[Currently, immigration law dictates that only 7 percent of the green cards issued each year can be given to residents of any one country.
Mr. Yoder noted that between 230,000 and two million Indian workers are in line for a green card, which means that they could be waiting for decades, if not longer.]
It really puts Immigrants from populous countries like India and China at disadvantage. Personally I waited for 12 years to get my green card to start my company as Internet boom, Web2.0 boom passed in front of my eyes.
Only thing that needs to be changed is instead of taking population of a country as a metric, should consider race, language, and particular god the applicant believes in as a metric, if it is truly "optimizing for diversity".
The way it stands, all Caucasian, Jesus believing (or not believing) europeans or the Arabic, Allah believing (or not believing) middle-eastern populations have no line, but wide variety (language, god / religious belief, race) of people from India have a long line, because its been "optimized for diversity"
Its just an "Indians and Chinese Exclusion Act" similar to Chinese Exclusion Act under the garb of "Diversity".
I get the knee-jerk reaction to anything like this is to shout "THAT'S RACIST" and get on with life, but this is definitely a thing that's happening. Whether it's damaging or not is a separate question.
My partner is, for the sake of argument and to remove emotion, let's say Romulan. She came here from Romulus over 10 years ago to attend school. Her parents have started coming here in the past year or two on and off.
In the couple years I've been with her, I've come to discover there's an entire shadow society of Romulans operating within the city I live in that doesn't operate by the laws or regulations that the rest of society operates under. Admission is granted on the basis of being Romulan.
None of these people, including my partner for the first decade she was here, really have or had any incentive to participate in the existing society. It's much less effort to only associate with other Romulans. They have more immediately in common with them, and fewer barriers. And they can get everything they need from the other Romulans.
I have no wish for these people to give up their culture. Our existing culture is described as a "cultural mosaic" - many people's own cultures getting along. I think that's just fine. And I appreciate getting to experience everyone's culture (within the bounds of some basic ideals such as our stance towards human rights and equality).
The isolation does concern me. If there's no effort to intentionally cohabitate except in the sense of physical proximity - to just generally understand each other - I can see an issue of empathy arising. I can see some pretty destructive divides forming or deepening, as in the case of the current xenophobia.
This totally. My wife is Vulcan, and I have also discovered there is a huge undercurrent of Vulcans which operate as a kind of shadow society. Being married to a Vulcan isn't enough to get admission into this culture, and neither is speaking Vulcan, or having Vulcan children. But it's a defensive measure. Safety in numbers and distrust of outsiders.
It is all semantics at this point. H-1B is a dual intent visa. It is a working visa with the option for the holder to be sponsored for a green card. (through work, or family).
If the person doesn't want to apply for Green Card (Permanent Resident), then he/she are considered a temporary high skilled worker.
If they do apply, then yes. They are 'immigrants' until they get naturalized, aka, become us citizens, as their intent is to immigrate in the us.
In comparison, holders of F-1 (student visas), B-1 (business visas), are not considered immigrants, as they are supposed to return to their own countries after finishing their studies/work/visiting.
The situation sucks and you can't help but feel terrible for her, but please let's not change the law based on this. And if we do, let's deport the murderer to the middle of the Pacific ocean.
Immigration laws need to change, but not in response to this.
> And if we do, let's deport the murderer to the middle of the Pacific ocean.
Why should other countries care for or suffer your country's criminals? Of course, unless you meant some uninhabited island or dropping him in the water... Other than that, keep him.
I read this as meaning he should be set adrift on a lifeboat or somesuch. I do feel a proxy anger towards the murderer, but I'm not a fan of making legally annoying people just disappear because that quickly becomes the go-to solution in tough times.
Another reason that I don't want to just forget about that guy is because he's not a bizarre exception, but partly the product of xenophobic nationalism churned out by some political actors over decades for fun and profit. Immigrants can be conveniently scapegoated for issues as diverse as unemployment, national security, industrial policy, and abortion. The increasing fragmentation of media consumption eventually results in epistemological detachment.
Are you implying that's not already the go-to solution in tough times? Even the United States disappeared people after 9/11. Granted, they reappeared, but still.
LEgal change shouldn't be based off specific cases, but under title 8 the attorney-general and his designates has very broad discretion to intervene in individual cases, partly because of the difficulty of crafting one-size-fits-all solutions.
Incidentally, when you hear immigration hardlines talking about how DACA was unconstitutional, I suggest you take that with a big pinch of salt. The previous administration essentially systematized the same criteria they were using for prioritizing individual enforcement decisions and while this was the administrative equivalent of a giant band-aid on an annoying political problem, I don't think there was any legal barrier to their doing so as it did not create any ew powers or positions in the executive branch that would have required congressional approval.
Unfortunately, because immigration law is so complex, arbitrary, and politicized, and because those subject to it are generally ineligible to vote, the quality of information in the media and public debate are abysmal. I don't blame the public for its ignorance of the topic; I've seen practising criminal lawyers' jaws sag open at the discovery that there is a essentially a parallel custodial system whose rules they knew nothing about. Most people aren't aware, for example, that someone picked up on an immigration violation can be detained for up to 6 months without a hearing - and that 6 months is not written anywhere in the law, but was the interim choice of a court faced with a law that doesn't provide for hearings in some cases, and a constitution that requires them.
There's already a visa for victims. It's temporary, but it's called a U Visa.
There's already a visa for skilled workers like her. It's called an H1b Visa.
If her husband had an h1b visa that allowed both him and her to work in the US, which seems to be the case since the story indicates that she was employed as a software engineer too, why shouldn't she be able to assume that visa if her husband dies or chooses to leave the US, assuming she qualifies on her own for the same visa. Really, what about this case is extreme wrt to immigration? If you consider this an extreme case that pattern matches /hard cases make bad law/, then what would average circumstances look like and how would they differ from this?
You ask some good questions, but the basic problem is that you're thinking of a visa as being similar to a transferable property interest. It isn't, and the administrative, temporal, and fiscal costs of adjusting immigration status are pretty high for an individual.
It sounds like it put her at risk of losing her visa, not at risk of being deported. If she lost her visa, and then made the decision to break our laws by staying, only then would she be at any risk of being deported.
Saying she was at risk of being deported makes it sound like she was already here illegally.
23 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 55.4 ms ] threadMr. Yoder noted that between 230,000 and two million Indian workers are in line for a green card, which means that they could be waiting for decades, if not longer.]
It really puts Immigrants from populous countries like India and China at disadvantage. Personally I waited for 12 years to get my green card to start my company as Internet boom, Web2.0 boom passed in front of my eyes.
Only thing that needs to be changed is instead of taking population of a country as a metric, should consider race, language, and particular god the applicant believes in as a metric, if it is truly "optimizing for diversity".
The way it stands, all Caucasian, Jesus believing (or not believing) europeans or the Arabic, Allah believing (or not believing) middle-eastern populations have no line, but wide variety (language, god / religious belief, race) of people from India have a long line, because its been "optimized for diversity"
Its just an "Indians and Chinese Exclusion Act" similar to Chinese Exclusion Act under the garb of "Diversity".
My partner is, for the sake of argument and to remove emotion, let's say Romulan. She came here from Romulus over 10 years ago to attend school. Her parents have started coming here in the past year or two on and off.
In the couple years I've been with her, I've come to discover there's an entire shadow society of Romulans operating within the city I live in that doesn't operate by the laws or regulations that the rest of society operates under. Admission is granted on the basis of being Romulan.
None of these people, including my partner for the first decade she was here, really have or had any incentive to participate in the existing society. It's much less effort to only associate with other Romulans. They have more immediately in common with them, and fewer barriers. And they can get everything they need from the other Romulans.
I have no wish for these people to give up their culture. Our existing culture is described as a "cultural mosaic" - many people's own cultures getting along. I think that's just fine. And I appreciate getting to experience everyone's culture (within the bounds of some basic ideals such as our stance towards human rights and equality).
The isolation does concern me. If there's no effort to intentionally cohabitate except in the sense of physical proximity - to just generally understand each other - I can see an issue of empathy arising. I can see some pretty destructive divides forming or deepening, as in the case of the current xenophobia.
I don't think that's sustainable long term.
Based on your logic, Charlottesville would never have happened, if there were fewer white people in the US
If the person doesn't want to apply for Green Card (Permanent Resident), then he/she are considered a temporary high skilled worker.
If they do apply, then yes. They are 'immigrants' until they get naturalized, aka, become us citizens, as their intent is to immigrate in the us.
In comparison, holders of F-1 (student visas), B-1 (business visas), are not considered immigrants, as they are supposed to return to their own countries after finishing their studies/work/visiting.
The situation sucks and you can't help but feel terrible for her, but please let's not change the law based on this. And if we do, let's deport the murderer to the middle of the Pacific ocean.
Immigration laws need to change, but not in response to this.
Why should other countries care for or suffer your country's criminals? Of course, unless you meant some uninhabited island or dropping him in the water... Other than that, keep him.
Another reason that I don't want to just forget about that guy is because he's not a bizarre exception, but partly the product of xenophobic nationalism churned out by some political actors over decades for fun and profit. Immigrants can be conveniently scapegoated for issues as diverse as unemployment, national security, industrial policy, and abortion. The increasing fragmentation of media consumption eventually results in epistemological detachment.
It is not feasible for groups of people, but it works for special-case individuals.
Incidentally, when you hear immigration hardlines talking about how DACA was unconstitutional, I suggest you take that with a big pinch of salt. The previous administration essentially systematized the same criteria they were using for prioritizing individual enforcement decisions and while this was the administrative equivalent of a giant band-aid on an annoying political problem, I don't think there was any legal barrier to their doing so as it did not create any ew powers or positions in the executive branch that would have required congressional approval.
Unfortunately, because immigration law is so complex, arbitrary, and politicized, and because those subject to it are generally ineligible to vote, the quality of information in the media and public debate are abysmal. I don't blame the public for its ignorance of the topic; I've seen practising criminal lawyers' jaws sag open at the discovery that there is a essentially a parallel custodial system whose rules they knew nothing about. Most people aren't aware, for example, that someone picked up on an immigration violation can be detained for up to 6 months without a hearing - and that 6 months is not written anywhere in the law, but was the interim choice of a court faced with a law that doesn't provide for hearings in some cases, and a constitution that requires them.
There's already a visa for victims. It's temporary, but it's called a U Visa.
There's already a visa for skilled workers like her. It's called an H1b Visa.
If her husband had an h1b visa that allowed both him and her to work in the US, which seems to be the case since the story indicates that she was employed as a software engineer too, why shouldn't she be able to assume that visa if her husband dies or chooses to leave the US, assuming she qualifies on her own for the same visa. Really, what about this case is extreme wrt to immigration? If you consider this an extreme case that pattern matches /hard cases make bad law/, then what would average circumstances look like and how would they differ from this?
Saying she was at risk of being deported makes it sound like she was already here illegally.