I am confused by this article in INdian Express.



  • The Government in US wants to expand H1B visa programme. From the opinions on this site, it looks like you hate Indian code.



  • @Nagesh said:

    From the opinions on this site, it looks like you hate Indian code.
     

    Without judging your work — perhaps your code is awesome — there's a lot of shit coming out of India and Indonesia, which (forgive me if I'm wrong) has to do with the employee = lower lifeform culture that breeds a git 'er done mentality just to make the dealine regardless of consequence. And that's bad.



  • Outsourced code, by anyone who is thousands of miles away, working while you sleep, subject to little to no oversight, never seen in person, is dangerous no matter which country it comes from. India just happens to have a lot of cheap options for this. That's not the same as finding someone who seems smart to come work and integrate with the rest of your work force.



  • @boomzilla said:

    Outsourced code, by anyone who is thousands of miles away, working while you sleep, subject to little to no oversight, never seen in person, is dangerous no matter which country it comes from. India just happens to have a lot of cheap options for this. That's not the same as finding someone who seems smart to come work and integrate with the rest of your work force.
     

    This.

    I'm not one who tends to aggressively push for PC terms or euphamisms, but I don't like the term "Indian Code" simply because it's too often misinterpreted as meaning "Code from a person of Indian descent" instead of what it should mean, "Code from an outsource shop in India." The whole reason this code is so often poor is for the same reason code from a college student whose uncle happens to be the CEO is almost always poor: They pay dirt-cheap dollars for bottom-of-the-barrel code.

    If there's any generalization going on, it's on the economics of the situation rather than the race or ethnicity of the situation. Simply put, you get what you pay for. For the same reason if you thumb through a phone book for the first plumber that charges $15 an hour is likely going to use up your home insurance deductible, if you go for the cheapest programming solution for your flagship product, you'll get something that will be far less maintainable than a more expensive approach.



  • @Nagesh said:

    http://www.indianexpress.com/news/us-treasury-secy-for-expansion-of-h1b-visa-programme/751280/

    The Government in US wants to expand H1B visa programme. From the opinions on this site, it looks like you hate Indian code.

    It's a trick. We're trying to make more Americans. You'll be fat, lazy and gas guzzling in no time at all! Muhaha!

    ... but seriously, the H1B program is great. This isn't outsourcing, this is bringing the coders internal to the company where you can supervise their code, ensure it meets your needs. The H1B employees are required by law to receive the same pay and benefits as native employees, so that's a huge boost to them, the company gets engineers who are hard to hire in many areas (here in Western Washington, Microsoft/Amazon/Nintendo of America/and now Google drain most smaller IT shops dry, for example), basically everybody wins.

    When you hear references to the "immigration debate" in the US, remember that we're debating *illegal* immigration. The word "illegal" just gets dropped off in the discussion. Most every American, even the craziest Arizonan, supports legal immigration programs, like the H1B program. (Except a few Slashdotters who think "they're stealing our jerbs!!!")



  • @blakeyrat said:

    "they're stealing our jerbs!!!")

    They are stealing our jerbils?, the bastards



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @Nagesh said:

    http://www.indianexpress.com/news/us-treasury-secy-for-expansion-of-h1b-visa-programme/751280/

    The Government in US wants to expand H1B visa programme. From the opinions on this site, it looks like you hate Indian code.

    It's a trick. We're trying to make more Americans. You'll be fat, lazy and gas guzzling in no time at all! Muhaha!

    ... but seriously, the H1B program is great. This isn't outsourcing, this is bringing the coders internal to the company where you can supervise their code, ensure it meets your needs. The H1B employees are required by law to receive the same pay and benefits as native employees, so that's a huge boost to them, the company gets engineers who are hard to hire in many areas (here in Western Washington, Microsoft/Amazon/Nintendo of America/and now Google drain most smaller IT shops dry, for example), basically everybody wins.

    When you hear references to the "immigration debate" in the US, remember that we're debating *illegal* immigration. The word "illegal" just gets dropped off in the discussion. Most every American, even the craziest Arizonan, supports legal immigration programs, like the H1B program. (Except a few Slashdotters who think "they're stealing our jerbs!!!")

    That is not what people who write comment in Computerworld say. They think all H1B are out to steal jobs from them.

    In India, mostly we think of it as brain drain. As some good people go to make money. Now salaries in India are growing and getting better. very soon, it will be cheaper to work in India, rather than work in US. Earlier 1 US dollar = Rs 48. Now 1 US Dollar = Rs 44.00 

    How does one one migrate illegally to your country? Don't police catch them? In India too, we have some people from Bangaladesh entering our country legally, but police crack down is tough. They are usually sent to jail to rot.



  • @Nagesh said:

    How does one one migrate illegally to your country?

    Usually by crossing the border? There are a number of ways - most often through smuggling and human trafficing, but you can overstay an expired VISA, too. It is likely that we have a different burden of proof here in the US. 

    @Nagesh said:

    In India too, we have some people from Bangaladesh entering our country legally, but police crack down is tough. They are usually sent to jail to rot.

    In India they are probably arresting people who aren't carrying papers that prove legal residence (i.e. can't prove legality). You can't just arrest somebody for that in the US (although they are trying to make that leagl in Arizona); you have to have some credible reason to suspect a person is here illegally (i.e. prove illegality). Basically, not being able to prove legal residence is not the same as not being a legal resident in the US.

    The burden of proof in the US is on the state to show you are here illegally before you can be arrested. (innocent before proven guilty)



  • @rad131304 said:

    In India they are probably arresting people who aren't carrying papers that prove legal residence (i.e. can't prove legality). You can't just arrest somebody for that in the US (although they are trying to make that leagl in Arizona); you have to have some credible reason to suspect a person is here illegally (i.e. prove illegality). Basically, not being able to prove legal residence is not the same as not being a legal resident in the US.


    In fact, this is exactly what the Arizona law says. It basically says what the existing federal laws say. It's a way for the state to help out the feds enforce laws that they can't be bothered to enforce.



  • @boomzilla said:

    @rad131304 said:

    In India they are probably arresting people who aren't carrying papers that prove legal residence (i.e. can't prove legality). You can't just arrest somebody for that in the US (although they are trying to make that leagl in Arizona); you have to have some credible reason to suspect a person is here illegally (i.e. prove illegality). Basically, not being able to prove legal residence is not the same as not being a legal resident in the US.


    In fact, this is exactly what the Arizona law says. It basically says what the existing federal laws say. It's a way for the state to help out the feds enforce laws that they can't be bothered to enforce.

    I'm usually not a fan of California, but their lawsuit against the Feds should be celebrated. Protecting the border is one of the very few things the Constitution actually says the Federal Government should be doing-- wouldn't it be great if the Feds stopped doing the 50,000 things that stomp all over States' rights and do the few things they're actually supposed to be doing?



  • @blakeyrat said:

    I'm usually not a fan of California, but their lawsuit against the Feds should be celebrated. Protecting the border is one of the very few things the Constitution actually says the Federal Government should be doing-- wouldn't it be great if the Feds stopped doing the 50,000 things that stomp all over States' rights and do the few things they're actually supposed to be doing?

    What are you, some kind of raaaaacist?



  • @boomzilla said:

    @rad131304 said:

    In India they are probably arresting people who aren't carrying papers that prove legal residence (i.e. can't prove legality). You can't just arrest somebody for that in the US (although they are trying to make that leagl in Arizona); you have to have some credible reason to suspect a person is here illegally (i.e. prove illegality). Basically, not being able to prove legal residence is not the same as not being a legal resident in the US.

    In fact, this is exactly what the Arizona law says. It basically says what the existing federal laws say. It's a way for the state to help out the feds enforce laws that they can't be bothered to enforce.

    Can you clarify your "this" in the first sentence?



  • @rad131304 said:

    @boomzilla said:

    @rad131304 said:

    In India they are probably arresting people who aren't carrying papers that prove legal residence (i.e. can't prove legality). You can't just arrest somebody for that in the US (although they are trying to make that leagl in Arizona); you have to have some credible reason to suspect a person is here illegally (i.e. prove illegality). Basically, not being able to prove legal residence is not the same as not being a legal resident in the US.

    In fact, this is exactly what the Arizona law says. It basically says what the existing federal laws say. It's a way for the state to help out the feds enforce laws that they can't be bothered to enforce.

    Can you clarify your "this" in the first sentence?

    Sorry, by "this," I meant that, "you have to have some credible reason to suspect a person is here illegally."


  • @boomzilla said:

    @rad131304 said:

    @boomzilla said:

    @rad131304 said:

    In India they are probably arresting people who aren't carrying papers that prove legal residence (i.e. can't prove legality). You can't just arrest somebody for that in the US (although they are trying to make that leagl in Arizona); you have to have some credible reason to suspect a person is here illegally (i.e. prove illegality). Basically, not being able to prove legal residence is not the same as not being a legal resident in the US.

    In fact, this is exactly what the Arizona law says. It basically says what the existing federal laws say. It's a way for the state to help out the feds enforce laws that they can't be bothered to enforce.

    Can you clarify your "this" in the first sentence?

    Sorry, by "this," I meant that, "you have to have some credible reason to suspect a person is here illegally."

    AFAICR the Arizona Law requires police who are already performing some investigation into suspected illegal activity to question the person(s) about their residency status; this is not the same as having credible suspicion that the person is in the country illegally. I have not read the law, nor am I a lawyer, but I seem to believe the interpretation of the Arizona Law which I have just presented is the one that is understood to be correct (YMMV). Personally, I would deem that Arizona's Law (as I have presented) is not constitutional as it represents an unreasonable search in my opinion.



  • @rad131304 said:

    AFAICR the Arizona Law requires police who are already performing some investigation into suspected illegal activity to question the person(s) about their residency status; this is not the same as having credible suspicion that the person is in the country illegally. I have not read the law, nor am I a lawyer, but I seem to believe the interpretation of the Arizona Law which I have just presented is the one that is understood to be correct (YMMV). Personally, I would deem that Arizona's Law (as I have presented) is not constitutional as it represents an unreasonable search in my opinion.

    I think your recollection is slightly incorrect. It's more like, if they're investigating something (e.g., a traffic stop) and there is some reason to suspect that the person is an illegal alien (e.g., no drivers license might be one clue), then they are supposed to also inquire about the person's immigration status.

    There's a subtle difference between being mandated to ask about legal status (what you seem to be saying), and being able to investigate an infraction secondary to the reason for the initial conduct. The main thing about the Arizona law, is that you have state law enforcement now enforcing what started out as a federal law. Of course, because the subject is a hot button issue, you end up with a lot of overreaction and overheated rhetoric (on both sides), and it's sometimes difficult to figure out exactly what's going on.

    One interesting thing is that legal aliens are required (by federal law) to carry proof of their legality (passport, visa, green card, etc). Obviously, citizens aren't required to do anything like that, so you have a tension between enforcing the laws and due process, etc.



  • @boomzilla said:

    @rad131304 said:

    AFAICR the Arizona Law requires police who are already performing some investigation into suspected illegal activity to question the person(s) about their residency status; this is not the same as having credible suspicion that the person is in the country illegally. I have not read the law, nor am I a lawyer, but I seem to believe the interpretation of the Arizona Law which I have just presented is the one that is understood to be correct (YMMV). Personally, I would deem that Arizona's Law (as I have presented) is not constitutional as it represents an unreasonable search in my opinion.

    I think your recollection is slightly incorrect. It's more like, if they're investigating something (e.g., a traffic stop) and there is some reason to suspect that the person is an illegal alien (e.g., no drivers license might be one clue), then they are supposed to also inquire about the person's immigration status.

    (Ephasis mine)

    I had thought that AZ made a point to NOT implement it in the way you are suggesting because it is subject to abuse (e.g. racial profiling), and the legislature was trying to avoid having to deal with those implications. It's been a while since I looked into it, though, so I wouldn't be surprised if I am backwards on it. Under your stated interpretation, unless there is a concrete and limited list of "reasons to suspect a person is here illegally", I would be concerned with this law given the way people today seem to feel about certain populations within the US. It would just be open to too much interpretation and personal bias to be uniformly applied, IMO.



  • @rad131304 said:

    @boomzilla said:

    I think your recollection is slightly incorrect. It's more like, if they're investigating something (e.g., a traffic stop) and there is some reason to suspect that the person is an illegal alien (e.g., no drivers license might be one clue), then they are supposed to also inquire about the person's immigration status.

    (Ephasis mine)

    I had thought that AZ made a point to NOT implement it in the way you are suggesting because it is subject to abuse (e.g. racial profiling), and the legislature was trying to avoid having to deal with those implications. It's been a while since I looked into it, though, so I wouldn't be surprised if I am backwards on it. Under your stated interpretation, unless there is a concrete and limited list of "reasons to suspect a person is here illegally", I would be concerned with this law given the way people today seem to feel about certain populations within the US. It would just be open to too much interpretation and personal bias to be uniformly applied, IMO.

    No, there are some legal terms used, like "reasonable suspicion." From this article:

    @Byron York said:


    As far as "reasonable suspicion" is concerned, there is a great deal of case law dealing with the idea, but in immigration matters, it means a combination of circumstances that, taken together, cause the officer to suspect lawbreaking. It's not race -- Arizona's new law specifically says race and ethnicity cannot be the sole factors in determining a reasonable suspicion.

    For example: "Arizona already has a state law on human smuggling," says Kobach. "An officer stops a group of people in a car that is speeding. The car is overloaded. Nobody had identification. The driver acts evasively. They are on a known smuggling corridor." That is a not uncommon occurrence in Arizona, and any officer would reasonably suspect that the people in the car were illegal. Under the new law, the officer would get in touch with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to check on their status.



  • @rad131304 said:

    @Nagesh said:

    How does one one migrate illegally to your country?

    Usually by crossing the border? There are a number of ways - most often through smuggling and human trafficing, but you can overstay an expired VISA, too. It is likely that we have a different burden of proof here in the US. 

    @Nagesh said:

    In India too, we have some people from Bangaladesh entering our country legally, but police crack down is tough. They are usually sent to jail to rot.

    In India they are probably arresting people who aren't carrying papers that prove legal residence (i.e. can't prove legality). You can't just arrest somebody for that in the US (although they are trying to make that leagl in Arizona); you have to have some credible reason to suspect a person is here illegally (i.e. prove illegality). Basically, not being able to prove legal residence is not the same as not being a legal resident in the US.

    The burden of proof in the US is on the state to show you are here illegally before you can be arrested. (innocent before proven guilty)

    So if I understand this, you cannot ask for papers if you suspect someone is illegal? Is that right?



  • @Nagesh said:

    So if I understand this, you cannot ask for papers if you suspect someone is illegal? Is that right?
     

    By my understanding (not a lawyer or anything):

    Sort of.  There are those allowed to ask for paperwork as people in the country legally but without citizenship are supposed to have it on them (so you ask for it to confirm identity or such), but citizens don't need to carry anything so it's just a matter of claiming to be a citizen and suddenly there isn't reason for you to have any on you (unless driving a car, then you are supposed to have your driver's license and proof of insurance on you).



  • @locallunatic said:

    citizens don't need to carry anything
     

    Here, citizens are required by law to carry some form of ID, which inclused national/european ID card, Passport or driving license.

    @Nagesh said:

    So if I understand this, you cannot ask for papers
    if you suspect someone is illegal? Is that right?
     

    Point is, as law enforcer, you can't just idly suspect someone's illegal because he's walking funny or you don't like his face. You need to have a really good reason for it; you have to be able to explain it in terms of evidence and probable cause.

    A good example of this is road police: of someone's driving funny, that's no reason in and of itself to apprehend the person. However, funny driving often endagers the other road users, and that's a very good reason to get that driver off the road and ask for his papers.



  • @boomzilla said:

    No, there are some legal terms used, like "reasonable suspicion." From this article:

    Ok, and while I also concede that the AZ law states that race/ethnicity cannot be used as sole factors, they should not be factors at all (and they may not be) - while it may be more likely that someone of South American decent is in AZ illegally, that doesn't preclude someone of Asian, African, or European decent from being there illegally, also. I guess my concern is that I feel it's naieve to think that race won't be a major factor in these arrests, and the letter of the law will be violated more times than not if it is worded as your quote describes. It reminds me of some of the Jim Crow Laws from after the Civil War, and I'm concerned that our acceptance of laws like this means the US is becoming as zenophobic as France.



  • @rad131304 said:

    Ok, and while I also concede that the AZ law states that race/ethnicity cannot be used as sole factors, they should not be factors at all (and they may not be) - while it may be more likely that someone of South American decent is in AZ illegally, that doesn't preclude someone of Asian, African, or European decent from being there illegally, also. I guess my concern is that I feel it's naieve to think that race won't be a major factor in these arrests, and the letter of the law will be violated more times than not if it is worded as your quote describes. It reminds me of some of the Jim Crow Laws from after the Civil War, and I'm concerned that our acceptance of laws like this means the US is becoming as zenophobic as France.

    Yes, certainly an illegal alien can be from anywhere. But to ignore the obvious (most illegal aliens in AZ are Mexican) is the same sort of silliness that gets 80 year old grandmothers scrutinized at airports. If you can show that non-aliens are being unfairly discriminated against, then I would agree that perhaps we need to figure out a better way.

    I'd suspect (of course, we can't know any of this without actually trying to enforce the law) is that someone driving with an English accent, and no drivers license or other ID in a similar situation would probably get his immigration status inspected. Of course, what is likely to happen is that it will be mainly Mexican citizens picked up for this (because, duh, that's who most of the aliens are around there), and the usual groups will complain about disparate impact (which IMHO is a horrible doctrine) and the law will end up either being repealed, struck down by the courts, or simply enforced like it already is by the Feds (i.e., not at all).

    Frankly, I'm an open borders kind of guy. But that's just not compatible with the sort of welfare state that we have. And if we're not going to enforce the law, we should just get rid of it.



  • @boomzilla said:

    But to ignore the obvious (most illegal aliens in AZ are Mexican) is the same sort of silliness that gets 80 year old grandmothers scrutinized at airports.

    I agree that ignoring the obvious isn't really all that helpful, but human history dictates that not ignoring the obvious, in this case, is a slippery slope on which to tread. I don't see an acceptable way to do not ignore the obvious yet provide everyone equal protection under the law.

    @boomzilla said:

    Of course, what is likely to happen is that it will be mainly Mexican citizens picked up for this

    I would agreee, and think it's sort of the point. I mean, South Americans are currently the largest population immigrating to the US (both legally and illegally).

    @boomzilla said:

    and the law will end up either being repealed, struck down by the courts, or simply enforced like it already is by the Feds (i.e., not at all).

    I think the second option is the most likely outcome - the law feels contrary to my personal understanding of the constitution (which is probably wrong, not being a lawyer and all) and I don't see how it would pass a 4th amendment challenge.

    @boomzilla said:

    Frankly, I'm an open borders kind of guy. But that's just not compatible with the sort of welfare state that we have.

    I think you're causing scope creep here; I'd prefer to stay on the initial topic (I know, it's all interrelated, but I'd prefer to narrowly define the topic of conversation)

    @boomzilla said:

    And if we're not going to enforce the law, we should just get rid of it.

    I wholeheartedly agree.

    I think we are basically in agreement that the current structure of federal law should be adequate, and it's failure is that it's not being enforced. I don't find the AZ solution to be an acceptable remedy, mostly on the concerns of racial profiling - I'd rather they be required to ask it of everyone (which I think is how the law is worded, but I apparently am wrong), however that would most definitely get struck down because it violates the 4th amendment.



  • @rad131304 said:

    I don't find the AZ solution to be an acceptable remedy, mostly on the concerns of racial profiling - I'd rather they be required to ask it of everyone (which I think is how the law is worded, but I apparently am wrong), however that would most definitely get struck down because it violates the 4th amendment.


    This seems to be giving up. I can't imagine a better way to prevent racial profiling than explicitly saying "Thou shalt not..."



  • @boomzilla said:

    This seems to be giving up. I can't imagine a better way to prevent racial profiling than explicitly saying "Thou shalt not..."

    No at all, I'm saying that I would prefer the Feds enforce the existing laws over states/territories trying to find 51+ different ways to enforce the laws because the Fed is too lazy/inept/whatever to actually do its job. For instance, I think E-Verify is a decent step towards imposing quality barriers to hiring non-legal residents - I wish the program were comprehensive enough so that use could be mandated (e.g. you have to use e-verify or some phone system, etc to be able to have wages pay into Social Security). It would be nice if we could create a similar system and compel its use for entry into higher education or maybe even for all levels of education (although I suspect the latter may conflict with required education laws).

    My preferred method of reducing the illegal immigrant population is through creating or leveraging federal programs (preferrably the latter over the former) to enforce the existing laws. Adding another layer of enforcement is not going to solve the underlying issues - the state of the existing US beauracracy should be a pretty healthy indicator of why I feel this way. I would even go far as to compare it to the "war on drugs" where we merely criminalize an activity rather than championing social behaviors through role models so that fewer people would find the activity desireable.



  •  In the spam raid, this thread became collateral damage. It's back now.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.