ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page

Advanced search

Immigration Daily


Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board



Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation


CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network


Chinese Immig. Daily


Connect to us

Make us Homepage



The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of free

Immigration LLC.

< Back to current issue of Immigration Daily < Back to current issue of Immigrant's Weekly

Dear Editor:
Mr. Siskind and others seem to take offense that I consider H-1Bs to be slaves and that Dr. Norman Matloff considers them to be de facto indentured servants. Perhaps Siskind and other like minded lawyers are so busy getting rich by helping companies to write visas that they haven't taken the time to think about what they are really doing. My website at has many of the facts on nonimmigrant visas, but as a public service I will tutor Siskind about the law and how it relates to the English language. (a) Webster's New World Dictionary defines indenture - "a contract binding a person to work for another person for a given length of time, as an apprentice to a master, or an immigrant to a service." Siskind provides the rest of the information on his website ( by establishing the H-1Bs have a binding contract when he wrote: "In an H-1B visa application, the US employer is called the petitioner and the foreign worker is called the beneficiary." If the H-1B loses his or her job, the visa goes out of status and that means deportation. Employers use the threat of deportation to sublimate and intimidate their chattel. Indentured servitude always has a time limit and H-1Bs are no exception. As Siskind writes, "The H-1B visa allows workers in specialty occupations areas that normally require a college degree to work in the US for up to a total of six years." (b) The dictionary defines slavery as follows: "1 : drudgery, toil, 2 : submission to a dominating influence, 3 a : the state of a person who is a chattel of another." The submission takes place because, as Siskind explains, the employer sponsors the visa and can revoke the visa simply by terminating the employment of the H-1B. While some may argue semantics it would be better for discourse if we used the English language instead of lawyer doublespeak. Euphemisms aside, H-1B and L-1 visa holders are modern day slaves. That fact doesn't change just because they work in a cubicle instead of a cotton field. Siskind understands how to write visas but he proved he doesn't know much about employment issues when he stated that Silicon Valley is not representative of the American employment situation. White collar professionals throughout the country are suffering the pains of unemployment as they are displaced by the cheap young blood of nonimmigrant workers. Silicon Valley is just a high profile example of this job destruction. Siskind may think it's great for our economy when H-1B and L-1 visas are used for a variety of professions but the American citizens that he is forcing into unemployment won't share his joy, or his riches. This slavery program must be stopped before there is no more middle class. In my original letter to Siskind I stated that slavery is antithetical to all major religions, including his own. He vehemately objects to that simple fact while at the same time chastizing American citizens who want to protect their jobs. Is the pot calling the kettle black?

Rob Sanchez
Webmaster of