I'm not sure this is obvious.
1) Apple is a multi-national company, and hires an employee in the UK.
2) This employee relocates to the US
At what point do they displace the US citizen? All Apple jobs are not earmarked for US citizens (+residents, etc...), and they're already doing the job when they move to the US. Unless they're hired abroad for the express purpose of relocating to the US, then it's not "obvious" to me that they've displaced anyone.
Suppose I work in an org with dev teams in multiple countries. If I relocate from one site to another, am I freeing up a slot in the country I leave and taking one in the country I move to?
According to TFA, the discrimination happens when Apple doesn’t adequately look for a U.S. employee and instead chooses to to relocate you to the US. How is that not obvious? If Apple is happy to hire you in the UK and you’re happy to live there, the DOJ isn’t going to ask many questions.
This discussion is about EB2/green card process, not L1/H1 visa that employee is given when relocating to the US. That is why it is not obvoius. In a lot of cases, an employee works in UK (or another European) office for many years, then moves to the US on L1A visa, works there for several years, applies to green card (not with intent to stay in US forever, but because L1 visa (and H1 too) cannot be extended for more than 5/6 years). Then to get this EB2/green card document employer has to pretend that they plan to replace this person who is already working in this organization for 10 or more years. It is not specific for Apple, Intel is doing the same when a CPU architect from Haifa or fab engineer from Dublin is working in Hillsboro for several years and decide to stay for a few more years. Or google bringing someone from Zurich.
Right, but the argument that the original comment was making is that the government's policy is incorrect.
My comment argues that independent of government policy, relocating an existing employee from one country to another does not consume a position that was otherwise free, unless the employee was hired expressly for the purpose of relocation.
Unpopular opinion that throws a wrench into the whole h1b/eb1/eb2 debate. Being a rando sde (even at faang) isn't specialized. We have tpms getting eb1c (the einstein gc) which has now been backlogged for good reason. I think any loosening on h1bs/ebxs etc should coincide with the upping of the requirements to the o1 visa - https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/temporary... but even this can be gamed.
This is what economists call a "partial equilibrium" analysis. This is a polite(?) academic way of saying it's wrong.
Hiring workers does not displace other workers because they come with increased demand for labor of their own. It does increase specialization on the team because you need to find comparative advantage, but that's nearly as much of an issue.
Ah, Ricardo. Did you know he was a stockbroker who made his fortune scamming clients and bought himself a peerage with the loot? Not relevant but a fun biographical detail.
Anyhow his theory rests on assumptions that are nonsensical in today’s economy.[1]
Instead we have “labor arbitrage” which is to say workers being displaced.
> Obviously you displaced a US citizen unless you’re trying to advance the risible position that no US citizen could do what you do.
I didn't displace anyone because the headcount in my department was global, not tied to location.
I know it's hard to accept for people with old-fashioned nationalist ideas about immigration, but a lot of well-paid jobs these days can be done anywhere in the world.
These are not jobs in America, but rather they are jobs at American companies. And with these immigration policies you're doing your best to make sure the job doesn't get done in America.
For myself, I left the US but still work for an American company. They pay me a California-level salary but I pay my taxes to Finland. From your point of view that must be somehow better than if I was doing the same job but paying taxes to USA? You're losing out on the tax revenue, but at least you don't have people like me as neighbors, so all is good, I guess.
This isn’t even wrong.
Obviously you displaced a US citizen unless you’re trying to advance the risible position that no US citizen could do what you do.