6 ms·

I can't say I'm tremendously enthusiastic about this visa. My objection to it is the same as my objection to almost all specialized, employer sponsored visas -

by geebee 9y ago

I can't say I'm tremendously enthusiastic about this visa. My objection to it is the same as my objection to almost all specialized, employer sponsored visas - I don't think employers, universities, or investors should be empowered to decide who is allowed to live in the US. If you grant them this power, they will abuse it. Think about it this way - you're a startup founder with US citizenship. You go to an investor who offers you 100K in seed funding in exchange for X% of your business. You say no deal. Ok, says the employer, but that does mean I won't give you my money. Now imagine you don't have citizenship. Same scenario. Ok, says the employer, but that does mean I won't give you the right to live in the United States. One point I've emphasized over and over here on HN is that you can be very pro-immigration and still be very opposed to programs that put private citizens (employers, investors) or corporations in a position of government sanctioned power over would-be immigrants. I think employers and investors should be allowed to decide who gets a job or money, but the power ends there. They absolutely should not be empowered to run the US immigration system for their personal benefit. These visas are often described as "allows foreign engineers/entrepreneurs/etc to live in the US." That's misleading. It should be described as "allows corporations and investors to decide who is and isn't allowed to live in the US." So, the tech industry is in favor of a regulatory regime that allows tech corporations to be gatekeepers for who is and isn't allowed to immigrate? What a surprise. Think of it this way - I can accept that google is allowed to no-hire someone who contributed to open source but can't reverse a binary tree on the spot at a whiteboard. Google's call. But should google be making decisions about who is allowed to live in the US based on these interviews? That changes the question dramatically for me.

31reasons 9y ago
Hmm so you don't want Corporations to decide who is allowed or not allowed in the US but you want them to decide who can have a Healthcare or not so they can live or die?
- TheGirondin 9y ago
  I trust the government even less. Charlie Gard is a good example - the UK government has not only decided that he should die, but that his parents are barred from bringing him to another country for treatment. On top that, the UK is saying that he has to die at the hospital and that his parents can't bring him home on hospice.
  - inopinatus 9y ago
    No. The Charlie Gard case is an horrific example of how easily grief and desperation are exploited with false hope. Your corruption of the facts - the UK's government has not "decided he should die" - is an echo of that exploitation. It is the same construct that leads the unwell to adopt dangerous or ineffective remedies from quacks and snake oil merchants, only in this case it is being leveraged by political and religious groups to further their own agenda.
    - TheGirondin 9y ago
      No. Real hospitals in the US and in Italy have offered to treat him, but the UK has indeed decided he should die and preventing the parents from bringing him to those hospitals.
      - inopinatus 9y ago
        No. You have moved beyond emotive mis-statement into lying. You are repeating propaganda. The Italian proposal is a bad joke. It is a Vatican hospital with no experience in this field, with no hope of offering any treatment, and is simply grandstanding on behalf of the Pope. As things stand, the UK has not "decided he should die". The UK High Court and Supreme Courts - not government - accepted that he is dying, and that any attempt to prolong life would be cruel. The US hospital proposal may be serious and is under consideration by UK courts, but it too has nevertheless been hijacked by uncomprehending US politicians. In all this I feel mostly for the parents. Their pain and desperation has been used by cynical opportunists for column inches, and that is just revolting.
      - DanBC 9y ago
        At least one of those hospitals withdrew support after seeing brain scans which show massive brain damage. And it's not the government, it's the courts who are independent of the government. One of the courts was outside the UK. In the UK courts the case was between the parents and the hospital. In the European court the case was between the parents and the UK. Read this for more: http://www.transparencyproject.org.uk/charlie-gard-update/ http://www.transparencyproject.org.uk/charlie-gard-update/

by geebee 9y ago

31reasons 9y ago

Hmm so you don't want Corporations to decide who is allowed or not allowed in the US but you want them to decide who can have a Healthcare or not so they can live or die?

TheGirondin 9y ago
I trust the government even less. Charlie Gard is a good example - the UK government has not only decided that he should die, but that his parents are barred from bringing him to another country for treatment. On top that, the UK is saying that he has to die at the hospital and that his parents can't bring him home on hospice.
- inopinatus 9y ago
  No. The Charlie Gard case is an horrific example of how easily grief and desperation are exploited with false hope. Your corruption of the facts - the UK's government has not "decided he should die" - is an echo of that exploitation. It is the same construct that leads the unwell to adopt dangerous or ineffective remedies from quacks and snake oil merchants, only in this case it is being leveraged by political and religious groups to further their own agenda.
  - TheGirondin 9y ago
    No. Real hospitals in the US and in Italy have offered to treat him, but the UK has indeed decided he should die and preventing the parents from bringing him to those hospitals.
    - inopinatus 9y ago
      No. You have moved beyond emotive mis-statement into lying. You are repeating propaganda. The Italian proposal is a bad joke. It is a Vatican hospital with no experience in this field, with no hope of offering any treatment, and is simply grandstanding on behalf of the Pope. As things stand, the UK has not "decided he should die". The UK High Court and Supreme Courts - not government - accepted that he is dying, and that any attempt to prolong life would be cruel. The US hospital proposal may be serious and is under consideration by UK courts, but it too has nevertheless been hijacked by uncomprehending US politicians. In all this I feel mostly for the parents. Their pain and desperation has been used by cynical opportunists for column inches, and that is just revolting.
    - DanBC 9y ago
      At least one of those hospitals withdrew support after seeing brain scans which show massive brain damage. And it's not the government, it's the courts who are independent of the government. One of the courts was outside the UK. In the UK courts the case was between the parents and the hospital. In the European court the case was between the parents and the UK. Read this for more: http://www.transparencyproject.org.uk/charlie-gard-update/ http://www.transparencyproject.org.uk/charlie-gard-update/