4 ms·

> It’s a perfectly logical (if not humane given current immigration law) position to hold that companies should be required to lay off visa holders first and fo

> It’s a perfectly logical (if not humane given current immigration law) position to hold that companies should be required to lay off visa holders first and for there to be a “cooling off” period between layoffs and hiring of visa holders. Given these folks could be 10+ year long-term Indian residents of the US with approved I-140s waiting for their priority dates to come up, I'd say this would be incredibly inhumane. Generally sending people back where they came from because the company they work at made poor decisions feels like a bad idea, actually. Especially for a country as dependent on immigration as the US is to even come close to maintaining its population.

ipaddr 3y ago
Inhumane would be beating the employees. 10 years at Google will open more doors than the applicant could ever go through
- estebank 3y ago
  After living and working in a place for 10 years you no longer have "a place to go back," the new place is your home, regardless of whether USCIS and US immigration laws categorize you as a "non-resident alien." Uprooting people's lives, including that of US nationals (10 years is long enough to meet someone and have kids, even people that do not have a US citizenship or permanent residence either) is not humane. Visa holders have since 2017 a 60 days "grace period" in which H1B Visa holders have to find a new job, while L1 visa holders have that time to pack up and leave.
  - oceliker 3y ago
    Small nit, anybody who stayed in the US for 10 years is very unlikely to be a nonresident alien (which is mainly an IRS tax classification and doesn’t have much to do with having an immigrant visa) source: current resident alien
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - estebank 3y ago
      That wording is used both by the IRS and USCIS. Non-GC holders are non-resident aliens, but some visas are "dual intent" which allow you to become a resident alien/permanent resident/green card holder. For the IRS being a resident alien means that when you get kicked out of the country after (iirc) living in here for 7 years you have to pay taxes on any assets you own in the US as if you had sold them, just like Americans have to when renouncing their citizenship. Edit: Quick googling to double check myself and it seems you're right in that USCIS indeed doesn't use that wording, which I must be getting confused with some other term they use in some form, or some other agency, or I'm just plain wrong and got the IRS wording internalized with something else.
    - arcticbull 3y ago
      Indeed I suspect they were looking for nonimmigrant. Resident alien is synonymous with lawful permanent resident or green card holder, however nonresident alien is a tax term.
  - diversionfactor 3y ago
    I worked that long in another country, as an American, and had kids there. Then I was laid off. The government didn’t care, my employer didn’t care, I had to leave and uproot everything. This is how it works in most of the world. Only in America do we think an immigrant “deserves” a job while letting native born citizens go hungry.
    - throwaway5959 3y ago
      Yeah, I’m curious how immigration works in India, how generous the grace period etc is there.
    - atq2119 3y ago
      In other words: you had it bad in the past, therefore the future is not allowed to be better. More seriously, while this particular discussion centers around US visas, obviously the analogous arguments apply to other countries as well.
    - rhaway84773 3y ago
      You do realize that basically 90+% of Americans today are all immigrants right? You do realize that right? Essentially you are stating everyone who loses a job in the U.S. should leave the US. Or alternatively you want to draw a line when the good immigrants are allowed to enter after which are the bad immigrants. And I’m sure that conveniently that line will ensure your family becomes part of the good immigrants.
      - confidantlake 3y ago
        This is not true. If your parents were immigrants and you were born here you are not an immigrant.
        arcticbull 3y ago
        Hm, not really. That would make you a second-generation immigrant. [1] First-generation immigrants are folks who are born outside the US and naturalize. "In the United States, among demographers and other social scientists, 'second generation [immigrants]' refers to the U.S.-born children of foreign-born parents." Not in the strictest sense, but it's not the bright line you're making it out to be either. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigrant_generations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigrant_generations
rayiner 3y ago
These folks should invest their talents in India instead. My mom was talking about how her siblings were selling their inherited property in Bangladesh (where land prices are skyrocketing) and buying property in the US, Canada, and Australia. And I’m like—you realize this is helping to keep Bangladesh is poor, right? All that capital flowing out to developed countries. (Not to mention the brain drain.) Meanwhile they’re voting to turn America into Bangladesh. -_-
- throwaway5959 3y ago
  What’s going to happen to Bangladesh wrt climate change?
- rhaway84773 3y ago
  Why don’t you move to Bangladesh since you seem to believe that making Bangladesh richer should be such a high priority?
- UncleMeat 3y ago
  One of my coworkers is gay. He is an Indian citizen and has been in the US for about two decades, roughly half of his life and basically all of his adult life. He is still waiting for a green card and will likely wait a lot longer. "Just invest your talents in India" is asking him to leave his friends, his long term partner, his job, his home, and everything he has known for most of his adult life. It is also asking him to move to a place that is oppressive to his sexuality and denies him his deserved human rights. It is inhumane. I also have no idea how H1Bs are voting to turn American into Bangladesh. They aren't allowed to vote.
  - rayiner 3y ago
    > Just invest your talents in India" is asking him to leave his friends, his long term partner, his job, his home, and everything he has known for most of his adult life. It is also asking him to move to a place that is oppressive to his sexuality and denies him his deserved human rights. It is inhumane. India is his country. There’s nothing “inhumane” about ending a residency situation that is—according to the words on the paper, “temporary.” I agree it’s enormously disruptive for Indians who think H1B is anything other than a temporary work visa. I agree it’s wrong that US employers and many politicians give people a false impression of the H1B program. That’s all the more reason for people to stay in India instead of dealing with this stupid system. > I also have no idea how H1Bs are voting to turn American into Bangladesh. They aren't allowed to vote. I’m talking about people who are naturalized citizens. There is a saying “I’d rather be governed by the first 100 people listed in the Boston food directory than the faculty of Harvard University.” This is a common sentiment among Americans. But it’s completely incomprehensible to people from the subcontinent. There is a deeply held belief in Credentialism and elite bureaucratic governance. When these people become citizens, they vote, according to these deeply, held cultural beliefs.

ipaddr 3y ago

Inhumane would be beating the employees. 10 years at Google will open more doors than the applicant could ever go through

estebank 3y ago
After living and working in a place for 10 years you no longer have "a place to go back," the new place is your home, regardless of whether USCIS and US immigration laws categorize you as a "non-resident alien." Uprooting people's lives, including that of US nationals (10 years is long enough to meet someone and have kids, even people that do not have a US citizenship or permanent residence either) is not humane. Visa holders have since 2017 a 60 days "grace period" in which H1B Visa holders have to find a new job, while L1 visa holders have that time to pack up and leave.
- oceliker 3y ago
  Small nit, anybody who stayed in the US for 10 years is very unlikely to be a nonresident alien (which is mainly an IRS tax classification and doesn’t have much to do with having an immigrant visa) source: current resident alien
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - estebank 3y ago
    That wording is used both by the IRS and USCIS. Non-GC holders are non-resident aliens, but some visas are "dual intent" which allow you to become a resident alien/permanent resident/green card holder. For the IRS being a resident alien means that when you get kicked out of the country after (iirc) living in here for 7 years you have to pay taxes on any assets you own in the US as if you had sold them, just like Americans have to when renouncing their citizenship. Edit: Quick googling to double check myself and it seems you're right in that USCIS indeed doesn't use that wording, which I must be getting confused with some other term they use in some form, or some other agency, or I'm just plain wrong and got the IRS wording internalized with something else.
  - arcticbull 3y ago
    Indeed I suspect they were looking for nonimmigrant. Resident alien is synonymous with lawful permanent resident or green card holder, however nonresident alien is a tax term.
- diversionfactor 3y ago
  I worked that long in another country, as an American, and had kids there. Then I was laid off. The government didn’t care, my employer didn’t care, I had to leave and uproot everything. This is how it works in most of the world. Only in America do we think an immigrant “deserves” a job while letting native born citizens go hungry.
  - throwaway5959 3y ago
    Yeah, I’m curious how immigration works in India, how generous the grace period etc is there.
  - atq2119 3y ago
    In other words: you had it bad in the past, therefore the future is not allowed to be better. More seriously, while this particular discussion centers around US visas, obviously the analogous arguments apply to other countries as well.
  - rhaway84773 3y ago
    You do realize that basically 90+% of Americans today are all immigrants right? You do realize that right? Essentially you are stating everyone who loses a job in the U.S. should leave the US. Or alternatively you want to draw a line when the good immigrants are allowed to enter after which are the bad immigrants. And I’m sure that conveniently that line will ensure your family becomes part of the good immigrants.
    - confidantlake 3y ago
      This is not true. If your parents were immigrants and you were born here you are not an immigrant.
      - arcticbull 3y ago
        Hm, not really. That would make you a second-generation immigrant. [1] First-generation immigrants are folks who are born outside the US and naturalize. "In the United States, among demographers and other social scientists, 'second generation [immigrants]' refers to the U.S.-born children of foreign-born parents." Not in the strictest sense, but it's not the bright line you're making it out to be either. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigrant_generations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigrant_generations

rayiner 3y ago

These folks should invest their talents in India instead. My mom was talking about how her siblings were selling their inherited property in Bangladesh (where land prices are skyrocketing) and buying property in the US, Canada, and Australia. And I’m like—you realize this is helping to keep Bangladesh is poor, right? All that capital flowing out to developed countries. (Not to mention the brain drain.) Meanwhile they’re voting to turn America into Bangladesh. -_-

throwaway5959 3y ago
What’s going to happen to Bangladesh wrt climate change?
rhaway84773 3y ago
Why don’t you move to Bangladesh since you seem to believe that making Bangladesh richer should be such a high priority?
UncleMeat 3y ago
One of my coworkers is gay. He is an Indian citizen and has been in the US for about two decades, roughly half of his life and basically all of his adult life. He is still waiting for a green card and will likely wait a lot longer. "Just invest your talents in India" is asking him to leave his friends, his long term partner, his job, his home, and everything he has known for most of his adult life. It is also asking him to move to a place that is oppressive to his sexuality and denies him his deserved human rights. It is inhumane. I also have no idea how H1Bs are voting to turn American into Bangladesh. They aren't allowed to vote.
- rayiner 3y ago
  > Just invest your talents in India" is asking him to leave his friends, his long term partner, his job, his home, and everything he has known for most of his adult life. It is also asking him to move to a place that is oppressive to his sexuality and denies him his deserved human rights. It is inhumane. India is his country. There’s nothing “inhumane” about ending a residency situation that is—according to the words on the paper, “temporary.” I agree it’s enormously disruptive for Indians who think H1B is anything other than a temporary work visa. I agree it’s wrong that US employers and many politicians give people a false impression of the H1B program. That’s all the more reason for people to stay in India instead of dealing with this stupid system. > I also have no idea how H1Bs are voting to turn American into Bangladesh. They aren't allowed to vote. I’m talking about people who are naturalized citizens. There is a saying “I’d rather be governed by the first 100 people listed in the Boston food directory than the faculty of Harvard University.” This is a common sentiment among Americans. But it’s completely incomprehensible to people from the subcontinent. There is a deeply held belief in Credentialism and elite bureaucratic governance. When these people become citizens, they vote, according to these deeply, held cultural beliefs.