AI in the Legislature

This session, the Honorable Congressperson Giovanni Capriglione introduces HB 1709 (TLO, PDF as of this writing) relating to AI and its governance in Texas. A notable and formidable force within Texas politics, Kathy Ponce, asked for my thoughts on the bill. I have written a point-by-point response.

H1B Visas

The United States Visa system affects my everyday life. I am a bona fide Tech Bro who deals with personnel throughout the globe. The recent comments from Mr. Ramaswamy have sparked a great debate regarding these Visas, and if the system is failing or meeting its mark. I intend to characterize how this operates in industry today herein.

What is it?

An H1B Visa is defined under 8 USC 1101. It must be noted that the program in part has been held unconstitutional (Quito-Guachichulca v. Garland, 122 F.4th 732 (8th Cir. 2024)), but this is not directly on point for the current discussion. The jist is that a person who works in a “specialty occupation” and is coming “temporarily” to the US can be granted a special Visa to work in that “specialty occupation,” given no US citizen is available to fill the position. It really is that simple at a high level. However, things do get tricky in practice.

We will take on, in no particular order, “specialty occupation”, “temporarily”, and “no US citizen is available”.

How special does a “specialty occupation” need to be?

This is complicated. It is defined in 8 USC 1184(i). The quick and dirty is that a person works in a specialty occupation if the field is a “body of highly specialized knowledge” and the jobs require “a bachelor's or higher degree”. There is also a separate requirement for occupations that require full State licensure, but I do not work in such a field, so I will leave the treatment of that to someone more qualified.

Here is where all the loopholes can come in and industries can exploit foreign workers for cheap labour. The definition of “body of highly specialized knowledge” is, from what I can tell, equivalent to “most of Congress’ eyes gloss over when the topic is broached”. There is no board of experts determining this for each job that requests it. Believe me, if there were such a board, there would be few positions meeting the mark in tech. The same goes for requiring a degree. Any HR rep can put “Bachelor’s degree on higher required” on a job description without actually checking resumes for those credentials. This gives the appearance of college degree level employment when it could really be performed by any random person you pick up off the street and put through an 8-week training. Again, since Congress cannot discern the difficulty or education level of a position, they fail to properly review any such case.

The answer to the query would then be: “The specialty occupation need not be very special”. In tech we see this a lot. Tech is lousy with a Visa headcount that could be filled by Americans. What gives?

How are there no US Citizens available?

People work very hard in America. This is shown by the minimal amount of vacation time we take in aggregate when compared to other similarly situated nations. The hard work appears to be the first thing that immigrants pick up on, and they perform well. There are certain positions that are very highly specialized for which there are more seats than Americans qualified to fill them. We can move directly past these for the purpose of this discussion because the debate does not center around these workers. There are other situations where the system is abused.

There exists a litany of what I refer to as meat-market consultancies: companies that find random persons in a bad position, put them through minimal training (nothing like a degree program), and sell their time in the US for bottom dollar. These companies usually charge somewhere between $30 and $80 per hour for their people and give the worker around 1/4 or 1/3 of the take with little or no benefits at all. They have teams of attorneys and compliance officers to navigate the ever-shifting Visa landscape. All the client company needs to do is keep paying the meat-market and a steady flow of workers comes through the doors. The business model is nearly all up-side.

Given the nature of the business, couldn’t the huge number of Americans graduating from code boot camps and online coding institutes fill the need? After all, the Visa program requires that no US citizen be able to fill the position, correct? Yes, and no. The client corporations know the going rate for the work they need done; they undervalue the work making it hard to find US candidates. Further, the actual work positions at the meat-markets are so low-paid that someone can literally do almost anything else and still make the same amount: why do a harder job for the same pay? We have three conflating issues:

1. There are not enough Americans to fill positions at the top; positions for which the meat-market workers are woefully underqualified. This protects Americans in high-paying positions.

2. The jobs at the middle and bottom are so undervalued that Americans do not need to take them to make the same amount of money.

3. The jobs at the bottom are filled by the meat-market, there is no need to publicize they exist, so Americans rarely know they can be applied for.

Since the lower-education jobs that pay the same as low-to-mid-tier tech jobs cannot be filled by Visa holders (not specialized; not degree-bound) Americans can work those and leave a hole in the tech industry. Further, because the meat-market workers are not qualified to work at the top, the pay for those jobs has to be competitive. The tech wealth gap is an increasingly widening proposition as a result of the terribly constructed, nonsense-backed Visa program. The way things are, people at the top get better and more secure in our positions while the less-qualified workers get squeezed into a tighter, and tighter market rife with underpayment and hardship. People have freedom in this nation; we cannot force tech degree holders to take low-paying jobs they do not want. Finally, since the jobs are rarely publicized, it is very difficult for an American to find out about them ahead of the meat-markets that have connections at the highest level in every major corporation.

If this is for temporary employment, how can it be that bad?

Temporary is only defined once in the section and it has nothing to do with the working Visas of which we speak. In that case it is defined as no more than 15 months; otherwise, it is undefined. First and foremost, H1B visas are “nonimmigrant” visas. The definition of nonimmigrant is well-defined (…using as many words as possible…) in 8 USC 1101, but the short version for this very specific purpose is someone who has a residence abroad that he or she “has no intention of abandoning”.

For an H1B worker, an employer must fill out an I-129 Petition. On the Petition, there is an item “dates of intended employment“ which the employer must fill in. The end date is required. There is no limit to the number of renewals one can seek, assuming the paperwork is filled out properly and timely. This is quite possibly the worst definition of “temporary” with respect to human factors I have ever read. Effectively, as long as the employer (remember from the section above: usually a meat-market) continues to renew the paperwork and the foreign residence is maintained, the Visa holder is considered temporary.

What’s more is they are not immigrants, so they are not subject to the same practice and policy that governs immigrants. This is not necessarily a bad thing; it is to protect everyone involved, including the employer. The problems arise when this is all taken together:

1. Congress with their heads in the clouds

2. Meat-market style exploitation

3. Low-skill work plenty of Americans can do

4. So-called temporary Visas with unlimited renewals

We have created a system ripe for exploitation and refuse to fix it. The Left doesn’t want to change how easy it is to get here, even if the exploitation is so much in our faces. The Right wants to shut some of these systems down and rebuild, which would leave us with unfilled positions of national security interest (imagine a world where we lost some of our top tech talent and allowed China to replace us as the dominant technology power).

What can be done?

This is simple (not easy, just simple). If we enforced the “specialty occupation” and “need for a bachelor’s degree or better” clauses, this could be mostly solved. Of course, no system of humans can be perfect, but perfection is not the goal: reasonableness is the goal. As a pilot, we could take 10,000 unemployed Americans, put them through code boot camps, and employ them in these easy tech jobs. This would prove the H1B system is being exploited to provide cheap unskilled labor, not impossible-to-find specialty labor. If true, we could drive out of businesses numerous exploitative companies, reduce the unemployment rate, and give much-needed relief to many who are trying their hardest to get their foot in the door but just cannot work it out. The cost of such a program would be in the low millions.

To be clear, the positions that I claim are being taken by and through exploitative H1B programs would give unskilled Americans access to jobs that pay from $30K-$70K yearly and provide full benefits. This would represent a significant improvement in many of their lives. I am not referring to the jobs that are truly highly-skilled and specialized for which the pay is in the top 5%.

Further, we would free up the current low-level H1B holders in their home nations and provide multi-national opportunities for American-based companies. We need to ensure our companies have global offices for the US to remain a global power—we can’t do that without a global workforce. All that’s left is to make some common-sense adjustments to the process, and we could be off to the races.

David Averett, Republican

I wrote Dr. Averett a couple weeks ago and expected to be ignored. This was not the case. He agreed to meet with me and we had a long conversation about his frustration with certain factions within the political environment and what “best for Waxahachie” might look like should he be WISD Superintendent for an extended period of time. The meeting was fruitful.

We spoke briefly about Party business as the reason for my reaching out was directly related to his outburst on Twitter mischaracterizing the Party. Then we quickly moved on to speaking about local issues that should be non-partisan.

Dr. Averett has a strong commitment to the community. This, of course, is not enough to be an effective political leader. We must always remember the path to hell is paved with good intentions, so further inquiry was required and had. FWIW, I believe that Dr. Averett’s commitment is full of positive motion and can manifest in positive change for our city.

One topic that we discussed was School Choice. I explained to Dr. Averett that I believe public school choice should be afforded to every parent and school transportation should accommodate this within reason. I do not believe we should subsidize private education with public money, just allow parents to send their children to a different public school if the situation warrants the move. For example, if a student is bullied or there is a particular special needs therapist at one school not available at another school. I see no reason that a public-to-public transfer system cannot be operated, maintained, and welcomed in our city and our State. Dr. Averett expressed concerns about the potential for moving public money into the private system; I hold the same concerns and am prepared to defend my position against public-to-private funding in any forum.

We continued to speak about the district and what kinds of actionable plans there might be for growth while maintaining the same or a greater level of professionalism. Dr. Averett spoke of the tradeoff between building more, smaller schools or fewer, larger schools. Larger buildings reduce administrative overhead as more students can be served by the same administrative staff. More buildings are more convenient and students can be educated nearer to where they live. The man had clearly put some thought into things and is prepared to execute on a vision. He plans to explain what he has in store at the next school board meeting.

I think some grace is in order. Dr. Averett had a momentary lapse in decorum. He cannot be boiled down to two statements made on social media; he is a whole person. I think he is well-fit for the appointment, and I am glad I took the time to find out who the man is before rushing to judgment.

Play It Safe Viewing

In a previous post, I wrote that WISD uses a curriculum called “Play it Safe!” for instruction. The counselor was more than happy to let me view the content. I deemed it appropriate for my children. It is produced by the Women’s Center of Tarrant County.

The short film effectively teaches children how to assert themselves in uncomfortable situations and how to find help after assessing they cannot help themselves. It is a family-friendly instruction and bears no allegiance to any woke nonsense or other ideological misgiving.

David Averett, Acting Superintendent

The WISD School Board has installed David Averett as the Acting Superintendent following Dr. Hollingsworth’s departure. This is concerning. First and foremost, no one knows anything about Mr. Averett. I have asked around, the only real information is that he has connections to the School Board President. Second, he is evidently prone to emotional outbursts and ad hominem attacks against the very constituency he proclaims to serve.

As I was getting nowhere asking around about the man’s background, I decided to open direct lines of communication. I sent my first letter to Mr. Averett as a sort of olive branch, simply asking him to apologize for or explain away his remarks about us, lowly constituents.

We’ll see how it goes.

Play It Safe!

I received a notice from my children’s school asking if it was OK for them to show my children a video from a faceless group called “Play It Safe!” They teach personal safety, and their materials are behind multiple paywalls. I responded with a letter.

My concerns are many, but I am short on time, so I shall sum it all up. I do not trust Government Agencies with the care, custody, and control of my children. If a school is to show materials to children; that school should first provide an opportunity for the parents of the district to attend a screening of the very same materials. This is easy to do and would not be burdensome. Hell! The community can host it ourselves!

I shall await response from the counselor.