A much better solution would to remove any barriers an H1B worker has to shop for a better job. If we want to live an egalitarian society, it's in our collective interest for immigrants to earn as much as the rest of us. That only happens when we dismantle systems that provide an incentive to exploit immigrants.
You're describing the entire framework of immigration, from green cards to citizenship, which already exists. You can say the H1B component should be removed, but business leaders will cry bloody murder if a whiff of that legislation ever crosses the transom.
The main problem with the current system is that there is no way for a H-1B holder to progress to a Green Card without employer sponsorship. This puts all the power in the hands of the employer with such sponsorships difficult to get these days.
A better solution would be to allow a H-1B worker in good standing to convert to a green card after 4 years without any kind of employer sponsorship needed.
This would bring the US in line with other developed countries that typically allow temporary workers to convert to permanent residents after a period of time independent of their employer.
Guess what the user meant is to make it easy for people on H1B to switch jobs which currently isn't. This makes so many employees to be at the jobs though low paying so as to keep their status in US.
You can, but if you have a green card application in process, you'll have to start all over again, unless it was in its final stage. This can easily put you back by several years.
The fundamental problem is that US simply doesn't have a well-designed skilled worker immigration track, the way e.g. Canada or Australia do. H1B fills that niche in practice, but it was clearly not designed for it, and so there are all these warts.
You realize that a person doesn't have to belong to the Illuminati as a precondition to lobby for special or opaque legislation, right? The only precondition intent needs is a conflict of interest.
Look at Intuit. A number of years back, California piloted a program that simplified filing tax returns for people opting to take the standard deduction. They would mail you a form that was prefilled so you could simply sign it and mail it back. Intuit lobbied to kill it and won. No laws were broken. They were simply acting in the interest of their shareholders.
The American Immigration Lawyers Association is one of many lobbying groups that represents 13,000 members. Many of these members help the 80,000 some H1B applicants through the process and can charge legal fees in the ballpark of $10,000 to do that. Assuming all 80,000 applicants spent $10,000 in legal fees, we're talking about ~$1bn market on top for that type of work alone. In the grand scheme of things, it's not a lot, but it's one component that can create a conflict of interest.
Let's assume the AILA is an upstanding group and all of the lobbyists they hire are ethical boy scouts. They would never influence our legislators to intentionally complicate laws to serve their members. Instead, they would recognize that it's in our nation's best interest that our immigration systems are robust, thorough and comprehensive. They'd also emphasize that their members provide a critical service to sherpa honest immigrants through this thoroughly comprehensive system.
You don't need to be behind a ridiculous conspiracy to influence legislation to serve your best interests. These days, you're way better off being transparent and operating under an ethical framework.
As a Canadian expat in Qatar, who is on a third lap around the world, I can assure you that there are many excellent and terrible places to live in the world. This fixation on America that I keep seeing everywhere is absolutely baffling. Maybe I should check it out ;)
