a state that has abolished it.

This is of course not true for the vast majority of States that "abolished it" in the 1790 era. I think Pennsylvania still had slaves on the census in the 1840s. I know some of the states did.

My point here is that even in 1776, and especially by 1787, many leading Americans, North and South, took slavery very seriously and were doing what they could to abolish it wherever possible.

I think there is a lot of truth in this. Even George Washington himself, in his later years decided he wanted to abolish it, and he often pondered how it might be accomplished.

But did most people oppose it because they thought it was wrong, or did they oppose it because they didn't want white men to have to compete with slaves for paying jobs? Did they oppose it because they didn't want "colored" living among them?

When you go back and look at it, there is indeed written evidence that some people opposed it because they thought it was immoral, but there is also a lot of evidence that the majority opposed it for economic and racial reasons.

There are all sorts of people who said they wanted to keep the territories for white people, meaning they simply didn't want any black people in them. I think Lincoln said this too.

The various "black codes" in the various Northern states indicate that the populations were primarily driven by hatred, not love.

"So you are suggesting old injustices should be ignored?"

Not at all. I'm the one who points out that the British Empire forced slavery upon the United States, by vetoing our pre-U.S.-colonial laws that would've started the process, remember?

(all of this paragraph is irrelevant to the discussion but it adds context)But I don't support Britain paying reparations to African Americans. Old injustices are just that. Old. The new injustice is The 1619 Project. So this information about British vetos becomes very valuable then. The U.S. is actually a victim in the slavery arena. We have the text of the vetos to prove it.

In any case back to the 14th if there's something that needs to be fixed, then let's fix it.

"We should not meekly accept a situation created by someone ignoring constitutional law and doing whatever they want simply because they have power.

Wait. Isn't that your *EXACT POINT* regarding how the 14th amendment is misinterpreted to allow all the nonsense?"

No, it's not the exact point. There is no misinterpretation. There is only a lie. Progressives are liars first and foremost. Let me explain something to you. There's two rules to follow here. Only two are required:

First. Progressives are liars.

Second. If you ever have any doubts whatsoever, refer back to rule number 1.

On some topic related to black people specifically, we can talk misinterpretation. On some topic like prayer in schools no. The Civil War was not fought over prayer in schools. Am I still lecturing you Civil War guy that the Civil War was not fought over prayer in schools?

"Why isn't the creation of the 14th also a lie?"

A fair question. Problem is, the civil war is over. All we can do now is fix the amendment or repeal it. Complaining to me isn't getting it fixed one or the other.

"*NONE* of us agree with using the 14th amendment to create any of those results, but we recognize that the courts who created them, claim it was the 14th amendment which gave them the power to do so."

Given the construct of this sentence I'm not putting words into your mouth. You own them. That sentence should have contained the word lie, but it did not. So I'm not putting any single word whatsoever in your mouth. You're doing it very deftly all on your own.

You keep doing this. Very, very consistent. You say the courts are using it, you say the courts are claiming it. But never once, ever, do you say the claim is a lie. That trust is never broken. If I missed it I apologize, but I cannot say I have ever seen that trust broken.

You are completely stuck on being wedded to the idea that yes, this has to come from the 14th. For whatever reason, you're unwilling to entertain that perhaps progressive lies stand alone.

"Why do you keep trying to accuse us of supporting ideas we don't support?"

See post 137 or 136. https://freerepublic.com/focus/chat/4287265/posts?page=137#137 Note the difference between the two. BTW, my word is belief not support.

You know what, I can't believe I missed this initially.

I'm going to do this the aggressive way.

The one word I do want to put into your mouth is "lie" and I cannot possibly get it there.

At this point, the word "lie" won't be there, you trust the progressives too too much. So relax, I can't put any words in your mouth. Just as it's not in the slavery amendment's power to do abortion things since the war wasn't fought over slavery, its not in my power to put words into your mouth.

Think about that one for a while.

First. Progressives are liars.

So the people who collected all those ratifications from the Southern states were just liars when they said it was all legitimate?

Well yes. Therefore the 14th was never a legitimate amendment from the beginning. It never received actual ratification votes, but the liars said it did, and we've been dealing with the consequence of it being passed fraudulently ever since.

The Civil War was not fought over prayer in schools. Am I still lecturing you Civil War guy that the Civil War was not fought over prayer in schools?

You are lecturing your own straw man, because none of us suggested that it was.

A fair question. Problem is, the civil war is over. All we can do now is fix the amendment or repeal it. Complaining to me isn't getting it fixed one or the other.

I'm not trying to fix it, I recognize that wrong will never be corrected, but I am trying to get people to recognize that the passage of the 13th, the 14th, and the 15th amendments were an abuse of the US Constitution amendment process.

The people who perpetrated this violation of our constitution are all long dead, and the culture has become so firmly ingrained with what they did that it is simply not possible to undo it.

But it would be good to see that people comprehend that the liberals have been lying about the constitution since at least the 1860s.

Given the construct of this sentence I'm not putting words into your mouth. You own them. That sentence should have contained the word lie, but it did not.

The courts do not believe they lie. Whether *WE* believe it is irrelevant to the fact *THEY* have the power to lie and impose that lie on us, and calling them liars might make us feel better, but it won't change anything about what they declared the 14th amendment requires.

And the bad wording and overreach of the 14th amendment bears some blame itself.

Have you ever heard of the "Incorporation doctrine"? That is the main way they abuse all sorts of states rights, such as forcing Abortion and Gay Marriage down our throats.

According to them, the "incorporation doctrine" requires that all prohibitions against the Federal government must also apply to the states. Therefore if it is illegal for the Federal government to recognize an official religion, it is illegal for a state to do so as well.

Of course this is nonsense, but a fair reading of the 14th makes it a reasonable interpretation that they can do this.

The 14th was a horribly written amendment that tried to do too much and was too vague in important points.

Had it been written better, they would have had more difficulty making things up by using it.

The one word I do want to put into your mouth is "lie" and I cannot possibly get it there.

I am beginning to think you have some sort of screw loose. I've said "lie" many times. You seem to think that just because *YOU* declare what the courts did a "lie", that they will accept your view and change their ways.

Yes, we all know they are "LYING." The point is, if the amendment hadn't been written by a dyslexic first grader, it would be a lot harder for the courts to "LIE" about it, and get away with it.

Why are you stuck on that word "lie"? Nobody disagrees with you about it, but you keep claiming we do.

Like I said, you are coming across as having a screw loose.

Look. With all due respect, I didn’t read your post. I read all the rest of them, just not this time. Mainly because I have nothing else for this song that doesn’t end. I don’t want to keep seeing things tempting to me to reply, so that is purely on me.

You think that the 14th amendment enables things completely non-slavery/non black people related in modern court cases, and I think progressives do it purely on lies and gimmickry and just say whatever needs to be said to achieve some goal. We aren’t going to agree.

I’m sure we will discuss this again since we have discussed this before.

My final word on this is posts 136/137 for you or anybody who wants it.

The Civil War was not fought over prayer in schools and abortions. See posts 136/137 for more details.

https://freerepublic.com/focus/chat/4287265/posts?page=136#136
https://freerepublic.com/focus/chat/4287265/posts?page=137#137

“Instead, it's our pro-Confederate Lost Causers who howl from your roof-tops that the Declaration and Constitution granted slavers the unlimited “right” to declare whatever the h*ll they wanted to declare, for whatever reasons, or no-reasons, they wanted and everyone else must, must obey — be they slaves, freedmen, women, Southern Unionists, Northerners or anyone else, they all must obey whatever the 1860 slavers declared.”

Comes now Brother Joe Jean-Pierre to argue rights and remedies provided in the founding documents were not available to southerners in 1860 (as they were to the original 13 slave states in 1776) because of something about the lack of women's rights.

Only one week into 2025 and Brother Joe Jean-Pierre has broken his resolution not to get caught spreading hooey.

DiogenesLamp: "The MAIN truth. The thesis of the entire document is that People have a right to self government."

Of course, I understand, that's what you wish it said, because that might support your pro-Confederate ideology.
And to support your argument, you can produce exactly one word, quoted from the Declaration: "should", which you interpret to mean "should not", and therefore nothing else the Declaration actually says matters to you, does it?

But outside your Lost Cause pro-Confederate fantasies, the actual declaration says something entirely different, the core of which is this:

"...when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Nowhere did any Founder ever propose or support and unlimited "right of secession" at pleasure.

And that's why the Confederacy was illegitimate from Day One of its conception, all your fantasies to the contrary notwithstanding.

Diogeneslamp: "The subsequent problems caused by the 14th amendment are a direct consequence of the Civil War, because without it, and without subjugating the Southern states to puppet status, that 14th amendment would never have been "passed." "

These are the facts:

In 1866, the Senate voted 38-11 passing the 14th Amendment
The House vote was 138-36 passing the 14th Amendment
All 37 states which were states in 1868 have ratified the 14th Amendment.
All other states have accepted it as part of their admittance to the United States.
In 1868 New Jersey, Oregon and Ohio attempted to rescind their ratifications, but Congress overruled those recissions and declared the 14th Amendment adopted.
Article I, Section 5 of the US Constitution says:
The following states were required by Congress to ratify the 14th Amendment as a condition for readmitting their representatives to Congress:
In 1937, the US Supreme Court (Coleman v. Miller) addressed the issue of states attempting to rescind their ratifications of amendments.
The Court ruled it was up to Congress to decide the issue.
By 1871 Republican Super-majorities in Congress, necessary to pass such amendments, had ended, and in 1877 Democrats again took the House majority, ending Reconstruction and effectively nullifying the 13th, 14th & 15th Amendments for most of the following 100 years.

quoting BJK: "The truth is that Confederates from Day One were highly aggressive expansionists -- invading Union states, stealing Union property wherever and whenever they could."

DiogenesLamp: "I think you are referring to spontaneous efforts by civilians to gain support for the Confederacy in states like Missouri and Kentucky, but i'm not sure.
If governments are supposed to be responsible for the irrational hot heads that cause problems, but who have no official backing, should we say John Brown and his wealthy Massachusetts backers started the Civil War?"

I'm referring to the following:

In December, 1860, secessionist governments & mobs began seizing Federal properties (forts, ships, arsenals, mints, etc.) and threatening Union officials -- many of those in still-Union states.
No such seizure was ever punished (as John Brown was punished) or returned.
On January 8, 1861, a secessionist mob in still-Union Florida threatened Union troops in Fort Pickens.
On January 9, Secessionist forces fired artillery on the Union resupply ship Star of the West, near Charleston Harbor.
On April 12, Confederates demanded surrender of Union Fort Sumter and began artillery barrages when Sumter's commander was deemed too slow.
On April 19, in Union Maryland, secessionists fired on, killed & wounded dozens of Union troops in Baltimore.
On April 21, Confederate forces in still-Union Virginia seized Gosport Naval Yard, Norfolk, VA.
April 23, a month before any Union "invasion" of Confederate Virginia, Confederates sent military aid and forces into Union states, notably Union Missouri (April 23), but also Union West Virginia (May 14) and later Kentucky (Sept 3).
From April 23, Union troops captured in Texas were treated as POWs.
On April 26, Georgia's governor ordered the repudiation of all debts owed to Union creditors.
May 6, 1861, Confederate Declaration of War on the United States:
On April 29, the Confederate congress granted Jefferson Davis war powers.
On May 6, the Confederate congress formally declared war on the United States.
On May 9, CSA Pres. Davis authorized 400,000 Confederate troops and ordered 6 new warships from abroad.
In June, Confederate forces invaded Union Indian (Oklahoma) Territory.
On July 8, Confederate forces invaded Union New Mexico Territory.
On Sept 24, Confederate forces invaded Union Maryland.

My point is: from Day One in 1860, there was never a time when Confederate forces were not on offense against Union properties, territories and military forces.

DiogenesLamp: "Your analogy would work *IF* there was some sort of *LAW* requiring people to have good reasons for wanting independence.
The Declaration only says that people have a right to it, and places no further requirements on their right to have it."

No, it does just the opposite -- the Declaration acknowledges that people do not change governments for "light and transient reasons", but insists that when "a long train of abuses and usurpations" leading towards "absolute Despotism", then "it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government"

That's why your pro-Confederate fantasies have nothing whatever to do with historical reality.

Of course, I understand, that's what you wish it said, because that might support your pro-Confederate ideology.

It does say that, whether it supports "pro-confederate ideology" or not. I don't acknowledge the truth of things because it might support my view, I acknowledge the truth of things because they are true.

And to support your argument, you can produce exactly one word, quoted from the Declaration: "should", which you interpret to mean "should not", and therefore nothing else the Declaration actually says matters to you, does it?

I didn't create the English language, but in whatever language we use, the concept of "should", is not the concept of "Shall."

You keep trying to substitute "Shall", as in a command, for "should", which is a suggestion.

Either learn your English, or learn some honesty.

Tell It Right: "But that doesn't change the simple fact that the federal govt has no right to force a state to stay within the nation.
In fact, if it was right to help Texas secede from the new nation of Mexico without having to list grievances, wasn't it justified for states like Louisiana to declare in their declaration that they were seceding --- with no reasons for the WHY, just that they where?"

Obviously, if you believe that only "might makes right", then nothing else matters and all such debates are superfluous.
However, if we believe that our Founding Documents are important and valid, especially as regards the legal compact that binds us together as Americans, then we have to confess that words have meanings as intended by those who wrote them, first and foremost.

That's sort of what the word "conservative" means -- we're trying to preserve the best of our intellectual inheritance, which means we have to begin by acknowledging exactly what those words say and meant to our Founders.

So, what you did in your post #101 was concoct some nonsensical explanation from your own imagination, not related anything our Founders ever said or wrote down.

The truth of this matter remains as I've stated it: no Founder ever proposed or supported an unlimited "right of secession" at pleasure.
All saw that as simply:

Treason
Insurrection
Domestic Violence
Rebellion

Those are spelled out as crimes in the Constitution, are punishable as determined by laws of Congress and may be addressed with presidential pardons.

Consider: several Founders signed both the 1776 Declaration and the 1787 Constitution, and others who signed one but not the other -- i.e., Washington & Adams -- fully supported both.
My point is, they did not think the two documents contradictory, and none of them ever suggested an unlimited "right of secession" at pleasure.

All 37 states which were states in 1868 have ratified the 14th Amendment. All other states have accepted it as part of their admittance to the United States.

You are ignoring the fact that you can't pass amendments by pointing guns at people. The constitution was never intended to operate through coercion, but was intended to work through voluntary assent.

Occupation armies in states should automatically preclude their votes from being counted for any purpose of ratification. Under those conditions, they are merely puppets of the central government in DC, and will simply do as they are ordered.

That is dictatorial, and not at all how a Free Republic is supposed to work.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.