3 ms·

It was much easier to get a green card when I applied (pre 9/11) than it is today. I know some people with amazing qualifications, successful track records, wh

by bbgm 17y ago

It was much easier to get a green card when I applied (pre 9/11) than it is today. I know some people with amazing qualifications, successful track records, who've been in the green card process for years. Plus the "are you a permanent resident" question is far more of a blocker now than it used to be. Combine that with opportunities back home and in other countries and you have a problem. I don't have numbers, but there is enough anecdotal evidence out there. It's not necessarily a bad thing for the home country, but not having options is frustrating.

jhancock 17y ago
Should the "are you a permanent resident" question continue to be a roadblock? Its my understanding the visa programs are meant to help out the U.S. long term by bringing in immigrants that makes the U.S. their home (my favorite reason) and short term to fill immediate skill shortage. If you do not intend to stay by being a permanent resident, why should the government lend a hand? This is a serious question? Any answers on this? Maybe a better question is what are reasons that people do not want to become a permanent resident?
- bbgm 17y ago
  The "are you a permanent resident" question comes into play when the company thinks it will need to spend money on helping you becoming one, or in changing jobs. Many don't want to do that, so if you aren't one, you're out of the running.
  - jhancock 17y ago
    hmmm...so how do we fix that? Redefine residency (interim residency) as something that can be more easily attained prior to the Green Card status? Decouple it from the employer? I'm trying to get to the heart of some of these problems as I hear too much high level rhetoric around things like "just increase the number of H1-Bs". I'm suspicious that these arguments hold well for employers but not so well for the immigrant.
    - agmiklas 17y ago
      I think the easiest way to fix the problem is to do exactly what you suggest -- decouple a person's immigration status from their employer. I'd do this by scrapping the H1B program and instead simply offer a green card to every person that has a letter of employment from a US company. The government could continue to apply various filters (total quotas, country-specific quotas, educational or experience requirements, language competency, etc). [1] However, at soon as a person is admitted to the US, their immigration status should have absolutely nothing to do with their employer. Under this system, a company can't pay an immigrant less than their worth, since the person is free to work at any business that is willing to pay more. It also fixes a whole bunch of other subtle problems that come up with an employment-based immigration system. For example, right now once a H1B holder applies for a GC, they can neither changes companies nor change their job title (e.x. be promoted) without abandoning their GC application. Since this process can take years and thousands of dollars, immigrants are not only shackled to their sponsoring company, but to a particular job (and often pay-level) within that business. I should point out here that I'm Canadian that may one day be working in the US... so perhaps I have a bit of a pro-immigrant bias here. [1] Personally, I'd get rid of most of these too, but that is the subject of a different rant.
      - jhancock 17y ago
        sounds good. It seems reasonable that decoupling the visa from the employer may fix some of the wage arguments.
- hristov 17y ago
  I think the problem is that people do want to become a permanent resident, but cannot. "Permanent resident" is a specific immigration term which essentially means "person that has a green card." I know many people that want to make the US their permanent home but are simply not able to get a green card.
  - potatolicious 17y ago
    Agreed. I came from Canada to work in the USA on a temporary visa (the TN if anyone's interested). I like the country, but as of right now I'm tied to my employer and have no freedom of movement - and even if I was on a H-1B, where there's a shot at PR, I would still be chained to my employer for effectively the next decade or so. This is no way to treat skilled labour trying to enter your country.

by bbgm 17y ago

jhancock 17y ago

Should the "are you a permanent resident" question continue to be a roadblock? Its my understanding the visa programs are meant to help out the U.S. long term by bringing in immigrants that makes the U.S. their home (my favorite reason) and short term to fill immediate skill shortage. If you do not intend to stay by being a permanent resident, why should the government lend a hand? This is a serious question? Any answers on this? Maybe a better question is what are reasons that people do not want to become a permanent resident?

bbgm 17y ago
The "are you a permanent resident" question comes into play when the company thinks it will need to spend money on helping you becoming one, or in changing jobs. Many don't want to do that, so if you aren't one, you're out of the running.
- jhancock 17y ago
  hmmm...so how do we fix that? Redefine residency (interim residency) as something that can be more easily attained prior to the Green Card status? Decouple it from the employer? I'm trying to get to the heart of some of these problems as I hear too much high level rhetoric around things like "just increase the number of H1-Bs". I'm suspicious that these arguments hold well for employers but not so well for the immigrant.
  - agmiklas 17y ago
    I think the easiest way to fix the problem is to do exactly what you suggest -- decouple a person's immigration status from their employer. I'd do this by scrapping the H1B program and instead simply offer a green card to every person that has a letter of employment from a US company. The government could continue to apply various filters (total quotas, country-specific quotas, educational or experience requirements, language competency, etc). [1] However, at soon as a person is admitted to the US, their immigration status should have absolutely nothing to do with their employer. Under this system, a company can't pay an immigrant less than their worth, since the person is free to work at any business that is willing to pay more. It also fixes a whole bunch of other subtle problems that come up with an employment-based immigration system. For example, right now once a H1B holder applies for a GC, they can neither changes companies nor change their job title (e.x. be promoted) without abandoning their GC application. Since this process can take years and thousands of dollars, immigrants are not only shackled to their sponsoring company, but to a particular job (and often pay-level) within that business. I should point out here that I'm Canadian that may one day be working in the US... so perhaps I have a bit of a pro-immigrant bias here. [1] Personally, I'd get rid of most of these too, but that is the subject of a different rant.
    - jhancock 17y ago
      sounds good. It seems reasonable that decoupling the visa from the employer may fix some of the wage arguments.
hristov 17y ago
I think the problem is that people do want to become a permanent resident, but cannot. "Permanent resident" is a specific immigration term which essentially means "person that has a green card." I know many people that want to make the US their permanent home but are simply not able to get a green card.
- potatolicious 17y ago
  Agreed. I came from Canada to work in the USA on a temporary visa (the TN if anyone's interested). I like the country, but as of right now I'm tied to my employer and have no freedom of movement - and even if I was on a H-1B, where there's a shot at PR, I would still be chained to my employer for effectively the next decade or so. This is no way to treat skilled labour trying to enter your country.