5 ms·

Okay but this has not been the case in the US and everyone knows that. We can try to make things up to rationalize why this being done. Or, we can be honest, a

Okay but this has not been the case in the US and everyone knows that. We can try to make things up to rationalize why this being done. Or, we can be honest, and acknowledge these actors have proven themselves to be irrational. What is happening is that an end-goal is desired, and then the trump administration is working backwards to make it happen.

declan_roberts 4mo ago
H1B as a visa status (and the one nearly everyone in this thread being affected by the green card status) is only 36 years old. The immigration act of 1999 very clearly created it as a temporary visa not a stepping stone to a green card. That's a modern invention.
- array_key_first 4mo ago
  The "only" is doing A LOT of heavy lifting. Also, you're being a bit dishonest here, because this does not only apply to H1B visa holders. Also, are those people not the exact demographic that so-called "anti illegal" Republicans should want? They're highly educated and desirable, not welfare queens right? I will repeat my point. You have been lied to. The Republicans do not give even a single shit about what is legal and what is not. What they desire is less brown people, and then they work backwards to justify it. Any other interpretation is just not reasonable at this point, with the evidence we have been given.
  - declan_roberts 4mo ago
    Nobody would care about this if it didn't affect H1B. The confusion is whether h1b is a temporary visa or some kind of stepping stone. According to the immigration act of 1990 and US law it's a temporary visa and subject to this rule. For example O-1 is not affected because O-1 is not considered a temporary visa in US law. O-1 also has no cap. The USA can take in unlimited O-1 immigrants.
    - nvgrw 4mo ago
      O-1 is nonimmigrant in the statute, so by definition we take in zero O-1 immigrants. It’s a temporary work visa. People care about this because it is arbitrary and capricious and runs counter to decades of established practice.
  - Arun2009 4mo ago
    > What they desire is less brown people, and then they work backwards to justify it. Which is a perfectly fine thing by the way. I can't see anything wrong with it. If the Americans want fewer "brown" people in their country, that is entirely their prerogative. It's their country, after all. I am from India. Indians themselves have preferences for the kind of people they'd like to allow to immigrate to India. Bangladeshi muslims are not desired, whereas Tibetans are welcome. Intra-regional migration is a problem within India itself, with certain populations being seen as less desirable in certain areas. Perhaps the "brown" people can work on fixing their home countries so that they wouldn't have to emigrate in order to enjoy a better quality of life.
    - abalashov 4mo ago
      > Which is a perfectly fine thing by the way. I can't see anything wrong with it. If the Americans want fewer "brown" people in their country, that is entirely their prerogative. It's their country, after all. Which Americans? Whose country is it that "their" is referring to here?
    - aceofspades19 4mo ago
      > Perhaps the "brown" people can work on fixing their home countries so that they wouldn't have to emigrate in order to enjoy a better quality of life. That's an ignorant thing to say. Even in democratic western countries, it can be very difficult for the average person to institute change even at a local level. If you have to battle corruption or war on top of that, it could be impossible. For example, would it be fair to say that a Sundanese villager should just fix their country as PMCs being hired by the UAE(and others) are committing genocide? Or would you consider that reasonable to flee the country in search of a better life? We have to admit there are lots of cases where people can't just "fix" their own country as there are complex geopolitical issues that a normal person, or a group of normal people are not able to fix. If Americans want fewer "brown" people in their country, the idea should be to promote global economic and political stability so that people can reasonably make their countries a better place, not to just tell them to go away and fix their own problems.
      - 4mo ago
- attentive 4mo ago
  congress made h1b dual-intent in 1990
s1artibartfast 4mo ago
What are the Canadians up to and why are they doing it?

declan_roberts 4mo ago

H1B as a visa status (and the one nearly everyone in this thread being affected by the green card status) is only 36 years old. The immigration act of 1999 very clearly created it as a temporary visa not a stepping stone to a green card. That's a modern invention.

array_key_first 4mo ago
The "only" is doing A LOT of heavy lifting. Also, you're being a bit dishonest here, because this does not only apply to H1B visa holders. Also, are those people not the exact demographic that so-called "anti illegal" Republicans should want? They're highly educated and desirable, not welfare queens right? I will repeat my point. You have been lied to. The Republicans do not give even a single shit about what is legal and what is not. What they desire is less brown people, and then they work backwards to justify it. Any other interpretation is just not reasonable at this point, with the evidence we have been given.
- declan_roberts 4mo ago
  Nobody would care about this if it didn't affect H1B. The confusion is whether h1b is a temporary visa or some kind of stepping stone. According to the immigration act of 1990 and US law it's a temporary visa and subject to this rule. For example O-1 is not affected because O-1 is not considered a temporary visa in US law. O-1 also has no cap. The USA can take in unlimited O-1 immigrants.
  - nvgrw 4mo ago
    O-1 is nonimmigrant in the statute, so by definition we take in zero O-1 immigrants. It’s a temporary work visa. People care about this because it is arbitrary and capricious and runs counter to decades of established practice.
- Arun2009 4mo ago
  > What they desire is less brown people, and then they work backwards to justify it. Which is a perfectly fine thing by the way. I can't see anything wrong with it. If the Americans want fewer "brown" people in their country, that is entirely their prerogative. It's their country, after all. I am from India. Indians themselves have preferences for the kind of people they'd like to allow to immigrate to India. Bangladeshi muslims are not desired, whereas Tibetans are welcome. Intra-regional migration is a problem within India itself, with certain populations being seen as less desirable in certain areas. Perhaps the "brown" people can work on fixing their home countries so that they wouldn't have to emigrate in order to enjoy a better quality of life.
  - abalashov 4mo ago
    > Which is a perfectly fine thing by the way. I can't see anything wrong with it. If the Americans want fewer "brown" people in their country, that is entirely their prerogative. It's their country, after all. Which Americans? Whose country is it that "their" is referring to here?
  - aceofspades19 4mo ago
    > Perhaps the "brown" people can work on fixing their home countries so that they wouldn't have to emigrate in order to enjoy a better quality of life. That's an ignorant thing to say. Even in democratic western countries, it can be very difficult for the average person to institute change even at a local level. If you have to battle corruption or war on top of that, it could be impossible. For example, would it be fair to say that a Sundanese villager should just fix their country as PMCs being hired by the UAE(and others) are committing genocide? Or would you consider that reasonable to flee the country in search of a better life? We have to admit there are lots of cases where people can't just "fix" their own country as there are complex geopolitical issues that a normal person, or a group of normal people are not able to fix. If Americans want fewer "brown" people in their country, the idea should be to promote global economic and political stability so that people can reasonably make their countries a better place, not to just tell them to go away and fix their own problems.
    - 4mo ago
attentive 4mo ago
congress made h1b dual-intent in 1990

s1artibartfast 4mo ago

What are the Canadians up to and why are they doing it?