6 ms·

I know I fall into the "bad guy" minority here, but.... > Indian people are forced to spend their lives in the U.S. on the H-1B visa. Have the rules changed d

I know I fall into the "bad guy" minority here, but.... > Indian people are forced to spend their lives in the U.S. on the H-1B visa. Have the rules changed dramatically since they made the choice to do this? Because it sounds like just that, they chose to spend their lives in the U.S. on the H-1B visa. I agree that the rules suck and need change, but nobody if forcing them to come. > She hadn’t been able to see us for a year but later opted for a visa to “visit” a nation that is practically her home. This again appears to fall into the category of a choice. That they chose to subject their child to the situation described, because the rules were in place before they came here. I would like to see the rules change, but it's unfair to act like you had no choice when you voluntarily signed up to have those rules applied to you (or your family).

Agent766 8y ago
The problem that I see is that the child had no choice in the matter. Imagine if you turned 21 and were kicked out of the country that you grew up in and had to move to a country that you haven't been to since you were a baby. I don't really know what a reasonable solution to this might look like.
- sokoloff 8y ago
  Making choices that cast long shadows on their children’s lives is basically the job description of parents.
  - brmgb 8y ago
    It's not about the parent (which is not a job by the way). We are talking about actual people turning 21 and having no choice but to leave the country where they spend their whole life based on the situation of a different person. I personally have difficulty thinking of a more unfair situation. Note that the USA is pretty exceptional in this regard. Most countries don't ask for people to be permanent resident before being able to apply for naturalization and children of immigrant having lived their whole life in a country can just apply for and be granted citizenship.
    - RHSeeger 8y ago
      If it helps, you're arguing a different point than I am. I agree the rules are bad, the child should be able to stay. However, the parents don't get to lay the entire blame on the government/laws, because they knew going into the situation what was going to happen. They _chose_ to set things up so their child would be sent back to a country it didn't know.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- mc32 8y ago
  This situation is pretty normal. If my parents moved to Japan for work and their visa is up, my visa is up too. It’s probably the same if they had worked in India as foreigners.
  - maccard 8y ago
    > If my parents moved to Japan for work and their visa is up, my visa is up too That's not the problem here though, It's more like your parents moved to Japan for work, stayed there, and when you turned 21 you were kicked out of the country and they get to stay.
    - db48x 8y ago
      That's true, but I think the point was that it's more like your parents knew how long the backlog was, moved somewhere, had a child, failed to do that simple arithmetic (aka hyperbolic discounting; when a thing is so far in the future that we fail to take it into account), and then you didn't get to stay once you were too old.
  - droithomme 8y ago
    Exactly. If I move to France on a temporary work visa with my 10 kids, they don't automatically get to stay indefinitely or get granted citizenship somehow just because their parent has a work visa. They have no French parent and weren't born there so their rights as visitors are limited. Everytime these discussions come up there are all these articles and pundits passionately advocating for the US to have extremely wide open immigration rules that are not observed by any other country in the world, and they claim racism if it doesn't happen the way they want. This constant race-baiting they do is racist in itself.
    - brmgb 8y ago
      > Exactly. If I move to France on a temporary work visa with my 10 kids, they don't automatically get to stay indefinitely or get granted citizenship somehow just because their parent has a work visa. That's a very poor example you have chosen. The children of foreigners granted a titre de séjour (the maximum duration of a visa in France is one year) as family members of a person working in France: - are allowed to work in France ; - are entitled to titre de séjour allowing them to stay for 10 years provided they apply before their 19th birthday and have lived for three years in France. Considering you can apply for French citizenship after having lived five years in France or after completing a three years degree in a France, unless he is in France for a very short stay, the 10 kids of your hypothetical immigrant are pretty much guaranteed to become French if they want to.
- nappy-doo 8y ago
  If you're born here, you're an American citizen. Cold comfort, I know, but they can come back.
rohit2412 8y ago
Discrimination based on place of birth isn't a concern? Would you have the same response if there was a similar rule to limit immigration for Muslims, or homosexuals?
- ardit33 8y ago
  Limits per country it is not discrimination, as it limits a White British or French, a Myslim Pakistani, or Indian Hindu the same. The limits are there to prevent one ethnicity just gaming it industrial scale and taking over the system. Unfortunately it sucks for aj Indian, but it is great if you are an African from Senegal. I personally think it should be more proportional to the country's population size, (i.e. India should have a higher quota) but the limit is still a good idea.
  - rohit2412 8y ago
    Of course it is discrimination. A British born person has better chances at PR than an Indian born person. The Indian is being given less opportunities not because of their skills or talent, but because of their place of birth. > The limits are there to prevent one ethnicity Why? Is it okay for an individual to be disadvantaged because of his ethnicity? Why are there no limits on religions too? After all, you get to choose your religion, but not your ethnicity. Further, who told you India is only one ethnicity? India is more diverse than Europe. > Unfortunately it sucks for aj Indian If it sucks it is because this is discrimination. > I personally think it should be more proportional to the country's population size Why though? Why can't you judge an individual on their own skills without trying to either be bigoted like right wing or doing identity politics like left wing.
    - diminoten 8y ago
      I think people sort of forget that "only let so many people into the country" isn't something we have to do, or that limiting immigration is some absolute positive thing.
      - 8y ago
mikeash 8y ago
Yes, we need to apportion blame equally between a couple of parents just trying to live their lives and the government of the most powerful nation on the planet. Wouldn’t want to be unfair. This is the same argument used to justify reporting DACA recipients back to countries they can’t remember, and to justify putting migrant children in concentration camps along the Mexican border. It’s sickening! When did we decide that some words on paper matter more than our duty to protect the innocent?
- RHSeeger 8y ago
  The children can complain about their situation. The parents should not complain about the children's situation because the parents actively chose to put their children in that situation. The rules are bad. The children are in a bad situation. The parents don't get to pretend they didn't contribute to that situation.
  - mikeash 8y ago
    Why not? Why can’t people complain about unjust laws they could have avoided? Why is it so important to control who gets to complain that you give that question more attention than the problem of innocent children being victimized by bad laws?
    - sverige 8y ago
      The children are being victimized by their parents' bad decisions to break existing law, not by the law itself. Whatever happened to the idea of personal responsibility and the accountability of parents to make good decisions for their children?
      - mikeash 8y ago
        Why do lawmakers have no personal responsibility for the consequences of the laws they enact?
        deleted 8y ago
dmwallin 8y ago
The way you talk about "choice" indicates you have a flawed and limited model of how choice actually works. Choices are contextual and entirely dependent upon circumstances. You should assume that people by-and-large make the best choice that is available to them. If they are dealing with this H1-B rules, they are doing so because this was better than the alternatives. The problem with the H1-B is that it drastically limits future choices. Therefore people who made the logical choice at the time can end up, through no fault of their own, in a situation where they have to choose between bad and worse. It is entirely fair to blame the system for "forcing" these situations because it is doing so by DESIGN.

Agent766 8y ago

The problem that I see is that the child had no choice in the matter. Imagine if you turned 21 and were kicked out of the country that you grew up in and had to move to a country that you haven't been to since you were a baby. I don't really know what a reasonable solution to this might look like.

sokoloff 8y ago
Making choices that cast long shadows on their children’s lives is basically the job description of parents.
- brmgb 8y ago
  It's not about the parent (which is not a job by the way). We are talking about actual people turning 21 and having no choice but to leave the country where they spend their whole life based on the situation of a different person. I personally have difficulty thinking of a more unfair situation. Note that the USA is pretty exceptional in this regard. Most countries don't ask for people to be permanent resident before being able to apply for naturalization and children of immigrant having lived their whole life in a country can just apply for and be granted citizenship.
  - RHSeeger 8y ago
    If it helps, you're arguing a different point than I am. I agree the rules are bad, the child should be able to stay. However, the parents don't get to lay the entire blame on the government/laws, because they knew going into the situation what was going to happen. They _chose_ to set things up so their child would be sent back to a country it didn't know.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
mc32 8y ago
This situation is pretty normal. If my parents moved to Japan for work and their visa is up, my visa is up too. It’s probably the same if they had worked in India as foreigners.
- maccard 8y ago
  > If my parents moved to Japan for work and their visa is up, my visa is up too That's not the problem here though, It's more like your parents moved to Japan for work, stayed there, and when you turned 21 you were kicked out of the country and they get to stay.
  - db48x 8y ago
    That's true, but I think the point was that it's more like your parents knew how long the backlog was, moved somewhere, had a child, failed to do that simple arithmetic (aka hyperbolic discounting; when a thing is so far in the future that we fail to take it into account), and then you didn't get to stay once you were too old.
- droithomme 8y ago
  Exactly. If I move to France on a temporary work visa with my 10 kids, they don't automatically get to stay indefinitely or get granted citizenship somehow just because their parent has a work visa. They have no French parent and weren't born there so their rights as visitors are limited. Everytime these discussions come up there are all these articles and pundits passionately advocating for the US to have extremely wide open immigration rules that are not observed by any other country in the world, and they claim racism if it doesn't happen the way they want. This constant race-baiting they do is racist in itself.
  - brmgb 8y ago
    > Exactly. If I move to France on a temporary work visa with my 10 kids, they don't automatically get to stay indefinitely or get granted citizenship somehow just because their parent has a work visa. That's a very poor example you have chosen. The children of foreigners granted a titre de séjour (the maximum duration of a visa in France is one year) as family members of a person working in France: - are allowed to work in France ; - are entitled to titre de séjour allowing them to stay for 10 years provided they apply before their 19th birthday and have lived for three years in France. Considering you can apply for French citizenship after having lived five years in France or after completing a three years degree in a France, unless he is in France for a very short stay, the 10 kids of your hypothetical immigrant are pretty much guaranteed to become French if they want to.
nappy-doo 8y ago
If you're born here, you're an American citizen. Cold comfort, I know, but they can come back.

rohit2412 8y ago

Discrimination based on place of birth isn't a concern? Would you have the same response if there was a similar rule to limit immigration for Muslims, or homosexuals?

ardit33 8y ago
Limits per country it is not discrimination, as it limits a White British or French, a Myslim Pakistani, or Indian Hindu the same. The limits are there to prevent one ethnicity just gaming it industrial scale and taking over the system. Unfortunately it sucks for aj Indian, but it is great if you are an African from Senegal. I personally think it should be more proportional to the country's population size, (i.e. India should have a higher quota) but the limit is still a good idea.
- rohit2412 8y ago
  Of course it is discrimination. A British born person has better chances at PR than an Indian born person. The Indian is being given less opportunities not because of their skills or talent, but because of their place of birth. > The limits are there to prevent one ethnicity Why? Is it okay for an individual to be disadvantaged because of his ethnicity? Why are there no limits on religions too? After all, you get to choose your religion, but not your ethnicity. Further, who told you India is only one ethnicity? India is more diverse than Europe. > Unfortunately it sucks for aj Indian If it sucks it is because this is discrimination. > I personally think it should be more proportional to the country's population size Why though? Why can't you judge an individual on their own skills without trying to either be bigoted like right wing or doing identity politics like left wing.
  - diminoten 8y ago
    I think people sort of forget that "only let so many people into the country" isn't something we have to do, or that limiting immigration is some absolute positive thing.
    - 8y ago

mikeash 8y ago

Yes, we need to apportion blame equally between a couple of parents just trying to live their lives and the government of the most powerful nation on the planet. Wouldn’t want to be unfair. This is the same argument used to justify reporting DACA recipients back to countries they can’t remember, and to justify putting migrant children in concentration camps along the Mexican border. It’s sickening! When did we decide that some words on paper matter more than our duty to protect the innocent?

RHSeeger 8y ago
The children can complain about their situation. The parents should not complain about the children's situation because the parents actively chose to put their children in that situation. The rules are bad. The children are in a bad situation. The parents don't get to pretend they didn't contribute to that situation.
- mikeash 8y ago
  Why not? Why can’t people complain about unjust laws they could have avoided? Why is it so important to control who gets to complain that you give that question more attention than the problem of innocent children being victimized by bad laws?
  - sverige 8y ago
    The children are being victimized by their parents' bad decisions to break existing law, not by the law itself. Whatever happened to the idea of personal responsibility and the accountability of parents to make good decisions for their children?
    - mikeash 8y ago
      Why do lawmakers have no personal responsibility for the consequences of the laws they enact?
      - deleted 8y ago

dmwallin 8y ago

The way you talk about "choice" indicates you have a flawed and limited model of how choice actually works. Choices are contextual and entirely dependent upon circumstances. You should assume that people by-and-large make the best choice that is available to them. If they are dealing with this H1-B rules, they are doing so because this was better than the alternatives. The problem with the H1-B is that it drastically limits future choices. Therefore people who made the logical choice at the time can end up, through no fault of their own, in a situation where they have to choose between bad and worse. It is entirely fair to blame the system for "forcing" these situations because it is doing so by DESIGN.