4 ms·
There's no changes that affect the real bottleneck: the annual quota on green cards and the per-country limits of 7% or children aging out. Those all require Co
by jmyeet 3y ago
There's no changes that affect the real bottleneck: the annual quota on green cards and the per-country limits of 7% or children aging out. Those all require Congressional action and that's just not going to happen in the current political environment [1].
Here's my take: you get a work visa for 3-5 years that's tied to your employer and allows you to freely leave and re-enter the US. Believe it or not, we still have visa holders that can't leave the US without having to re-apply for their visa.
On renewal that becomes a 3-5 year visa that isn't tied to your employer. You can freely change jobs.
At the end of that period, it just becomes a green card as long as you satisfy presence tests. Naturalization has continuous and physical presence tests. Just use those. Failing that it is simply renewed for another 3-5 years.
If you satisfy the extraordinary category or get a NIW you simply skip the first step of having an employer-tied visa.
This would free up USCIS to deal with actual visa fraud rather than all the pointless hoops they currently (are forced to) enforce.
[1]: https://spectrumnews1.com/oh/columbus/news/2023/12/21/congress-ineffective-2023 https://spectrumnews1.com/oh/columbus/news/2023/12/21/congre...
- pc86 3y agoWon't this just dramatically shrink the number of initial work visas given out? Because you'll have to assume each one is now just a green card with extra steps.
- jmyeet 3y agoWhy do we need a quota for qualified people getting work visas (or green cards) at all? We don't.
- sokoloff 3y agoIf the qualifications are for a field that has 95 workers for every 100 jobs, come on in. If it’s for a field that already has 105 workers for every 100 jobs, I can see a lot of reasons ($$$) why current residents would want to see their potential competitors stifled or limited in number.
- rayiner 3y agoBecause we don’t want an unlimited number of foreigners moving into the country? Like it or not that’s the reason Congress won’t touch the issue, right?
- polygamous_bat 3y agoPlease check the requirements for each of the "national interest waivers" and tell me how many "unlimited foreigners" meet that requirement.
- neuronexmachina 3y agoTIL: https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/permanent-workers https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/permanent...
- gourabmi 3y agoThis "unlimited number" argument is a common dog whistle. If the Dept of Labor is certifying each one of the qualified immigrants and vetting the credentials, how is this unlimited?
- junofan 3y agoDog whistle for what? Calling for deportation? The comment is literally just “we can’t take every immigrant.” What other position is there?
- gourabmi 3y agoYou should not take every immigrant. Take immigrants who bring their skills and productivity to you. Don't make their lives difficult with unnecessary hoops to jump through. Skilled immigration is not asylum or illegal immigration.
- geodel 3y agoWell they are taking 100s of thousands immigrants as they see reasonable. What is problem with following established rules and timelines? Immigrants would surely be aware of those before even thinking of immigration. Besides if Europe / Australia / Canada have much simpler immigration why would any skilled/productive prospective immigrant would even think of US.
- krisoft 3y agoYour take sound reasonable and practical. The only problem with it is that the problems it solves are problems for people who don’t have a say in the matter. While the drawbacks it implies affects people who have a say in the matter. (Either through voting or lobbying) The fact that the current system imposes a form of long identured servitude on imigrants is not a bug but a feature. This benefits the employers in very direct ways. The fact that the current system processes applications from select regions of the world much faster than other regions of the world is not a bug but a feature. It is a system which maintains plausible deniability while in effect racially selective. This is a sad and quite odious, but it appears to be consistent with the preferences of many voters. All in all: a good plan with some fatal flaws. And I am very sad to say that.
- alephnerd 3y ago> The fact that the current system imposes a form of long identured servitude on imigrants is not a bug but a feature I was on the hill when the initial congressional negotiations over immigration began in the mid-2010s. The stumbling block has always been illegal immigration. [0] The Dems congressional leadership at the time decided that no reform on legal immigration would happen without illegal immigration reform (eg. DREAM act) The GOP congressional leadership at the time decided that no reform on illegal immigration would happen without legal immigration. Neither side budged, and neither side really cared because immigrants (legal or illegal) can't vote. [0] - https://www.politico.com/story/2013/12/nancy-pelosi-immigration-reform-101014 https://www.politico.com/story/2013/12/nancy-pelosi-immigrat...
- toyg 3y ago> neither side really cared because immigrants (legal or illegal) can't vote. This really is the alpha and omega of migration policies all around the world: the people affected don't have a say, and the people not affected use the issues to play hateful games.
- junofan 3y agoI don’t think that’s fair. If I could cross a border to earn $5M a year, I wouldn’t call the locals hateful for coming up with ways to protect their own livelihoods, and I wouldn’t feel entitled to a say.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> you get a work visa for 3-5 years that's tied to your employer Time spent getting a degree at an accredited American university should count as the same.
- ta988 3y agoDisagree as it has no warranty you are good enough to keep a job, only that you could pay fees every year.
- JumpCrisscross 3y agoSure. Nobody said you get citizenship. Just a work visa not tied to an employer.
- mcmcmc 3y agoWork visas and education visas are two different things that should be treated separately.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> Work visas and education visas are two different things that should be treated separately It makes zero sense to educate kids and then force them to grow those fruits abroad. If we’re going to teach them, it makes sense to give them a chance to work here applying their new skills. This is such low-hanging win-win fruit.
- ta988 3y agoI am all for visas post education, to give a chance. But they should be separate from work visas so they can be tweaked separately.
- Racing0461 3y agoThere is no difference. The goal is to avoid a Canadian Vancouver situation
- mkii 3y agoThe per-country limits are a good thing, the "bottleneck" is a feature not a bug
- fooker 3y agoAre you familiar with the idea of Chesterton’s fence? Why do you think we have such a convoluted immigration scheme? Can you think of ways to exploit the system you have suggested?
- dehrmann 3y agoThinking about unintended consequences is good, but you're assuming more intentionality to existing laws than is actually there. It's convoluted more for political reasons than for pragmatic ones.
- Racing0461 3y agoThe bottle neck is on purpose.
- bgnn 3y agoThis is similar to how it works in the Netherlands. First 5 years as "knowlage immigrant" your visa depends on your work. Not tied to an employer per se but working in certain sectors (IT, SW dev, HW dev etc) and earning minimum a certain amount per year. As long as you satisfy the conditions you are free to change jobs. If you lose employment, you have 3 months search period with extension possibility. After legally living in NL you have the option to either get a permanent residence permit or becime a citizen.