6 ms·

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

by rayiner 2mo 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 2mo ago
This entire article is about immigrant visas.
- rayiner 2mo 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 2mo ago
    Suspicious given the xenophobic nationalist government the US has in place. "But we're just following the rules!" innocent look
    - rayiner 2mo 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...
      - lanstin 2mo ago
        I know a lot of people that support these cruel and chaotic changes to our immigration laws and they are mostly xenophobic - they don’t like people speaking languages other than English at the store, they don’t like religions different than their own, they don’t like family traditions different than their own.
        rayiner 2mo ago
        Xenophobia is about assuming that people are different because of their national origin. It's not "xenophobia" if there are actual differences, especially if there are actual changes to someone's society. Treating all cultural differences as equally desirable is cultural relativism. Not everyone who rejects cultural relativism is xenophobic. You're allowed to prefer your own culture and to live in a society that reflects your culture. The countries that most immigrants come from treat that principle as axiomatic.
        TimorousBestie 2mo ago
        You’ve successfully mangled the definition of xenophobia. “A strong aversion, antipathy, or fear of foreigners.” Simple as. It wouldn’t be wrong if you admitted that you want some degree of xenophobia. But I suppose that sounds even less convincing than your preferred abuse of terminology.
        rayiner 2mo ago
        > “A strong aversion, antipathy, or fear of foreigners.” Yes, it's antipathy to foreigners in and of themselves. It's antipathy based on the mere fact that someone is a foreigner by stereotyping them based on nationality. Antipathy based on actual cultural differences.
        account42 2mo ago
        I think the confusion of "no one should be persecuted for being part of group X" with "no one part of group X should be persecuted" is the root of far left ideology.
  - abduhl 2mo ago
    Are we reading different articles? The headline says immigrant visas. The first paragraph says immigrant visas. “The Trump administration has paused processing of immigrant visas, which allow recipients to move permanently to the U.S., to train visa officers on new guidance ensuring that applicants have enough financial means to support themselves after they arrive.”
  - f30e3dfed1c9 2mo ago
    The very first sentence of the article begins "The Trump administration has paused processing of immigrant visas..."
baby_souffle 2mo ago
> It’s like saying that it’s “cruelty” to remove someone who uses a 2 hour parking spot as their permanent car parking. That's a very weak analogy for the moral issue here. The consequences are radically different; losing a parking space is a minor inconvenience; losing immigration status can/does involve relocation and upends employment, family, property, and years of life planning / general stability.
- rayiner 2mo ago
  [flagged]
  - baby_souffle 2mo ago
    > The moral issue is the same in both cases: there’s a big sign that says “temporary.” People have chosen to ignore the sign. No. Your analogy works well solely for the concept of temporary authorization. If you're offering up 2h parking as proof that the moral stakes are equivalent...
    - rayiner 2mo ago
      The moral issue is defined by the nature of the rule, not the stakes for someone who has transgressed. Enforcing the rule doesn’t become less legitimate just because someone has invested more in breaking it.
      - deleted 2mo ago
        [deleted]
      - debatem1 2mo ago
        Why is that how the moral issue is defined? Seems to me the moral issue is the stakes, and I have no idea why I would cede that judgement to you. What's your basis for claiming moral authority? If you don't, please show your homework: what strange anticonsequentialism underlies your claims, and why should I agree with it?
deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]
earthdeity 2mo ago
Rules are well and good, but norms are important too. An immigration system governs people making major life choices, and companies making large investments. Legally, there's very little the state can't do, there could be a bill passed tomorrow revoking all immigrant visas. But businesses, and by proxy the nation, benefit from work done by these workers. Sudden unilateral moves like this are stupid on a social level (cause damage to businesses and communities), and on a moral level. "First do no harm" is a principle just as suited to government as medicine. Even if there is a broad consensus for reducing or eliminating H1B visas, why punish people who followed the system as it exists and contributed? It's perfectly possible to pass a bill, stop handing out new visas, and sunset renewals after some 1-2 year timeframe. It's legal to invite a bunch of guests over and kick them all out after you open the wine, but you're going to lose friends. And ultimately it will be businesses and individuals paying the cost for these needlessly volatile course changes. Tourism and high skilled immigration rates will face lasting harm.
- rayiner 2mo ago
  > Rules are well and good, but norms are important too Not when the norm is open defiance of the rules for decades. > An immigration system governs people making major life choices, and companies making large investments. And it also governs the right of people to decide who they want to invite into their country and, ultimately, with whom they want to share democratic governance of their home. Those are important stakes, not to be minimized. But you neglected to mention them.
  - earthdeity 2mo ago
    Defiance of the rules? What rules exactly? The law does make clear that H1-Bs are temporary workers. But it's also permitted to renew, and workers are allowed to pursue immigrant status. In fact, until 1990 there was specific language saying that H1-B's (like all visitor visas) are not supposed to want to stay, they must maintain a foreign residence "which he has no intention of abandoning". This language was struck and the visas became, and still are, the most common defacto "seeking green card" status for workers seeking to move the US. To be clear, while a person who enters the US on an H1-B is a temporary worker, they are not prohibited from also seeking a permanent status. So it's fully within the rules, which is why it becomes a question of norms. In the present, the H1-B is (was?) the most popular route to permanent immigration to the US besides family sponsorship. I specifically said that the government (and the citizenry by extension) can decide who it wants to enter and stay, how much immigration, whatever. But changing the rules suddenly, upending peoples lives who have not broken any rules, through a pathway the US state itself freely established, is immoral and short sighted. It should go without saying that there are experts across many fields in industry that any country would benefit from attracting. The US is harming its capacity to attract and keep that talent with these ridiculous theatrics.
mrguyorama 2mo ago
>It’s not “cruelty” to have and enforce rules. Depends on the rules. "You have no rights and are someone else's property" was once a rule, and it was absolutely cruel.

by rayiner 2mo ago

wasabi991011 2mo ago

This entire article is about immigrant visas.

rayiner 2mo 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 2mo ago
  Suspicious given the xenophobic nationalist government the US has in place. "But we're just following the rules!" innocent look
  - rayiner 2mo 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...
    - lanstin 2mo ago
      I know a lot of people that support these cruel and chaotic changes to our immigration laws and they are mostly xenophobic - they don’t like people speaking languages other than English at the store, they don’t like religions different than their own, they don’t like family traditions different than their own.
      - rayiner 2mo ago
        Xenophobia is about assuming that people are different because of their national origin. It's not "xenophobia" if there are actual differences, especially if there are actual changes to someone's society. Treating all cultural differences as equally desirable is cultural relativism. Not everyone who rejects cultural relativism is xenophobic. You're allowed to prefer your own culture and to live in a society that reflects your culture. The countries that most immigrants come from treat that principle as axiomatic.
        TimorousBestie 2mo ago
        You’ve successfully mangled the definition of xenophobia. “A strong aversion, antipathy, or fear of foreigners.” Simple as. It wouldn’t be wrong if you admitted that you want some degree of xenophobia. But I suppose that sounds even less convincing than your preferred abuse of terminology.
        rayiner 2mo ago
        > “A strong aversion, antipathy, or fear of foreigners.” Yes, it's antipathy to foreigners in and of themselves. It's antipathy based on the mere fact that someone is a foreigner by stereotyping them based on nationality. Antipathy based on actual cultural differences.
        account42 2mo ago
        I think the confusion of "no one should be persecuted for being part of group X" with "no one part of group X should be persecuted" is the root of far left ideology.
- abduhl 2mo ago
  Are we reading different articles? The headline says immigrant visas. The first paragraph says immigrant visas. “The Trump administration has paused processing of immigrant visas, which allow recipients to move permanently to the U.S., to train visa officers on new guidance ensuring that applicants have enough financial means to support themselves after they arrive.”
- f30e3dfed1c9 2mo ago
  The very first sentence of the article begins "The Trump administration has paused processing of immigrant visas..."

baby_souffle 2mo ago

> It’s like saying that it’s “cruelty” to remove someone who uses a 2 hour parking spot as their permanent car parking. That's a very weak analogy for the moral issue here. The consequences are radically different; losing a parking space is a minor inconvenience; losing immigration status can/does involve relocation and upends employment, family, property, and years of life planning / general stability.

rayiner 2mo ago
[flagged]
- baby_souffle 2mo ago
  > The moral issue is the same in both cases: there’s a big sign that says “temporary.” People have chosen to ignore the sign. No. Your analogy works well solely for the concept of temporary authorization. If you're offering up 2h parking as proof that the moral stakes are equivalent...
  - rayiner 2mo ago
    The moral issue is defined by the nature of the rule, not the stakes for someone who has transgressed. Enforcing the rule doesn’t become less legitimate just because someone has invested more in breaking it.
    - deleted 2mo ago
      [deleted]
    - debatem1 2mo ago
      Why is that how the moral issue is defined? Seems to me the moral issue is the stakes, and I have no idea why I would cede that judgement to you. What's your basis for claiming moral authority? If you don't, please show your homework: what strange anticonsequentialism underlies your claims, and why should I agree with it?

deleted 2mo ago

[deleted]

earthdeity 2mo ago

Rules are well and good, but norms are important too. An immigration system governs people making major life choices, and companies making large investments. Legally, there's very little the state can't do, there could be a bill passed tomorrow revoking all immigrant visas. But businesses, and by proxy the nation, benefit from work done by these workers. Sudden unilateral moves like this are stupid on a social level (cause damage to businesses and communities), and on a moral level. "First do no harm" is a principle just as suited to government as medicine. Even if there is a broad consensus for reducing or eliminating H1B visas, why punish people who followed the system as it exists and contributed? It's perfectly possible to pass a bill, stop handing out new visas, and sunset renewals after some 1-2 year timeframe. It's legal to invite a bunch of guests over and kick them all out after you open the wine, but you're going to lose friends. And ultimately it will be businesses and individuals paying the cost for these needlessly volatile course changes. Tourism and high skilled immigration rates will face lasting harm.

rayiner 2mo ago
> Rules are well and good, but norms are important too Not when the norm is open defiance of the rules for decades. > An immigration system governs people making major life choices, and companies making large investments. And it also governs the right of people to decide who they want to invite into their country and, ultimately, with whom they want to share democratic governance of their home. Those are important stakes, not to be minimized. But you neglected to mention them.
- earthdeity 2mo ago
  Defiance of the rules? What rules exactly? The law does make clear that H1-Bs are temporary workers. But it's also permitted to renew, and workers are allowed to pursue immigrant status. In fact, until 1990 there was specific language saying that H1-B's (like all visitor visas) are not supposed to want to stay, they must maintain a foreign residence "which he has no intention of abandoning". This language was struck and the visas became, and still are, the most common defacto "seeking green card" status for workers seeking to move the US. To be clear, while a person who enters the US on an H1-B is a temporary worker, they are not prohibited from also seeking a permanent status. So it's fully within the rules, which is why it becomes a question of norms. In the present, the H1-B is (was?) the most popular route to permanent immigration to the US besides family sponsorship. I specifically said that the government (and the citizenry by extension) can decide who it wants to enter and stay, how much immigration, whatever. But changing the rules suddenly, upending peoples lives who have not broken any rules, through a pathway the US state itself freely established, is immoral and short sighted. It should go without saying that there are experts across many fields in industry that any country would benefit from attracting. The US is harming its capacity to attract and keep that talent with these ridiculous theatrics.

mrguyorama 2mo ago

>It’s not “cruelty” to have and enforce rules. Depends on the rules. "You have no rights and are someone else's property" was once a rule, and it was absolutely cruel.