I sympathize with the author, but I disagree with the focus of the discussion that always surrounds such cases. It strikes me as akin to discussing the best tac

I sympathize with the author, but I disagree with the focus of the discussion that always surrounds such cases. It strikes me as akin to discussing the best tactics to overrun the Maginot Line by frontal assault. When faced with a huge obstacle maintained by forces stronger than oneself, the correct solution is usually not to attack it head on, but to examine the assumptions under which it is an obstacle in order to find a way around. The assumption under which the Maginot Line was an obstacle was 'you can't go through the Ardennes'. The assumption under which immigration law is an obstacle is 'you have to sleep in physical proximity to the people you're working with'. In each case, technology has rendered the assumption obsolete. Remote study and remote work are not just matters of convenience, productivity and quality of life for those of us living in developed countries. They are key to enabling more of our species to fulfill its potential and contribute to the future. And I don't believe that's optional. I think the problems we are facing as a species are hard enough that we can't afford to have only a small fraction of us contributing. Yes, I know employers will say 'we don't hire remote for reasons' and venture capitalists will say 'we don't invest in people outside Silicon Valley for reasons'. The mere existence of reasons does not make it okay to give up in the face of this obstacle. If there are procedural or technical obstacles to working remotely, they are problems that need to be solved not surrendered to. We need to get to the stage where being denied entry to the US has no more significance than a change in holiday plans.