4 ms·

The cruelty is the point. They want people to leave so they can refuse to allow them back in. That's the goal. It's not more complicated than that.

rayiner 5mo ago
If you come to the U.S. on a visa that’s explicitly labeled a “nonimmigrant” visa for people who are “coming temporarily to the United States to perform services,” then it’s not “cruel” to actually enforce that. Those words are literally in the law.
- kelnos 5mo ago
  The law doesn't describe reality, though. The so-called "non-immigrant" visas are really not that. "Non-immigrant" has a specific legal meaning, and like many legal terms, they don't match up with what you might consider everyday usage of the term. And even if they were truly non-immigrant, who cares? If someone comes to the US, does good, useful work, and stays out of trouble, I want them to be given the opportunity to stay permanently. You may not, perhaps, but, well... I don't care.
  - rayiner 5mo ago
    When the reality doesn’t match what the law says, that’s a bad thing! > The so-called "non-immigrant" visas are really not that. "Non-immigrant" has a specific legal meaning The legal meaning here is the same as the common usage. For example, H1B is defined as someone “who is coming temporarily to the United States to perform services.” The words here are being used in their ordinary way. > And even if they were truly non-immigrant, who cares? You should care that the actual operation of the immigration system reflects the laws Congress actually passed through the democratic process. Congress didn’t have the votes to pass a permanent immigration pathway back then, and it doesn’t have the votes today. If you want to make your case to change the law, be my guest. There’s zero appetite for it in the GOP, and very little willingness to use political capital on the issue by Democrats. Think about the fuss Democrats have made over deporting illegal immigrants. But they’ve said almost nothing about Trump’s attempts to restrict legal immigration.
    - selimthegrim 5mo ago
      Are you talking about Hart-Celler or 1990?
      - rayiner 5mo ago
        1990. The 1990 law was a compromise that kept H visas as a nonimmigrant temporary worker visa. The 1990 law created EB-1 visas, which are explicitly immigrant visas. So there was a clear intent to reserve the guaranteed permanent residency pathway only for people meeting very high standards.
- CWIZO 5mo ago
  The law is ever changing and is not always a reflection of what's right, moral, ethical, etc. You have plenty of historical examples of this, most prominently slavery being legal. It's ok to defend a thing, but just because the law says so is very rarely a good argument.
petcat 5mo ago
[flagged]
AmazingEveryDay 5mo ago
> The cruelty is the point. This phrase is one of those viral ear worm kinda things tossed into so many conversations, it doesn't actually mean anything at this point it's so overused.
- throwaway85825 5mo ago
  It's shorthand for 'emotional argument'
- waveBidder 5mo ago
  it's a specific claim, they want to set up the process to be so onerous that immigrants self-deport
thehappypm 5mo ago
That isn’t cruelty. It’s immigration policy that the rest of the world already has
- tdeck 5mo ago
  That's not true. If I'm in Japan on a work visa, for example, I don't need to leave the country to apply for permanent residency. And Japan is not a country famously welcoming of immigration.
- bootsmann 5mo ago
  You’re going to need to strongly source this one, sounds completely made up.

rayiner 5mo ago

If you come to the U.S. on a visa that’s explicitly labeled a “nonimmigrant” visa for people who are “coming temporarily to the United States to perform services,” then it’s not “cruel” to actually enforce that. Those words are literally in the law.

kelnos 5mo ago
The law doesn't describe reality, though. The so-called "non-immigrant" visas are really not that. "Non-immigrant" has a specific legal meaning, and like many legal terms, they don't match up with what you might consider everyday usage of the term. And even if they were truly non-immigrant, who cares? If someone comes to the US, does good, useful work, and stays out of trouble, I want them to be given the opportunity to stay permanently. You may not, perhaps, but, well... I don't care.
- rayiner 5mo ago
  When the reality doesn’t match what the law says, that’s a bad thing! > The so-called "non-immigrant" visas are really not that. "Non-immigrant" has a specific legal meaning The legal meaning here is the same as the common usage. For example, H1B is defined as someone “who is coming temporarily to the United States to perform services.” The words here are being used in their ordinary way. > And even if they were truly non-immigrant, who cares? You should care that the actual operation of the immigration system reflects the laws Congress actually passed through the democratic process. Congress didn’t have the votes to pass a permanent immigration pathway back then, and it doesn’t have the votes today. If you want to make your case to change the law, be my guest. There’s zero appetite for it in the GOP, and very little willingness to use political capital on the issue by Democrats. Think about the fuss Democrats have made over deporting illegal immigrants. But they’ve said almost nothing about Trump’s attempts to restrict legal immigration.
  - selimthegrim 5mo ago
    Are you talking about Hart-Celler or 1990?
    - rayiner 5mo ago
      1990. The 1990 law was a compromise that kept H visas as a nonimmigrant temporary worker visa. The 1990 law created EB-1 visas, which are explicitly immigrant visas. So there was a clear intent to reserve the guaranteed permanent residency pathway only for people meeting very high standards.
CWIZO 5mo ago
The law is ever changing and is not always a reflection of what's right, moral, ethical, etc. You have plenty of historical examples of this, most prominently slavery being legal. It's ok to defend a thing, but just because the law says so is very rarely a good argument.

petcat 5mo ago

[flagged]

AmazingEveryDay 5mo ago

> The cruelty is the point. This phrase is one of those viral ear worm kinda things tossed into so many conversations, it doesn't actually mean anything at this point it's so overused.

throwaway85825 5mo ago
It's shorthand for 'emotional argument'
waveBidder 5mo ago
it's a specific claim, they want to set up the process to be so onerous that immigrants self-deport

thehappypm 5mo ago

That isn’t cruelty. It’s immigration policy that the rest of the world already has

tdeck 5mo ago
That's not true. If I'm in Japan on a work visa, for example, I don't need to leave the country to apply for permanent residency. And Japan is not a country famously welcoming of immigration.
bootsmann 5mo ago
You’re going to need to strongly source this one, sounds completely made up.