5 ms·

A country may vet entrants according to any criteria it chooses, just like I may enforce any limits I wish unto who may enter my house. If the criteria are too

by dmitrygr 11mo ago

A country may vet entrants according to any criteria it chooses, just like I may enforce any limits I wish unto who may enter my house. If the criteria are too egregious for the gain the applicants might get by being in that country, the talented immigrants who have options may go elsewhere and the country may need relax the criteria to recapture the market for bright minds.

bdavisx 11mo ago
I don't think anyone would argue with that - the problem here is that the requirements are being changed thru a process that involves no public or congressional input. The other issue is that the vetting will likely not just look for terroristic or other 'illegal' social media content - it will look for whatever the administration decides to look for - again without oversight.
- danielmarkbruce 11mo ago
  We can't require public or congressional input on everything. As such, we need to elect a competent administration.
commiepatrol 11mo ago
[flagged]
- estearum 11mo ago
  No, they’re saying the talented ones, the ones with the most optionality, will be the first to select alternative destinations. Typical adverse selection problem.
  - codeddesign 11mo ago
    If companies were looking for talent, 80% of H1B’s wouldn’t be from India, but from a much more diverse set of countries. The fact is that India culture is much more so subservient, willing to work more for less pay, won’t unionize, don’t follow major US/Euro holidays, don’t care about work/life balance..etc. Like it or not, it’s nothing more than exploitation as cattle to increase bottom line and sold as increased output.
    - estearum 11mo ago
      Not sure how that’s relevant to my comment. You’re just saying there’s variance in quality and asserting your opinion about where quality exists/doesn’t exist. Fine. The fact there is any variance at all means the highest quality people will be deterred first. Adverse selection.
      - codeddesign 11mo ago
        Highly relevant as it makes your point mute. The highest quality of talent is already not being brought in. A very specific pool of people are, and not for reasons of talent.
        estearum 11mo ago
        No no, your observation is that a large amount of (per your assessment) low-quality people are already being brought in. This is completely unrelated to the question of whether the highest quality people are being brought in. By analogy: "New York City doesn't have a lot of the greatest restaurants in the country because 90% of the restaurants in New York City are not that great." It's just logically invalid. And divorced from reality. There's a reason the top students in the world overwhelmingly come to study in the US (at least up until recently). The US's dominance on this and its downstream effects is absolutely unambiguous and it's frankly silly to suggest otherwise. "We also have a lot of underqualified Indian H1Bs" is completely irrelevant. P.S. It's "moot" not "mute"
    - inglor_cz 11mo ago
      India is also very nepotistic and it might well be Indian managers already present in the US pushing for entry of their relatives, schoolmates and friends.
csb6 11mo ago
Countries have that right, and people have the right to criticize them for their policies and agitate to change them. This is a concept known as “politics”.
ceejayoz 11mo ago
> A country may vet entrants according to any criteria it chooses… Sure. But said country may have set rules for itself, like the First Amendment, that limit what's permissible beyond what international law and sovereignty alone permit. (To extend the house analogy, you may not actually be able to "enforce any limits I wish unto who may enter my house". It is, for example, generally unlawful for you to evict your minor child. If you rent out a room, that tenant has rights you can't violate, too. You can't keep out a cop with a valid warrant, either.)
- tshaddox 11mo ago
  > But said country may have set rules for itself, like the First Amendment Probably better to think of these as rules that the ruled people have for their rulers.
  - medler 11mo ago
    No, we have no rulers but ourselves.
nielsbot 11mo ago
- When you say “a country” this vetting may not in fact be what the majority of citizens want. - I suspect there is racism and xenophobia behind this - What kind of weak-ass people cannot tolerate dissenting opinions from visitors?
- newfriend 11mo ago
  The People elected the current executive to represent them. You are free to suspect anything you want - that doesn't make it true. Americans are tired of their country being abused.
  - nielsbot 11mo ago
    > The People elected the current executive to represent them. Not all the people and the policies being put in place were not what was promised. > Americans are tired of their country being abused. Which Americans do you mean specifically? And which abuse? That's not specific enough.
    - newfriend 11mo ago
      > Not all the people Meaningless. You are implying that unless someone is elected with 100% of votes, they do not represent the People? > policies being put in place were not what was promised. Again meaningless. Did Trump make promises specifically to not increase stringency of immigration law? He was elected to make decisions on behalf of the electorate. > Which Americans do you mean specifically? And which abuse? That's not specific enough. The Americans who elected the current President. Abuse by by companies and individuals defrauding American workers and taxpayers, while the government does nothing to combat it. The abuse by the government allowing millions of immigrants per year to the detriment of Americans (speaking of "not what was promised", the 1965 INA). I will take even this pittance at this point.
      - nielsbot 11mo ago
        My point is that the majority of the country is against what Trump and his racist collaborators are doing. Personally, I think racism is bad. > Abuse by by companies and individuals defrauding American workers and taxpayers, while the government does nothing to combat it I don't think this is quite correct, but I do agree companies should not by able to abuse immigration law to abuse immigrants for cheap and/or pliant labor. Workers rights should be upheld universally and our country should invest in narrowing our insane wealth gap.
danielmarkbruce 11mo ago
This is a silly comment. The legality isn't really in question. It's whether or not it's a good idea. And citizens of a country will debate whether it's a good idea or not. If we citizens decide it's a bad idea, we'll vote out the government currently in power.

bdavisx 11mo ago

I don't think anyone would argue with that - the problem here is that the requirements are being changed thru a process that involves no public or congressional input. The other issue is that the vetting will likely not just look for terroristic or other 'illegal' social media content - it will look for whatever the administration decides to look for - again without oversight.

danielmarkbruce 11mo ago
We can't require public or congressional input on everything. As such, we need to elect a competent administration.

commiepatrol 11mo ago

[flagged]

estearum 11mo ago
No, they’re saying the talented ones, the ones with the most optionality, will be the first to select alternative destinations. Typical adverse selection problem.
- codeddesign 11mo ago
  If companies were looking for talent, 80% of H1B’s wouldn’t be from India, but from a much more diverse set of countries. The fact is that India culture is much more so subservient, willing to work more for less pay, won’t unionize, don’t follow major US/Euro holidays, don’t care about work/life balance..etc. Like it or not, it’s nothing more than exploitation as cattle to increase bottom line and sold as increased output.
  - estearum 11mo ago
    Not sure how that’s relevant to my comment. You’re just saying there’s variance in quality and asserting your opinion about where quality exists/doesn’t exist. Fine. The fact there is any variance at all means the highest quality people will be deterred first. Adverse selection.
    - codeddesign 11mo ago
      Highly relevant as it makes your point mute. The highest quality of talent is already not being brought in. A very specific pool of people are, and not for reasons of talent.
      - estearum 11mo ago
        No no, your observation is that a large amount of (per your assessment) low-quality people are already being brought in. This is completely unrelated to the question of whether the highest quality people are being brought in. By analogy: "New York City doesn't have a lot of the greatest restaurants in the country because 90% of the restaurants in New York City are not that great." It's just logically invalid. And divorced from reality. There's a reason the top students in the world overwhelmingly come to study in the US (at least up until recently). The US's dominance on this and its downstream effects is absolutely unambiguous and it's frankly silly to suggest otherwise. "We also have a lot of underqualified Indian H1Bs" is completely irrelevant. P.S. It's "moot" not "mute"
  - inglor_cz 11mo ago
    India is also very nepotistic and it might well be Indian managers already present in the US pushing for entry of their relatives, schoolmates and friends.

csb6 11mo ago

Countries have that right, and people have the right to criticize them for their policies and agitate to change them. This is a concept known as “politics”.

ceejayoz 11mo ago

> A country may vet entrants according to any criteria it chooses… Sure. But said country may have set rules for itself, like the First Amendment, that limit what's permissible beyond what international law and sovereignty alone permit. (To extend the house analogy, you may not actually be able to "enforce any limits I wish unto who may enter my house". It is, for example, generally unlawful for you to evict your minor child. If you rent out a room, that tenant has rights you can't violate, too. You can't keep out a cop with a valid warrant, either.)

tshaddox 11mo ago
> But said country may have set rules for itself, like the First Amendment Probably better to think of these as rules that the ruled people have for their rulers.
- medler 11mo ago
  No, we have no rulers but ourselves.

nielsbot 11mo ago

- When you say “a country” this vetting may not in fact be what the majority of citizens want. - I suspect there is racism and xenophobia behind this - What kind of weak-ass people cannot tolerate dissenting opinions from visitors?

newfriend 11mo ago
The People elected the current executive to represent them. You are free to suspect anything you want - that doesn't make it true. Americans are tired of their country being abused.
- nielsbot 11mo ago
  > The People elected the current executive to represent them. Not all the people and the policies being put in place were not what was promised. > Americans are tired of their country being abused. Which Americans do you mean specifically? And which abuse? That's not specific enough.
  - newfriend 11mo ago
    > Not all the people Meaningless. You are implying that unless someone is elected with 100% of votes, they do not represent the People? > policies being put in place were not what was promised. Again meaningless. Did Trump make promises specifically to not increase stringency of immigration law? He was elected to make decisions on behalf of the electorate. > Which Americans do you mean specifically? And which abuse? That's not specific enough. The Americans who elected the current President. Abuse by by companies and individuals defrauding American workers and taxpayers, while the government does nothing to combat it. The abuse by the government allowing millions of immigrants per year to the detriment of Americans (speaking of "not what was promised", the 1965 INA). I will take even this pittance at this point.
    - nielsbot 11mo ago
      My point is that the majority of the country is against what Trump and his racist collaborators are doing. Personally, I think racism is bad. > Abuse by by companies and individuals defrauding American workers and taxpayers, while the government does nothing to combat it I don't think this is quite correct, but I do agree companies should not by able to abuse immigration law to abuse immigrants for cheap and/or pliant labor. Workers rights should be upheld universally and our country should invest in narrowing our insane wealth gap.

danielmarkbruce 11mo ago

This is a silly comment. The legality isn't really in question. It's whether or not it's a good idea. And citizens of a country will debate whether it's a good idea or not. If we citizens decide it's a bad idea, we'll vote out the government currently in power.