3 ms·

I think there's a good argument to be made that you should have to make your mind up about staying permanently after a few years. There is a lot of value in hav

I think there's a good argument to be made that you should have to make your mind up about staying permanently after a few years. There is a lot of value in having people set roots in a community long-term.

tptacek 6y ago
That's kind of my thought? At the point where you're, like, both stably employed and committing to raise a family here, I no longer care at all about your immigration status. I feel like I must be missing something.
- damnyou 6y ago
  The problem is that the DOJ, and commenters in the thread, are attacking the process by which people make that happen. As broken as the process is, the DOJ and commenters here clutching their pearls in the direction of excluding would-be permanent residents, by (for example) making false claims about how H1B was never intended to provide option value, are doing a xenophobia.
  - tptacek 6y ago
    I'm confident Rayiner isn't a xenophobe, which is why I'm wondering what I'm missing about his argument.
  - rayiner 6y ago
    Throwing around accusations of “xenophobia” is an attempt to shut down legitimate debate. I’m an immigrant from Bangladesh and a naturalized U.S. citizen. You can take my comments in that context. The H-1 and H-1B system was the result of a political compromise. Americans didn’t want to create a new flow of skilled immigrants. So what Congress created in 1952 was a program for skilled nonimmigrant temporary workers. It came to be used, by executive fiat, as a permanent immigration system. And in 1990, Congress papered over it a bit. But if you read the 1990 statute, it still says it’s for “nonimmigrant” “temporary” workers. The H-1B was never intended to give workers the “option” of either staying permanently or going back home. You seem to be confused about what “dual intent” means. It’s not an option (disjunctive). It doesn’t mean you can choose to be a temporary nonimmigrant worker, or an immigrant who intends to seek permanent residency. It’s a conjunctive. It means that an immigrant has both the intention to not immigrate permanently, and the intention to immigrate permanently, at the same time. Why do you need both? Why does the “dual intent” provision of the law say that filing a permanent residency petition shall not create a presumption that the person intends to immigrate? Isn’t that a ridiculous thing to say? Obviously someone who files a residency petition intends to immigrate! The reason you need all of that logical contortion and hoop jumping is because the H-1B is still intended for nonimmigrant temporary workers. It’s very simple. Why does the law require Facebook to advertise a job to US workers when it files a PERM certification? There is already an H-1B worker holding that job! If the H-1B visa is intended to give that person the “option” of permanent residency, why does Facebook have to try and find someone else for the job? And if Facebook actually advertised for the job properly and found an American worker, the H-1B worker would then not get permanent residency and have to go home. If the system intends to give the H-1B worker the “option” to be an immigrant, why would it be designed that way? What the DOJ is doing is enforcing the original design of the immigration law. Part of that compromise was that temporary H-1B workers would only be allowed to get permanent residency if the employer can certify that it has looked and can’t find an American to do the job instead. The process isn’t supposed to be a formality where Facebook ensures that the H-1B worker gets to keep the job so he or she can get permanent residency.
    - idlewords 6y ago
      I think it's significant here that we haven't passed an immigration law since 1986, predating the entire tech industry. It's in these situations of Congressional constipation that existing mechanisms start to fall apart at the seams, and programs end up being reused for purposes far from their original intent.

tptacek 6y ago

That's kind of my thought? At the point where you're, like, both stably employed and committing to raise a family here, I no longer care at all about your immigration status. I feel like I must be missing something.

damnyou 6y ago
The problem is that the DOJ, and commenters in the thread, are attacking the process by which people make that happen. As broken as the process is, the DOJ and commenters here clutching their pearls in the direction of excluding would-be permanent residents, by (for example) making false claims about how H1B was never intended to provide option value, are doing a xenophobia.
- tptacek 6y ago
  I'm confident Rayiner isn't a xenophobe, which is why I'm wondering what I'm missing about his argument.
- rayiner 6y ago
  Throwing around accusations of “xenophobia” is an attempt to shut down legitimate debate. I’m an immigrant from Bangladesh and a naturalized U.S. citizen. You can take my comments in that context. The H-1 and H-1B system was the result of a political compromise. Americans didn’t want to create a new flow of skilled immigrants. So what Congress created in 1952 was a program for skilled nonimmigrant temporary workers. It came to be used, by executive fiat, as a permanent immigration system. And in 1990, Congress papered over it a bit. But if you read the 1990 statute, it still says it’s for “nonimmigrant” “temporary” workers. The H-1B was never intended to give workers the “option” of either staying permanently or going back home. You seem to be confused about what “dual intent” means. It’s not an option (disjunctive). It doesn’t mean you can choose to be a temporary nonimmigrant worker, or an immigrant who intends to seek permanent residency. It’s a conjunctive. It means that an immigrant has both the intention to not immigrate permanently, and the intention to immigrate permanently, at the same time. Why do you need both? Why does the “dual intent” provision of the law say that filing a permanent residency petition shall not create a presumption that the person intends to immigrate? Isn’t that a ridiculous thing to say? Obviously someone who files a residency petition intends to immigrate! The reason you need all of that logical contortion and hoop jumping is because the H-1B is still intended for nonimmigrant temporary workers. It’s very simple. Why does the law require Facebook to advertise a job to US workers when it files a PERM certification? There is already an H-1B worker holding that job! If the H-1B visa is intended to give that person the “option” of permanent residency, why does Facebook have to try and find someone else for the job? And if Facebook actually advertised for the job properly and found an American worker, the H-1B worker would then not get permanent residency and have to go home. If the system intends to give the H-1B worker the “option” to be an immigrant, why would it be designed that way? What the DOJ is doing is enforcing the original design of the immigration law. Part of that compromise was that temporary H-1B workers would only be allowed to get permanent residency if the employer can certify that it has looked and can’t find an American to do the job instead. The process isn’t supposed to be a formality where Facebook ensures that the H-1B worker gets to keep the job so he or she can get permanent residency.
  - idlewords 6y ago
    I think it's significant here that we haven't passed an immigration law since 1986, predating the entire tech industry. It's in these situations of Congressional constipation that existing mechanisms start to fall apart at the seams, and programs end up being reused for purposes far from their original intent.