3 ms·

1. Definitely agree with that. Even if you keep the same H1-B term (7 years), you now have an EAD (Employment Authorization Document) for those 7 years. 2. I s

1. Definitely agree with that. Even if you keep the same H1-B term (7 years), you now have an EAD (Employment Authorization Document) for those 7 years. 2. I strongly disagree with this one. The end result will be accredited US institutions effectively selling green cards. If you thought tuition was high before this, think about what will happen after these schools can effectively sell permanent residency to the highest bidders (for prices under the EB-5 investment visa cut-offs of course)

jedberg 6y ago
Is number two really that bad though? Right now, rich people can find ways to "buy" citizenship already. Now at least some of the money and gatekeeping would flow through colleges. Especially public colleges, who love foreign students, because they pay full tuition.
- nrmitchi 6y ago
  Yes, selling green cards is bad. The EB-5 program is the "government sponsored" way of doing it. I also think that is bad, and abused, but I digress. If your argument for it being good is "the money goes to public colleges, which is basically the government!" then the government should just be transparently selling permanent residency without the smoke-and-mirror charade of a "school". Are you then going to exclude private schools? I would guess that a degree from Harvard is more worthy of a green card, but then why should Harvard get a bunch of "free money" for selling a green card? US Colleges will still only have a certain amount of capacity. If all of a sudden it comes with a free green card, either 1) less US students can afford to go there, because tuition has risen so much due to "supply and demand", or 2) US students still go there, and end up with even more debt than they currently have. > Now at least some of the money and gatekeeping would flow through colleges. Especially public colleges, who love foreign students, because they pay full tuition. With the EB-5 programs (the way to "buy" a green card), you have to invest within Qualified Opportunity Zones which are (in theory) designed to assist lower-income areas, or create a certain number of new jobs (I'm sure there are other investments that qualify too; I'm not an expert on this program). Having funds go towards these endeavors is arguably "better" than going into the pockets of an already administratively-overloaded university system.
- fakedang 6y ago
  You won't get the brightest students, but rather the richest.

jedberg 6y ago

Is number two really that bad though? Right now, rich people can find ways to "buy" citizenship already. Now at least some of the money and gatekeeping would flow through colleges. Especially public colleges, who love foreign students, because they pay full tuition.

nrmitchi 6y ago
Yes, selling green cards is bad. The EB-5 program is the "government sponsored" way of doing it. I also think that is bad, and abused, but I digress. If your argument for it being good is "the money goes to public colleges, which is basically the government!" then the government should just be transparently selling permanent residency without the smoke-and-mirror charade of a "school". Are you then going to exclude private schools? I would guess that a degree from Harvard is more worthy of a green card, but then why should Harvard get a bunch of "free money" for selling a green card? US Colleges will still only have a certain amount of capacity. If all of a sudden it comes with a free green card, either 1) less US students can afford to go there, because tuition has risen so much due to "supply and demand", or 2) US students still go there, and end up with even more debt than they currently have. > Now at least some of the money and gatekeeping would flow through colleges. Especially public colleges, who love foreign students, because they pay full tuition. With the EB-5 programs (the way to "buy" a green card), you have to invest within Qualified Opportunity Zones which are (in theory) designed to assist lower-income areas, or create a certain number of new jobs (I'm sure there are other investments that qualify too; I'm not an expert on this program). Having funds go towards these endeavors is arguably "better" than going into the pockets of an already administratively-overloaded university system.
fakedang 6y ago
You won't get the brightest students, but rather the richest.