3 ms·

> My understanding is that SK citizens cannot get E-4 Nobody can, because it doesn’t exist. The E-4 visa mentioned in the article is a proposed new classificat

> My understanding is that SK citizens cannot get E-4 Nobody can, because it doesn’t exist. The E-4 visa mentioned in the article is a proposed new classification that a bill pending in Congress would, if enacted, create just for Korean workers, similar to the existing E-3 classification for Australians.

garbawarb 1y ago
Would that be done by congress? I thought all nonimmigrant-intent work visas like that were written into treaties.
- lazyasciiart 1y ago
  They’re written into US immigration law, possibly having been negotiated in a treaty earlier.
- jkaplowitz 1y ago
  Yes, by Congress, even if and when required by a treaty or other international agreement. Look up §101(a)(15) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, codified at 8 USC §1101(a)(15), for all the nonimmigrant classifications: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1101 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1101 8 USC §1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) has H-1B, 8 USC §1101(a)(15)(E)(iii) has E-3, and so on. A treaty is not self-executing under US law unless it is both ratified by 2/3 of the Senate pursuant to the Treaty Clause of the Constitution and also contains language expressing that it will be self-executing upon ratification, in which case it has the same domestic legal effect as an Act of Congress. See Medellín v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491 (2008), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medell%C3%ADn_v._Texas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medell%C3%ADn_v._Texas for a recent SCOTUS precedent about this. Many agreements which are treated internationally as treaties, including most US free trade agreements, are not considered as such for purposes of US constitutional law; many others are not self-executing even when they are ratified through the Treaty Clause procedure. These only have effect in US domestic law when implemented by implementing legislation passed by Congress, or to whatever extent the executive branch handles implementation through regulations, policies, or similar which it already has the authority to promulgate without new legislation.

garbawarb 1y ago

Would that be done by congress? I thought all nonimmigrant-intent work visas like that were written into treaties.

lazyasciiart 1y ago
They’re written into US immigration law, possibly having been negotiated in a treaty earlier.
jkaplowitz 1y ago
Yes, by Congress, even if and when required by a treaty or other international agreement. Look up §101(a)(15) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, codified at 8 USC §1101(a)(15), for all the nonimmigrant classifications: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1101 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1101 8 USC §1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) has H-1B, 8 USC §1101(a)(15)(E)(iii) has E-3, and so on. A treaty is not self-executing under US law unless it is both ratified by 2/3 of the Senate pursuant to the Treaty Clause of the Constitution and also contains language expressing that it will be self-executing upon ratification, in which case it has the same domestic legal effect as an Act of Congress. See Medellín v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491 (2008), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medell%C3%ADn_v._Texas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medell%C3%ADn_v._Texas for a recent SCOTUS precedent about this. Many agreements which are treated internationally as treaties, including most US free trade agreements, are not considered as such for purposes of US constitutional law; many others are not self-executing even when they are ratified through the Treaty Clause procedure. These only have effect in US domestic law when implemented by implementing legislation passed by Congress, or to whatever extent the executive branch handles implementation through regulations, policies, or similar which it already has the authority to promulgate without new legislation.