Also, even if you get the H1B and apply for Permanent Residency, the wait time can be obscenely long depending on where you were born. If you were born in China, you'll have to wait for 6+ years. If you were born in India, you'll have to wait for 12+ years.

Ironically enough, if you're a not-very-qualified applicant, you'll likely have a easier time applying here in USA. The Canadian system might be more stringent, but rolls out the red carpet for those who are truly qualified, and in greater numbers too. The American system is the exact opposite.

1) Do a PhD and hope to produce original, well cited research that qualifies you for EB1.

2)Similar to above, but if you are in a research team and can get good papers out that qualify you for EB1.

3)Wait and hope for promotions that qualify you for EB1.

4)Move back to India after a couple of years.

5)Try to move to Europe or Canada. Everyone is kinda fuzzy on this since no one really has clear idea of immigration laws in other countries.

6)Get enough money from some IPO to pay for investment based green card and hope for the best.

This is if you currently qualify for EB2 i.e 5 or more years experience or a Masters from US. I don't even know what is the condition for people in EB3. As one of my friend put it memorably, there is a person whose parent's haven't even met, that will get a green card faster than me, if born anywhere but India, China, Mexico and Philippines.

I know, barring a recession, I'll be in US for the next couple of years, but after getting a family, I think my tolerance for having my residence in the country coupled with my job would drop and I'll look and see if one of the above option works for me. Plus ageism in tech is something I fear as well.

I would love to settle here, but barring a law change, it is right now impossible for me.

EDIT: Separate line numbers for the numbers points.

It's unclear whether you mean that FAANGs do or don't abuse the system. I've heard both sides of that.

There is some fixed number of employment based green cards that are awarded per category(EB1,2,3) with rollover between categories. The reason why there is a delay is that there is a country-wide cap on a percentage of total green cards awarded that year. So countries with higher number of people immigrating have a queue. If there were thousands of Australians immigrating, there can be a queue there too.

I am not sure about Canada though, as there maybe some other category for it.

The wait times referenced are the wait times for an immigrant visa, whether you are applying for it as an already-resident H-1B holder (as permitted by it's dual-intent nature) or as someone who is not yet resident in the US.

The wait times have nothing to do with the H-1B not being an immigrant visa.

We can get a permenant residency Canada visa straight off the bat without a job offer (quicker with a job offer though granted).

We can’t work out how to get a US visa for love nor money and have basically given up thinking about it.

Canada certainly seems easier from where we are.

Start a US business with a partner so you own just 50% then petition for an H1B for yourself every year until you win.

E1 or E2?

You have a fair bit of options if you really want it and are willing to jump through hoops.

From what I can US the US still says no even if you meet the above criteria.

The USA on the other hand has a relatively open employer-backed system in addition to the wealth/education-agnostic quota system.

In that sense the USA seems more random, but not more open. But I guess we're just using different criteria.

Pretty sure you are missing some key details, you can get a Canadian permanent residency if you the required number of points which are based on your education, language, work experience etc.

For majority of the cases if you have the points you will get the PR visa. Once you get the visa you can move to Canada and look for jobs you cannot do that with the US.

As I said you are missing some details, people get a resident visa in 1 year even if they are outside Canada, so either you dont know the full story or your friend is probably misleading you.

The one thing that is a little sticky is that you can't get across the border if you have had a DUI within so many years. An issue for some of my dad's hunting buddies.

The US side coming back was always a bigger pain in the neck. Part of that is because of the way Border Patrol rotates their agents. You could always tell the ones that had recently rotated from the Mexican border because they were twitchy and kept a hand on their holster at all times. I'm sure it's a hard habit to break, but not really appropriate at a backwater crossing in Northern Maine where 95% of the traffic is log trucks and local Canadians coming over to fill up their gas tanks or pick up things they've ordered online.

The only two times I've been aggressively grilled including accusations of smuggling and personal questions that were intrusive were coming back into Canada.

Even when I only had a green card, most of the time the US CBP just said "welcome home" and waved me on.

I don't think it was the difference between being a visitor (to the USA) vs a resident (in Canada), because the couple of times I went abroad while I was a resident in the USA were very similar.

Straightforward business trips for both countries for me, but Canada is a little more casual than average, but otherwise uninteresting. The officials smile, ask a straightforward question ("where are you staying?"), and stamp the passport ("enjoy your stay in Canada").

In the US, I feel like I'm being interrogated. "You don't look like a software developer" "who is paying for this trip?" and lots of scowling.

That would be considered unacceptable and unprofessional at U.S. border control.

We had six people and a ton of luggage and they seemed to be seriously considering searching all our bags just because of Texas IDs. :|

They were very nice when I activated my PR card though.

There's also the cliche (spread by the internet and political groups) that conservative/Republicans/etc... are against all immigration. This is 90% incorrect.

I worked as support staff during a conference in Seattle of conservative business leaders around 2010. Their #1 topic of discussion was how to get more people into the country because they couldn't find enough workers with the right skills domestically. And no, it wasn't the tech sector that was hurting the most.

Apparently the problem the conservatives have isn't immigration as an umbrella policy. It's legal versus illegal methods (though some of the speakers advocated for both). Kind of eye-opening. I no longer believe the regurgitated talking points from either party.

I don't know what groupthink you are talking about, but there is a wife perception that the US has recently become hostile toward immigrants. Which is reflected not only in fuzzy attitudes, but concrete policy, and it does explain changes in immigration, both legal and otherwise.

> There's also the cliche (spread by the internet and political groups) that conservative/Republicans/etc... are against all immigration. This is 90% incorrect

It would be more accurate to say that there is a wide (and accurate) perception that conservatives are generally more negatively inclined to immigration, and that this is generally correct on balance (though obviously not a reliable guide to individual attitudes.)

> Apparently the problem the conservatives have isn't immigration as an umbrella policy. It's legal versus illegal methods

That's what they usually say, but they also usually oppose policy which would make legal immigration easier and relieve pressure that creates illegal immigration, and frequently support policies to restrict legal immigration. And it's not just 10% of conservatives supporting this kind of policy.

This reveals that the rhetoric that it it is only illegal immigration that is the concern is not reflective of the actual concerns.

Look, I'm a liberal but I will call out the Dems when I need to. Most of the reforms to legal immigration have always been a sort of addendum, or a two-part deal with relief for the illegal immigrants included in them. Democrats haven't proposed a bill which purely targets legal immigration. So its a little unfair to say that conservatives are opposed to all kinds of Immigration.

Perhaps, but conservatives have frequently put forward bills (or, when in the executive, instituted executive policy without Congressional action) that further restrict currently-legal immigration and non-immigrant entry and privileges, which is more significant sign of opposition to legal immigration than merely voting against expansions to legal immigration, whether pure or not.

Maybe it is just posturing and lies, but the conservative viewpoint has been to have a merit-based system for permitting immigrants into the country, as opposed to immigration based on familial relations. Every country gets to decide what kind of people that they want coming into their country and I think its perfectly fine for conservatives to feel that way (it is a different matter that I don't agree with that idea). My perception (again, which might be wrong) is that that is essentially what Republicans have been getting at for the past couple of decades (perhaps more).

Now, that being said: these are the same folks who were about Family Values, Fiscal Purity etc. So, like I said before, I don't think the arguments are being made in good faith. But the argument does have merit.

Go look up the stuff that Orin Hatch and Rubio sponsored with regards to H1B visas. The stuff that they sponsored would double the number of H1Bs and was majority sponsored by republicans.

  further restrict currently-legal immigration

This has nothing to do with debates over executive authority to choose how to prioritize enforcement and to make transparent commitments regarding that (which the executive clearly has in some cases, outside the obvious pardon power, since literally every grant of immunity from prosecution, or plea bargain to reduced charges, is an enforceable commitment by the executive not to enforce some law in some well-defined circumstance based on policy priorities.)

difficult to plan for the future where this is a possibility

Maybe Trump's mistake is being vocal about it while Canada maintains plausible deniability.

The Obama admin did the same thing. Sure it was technically possible to get a visa but in reality it was impractical and deliberately so.