9 ms·

Not trying to make a political point at all and perhaps a controversial take. But, it’s specifically and maybe implicitly by design. Meaning they made this way

Not trying to make a political point at all and perhaps a controversial take. But, it’s specifically and maybe implicitly by design. Meaning they made this way precisely so you have to reapply so they can change their mind or block you out later. Nothing about getting a visa is permanent and you’re fully at risk when you move here with that type of status. If you evaluate the situation that’s always been the case.

CamperBob2 1mo ago
Unless you use the visa to marry Donald Trump, as his 3rd wife did.
- pstuart 1mo ago
  [flagged]
  - walrus01 1mo ago
    Let he who hasn't cheated on his first wife to get with his second wife to cheat on his second wife to get with his 'genius visa' third wife cast the first stone! Seriously, people, everyone does it!
  - mindslight 1mo ago
    [flagged]
- dhosek 1mo ago
  His first wife too.
- seebeegeebee 1mo ago
  So brave
- rbanffy 1mo ago
  That shows immigrants work on jobs American's don't want.
tty456 1mo ago
[flagged]
- conductr 1mo ago
  I’m just laying it out there in a obvious way because if someone said “if you push this button, you could get electrocuted” you wouldn’t call it inhumane when someone pushed the button and got electrocuted. I didn’t want to get into the politics behind this, but I don’t think those affected have any right to complain about it. It’s something they opted into knowing the risks. Especially at this time of political leadership, you should probably always have expected you may not return from a visa renewal trip.
shostack 1mo ago
The cruelty is the point.
- uygiugiu 1mo ago
  [flagged]
- rayiner 1mo ago
  It’s not “cruelty” to have and enforce rules. The words “temporary” and “nonimmigrant” is plastered all over the laws that govern these visas. People shouldn’t have treated them as permanent immigration visas. And employers shouldn’t have mislead employees into thinking these were permanent immigration visas. It’s like saying that it’s “cruelty” to remove someone who uses a 2 hour parking spot as their permanent car parking.
  - wasabi991011 1mo ago
    This entire article is about immigrant visas.
    - rayiner 1mo ago
      No it’s about B-1 and B-2 visas: > The State Department and Department of Homeland Security are reviewing all B-1 business and B-2 tourist visas, he said. https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/temporary-visitors-for-business/b-1-temporary-business-visitor https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/temporary... (“B-1 Temporary Business Visitor”)
      - nielsbot 1mo ago
        Suspicious given the xenophobic nationalist government the US has in place. "But we're just following the rules!" innocent look
        rayiner 1mo ago
        American immigration laws are designed to have a small stream of permanent immigration, both to protect american jobs and to protect american culture from foreign influence. That’s what people voted for over decades. The New York Times did a good podcast on the issue. https://youtu.be/xgDdTV7A57w https://youtu.be/xgDdTV7A57w. If you want to define “xenophobic” to encompass that then that’s your choice. I don't think that's a sensible or useful definition. The concept of "xenophobia" only applies to individuals. It's wrong to assume that somebody will be a certain way because of their nationality. That obviously doesn't translate to immigration, which involves the mass movement of people who do have a distinct culture in the aggregate, and do transplant their culture into the U.S.: https://www.sup.org/books/economics-and-finance/culture-transplant/excerpt/table-contents https://www.sup.org/books/economics-and-finance/culture-tran...
tptacek 1mo ago
Lots of countries have temporary worker status. The requirement to leave the country to re-up it appears to be a distinctively American thing.
- bigtoe416 1mo ago
  I was recently in Malaysia on a digital nomad visa. When it expired I was required to leave the country and either wait for the renewal to go through or reenter on a tourist visa (and either not work or work illegally). So not distinctively American.
- conductr 1mo ago
  But my point is it’s a known factor up front, and it’s so they can (have the option of) getting you to leave without allowing you back in. The thinking is that if people had visas that expires or revoked, they just wouldn’t leave and enforcement would be difficult (we have a forceful ICE now, but not always). Having them leave first is by design even if unique.
- s1artibartfast 1mo ago
  Is extremely common in europe and asia
  - tptacek 1mo ago
    In which European countries?
    - s1artibartfast 1mo ago
      All 29 countries in the Schengen Zone require exit to renew tourist visas Germany, Italy, France, Switzerland, Austria, and most EU nations generally require non-EU citizens to return to their home country to change visa types.
      - jeremyjh 1mo ago
        We're discussing immigration visas here.
hvb2 1mo ago
The leaving part is not the issue, as you try to immigrate into a country you're subject to the rules that country sets. You're always free to not immigrate into that country (this is not about asylum). The issue here is that, if you just left the country to do everything the country asked you, you are now in limbo. For how long? No one can tell. Does this mean you lose your job? Maybe. And when you decide it's no longer worth it, you might even have issues getting back in to get your stuff... Retraining your people CAN be done without it being so disruptive, they chose not to.
- sidewndr46 1mo ago
  You just described most if not all government functions in the US. Applied for a permit? Better know the right person to call if you ever want it to get approved
- conductr 1mo ago
  > The issue here is that, if you just left the country to do everything the country asked you, you are now in limbo. I feel like I’ve said it a few times but - Yes, exactly. The country wants you to leave and then get’s to decide if you can come back. That’s how it’s designed. On purpose. You’re approaching it from a perspective where you’re being asked to leave and your reentry is a right. It’s not. They never said, if you leave you can come back. They said, leave and we’ll see. The risk of being blocked out is inherent by anyone residing in a country that has this similar process; there are many.
  - hvb2 1mo ago
    > I feel like I’ve said it a few times but - Yes, exactly. The country wants you to leave and then get’s to decide if you can come back. That’s how it’s designed. On purpose. That is how it's designed, and that's fine. But make a decision... They're pausing the decision making for an indefinite amount of time. That's not how it was designed, but it sure does look like that's on purpose.
    - conductr 1mo ago
danmaz74 1mo ago
Yes, but that should be on a case by case basis. Blocking everybody is just an ideologically stupid choice, besides being inhumane.
s_dev 1mo ago
I can confirm Ireland does this as well. I'm not familiar with immigration law as have both US and EU passports and can travel to work freely between the two. While I critique the US for a lot and it does get a lot wrong I think many countries do this.
noelwelsh 1mo ago
There is a difference between what is legal and what is moral. If you think that there is no difference you also hold that slavery was moral up until the time it was illegal (and you might then wonder why abolitionists campaigned against a moral act.) Similarly, the visa system may have always had this uncertainty but that does not mean it is moral, or that it is moral to use it in this way.
- inemesitaffia 1mo ago
  Better talk to Bhutan
- philipallstar 1mo ago
  Who said it was moral?
  - noelwelsh 1mo ago
    That is the implication of what conductr wrote.
deleted 1mo ago
[deleted]
shevy-java 1mo ago
The issue I see still is with regards to property rights. Because to me it seems the USA also automatically seizes all belongings, e. g. if you purchased something before and paid taxes in the USA. That seems not fair.
digitaltrees 1mo ago
And they may let you rot in a deportation facility for months “pending deportation proceedings” which they haven’t hired judges to handle? If we hired more judges with the money used to build and run the facilities we would work through the back log of cases in a humane and predictable way in line with our historical commitment to the rule of law. This is terror by design.

CamperBob2 1mo ago

Unless you use the visa to marry Donald Trump, as his 3rd wife did.

pstuart 1mo ago
[flagged]
- walrus01 1mo ago
  Let he who hasn't cheated on his first wife to get with his second wife to cheat on his second wife to get with his 'genius visa' third wife cast the first stone! Seriously, people, everyone does it!
- mindslight 1mo ago
  [flagged]
dhosek 1mo ago
His first wife too.
seebeegeebee 1mo ago
So brave
rbanffy 1mo ago
That shows immigrants work on jobs American's don't want.

tty456 1mo ago

[flagged]

conductr 1mo ago
I’m just laying it out there in a obvious way because if someone said “if you push this button, you could get electrocuted” you wouldn’t call it inhumane when someone pushed the button and got electrocuted. I didn’t want to get into the politics behind this, but I don’t think those affected have any right to complain about it. It’s something they opted into knowing the risks. Especially at this time of political leadership, you should probably always have expected you may not return from a visa renewal trip.

shostack 1mo ago

The cruelty is the point.

uygiugiu 1mo ago
[flagged]
rayiner 1mo ago
It’s not “cruelty” to have and enforce rules. The words “temporary” and “nonimmigrant” is plastered all over the laws that govern these visas. People shouldn’t have treated them as permanent immigration visas. And employers shouldn’t have mislead employees into thinking these were permanent immigration visas. It’s like saying that it’s “cruelty” to remove someone who uses a 2 hour parking spot as their permanent car parking.
- wasabi991011 1mo ago
  This entire article is about immigrant visas.
  - rayiner 1mo ago
    No it’s about B-1 and B-2 visas: > The State Department and Department of Homeland Security are reviewing all B-1 business and B-2 tourist visas, he said. https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/temporary-visitors-for-business/b-1-temporary-business-visitor https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/temporary... (“B-1 Temporary Business Visitor”)
    - nielsbot 1mo ago
      Suspicious given the xenophobic nationalist government the US has in place. "But we're just following the rules!" innocent look
      - rayiner 1mo ago
        American immigration laws are designed to have a small stream of permanent immigration, both to protect american jobs and to protect american culture from foreign influence. That’s what people voted for over decades. The New York Times did a good podcast on the issue. https://youtu.be/xgDdTV7A57w https://youtu.be/xgDdTV7A57w. If you want to define “xenophobic” to encompass that then that’s your choice. I don't think that's a sensible or useful definition. The concept of "xenophobia" only applies to individuals. It's wrong to assume that somebody will be a certain way because of their nationality. That obviously doesn't translate to immigration, which involves the mass movement of people who do have a distinct culture in the aggregate, and do transplant their culture into the U.S.: https://www.sup.org/books/economics-and-finance/culture-transplant/excerpt/table-contents https://www.sup.org/books/economics-and-finance/culture-tran...

tptacek 1mo ago

Lots of countries have temporary worker status. The requirement to leave the country to re-up it appears to be a distinctively American thing.

bigtoe416 1mo ago
I was recently in Malaysia on a digital nomad visa. When it expired I was required to leave the country and either wait for the renewal to go through or reenter on a tourist visa (and either not work or work illegally). So not distinctively American.
conductr 1mo ago
But my point is it’s a known factor up front, and it’s so they can (have the option of) getting you to leave without allowing you back in. The thinking is that if people had visas that expires or revoked, they just wouldn’t leave and enforcement would be difficult (we have a forceful ICE now, but not always). Having them leave first is by design even if unique.
s1artibartfast 1mo ago
Is extremely common in europe and asia
- tptacek 1mo ago
  In which European countries?
  - s1artibartfast 1mo ago
    All 29 countries in the Schengen Zone require exit to renew tourist visas Germany, Italy, France, Switzerland, Austria, and most EU nations generally require non-EU citizens to return to their home country to change visa types.
    - jeremyjh 1mo ago
      We're discussing immigration visas here.

hvb2 1mo ago

The leaving part is not the issue, as you try to immigrate into a country you're subject to the rules that country sets. You're always free to not immigrate into that country (this is not about asylum). The issue here is that, if you just left the country to do everything the country asked you, you are now in limbo. For how long? No one can tell. Does this mean you lose your job? Maybe. And when you decide it's no longer worth it, you might even have issues getting back in to get your stuff... Retraining your people CAN be done without it being so disruptive, they chose not to.

sidewndr46 1mo ago
You just described most if not all government functions in the US. Applied for a permit? Better know the right person to call if you ever want it to get approved
conductr 1mo ago
> The issue here is that, if you just left the country to do everything the country asked you, you are now in limbo. I feel like I’ve said it a few times but - Yes, exactly. The country wants you to leave and then get’s to decide if you can come back. That’s how it’s designed. On purpose. You’re approaching it from a perspective where you’re being asked to leave and your reentry is a right. It’s not. They never said, if you leave you can come back. They said, leave and we’ll see. The risk of being blocked out is inherent by anyone residing in a country that has this similar process; there are many.
- hvb2 1mo ago
  > I feel like I’ve said it a few times but - Yes, exactly. The country wants you to leave and then get’s to decide if you can come back. That’s how it’s designed. On purpose. That is how it's designed, and that's fine. But make a decision... They're pausing the decision making for an indefinite amount of time. That's not how it was designed, but it sure does look like that's on purpose.
  - conductr 1mo ago

danmaz74 1mo ago

Yes, but that should be on a case by case basis. Blocking everybody is just an ideologically stupid choice, besides being inhumane.

s_dev 1mo ago

I can confirm Ireland does this as well. I'm not familiar with immigration law as have both US and EU passports and can travel to work freely between the two. While I critique the US for a lot and it does get a lot wrong I think many countries do this.

noelwelsh 1mo ago

There is a difference between what is legal and what is moral. If you think that there is no difference you also hold that slavery was moral up until the time it was illegal (and you might then wonder why abolitionists campaigned against a moral act.) Similarly, the visa system may have always had this uncertainty but that does not mean it is moral, or that it is moral to use it in this way.

inemesitaffia 1mo ago
Better talk to Bhutan
philipallstar 1mo ago
Who said it was moral?
- noelwelsh 1mo ago
  That is the implication of what conductr wrote.

deleted 1mo ago

[deleted]

shevy-java 1mo ago

The issue I see still is with regards to property rights. Because to me it seems the USA also automatically seizes all belongings, e. g. if you purchased something before and paid taxes in the USA. That seems not fair.

digitaltrees 1mo ago

And they may let you rot in a deportation facility for months “pending deportation proceedings” which they haven’t hired judges to handle? If we hired more judges with the money used to build and run the facilities we would work through the back log of cases in a humane and predictable way in line with our historical commitment to the rule of law. This is terror by design.