3 ms·

Exactly, and see how this comment on a comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14014531 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14014531 (by user: mythrwy) in

Exactly, and see how this comment on a comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14014531 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14014531 (by user: mythrwy) in this page is getting upvoted. People here just want to believe that Washington Post "tortures headlines (and indeed facts)" without having any background knowledge about H1B and H4. So much hate for Washington Post here. I wonder why?

mythrwy 10y ago
My friend, just so you don't have bad feelings let me clarify my position. I personally think if a person is going to get a work visa in the USA and is allowed to bring their spouse, the spouse should also be able to work (or study or whatever). It seems a bit unfair to the spouse for it to be otherwise. In answer to your question about "hate for Washington Post" I'll sum it up very simply. Rabidly partisan reporting that is often of questionable accuracy. Do not like to see on HN.
masonic 10y ago
This article is a very good example of WP bias. First of all, it ignores that the Obama administration tried to overrule a law with an Executive rule change, which is NOT legal. So, example quotes: 1) ...the Trump administration may quietly revoke the ability There is no legal ability to do this. Federal Court has already ruled Obama's action in this to be illegal. 2) and are typically high-skilled themselves Their example (Ranjith) wants to do afterschool tutoring. 3) “All my employees,” Ranjith is quick to note, “are citizens, of course. They were all born here.” There is no way she would know that. At most, they could all have claimed to be born in the US, but that's not necessary and is none of her business. In fact, it's illegal for her to even ask that. 4) A lawsuit challenging the rule was filed in 2015 and recently landed in federal appeals court. Appeals court means that the rule was already ruled illegal at the Federal District Court level. That's a big detail to leave out. 5) A settlement with the plaintiffs would effectively allow Sessions to kill the rule Actually, the rule is dead unless Sessions were to pursue an appeal and win (and be upheld if SCOTUS were to accept an appeal from there). etc.

mythrwy 10y ago

My friend, just so you don't have bad feelings let me clarify my position. I personally think if a person is going to get a work visa in the USA and is allowed to bring their spouse, the spouse should also be able to work (or study or whatever). It seems a bit unfair to the spouse for it to be otherwise. In answer to your question about "hate for Washington Post" I'll sum it up very simply. Rabidly partisan reporting that is often of questionable accuracy. Do not like to see on HN.

masonic 10y ago

This article is a very good example of WP bias. First of all, it ignores that the Obama administration tried to overrule a law with an Executive rule change, which is NOT legal. So, example quotes: 1) ...the Trump administration may quietly revoke the ability There is no legal ability to do this. Federal Court has already ruled Obama's action in this to be illegal. 2) and are typically high-skilled themselves Their example (Ranjith) wants to do afterschool tutoring. 3) “All my employees,” Ranjith is quick to note, “are citizens, of course. They were all born here.” There is no way she would know that. At most, they could all have claimed to be born in the US, but that's not necessary and is none of her business. In fact, it's illegal for her to even ask that. 4) A lawsuit challenging the rule was filed in 2015 and recently landed in federal appeals court. Appeals court means that the rule was already ruled illegal at the Federal District Court level. That's a big detail to leave out. 5) A settlement with the plaintiffs would effectively allow Sessions to kill the rule Actually, the rule is dead unless Sessions were to pursue an appeal and win (and be upheld if SCOTUS were to accept an appeal from there). etc.