11 ms·

Note that India requires prospective citizens to live in the country for 12 years before applying for naturalization, and China doesn't allow non-ethnic Chinese

Note that India requires prospective citizens to live in the country for 12 years before applying for naturalization, and China doesn't allow non-ethnic Chinese immigration at all (only ~1500 naturalized citizens/10,000 permanent residents in the whole country of over a billion people). Something to keep in mind when people from those countries complain about the American immigration system (doesn't apply to the Singaporean author of this article, but does apply to some of the other commenters).

rajup 4y ago
Those may be true, but I always assumed that the US of A aspires to do better, American exceptionalism, land of opportunity and all that jazz.
- car_analogy 4y ago
  This is assuming that more immigration equals better. And even if one does think so, then the USA is doing "better" - by orders of magnitude. The Chinese and Indians are not set to become minorities in their own countries, are they? But thanks to immigration, white Americans practically already are [1], yet it is they that are called xenophobic. Double-standards doesn't begin to describe it. [1] https://www.brookings.edu/research/less-than-half-of-us-children-under-15-are-white-census-shows/ https://www.brookings.edu/research/less-than-half-of-us-chil...
  - polygamous_bat 4y ago
    In what part of the US Constitution are the white Americans identified as the essential majority for the country? This is a country that was founded through immigration, unlike China or India, so turning around and crying about becoming a minority just as you are enjoying the benefits of your ancestors migrating seems hypocritical.
    - quantumwannabe 4y ago
      Appealing to the history of immigration in the country doesn't diminish the GP's point as the US has discriminated against the origins and identities of immigrants since its founding. >The Naturalization Act of 1790 (1 Stat. 103, enacted March 26, 1790) was a law of the United States Congress that set the first uniform rules for the granting of United States citizenship by naturalization. The law limited naturalization to "free White person(s) ... of good character", thus excluding Native Americans, indentured servants, slaves, free black people and later Asians, although free black people were allowed citizenship at the state level in a number of states. [1] Race based citizenship remained the law until United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) [2] where the Supreme Court interpreted the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" clause of the 14th Amendment to meant that anyone physically born in the country was automatically granted citizenship. Race-neutral naturalization wasn't enacted until the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 [3] and racial discrimination and national original based immigration (not permanent residency as should be obvious) controls weren't banned until the Hart–Celler Act in 1965 [4]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1790 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1790 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1952 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Ac... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Ac...
      - pyuser583 4y ago
        I’m confused by this … doesn’t “national origin discrimination” make sense in an immigration context. It’s reasonable to treat people from Canada different from people from, say, Litchtenstein. I’m sure there’s some distinction I’m missing.
        quantumwannabe 4y ago
        What the 1952 law says is that you can't ban people from immigrating because of what country they come from. It doesn't ban the creation caps on the number of people immigrating from a specific countries, which the law also enacted. The 1965 Act repealed country based quotas and replaced them with hemisphere based quotas, which were then themselves repealed and replaced with country based quotas again in the Immigration Act of 1990, which created the modern Diversity Immigrant Visas (as well the modern employment based visas).
  - rajup 4y ago
    Again, if you want to resort to whataboutism that’s ok but I just want to point out that it’s hypocritical to then go around the world exporting “freedom” and “values” from an alleged high ground.
    - car_analogy 4y ago
      That's a strange definition of "freedom". Do countries that don't practice mass immigration not have "freedom"? To be free, one must allow one's national identity to be diluted into nothing?
      - rajup 4y ago
        Not sure how you make the jump from sane immigration laws to “dilution of national identity”. If anything the USA does a fantastic job of assimilating a wide gamut of cultures without a lot of friction. Of course if your idea of “national identity” is that it consists only of white people, then I’m sorry but your views are racist and not based on factual history or current reality.
  - rajup 4y ago
    Also I’m not sure what the race or being a minority or majority demographic has to do with being xenophobic? Pretty sure there are Indian and Chinese xenophobes in the USA as well.
  - passivate 4y ago
    >But thanks to immigration, white Americans practically already are [1], yet it is they that are called xenophobic Why does it matter if a particular race is the majority or minority of citizens? What concerns do you have about it?
    - la6472 4y ago
vgatherps 4y ago
If I was born in a country with an extremely bad immigration system, I lose the right to complain about the bad-but-maybe-not-as-bad immigration system in another country that I'm trying to immigrate to?
- weatherlite 4y ago
  In a lot of people's eyes yes. Many people resent immigrants complaining even if the complaints are justified.
  - tut-urut-utut 4y ago
    > Many people resent immigrants FTFY Many people don't need a reason to resent immigrants, they just use anything they can use as an excuse.
- lgbrandon 4y ago
  Exactly. I love hearing the people "complain" but try and make the journey or stay. With remote work and automation becoming the norm. Soon we won't need to leave our respective countries and can all co-exist.
  - random314 4y ago
    Yes, nobody should complain.
- ROTMetro 4y ago
  Can you imagine anything more un-American and yet ironically American than "welcome to the USA, now shut up. Also, draconian Kafkaesk rules now govern your life for the entirety of the immigration process"
magtux 4y ago
Are you responsible for everything your Government does ? I would hope not. People need to be treated individually. I thought that was the entire point of liberal democracy.
- b112 4y ago
  Yes! You are responsible, but more like responsible for the actions of your child, or, an object you own like a house. You are not at fault, if you are a good parent, or if you maintain your house well. So if the child breaks the law, or damages something, if the house has a weakness not known but someone gets injured, you are responsible. But the due dilligence, such as disciplining, teaching, and trying to instill good values in a child, or inspecting and maintaining your house, are key. With a democracy, participating, voting, being an activist on vital matters, working to keep your democracy responsible and behaving correctly is that same due diligence. We're always responsible, but are we at fault? Did we do our best? Or did we decide that taking care of the child was too much bother, and disappear from their lives? Did we try, at least? And twitter posts, facebook this and that don't count here. Because, would that be how you raise a child? Deriding them on twitter? Yelling at other parents because it was their fault?
  - magtux 4y ago
    My man, I hope you're not American because the world has a laundry list of complaints against America. People care about different things to different degrees. You compromise on who you think is the closest to your positions. In a country of 1.3B people, there is always divergence of opinion and in fact nearly no-one would have even thought about immigration as a concern when voting. There is a difference between the personal things you can influence and being the 1/13000000th voice of the people.
  - guerrilla 4y ago
    Alright bro then I'm holding you personally responsible for everything on this list: https://github.com/binka/essays/blob/master/us_atrocities.md https://github.com/binka/essays/blob/master/us_atrocities.md
spyremeown 4y ago
Yea, but the USofA is supposed to be the land of the Free, all kinds of free, not just "you were not born here"-type free. The whole "give me your sick, your poor..." etc vibe. It's a little ironic at the very least that it's so hard to get into the United States, given its history.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- foobarian 4y ago
  I think the times of unclaimed land up for grabs are long over, and people need to get used to a steady state environment that the rest of the world has been in for millenia.
  - random314 4y ago
    There has never been a steady state. The "unclaimed land" you speak of was actually claimed by native Americans, who have now been eliminated.
codegeek 4y ago
I never understand this argument. If someone leaves their country to migrate, aren't they looking for a better life ? Just because India requires you to live for 12 years, Indian citizens should just shut up/put up with 18+ years of waiting because their country of origin has it worse/same ? This sounds a lot like "We gave you US citizenship. So shut up and stop criticizing the Govt because you came from a 3rd world country even though you are now a citizen of this country". So much for 1st Amendment or does it not apply to naturalized citizens ?
- twofornone 4y ago
  Are foreign peoples entitled to US citizenship? Where is the obligation to make the process easy and open to everyone coming from?
  - codegeek 4y ago
    Not saying make it easy. Trust me, it is already extremely hard. But I am replying to GP's argument which is basically saying that you should shut up because you are coming from a country which has worse. 2 different things. And yes, there are people who make the argument that if you become a naturalized citizen, you have no right to criticize the Govt or the country since you came from a much worse place. I am tired of that BS. Google "Amy Wax India" and you will know what I am talking about.
    - rajup 4y ago
      Wow this "professor" is a fine piece of work!
  - mirceal 4y ago
    you’re looking at this from the wrong angle. ask yourself: why would the US allow these people to come and work here in the first place? it’s because they NEED them. from highly skilled tech workers to “unskilled” low wage workers. Immigration and pumping human capital into our economy is the way the US stays/stayed? dominant and a superpower. Close the pipeline and in 10-20-30 years innovation is gone ,the edge we have us gone. The American dream fuels the growth. Act shitty toward the fuel, scratch your head why things fall apart.
goodpoint 4y ago
> people from those countries complain about the American immigration system People do not get to choose where and when to be born.
valarauko 4y ago
> India requires prospective citizens to live in the country for 12 years before applying for naturalization Yes, for citizenship, as opposed to Permanent Residency - the author of the article must wait another 5 years at the very least to be eligible for citizenship if he desires it.
throw0101a 4y ago
polotics 4y ago
Thank you we just got here a perfect example of whataboutism! What some countries do to some people has nothing to do with what the US of (pardon me) Assholes does to someone who lived there most their lives!
yangikan 4y ago
The whole point is that if you were born anywhere else (except India or China), it is a fairly simple process which would take less than a year (one can file both I-140 and I-485 together).
rayiner 4y ago
As an immigrant to the US, I hate the double standards applied to Americans. Oh, you think Americans are racist for wanting to restrict immigration? How would people in India react to massive immigration from Africa?
- random314 4y ago
  Lots of loaded statements here. Immigrant describes his immigration situation. Your response 1. How dare you complain 2. I am going to pretend you called Americans racist. (Wattabout Indians being racist) You or your parents being immigrants is no excuse for your crude behavior.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- rajup 4y ago
  Double standards or higher standards? I'm pretty sure people in India would react horribly to such a hypothetical situation. But if that's the standard you want to hold Americans and the American government to that's fine but perhaps then the USA should stop preaching to the world and exporting its "values" and "freedoms" and taking the moral high ground in pretty much every conflict around the world.
  - rayiner 4y ago
    > perhaps then the USA should stop preaching to the world and exporting its "values" and "freedoms" and taking the moral high ground in pretty much every conflict around the world. As a Gore/Kerry supporter I agree. And I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but there’s been a broad repudiation of George W. Bush’s vision for an evangelical role for America in spreading democracy among his own party. I think Americans have many great virtues. But they’re not aliens, and America isn’t a science experiment. I don’t begrudge any American who wants a country of their own, just like Indians and Bangladeshis do.
    - 4y ago
outworlder 4y ago
> Note that India requires prospective citizens to live in the country for 12 years before applying for naturalization Ok, but the article doesn't even talk about naturalization? It's talking about permanent residency.
DragonStrength 4y ago
And for those commenting "why does country of origin matter," certainly there is something which made one system of governance preferable for outcomes and perhaps too quickly importing from a single culture brings along things which are out of place in the new country. To wit: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cisco-lawsuit/california-accuses-cisco-of-job-discrimination-based-on-indian-employees-caste-idUSKBN2423YE https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cisco-lawsuit/california-...
saravanannkl 4y ago
China is a different story, let's exclude that. India's requirement is 12 years seems a lot, but practically Indian citizen's path to citizenship in US is more than that(~10 years to get GC + mandatory 5 years after GC). EB1 might be an exception, which will also come around 6-8 years. But most end up waiting more than 15 years to become US citizens. US restricts employment visas with a specific time limit. L1(7 years) and H1(6 years). After that period, you have to stay out of the country for 12 months, before you can reapply again. The other option is to apply for Green Card (Permanent Residency). So most of them end up applying GC rather than move out of the country for an year. US has weird rules that inherently makes difficult even for employment based visas. E.g. If your visa is near expiry, then you can apply for extension. But the extension processing times takes up months. You can't travel out of the country during that period. Even if your petition is approved, then you have to go to US embassy in your country of citizenship to get visa stamped in your passport. Unless you have a visa stamped in your passport, you can't reenter US. Practically there is no visa appointment slots available at US embassies in India at this time. You are in a soup if you have to travel on an emergency https://twitter.com/debarghya_das/status/1520966725210042368 https://twitter.com/debarghya_das/status/1520966725210042368 https://twitter.com/USAndChennai/status/1517067638584664064 https://twitter.com/USAndChennai/status/1517067638584664064 If a foreigner works in India on an employment visa, I don't think they have to run into issues what someone faces with the US immigration system. Just see what Curl's author Daniel Stenberg experience with US Visa process, https://daniel.haxx.se/us-visa.html https://daniel.haxx.se/us-visa.html
diebeforei485 4y ago
> Note that India requires prospective citizens to live in the country for 12 years before applying for naturalization Note that India does not have a kafkaesque renewal process for work visas like America does.

rajup 4y ago

Those may be true, but I always assumed that the US of A aspires to do better, American exceptionalism, land of opportunity and all that jazz.

car_analogy 4y ago
This is assuming that more immigration equals better. And even if one does think so, then the USA is doing "better" - by orders of magnitude. The Chinese and Indians are not set to become minorities in their own countries, are they? But thanks to immigration, white Americans practically already are [1], yet it is they that are called xenophobic. Double-standards doesn't begin to describe it. [1] https://www.brookings.edu/research/less-than-half-of-us-children-under-15-are-white-census-shows/ https://www.brookings.edu/research/less-than-half-of-us-chil...
- polygamous_bat 4y ago
  In what part of the US Constitution are the white Americans identified as the essential majority for the country? This is a country that was founded through immigration, unlike China or India, so turning around and crying about becoming a minority just as you are enjoying the benefits of your ancestors migrating seems hypocritical.
  - quantumwannabe 4y ago
    Appealing to the history of immigration in the country doesn't diminish the GP's point as the US has discriminated against the origins and identities of immigrants since its founding. >The Naturalization Act of 1790 (1 Stat. 103, enacted March 26, 1790) was a law of the United States Congress that set the first uniform rules for the granting of United States citizenship by naturalization. The law limited naturalization to "free White person(s) ... of good character", thus excluding Native Americans, indentured servants, slaves, free black people and later Asians, although free black people were allowed citizenship at the state level in a number of states. [1] Race based citizenship remained the law until United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) [2] where the Supreme Court interpreted the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" clause of the 14th Amendment to meant that anyone physically born in the country was automatically granted citizenship. Race-neutral naturalization wasn't enacted until the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 [3] and racial discrimination and national original based immigration (not permanent residency as should be obvious) controls weren't banned until the Hart–Celler Act in 1965 [4]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1790 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1790 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1952 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Ac... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Ac...
    - pyuser583 4y ago
      I’m confused by this … doesn’t “national origin discrimination” make sense in an immigration context. It’s reasonable to treat people from Canada different from people from, say, Litchtenstein. I’m sure there’s some distinction I’m missing.
      - quantumwannabe 4y ago
        What the 1952 law says is that you can't ban people from immigrating because of what country they come from. It doesn't ban the creation caps on the number of people immigrating from a specific countries, which the law also enacted. The 1965 Act repealed country based quotas and replaced them with hemisphere based quotas, which were then themselves repealed and replaced with country based quotas again in the Immigration Act of 1990, which created the modern Diversity Immigrant Visas (as well the modern employment based visas).
- rajup 4y ago
  Again, if you want to resort to whataboutism that’s ok but I just want to point out that it’s hypocritical to then go around the world exporting “freedom” and “values” from an alleged high ground.
  - car_analogy 4y ago
    That's a strange definition of "freedom". Do countries that don't practice mass immigration not have "freedom"? To be free, one must allow one's national identity to be diluted into nothing?
    - rajup 4y ago
      Not sure how you make the jump from sane immigration laws to “dilution of national identity”. If anything the USA does a fantastic job of assimilating a wide gamut of cultures without a lot of friction. Of course if your idea of “national identity” is that it consists only of white people, then I’m sorry but your views are racist and not based on factual history or current reality.
- rajup 4y ago
  Also I’m not sure what the race or being a minority or majority demographic has to do with being xenophobic? Pretty sure there are Indian and Chinese xenophobes in the USA as well.
- passivate 4y ago
  >But thanks to immigration, white Americans practically already are [1], yet it is they that are called xenophobic Why does it matter if a particular race is the majority or minority of citizens? What concerns do you have about it?
  - la6472 4y ago

vgatherps 4y ago

If I was born in a country with an extremely bad immigration system, I lose the right to complain about the bad-but-maybe-not-as-bad immigration system in another country that I'm trying to immigrate to?

weatherlite 4y ago
In a lot of people's eyes yes. Many people resent immigrants complaining even if the complaints are justified.
- tut-urut-utut 4y ago
  > Many people resent immigrants FTFY Many people don't need a reason to resent immigrants, they just use anything they can use as an excuse.
lgbrandon 4y ago
Exactly. I love hearing the people "complain" but try and make the journey or stay. With remote work and automation becoming the norm. Soon we won't need to leave our respective countries and can all co-exist.
- random314 4y ago
  Yes, nobody should complain.
ROTMetro 4y ago
Can you imagine anything more un-American and yet ironically American than "welcome to the USA, now shut up. Also, draconian Kafkaesk rules now govern your life for the entirety of the immigration process"

magtux 4y ago

Are you responsible for everything your Government does ? I would hope not. People need to be treated individually. I thought that was the entire point of liberal democracy.

b112 4y ago
Yes! You are responsible, but more like responsible for the actions of your child, or, an object you own like a house. You are not at fault, if you are a good parent, or if you maintain your house well. So if the child breaks the law, or damages something, if the house has a weakness not known but someone gets injured, you are responsible. But the due dilligence, such as disciplining, teaching, and trying to instill good values in a child, or inspecting and maintaining your house, are key. With a democracy, participating, voting, being an activist on vital matters, working to keep your democracy responsible and behaving correctly is that same due diligence. We're always responsible, but are we at fault? Did we do our best? Or did we decide that taking care of the child was too much bother, and disappear from their lives? Did we try, at least? And twitter posts, facebook this and that don't count here. Because, would that be how you raise a child? Deriding them on twitter? Yelling at other parents because it was their fault?
- magtux 4y ago
  My man, I hope you're not American because the world has a laundry list of complaints against America. People care about different things to different degrees. You compromise on who you think is the closest to your positions. In a country of 1.3B people, there is always divergence of opinion and in fact nearly no-one would have even thought about immigration as a concern when voting. There is a difference between the personal things you can influence and being the 1/13000000th voice of the people.
- guerrilla 4y ago
  Alright bro then I'm holding you personally responsible for everything on this list: https://github.com/binka/essays/blob/master/us_atrocities.md https://github.com/binka/essays/blob/master/us_atrocities.md

spyremeown 4y ago

Yea, but the USofA is supposed to be the land of the Free, all kinds of free, not just "you were not born here"-type free. The whole "give me your sick, your poor..." etc vibe. It's a little ironic at the very least that it's so hard to get into the United States, given its history.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
foobarian 4y ago
I think the times of unclaimed land up for grabs are long over, and people need to get used to a steady state environment that the rest of the world has been in for millenia.
- random314 4y ago
  There has never been a steady state. The "unclaimed land" you speak of was actually claimed by native Americans, who have now been eliminated.

codegeek 4y ago

I never understand this argument. If someone leaves their country to migrate, aren't they looking for a better life ? Just because India requires you to live for 12 years, Indian citizens should just shut up/put up with 18+ years of waiting because their country of origin has it worse/same ? This sounds a lot like "We gave you US citizenship. So shut up and stop criticizing the Govt because you came from a 3rd world country even though you are now a citizen of this country". So much for 1st Amendment or does it not apply to naturalized citizens ?

twofornone 4y ago
Are foreign peoples entitled to US citizenship? Where is the obligation to make the process easy and open to everyone coming from?
- codegeek 4y ago
  Not saying make it easy. Trust me, it is already extremely hard. But I am replying to GP's argument which is basically saying that you should shut up because you are coming from a country which has worse. 2 different things. And yes, there are people who make the argument that if you become a naturalized citizen, you have no right to criticize the Govt or the country since you came from a much worse place. I am tired of that BS. Google "Amy Wax India" and you will know what I am talking about.
  - rajup 4y ago
    Wow this "professor" is a fine piece of work!
- mirceal 4y ago
  you’re looking at this from the wrong angle. ask yourself: why would the US allow these people to come and work here in the first place? it’s because they NEED them. from highly skilled tech workers to “unskilled” low wage workers. Immigration and pumping human capital into our economy is the way the US stays/stayed? dominant and a superpower. Close the pipeline and in 10-20-30 years innovation is gone ,the edge we have us gone. The American dream fuels the growth. Act shitty toward the fuel, scratch your head why things fall apart.

goodpoint 4y ago

> people from those countries complain about the American immigration system People do not get to choose where and when to be born.

valarauko 4y ago

> India requires prospective citizens to live in the country for 12 years before applying for naturalization Yes, for citizenship, as opposed to Permanent Residency - the author of the article must wait another 5 years at the very least to be eligible for citizenship if he desires it.

throw0101a 4y ago

polotics 4y ago

Thank you we just got here a perfect example of whataboutism! What some countries do to some people has nothing to do with what the US of (pardon me) Assholes does to someone who lived there most their lives!

yangikan 4y ago

The whole point is that if you were born anywhere else (except India or China), it is a fairly simple process which would take less than a year (one can file both I-140 and I-485 together).

rayiner 4y ago

As an immigrant to the US, I hate the double standards applied to Americans. Oh, you think Americans are racist for wanting to restrict immigration? How would people in India react to massive immigration from Africa?

random314 4y ago
Lots of loaded statements here. Immigrant describes his immigration situation. Your response 1. How dare you complain 2. I am going to pretend you called Americans racist. (Wattabout Indians being racist) You or your parents being immigrants is no excuse for your crude behavior.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
rajup 4y ago
Double standards or higher standards? I'm pretty sure people in India would react horribly to such a hypothetical situation. But if that's the standard you want to hold Americans and the American government to that's fine but perhaps then the USA should stop preaching to the world and exporting its "values" and "freedoms" and taking the moral high ground in pretty much every conflict around the world.
- rayiner 4y ago
  > perhaps then the USA should stop preaching to the world and exporting its "values" and "freedoms" and taking the moral high ground in pretty much every conflict around the world. As a Gore/Kerry supporter I agree. And I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but there’s been a broad repudiation of George W. Bush’s vision for an evangelical role for America in spreading democracy among his own party. I think Americans have many great virtues. But they’re not aliens, and America isn’t a science experiment. I don’t begrudge any American who wants a country of their own, just like Indians and Bangladeshis do.
  - 4y ago

outworlder 4y ago

> Note that India requires prospective citizens to live in the country for 12 years before applying for naturalization Ok, but the article doesn't even talk about naturalization? It's talking about permanent residency.

DragonStrength 4y ago

And for those commenting "why does country of origin matter," certainly there is something which made one system of governance preferable for outcomes and perhaps too quickly importing from a single culture brings along things which are out of place in the new country. To wit: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cisco-lawsuit/california-accuses-cisco-of-job-discrimination-based-on-indian-employees-caste-idUSKBN2423YE https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cisco-lawsuit/california-...

saravanannkl 4y ago

China is a different story, let's exclude that. India's requirement is 12 years seems a lot, but practically Indian citizen's path to citizenship in US is more than that(~10 years to get GC + mandatory 5 years after GC). EB1 might be an exception, which will also come around 6-8 years. But most end up waiting more than 15 years to become US citizens. US restricts employment visas with a specific time limit. L1(7 years) and H1(6 years). After that period, you have to stay out of the country for 12 months, before you can reapply again. The other option is to apply for Green Card (Permanent Residency). So most of them end up applying GC rather than move out of the country for an year. US has weird rules that inherently makes difficult even for employment based visas. E.g. If your visa is near expiry, then you can apply for extension. But the extension processing times takes up months. You can't travel out of the country during that period. Even if your petition is approved, then you have to go to US embassy in your country of citizenship to get visa stamped in your passport. Unless you have a visa stamped in your passport, you can't reenter US. Practically there is no visa appointment slots available at US embassies in India at this time. You are in a soup if you have to travel on an emergency https://twitter.com/debarghya_das/status/1520966725210042368 https://twitter.com/debarghya_das/status/1520966725210042368 https://twitter.com/USAndChennai/status/1517067638584664064 https://twitter.com/USAndChennai/status/1517067638584664064 If a foreigner works in India on an employment visa, I don't think they have to run into issues what someone faces with the US immigration system. Just see what Curl's author Daniel Stenberg experience with US Visa process, https://daniel.haxx.se/us-visa.html https://daniel.haxx.se/us-visa.html

diebeforei485 4y ago

> Note that India requires prospective citizens to live in the country for 12 years before applying for naturalization Note that India does not have a kafkaesque renewal process for work visas like America does.