3 ms·

There are EB green cards, created by Congress, and intended for skilled workers to immigrate.[1] Yes, you can apply (or be sponsored for ones that require a spo

There are EB green cards, created by Congress, and intended for skilled workers to immigrate.[1] Yes, you can apply (or be sponsored for ones that require a sponsor) for one without having an H1B or even being in the country. These are completely orthogonal to non-immigrant visas. 1. https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/green-card-eligibility/green-card-for-employment-based-immigrants https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/green-card-eligibility/gree...

rayiner 5y ago
Yes, I was referring to that as “unusual.” But the EB green card is a good template for what a skilled worker immigration pathway would look like if we had one.
- pandaman 5y ago
  But we already have it, or are you talking about some other country?
triceratops 5y ago
EB green cards are what all these tech companies are using. They're also subject to the per-country caps. That's what this whole kerfuffle is about.
- pandaman 5y ago
  Yes, but the problem is that not the EBGC per se but the fact that many companies do not sponsor them for foreign workers but only for the workers who are already in the country and on a nonimmigrant work visa. EBGC, not H1B is a pathway for immigration for a skilled worker yet, because of the unethical practice of many tech companies, many people even on HN honestly believe that one cannot possibly get an EBGC without working some period of time on H1B by law.
  - triceratops 5y ago
    > many companies do not sponsor them for foreign workers but only for the workers who are already in the country and on a nonimmigrant work visa Yeah, because the immigrant visas take time - at least a year if you aren't Indian or Chinese, far longer if you are. What's a company to do with that employee in the meanwhile? What if the company doesn't have offices and/or isn't set up to hire in that employee's home country? What if the employee's team is all US-based and they don't want to deal with the timezone differences? And if you're suggesting "sponsor, get the green card, then hire" why would a company spend all that time and money for someone who doesn't even currently work for them? What's the benefit? Pre-Covid, most companies simply didn't do remote work on any meaningful scale. And some jobs, even highly paid ones, can't be done remote - doctors or surgeons, for instance. Of course companies were going to want that employee working at their US office until their permanent residence was approved. And if not a work visa, how else was that going to happen?
    - pandaman 5y ago
      Companies have no problem hiring people with degrees even though getting a degree takes more time than an immigrant visa so I don't buy the time explanation. Some companies don't even have a problem with sponsoring an H1B visa for foreigners, which takes time too. As to your question about benefit: for every I140 petition the company claims that the immigrant worker is the only one available, there are no Americans that can possibly do this job so, if they are not lying, it's the obvious benefit as they get someone to do the job nobody else can.
      - triceratops 5y ago
        > Companies have no problem hiring people with degrees even though getting a degree takes more time than an immigrant visa so I don't buy the time explanation Unless you're suggesting that companies give offer letters to freshmen and then hire them upon graduation 4 years later (which I don't think is very common) this bears no comparison to what we're discussing. Next you'll be telling me companies are happy to wait for employees to be conceived, born, and go through primary and secondary school too, so why can't they wait for an EB green card? > which takes time too But far less time - O(months) rather than O(years). If the worker is already in the country working on another visa, then it's even less time. And there are no per-country caps to throw a wrench in the works. > it's the obvious benefit as they get someone to do the job nobody else can. That's useless if it'll take 1-20 years (depending on the country of birth of the employee) for them to actually be able to work for you. If they relied solely on the EB system they would have 1) no American to do the work and 2) the person they found not allowed to do the work in a reasonable amount of time (and no, 1+ year is not reasonable for a new hire to start).

rayiner 5y ago

Yes, I was referring to that as “unusual.” But the EB green card is a good template for what a skilled worker immigration pathway would look like if we had one.

pandaman 5y ago
But we already have it, or are you talking about some other country?

triceratops 5y ago

EB green cards are what all these tech companies are using. They're also subject to the per-country caps. That's what this whole kerfuffle is about.

pandaman 5y ago
Yes, but the problem is that not the EBGC per se but the fact that many companies do not sponsor them for foreign workers but only for the workers who are already in the country and on a nonimmigrant work visa. EBGC, not H1B is a pathway for immigration for a skilled worker yet, because of the unethical practice of many tech companies, many people even on HN honestly believe that one cannot possibly get an EBGC without working some period of time on H1B by law.
- triceratops 5y ago
  > many companies do not sponsor them for foreign workers but only for the workers who are already in the country and on a nonimmigrant work visa Yeah, because the immigrant visas take time - at least a year if you aren't Indian or Chinese, far longer if you are. What's a company to do with that employee in the meanwhile? What if the company doesn't have offices and/or isn't set up to hire in that employee's home country? What if the employee's team is all US-based and they don't want to deal with the timezone differences? And if you're suggesting "sponsor, get the green card, then hire" why would a company spend all that time and money for someone who doesn't even currently work for them? What's the benefit? Pre-Covid, most companies simply didn't do remote work on any meaningful scale. And some jobs, even highly paid ones, can't be done remote - doctors or surgeons, for instance. Of course companies were going to want that employee working at their US office until their permanent residence was approved. And if not a work visa, how else was that going to happen?
  - pandaman 5y ago
    Companies have no problem hiring people with degrees even though getting a degree takes more time than an immigrant visa so I don't buy the time explanation. Some companies don't even have a problem with sponsoring an H1B visa for foreigners, which takes time too. As to your question about benefit: for every I140 petition the company claims that the immigrant worker is the only one available, there are no Americans that can possibly do this job so, if they are not lying, it's the obvious benefit as they get someone to do the job nobody else can.
    - triceratops 5y ago
      > Companies have no problem hiring people with degrees even though getting a degree takes more time than an immigrant visa so I don't buy the time explanation Unless you're suggesting that companies give offer letters to freshmen and then hire them upon graduation 4 years later (which I don't think is very common) this bears no comparison to what we're discussing. Next you'll be telling me companies are happy to wait for employees to be conceived, born, and go through primary and secondary school too, so why can't they wait for an EB green card? > which takes time too But far less time - O(months) rather than O(years). If the worker is already in the country working on another visa, then it's even less time. And there are no per-country caps to throw a wrench in the works. > it's the obvious benefit as they get someone to do the job nobody else can. That's useless if it'll take 1-20 years (depending on the country of birth of the employee) for them to actually be able to work for you. If they relied solely on the EB system they would have 1) no American to do the work and 2) the person they found not allowed to do the work in a reasonable amount of time (and no, 1+ year is not reasonable for a new hire to start).