3 ms·

Sorry - I missed the 'non treaty' mention in your post. Doesn't that pretty much mean H1Bs (and maybe all the investor visas)? While I agree that it would incr

Sorry - I missed the 'non treaty' mention in your post. Doesn't that pretty much mean H1Bs (and maybe all the investor visas)? While I agree that it would increase employee freedom to have them bear the cost and not be tied to the company, I doubt that it would end up with increasing income - in theory, all the Silicon Vally companies are already paying as much as they can to attract talent. edit: actually, there is of course also O, L, P and I. I'm not sure how much you'd gain by folding them into a single category - there's very little relationship between,e eg, whether Nadal should be here for the US Open and how many programmers should be coming here. L perhaps has some overlap.

dragonwriter 13y ago
> Sorry - I missed the 'non treaty' mention in your post. Doesn't that pretty much mean H1Bs (and maybe all the investor visas)? > edit: actually, there is of course also O, L, P and I. And the immigrant E series Employment-related ones. There's a few others that might fit into the general description I laid out depending on exactly where you draw the line on transitory (non-immigrant H-2A, for instance, could be argued either way.) (I specify immigrant/non-immigrant, because there's a handful of categories designations used for both immigrant and non-immigrant classes where the use between the two classes has no real relationship; E is one of these.) > I'm not sure how much you'd gain by folding them into a single category - there's very little relationship between,e eg, whether Nadal should be here for the US Open and how many programmers should be coming here. "How many" isn't really an issue, since the whole idea of folding it into one class is that its a class that is open to any non-banned entrant and isn't numerically limited, instead its open-for-pay. Anyhow, I'd think Nadal for the US Open be a non-immigrant B-1, which is transitory by any reasonable definition, and certainly isn't in the scope of what I was proposing.

dragonwriter 13y ago

> Sorry - I missed the 'non treaty' mention in your post. Doesn't that pretty much mean H1Bs (and maybe all the investor visas)? > edit: actually, there is of course also O, L, P and I. And the immigrant E series Employment-related ones. There's a few others that might fit into the general description I laid out depending on exactly where you draw the line on transitory (non-immigrant H-2A, for instance, could be argued either way.) (I specify immigrant/non-immigrant, because there's a handful of categories designations used for both immigrant and non-immigrant classes where the use between the two classes has no real relationship; E is one of these.) > I'm not sure how much you'd gain by folding them into a single category - there's very little relationship between,e eg, whether Nadal should be here for the US Open and how many programmers should be coming here. "How many" isn't really an issue, since the whole idea of folding it into one class is that its a class that is open to any non-banned entrant and isn't numerically limited, instead its open-for-pay. Anyhow, I'd think Nadal for the US Open be a non-immigrant B-1, which is transitory by any reasonable definition, and certainly isn't in the scope of what I was proposing.