Dual intent is a United States immigration law concept. It generally
refers to the fact that certain U.S. visas allow foreigners to be
temporarily present in the U.S. with lawful status and immigrant
intent. This allows those visa holders, particularly H-1B
professionals, to enter the U.S. while simultaneously seeking
lawful permanent resident status (green card status) at a port
of entry. Otherwise, visa holders may be presumed to have
immigrant intent and can be kept from entry (summarily excluded)
as a matter of law.But, in this context, let's just say that immigration is not the primary intent, and the secondary intent is conditioned upon the primary.
More specifically, the "lawful status" that prefaces immigration is conditioned upon sponsorship.
Sorry, but if you want to fix the problems created by the program, then you have to scrap it and call the new thing something else. But, as long as it is tethered to filling specialty needs of certain companies as the core justification for holders being in-country, then you have sponsorship. And, with sponsorship comes the problems many decry.
I'm not sure why any of this is controversial. The program itself may be controversial, but simply stating what it is ought not to be.
It isn't an unconditional open door. That's why there's a separate application process for Green Card that's independent from the work visa, and not everyone is accepted.
That is exactly my point.
Why does the "intent of the H1-B program" matter to anybody?
I was referring to the downward pressure on all wages (and U.S. workers in particular), not those of H1-B holders. This (and my entire comment) was a rebuttal of the GP and should be read in that context. Having workers stay in the country without jobs increases labor supply, which means lower wages for U.S. workers, contrary to the GP's counter-intuitive assertion. It's simple supply and demand.
But, in general, what you're describing is not the intent of the H1-B program. The purpose of that program is to allow companies to "import" supplemental labor in certain specialty fields when there is no local talent available.
It is specifically a non-immigrant visa. However, people have subsequently come to view it as an immigration path and, hence the "binding" to a sponsor as unfair. But, if you go back to the original intent, the worker has agreed to enter the country at the pleasure of their sponsor.
Now, if you want to do away with the H1-B concept, allow companies to hire anyone from anywhere, and allow those workers to switch employers at will, then OK. But, you have to call it something else and assess the impact accordingly. That takes us back to increased labor supply and lower wages for all. There are people who don't like that idea.
It's obviously unpopular to say this, but that makes it no less true. And, if you really want to address the abuses or find a more equitable situation for visa holders, then you have to start by acknowledging the current reality.