4 ms·

Immigration laws were passed and signed even after 1960s. Since I only focused on H1B in my original comment I will only seek to address that point. H1B change

Immigration laws were passed and signed even after 1960s. Since I only focused on H1B in my original comment I will only seek to address that point. H1B changes were not implemented by administrative fiat. The AC21 act was passed to provide unlimited H1B extensions with an approved employment-based immigration application. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-1B_visa https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-1B_visa

rayiner 6y ago
Kind of. H-1B is still supposed to be a guest worker visa. INS didn’t enforce that requirement prior to 1990, but state department did: https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/the-convoluted-path-from-h-1b-to-permanent-residency-a-primer https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/the-convoluted-path-from-h.... Which led to H-1B’s being unable to leave the country until receiving permanent residency status because state department often wouldn’t issue return visas for people who obviously intended to immigrate permanently. The dual-intent EB system was created in 1990 to alleviate the pain from that, but there still wasn’t real agreement on a permanent immigration visa. That’s an example of how executive action has been used to force Congress to make changes to avoid negative consequences to immigrants who are already here but stuck in limbo. (DACA is another example of that. The President can’t grant legal status to undocumented childhood arrivals, but can trigger a situation by executive action that forces Congress to choose between effectively allowing more permanent immigration and imposing negative consequences on sympathetic people.) Under the 1990 dual intent system, you basically say “for now I want to just work temporarily, but if a spot opens up I might be interested in staying.” In theory, the government should be able to say: “okay, well, no green cards for the foreseeable future” and H1-Bs would say “okay, I’ll wait for a spot to open up” or “okay, I’ll go home.” But of course that’s not what happens: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/21/us/politics/coronavirus-trump-immigration-ban.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/21/us/politics/coronavirus-t.... People flip out because they (for obvious reasons) view the H1-B as the first step to a more or less guaranteed path to permanent residency and citizenship. The current immigration system is a complete clusterf—-ck. It’s not fair to voters, who have the right to have an immigration policy that actually reflects what Congress enacted. It’s also not fair to “guest workers” who get stuck in a precarious limbo.

rayiner 6y ago

Kind of. H-1B is still supposed to be a guest worker visa. INS didn’t enforce that requirement prior to 1990, but state department did: https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/the-convoluted-path-from-h-1b-to-permanent-residency-a-primer https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/the-convoluted-path-from-h.... Which led to H-1B’s being unable to leave the country until receiving permanent residency status because state department often wouldn’t issue return visas for people who obviously intended to immigrate permanently. The dual-intent EB system was created in 1990 to alleviate the pain from that, but there still wasn’t real agreement on a permanent immigration visa. That’s an example of how executive action has been used to force Congress to make changes to avoid negative consequences to immigrants who are already here but stuck in limbo. (DACA is another example of that. The President can’t grant legal status to undocumented childhood arrivals, but can trigger a situation by executive action that forces Congress to choose between effectively allowing more permanent immigration and imposing negative consequences on sympathetic people.) Under the 1990 dual intent system, you basically say “for now I want to just work temporarily, but if a spot opens up I might be interested in staying.” In theory, the government should be able to say: “okay, well, no green cards for the foreseeable future” and H1-Bs would say “okay, I’ll wait for a spot to open up” or “okay, I’ll go home.” But of course that’s not what happens: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/21/us/politics/coronavirus-trump-immigration-ban.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/21/us/politics/coronavirus-t.... People flip out because they (for obvious reasons) view the H1-B as the first step to a more or less guaranteed path to permanent residency and citizenship. The current immigration system is a complete clusterf—-ck. It’s not fair to voters, who have the right to have an immigration policy that actually reflects what Congress enacted. It’s also not fair to “guest workers” who get stuck in a precarious limbo.