3 ms·

> Applying for a greencard while working on an H, J or O-class visa is extremely common. But it’s not supposed to be extremely common to apply for a green card

by rayiner 5mo ago

> Applying for a greencard while working on an H, J or O-class visa is extremely common. But it’s not supposed to be extremely common to apply for a green card on an H or J visa. Those visas are explicitly “nonimmigrant” visas for people “temporarily” in the U.S. who have “no intention of abandoning” their foreign residence. Read the statute: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:8%20section:1101%20edition:prelim) https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:8%20section:1.... It’s subsections (a)(15), (a)(15)(H)(i)(b) and (a)(15)(J). The people who thought of this are trying to return the practice to the actual intent of the law. The law was sold to the American public as a temporary worker program. It was not billed as a pathway for permanent residency.

beering 5mo ago
Sure, it’s temporary. But what if you’ve been working in the US for a while, like your job, and want to go permanent? Does it make sense to have to give up your job, move back home where there may not be a US consulate, and then apply from there? Or just apply for permanent residency? Why does your physical location matter if you’re in the country legally already? If the intention was to limit the number of people becoming permanent residents, then they could have done that explicitly. But by doing it this way, they are just fucking with people. And the talent that built our tech will take all their knowledge and skills back to their home country. If the intention is to strengthen other countries by stopping their brain drain, then this would be a good move.
- rayiner 5mo ago
  Why are you looking at the law from the viewpoint of the foreign worker? Obviously what they want is a quick and easy path to citizenship. But they don’t get a vote. The question is what was the intention of the H1B program when the law was enacted by duly elected legislators? It was never sold to the public as a path to permanent residency. It certainly wasn’t sold to the public as a system where each H1B granted would lead to citizenship, followed by bringing several family members with them through uncapped family reunification visas.
  - skeeter2020 5mo ago
    OK, then why has there always been the ability to adjust your immigration status for someone like an H1B since 1952, and and why was it expanded in the 90's to allow categories - like overstayed visits - pay a fee and apply to convert without leaving? It was an acknowledgement that millions of people are already embedded in U.S. families and labor markets, and Congress preferred a penalty-fee legalization path over forcing departure because that was in the best interest of the country. It's that last part that Trump ignores.
  - greiskul 5mo ago
    Can't answer for others, but I look at this law from the viewpoint of foreign workers, cause I am a foreigner worker. In Canada. Decided to absolutely never immigrate to the US due to the US blatant rise in xenophobia. And the US has proven me correct over and over again in that assessment. Will watch with great pleasure the brain drain your country will face, and I honestly hope your economy will completely collapse.
    - rayiner 5mo ago
      > I honestly hope your economy will completely collapse. The U.S. passed restrictive immigration laws in 1921. The foreign born population dropped to under 5% by 1970 (compared to 15% today). The decade on either side of that was a golden age for Silicon Valley.
      - zzrrt 5mo ago
        For the record, Sergey Brin, Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, Patrick and John Collison, and Jerry Yang are foreign-born. Probably more would not have been here if their parents had not been allowed to immigrate. Now that you mention it, I would trade a few of them away, but I doubt the market would like to erase their work.
        bluecheese452 5mo ago
        The first three we would be better off without, don’t recognize the last three. Not sure you are really selling your point.
jltsiren 5mo ago
The US is a common law system, where the law is a combination of statutes and precedent. The statutes alone are insufficient for interpreting the law. Your approach would be more correct in a civil law system, but there are no pure civil law systems anywhere in the world. In actual civil law countries, once there is an established interpretation of the law, it usually cannot be changed without legislative action.
dwa3592 5mo ago
BS!! H is a dual intent visa. Do you have any idea how the law works?
lefra 5mo ago
People change their minds. Is that illegal? Maybe they had the intention to only be in the US temporarily at first, but now they'd like to get permanent residence. Why shouldn't they be able to apply for it, from the US, while still on the temporary visa? Then the administration can say yes or no, in the same way that they can say yes or no to someone applying from abroad.

by rayiner 5mo ago

beering 5mo ago

Sure, it’s temporary. But what if you’ve been working in the US for a while, like your job, and want to go permanent? Does it make sense to have to give up your job, move back home where there may not be a US consulate, and then apply from there? Or just apply for permanent residency? Why does your physical location matter if you’re in the country legally already? If the intention was to limit the number of people becoming permanent residents, then they could have done that explicitly. But by doing it this way, they are just fucking with people. And the talent that built our tech will take all their knowledge and skills back to their home country. If the intention is to strengthen other countries by stopping their brain drain, then this would be a good move.

rayiner 5mo ago
Why are you looking at the law from the viewpoint of the foreign worker? Obviously what they want is a quick and easy path to citizenship. But they don’t get a vote. The question is what was the intention of the H1B program when the law was enacted by duly elected legislators? It was never sold to the public as a path to permanent residency. It certainly wasn’t sold to the public as a system where each H1B granted would lead to citizenship, followed by bringing several family members with them through uncapped family reunification visas.
- skeeter2020 5mo ago
  OK, then why has there always been the ability to adjust your immigration status for someone like an H1B since 1952, and and why was it expanded in the 90's to allow categories - like overstayed visits - pay a fee and apply to convert without leaving? It was an acknowledgement that millions of people are already embedded in U.S. families and labor markets, and Congress preferred a penalty-fee legalization path over forcing departure because that was in the best interest of the country. It's that last part that Trump ignores.
- greiskul 5mo ago
  Can't answer for others, but I look at this law from the viewpoint of foreign workers, cause I am a foreigner worker. In Canada. Decided to absolutely never immigrate to the US due to the US blatant rise in xenophobia. And the US has proven me correct over and over again in that assessment. Will watch with great pleasure the brain drain your country will face, and I honestly hope your economy will completely collapse.
  - rayiner 5mo ago
    > I honestly hope your economy will completely collapse. The U.S. passed restrictive immigration laws in 1921. The foreign born population dropped to under 5% by 1970 (compared to 15% today). The decade on either side of that was a golden age for Silicon Valley.
    - zzrrt 5mo ago
      For the record, Sergey Brin, Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, Patrick and John Collison, and Jerry Yang are foreign-born. Probably more would not have been here if their parents had not been allowed to immigrate. Now that you mention it, I would trade a few of them away, but I doubt the market would like to erase their work.
      - bluecheese452 5mo ago
        The first three we would be better off without, don’t recognize the last three. Not sure you are really selling your point.

jltsiren 5mo ago

The US is a common law system, where the law is a combination of statutes and precedent. The statutes alone are insufficient for interpreting the law. Your approach would be more correct in a civil law system, but there are no pure civil law systems anywhere in the world. In actual civil law countries, once there is an established interpretation of the law, it usually cannot be changed without legislative action.

dwa3592 5mo ago

BS!! H is a dual intent visa. Do you have any idea how the law works?

lefra 5mo ago

People change their minds. Is that illegal? Maybe they had the intention to only be in the US temporarily at first, but now they'd like to get permanent residence. Why shouldn't they be able to apply for it, from the US, while still on the temporary visa? Then the administration can say yes or no, in the same way that they can say yes or no to someone applying from abroad.