They’re choosing to spend their lives in the US on an H-1B; they’re not being forced to do that.
My kids might be forced to move if I got a job in another city or or if one of our parents fell ill if my wife and I divorced or any other number of reasons, including simply deciding to move someplace else.
It’s a sucky situation that you want and can’t get a green card. I think you share that same situation with 10s or 100s of thousands of others.
By birth the kid is a citizen at age 18. In [3] the kid is born before moving to the US, that's what makes the situation even more difficult.
I'm certain that there are valid reasons for your interest in this topic and your strong feelings about it, but it's not cool to let that translate into abusing Hacker News. Treating HN as a platform for an agenda, which you've been doing, with repetitive quotes and talking points and lists of links—that's off topic for this site. It's not driven by curiosity, and it makes discussion more repetitive, less interesting, and more nasty. Worse, firing off ideological rhetoric with both barrels (e.g. comparing the other side in an argument to the SS and claiming that HN users are full of intense hatred) is the flamewar style of comment that people here are expected to abstain from. Worst of all, making personal attacks on people who disagree with you is a bannable offense here, even if they are completely wrong and you completely right—and you've done that particularly aggressively.
This has unfortunately been a pattern for a long time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13599190.
We ban people for less than this. On the other hand, you've also posted interestingly and kindly about non-overheated topics, so I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and ask you not to do the above things on Hacker News any more. If you'd review the site guidelines and take them to heart, we'd appreciate it. I know that's hardest to do in areas where one has strong feelings, and that's also when it's most important to do.
I hope my original comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19857878) in this thread was interesting/informative, and consistent with HN guidelines. (Please let me know if it wasn’t.) I acknowledge I made additional comments after that in this thread, which were rather nasty, and I wish I hadn’t made those comments. I had a feeling I shouldn’t make those comments, but at the moment, I was feeling very upset, and I let my emotions out on the keyboard.
The topic of U.S. immigration policy is a highly emotional and sensitive one to me—it’s been a hugely defining factor in my life for the past 12 years. It’s why I haven’t started my own company (and applied to Y Combinator). I found a lot of comments deeply hurtful and emotionally traumatic—it was like they were rubbing salt on my wounds. I felt like a Rosa Parks in the 1950s South.
I’ve honestly never enjoyed commenting on overheated topics like this one. It’s been emotionally draining and harmful for my mental health. It has ruined my mood and robbed me of my happiness and joy for multiple days. I honestly don’t know why I subject myself to this suffering.
I think I’m attracted to this topic because of how much it affects me (and continues to affect me)—and I’m tempted to commented whenever there’s a discussion related to it, in a rather-naive hope of informing people of the true nature of things, with a hope that it might cause people to care. The response has often been depressingly negative. (A case in point being SamReidHughes’ comment saying “There's no reason why our immigration policy should care about you.”)
Anyway, I concede that that’s no reason to shoot off incendiary comments. I don’t ever talk like that in real life, and rarely ever even in online life. Those incendiary comments are emphatically not representative of me. It’s just that this topic (U.S. immigration policy) has a way of pressing all the wrong buttons for me, and putting me in a very bad mental state.
I’m not sure if I should completely refrain from this topic on HN. I don’t know if there’s any benefit to me continuing to comment on this topic. (If you felt like my original comment on this thread was constructive and in line with HN guidelines, please let me know.) I could attempt to continue contributing to future discussions of this topic (with the depth of knowledge on it that personally experiencing it has bought me), and try to do so without letting my emotions get the better of me.
Alternatively, it might be good if discussions around this topic were generally discouraged. It would require the mods to make that a policy, but that might be healthier in the long run. The comments that are made on this topic often have a tendency to be emotionally-traumatic triggers for immigrants like myself. I suggest it might be better for the health of the HN community, if we could somehow generally discourage people from getting into long-winded (and often-heated) discussions on this topic. But that’s your call.
I don't think we can reach a solution by discouraging conversations on these topics—they're too relevant to people. It would be asking people to exclude too much of themselves. That can never work. Even if it did, it would constrain conversation into an artificial space, too separated from what's coming up in life. That would make HN less interesting. But we do moderate how much oxygen hot topics are allowed to consume on HN. Otherwise they would take over completely, which also would make HN less interesting. And we try to steer so when topics do come up, it's in the context of a substantive article with new information, as opposed to just predictable points being repeated for the nth time. That has a regulating effect on how quickly and how hot the flames burn. New information means something else is available for discussion besides pre-existing thoughts and feelings, which tend to be intense and painful. Those will come up no matter what—they need to—but it helps if there's a context besides them. That has a moderating effect. It also increases the odds that something new can emerge in discussion, which makes HN more interesting, and may be (though it's better not to think too much about this) the only way to long-term resolution.
You asked me about https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19857878. I don't think that comment broke the guidelines in the way that the later comments did, so it's on the right side of the most important line. However, it's problematic in a more subtle way, which I'd like to try to articulate (though I haven't found the best language for it yet). To me it reads too much like a list of pre-prepared points. Such comments feel more like speeches than conversation. We all know what it's like in conversation when someone insists on going through their list before pausing to hear others: it sort of stops the communicative flow. This often happens when there's an asymmetry in the room: one person feels more urgently than the others and knows more about the topic. They have a lot of good information, but they lose connection with listeners after the first bit or two, and there's no longer the sense of a shared discussion. It feels like they are determined to plough through their points irrespective of what others are taking in. That's a bummer and it reduces the chemistry of the conversation. Or, an opponent turns out to be in the room, someone with opposite strong feelings and opposite facts. Then the two go after each other and get stuck in a tit-for-tat that alienates everyone else.
What makes better conversation is when we react not only from pre-existing feelings and facts, but also from what's going on in the moment: what else has been said, who else is present, what sort of connection we can make with them. Then the comments have more resonance and are less one-sided. That draws others into making richer contributions.
The more in what others have said that I can really respond to, the more surface area a conversation has to stand on. Often we take in and respond to just the one bit of information in a statement that triggers our pre-existing feelings. That's low connectivity, even if we pour out a lot of information in response. Good conversation needs more connectivity.
I'm writing this for myself as much as anybody, since I've noticed this pattern in my own comments. And I noticed an interesting test to apply. After writing a long comment with many paragraphs, I go back and read the first paragraph and ask: could I just stop there? Have I actually made my real contribution to the conversation at that point? It's surprising how often the answer is yes. Sometimes I delete the whole rest of the comment; mostly I don't, but it's surprising how often I find I've been piling on, trying to get a bunch of stuff out, even though it probably weakens the communicative effect of what I'm saying.
But if the US didn't limit by country how would people from less populous countries be able get green cards? Given the exponential size differences in play I'd expect many years to have 0 immigrants from <insert small country here> and that doesn't seem right either.
This isn't an argument for the current system. I'm just not sure what a system would look like that doesn't unfairly disadvantage someone.
I guess the argument for the current system is that it makes the process reasonable for people from small countries. If it were all one giant pool then the process would be an unworkable nightmare for everybody instead of just people in highly populated countries.
I can understand the argument for and benefits of diversity of thought, of culture etc. But why passports? It makes as much sense as trying to insist that there must be equal number of right-handed, left-handed, and ambidextrous skilled immigrants.
As of current, that is what the congress prefer. They made the law. Indirectly it was the american public preference because it is the representative of american people.
Yes, that much is obvious. The question, if it was not clear, was an attempt to understand why this is the preference.
Note: This thread is already gone much pedantic IMO, but I give you the benefit of doubt that it is some miscommunication in language. If your point is "it is the way it is, and no explanation is owed to anyone", I will withdraw from the discussion because we don't have much to discuss.
Eliminate the program, and increase the quotas to compensate. The path to citizenship for an educated, English speaking individual should be less impeded than it is now.
I imagine USA is a capitalist country, and since we are talking about high-skilled immigrants here, how about ranking these potential immigrants based on their last 5 years W2 income and handing out green cards to the top "x".
I'm sure valuable people are paid more. I don't see how nationality needs to come into this. There is always a Diversity Visa lottery for people from less populous countries.
I'm fairly confident a medical doctor in the US is paid more than a janitor.
Now, you can make an argument about whether a doctor in a rural area is more valuable than a software engineer in SF but there is an NIW (National Interest Waiver) category that can be utilized to grant residency.
Funnily, in the current system, janitors and meat packers (from other countries) get their green cards earlier than doctors and engineers from India [1,2]
[1] https://www.myvisajobs.com/GreenCard/SearchAll.aspx?ST=Certi... [2] https://www.myvisajobs.com/GreenCard/SearchAll.aspx?ST=Certi...
> Indian people are forced to spend their lives in the U.S. on the H-1B visa.
Have the rules changed dramatically since they made the choice to do this? Because it sounds like just that, they chose to spend their lives in the U.S. on the H-1B visa. I agree that the rules suck and need change, but nobody if forcing them to come.
> She hadn’t been able to see us for a year but later opted for a visa to “visit” a nation that is practically her home.
This again appears to fall into the category of a choice. That they chose to subject their child to the situation described, because the rules were in place before they came here.
I would like to see the rules change, but it's unfair to act like you had no choice when you voluntarily signed up to have those rules applied to you (or your family).
Note that the USA is pretty exceptional in this regard. Most countries don't ask for people to be permanent resident before being able to apply for naturalization and children of immigrant having lived their whole life in a country can just apply for and be granted citizenship.
That's not the problem here though, It's more like your parents moved to Japan for work, stayed there, and when you turned 21 you were kicked out of the country and they get to stay.
Everytime these discussions come up there are all these articles and pundits passionately advocating for the US to have extremely wide open immigration rules that are not observed by any other country in the world, and they claim racism if it doesn't happen the way they want. This constant race-baiting they do is racist in itself.
That's a very poor example you have chosen.
The children of foreigners granted a titre de séjour (the maximum duration of a visa in France is one year) as family members of a person working in France:
- are allowed to work in France ;
- are entitled to titre de séjour allowing them to stay for 10 years provided they apply before their 19th birthday and have lived for three years in France.
Considering you can apply for French citizenship after having lived five years in France or after completing a three years degree in a France, unless he is in France for a very short stay, the 10 kids of your hypothetical immigrant are pretty much guaranteed to become French if they want to.
https://www.expatica.com/fr/employment/employment-law/work-i...
> After 18 months in a long-stay residence permit marked ‘employee’ or ‘temporary worker’, you may apply to bring your family to France. Spouses (partners are excluded) and minor children can apply for a one-year ‘visitor’ visa (without being able to work during this time), and must sign the CAI.
This policy is very different than that for the 2016 "Talent Passport" permit, which allows the immediate family to migrate immediately and obtain work permits. It seems you are talking about that visa?
The US also has green cards for migrants that allow one to bring their whole family, stay indefinitely, have the family work, and all apply for citizenship after a time. These are fundamentally different visa classes than temporary non-immigrant work visas like the H1B. Unlike France, the US does not require the worker to wait 18 months before bringing their family on the H-4 family visa, they can come right away. Also, the spouse can work, unlike in France according to the above link. So the US policy is much more progressive.
An odd case: if both parents are foreigners, but one of them is born in France, then their children will automatically become French at birth (if born in France).
Then there are special rules for Algeria, as it was a part of France until 1962...
This is the same argument used to justify reporting DACA recipients back to countries they can’t remember, and to justify putting migrant children in concentration camps along the Mexican border. It’s sickening! When did we decide that some words on paper matter more than our duty to protect the innocent?
The rules are bad. The children are in a bad situation. The parents don't get to pretend they didn't contribute to that situation.
The problem with the H1-B is that it drastically limits future choices. Therefore people who made the logical choice at the time can end up, through no fault of their own, in a situation where they have to choose between bad and worse. It is entirely fair to blame the system for "forcing" these situations because it is doing so by DESIGN.
Would you have the same response if there was a similar rule to limit immigration for Muslims, or homosexuals?
The limits are there to prevent one ethnicity just gaming it industrial scale and taking over the system.
Unfortunately it sucks for aj Indian, but it is great if you are an African from Senegal.
I personally think it should be more proportional to the country's population size, (i.e. India should have a higher quota) but the limit is still a good idea.
> The limits are there to prevent one ethnicity
Why? Is it okay for an individual to be disadvantaged because of his ethnicity? Why are there no limits on religions too? After all, you get to choose your religion, but not your ethnicity.
Further, who told you India is only one ethnicity? India is more diverse than Europe.
> Unfortunately it sucks for aj Indian
If it sucks it is because this is discrimination.
> I personally think it should be more proportional to the country's population size
Why though? Why can't you judge an individual on their own skills without trying to either be bigoted like right wing or doing identity politics like left wing.
You can definitely limit immigration, and do it fairly.
I am arguing for open borders. Being American isn't special, people need to get over it.
This is just not true.
Most developed countries will let anyone with the requisite funds buy property, with no particular restrictions on foreigners. It’s certainly the case in the EU, Japan, the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
I live in Europe. I wonder what my Chinese landlords (who've lived their whole lives in China) would say if they read your comment.
These people from India are forced to spend their lives in the U.S. on the H-1B visa. A visa which prohibits spouses from working, deports your non-U.S.-born children[3] when they turn 21, makes it difficult to switch employers, prohibits unemployment / taking a break, and prohibits starting your own company.
This all goes back to the 1965 Immigration Act. That was the Act that made it possible for people from outside Western Europe to immigrate to the US. It allowed a limited number of highly-skilled people to immigrate if they were sponsored by a company (and the company proved there was no minimally qualified Americans willing to do the job).
Some rather-racist members of Congress were presciently concerned about a lot of skilled immigrant coming from China and India, which were the two most populous countries back in 1965 as well. To appease them, a 7% limit was put based on country of birth.[1] No more than 7% of immigrants in a numerically-limited category can be from the same country of birth.
Again, when the 1965 law passed, there were hard numerical limits on immigration. To appease the racists, Congress reserved most of the green cards for family members. Even the majority employment-based green cards go to family members.[2]
Effectively, out of the 80,000 skilled immigraiton (EB-2 and EB-3) green cards, around 55% are used by family members. That leaves around 36,000 spots for skilled immigrants a year. With the 7% per-country limit, you end up with a limit of ~2500 per year per country.
[1] Specifically, Section 202(a)(2) of the Immigration Nationality Act (Sec 202 is codified as 8 U.S. Code § 1152 Numerical limitations on individual foreign states): https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1152#a
[2] Family Members Use Most Employment-Based Green Cards (Cato Institute): https://www.cato.org/blog/family-members-use-most-employment...
[3] An extremely sad story about this: https://www.statesman.com/news/20171013/commentary-how-a-20-... Quoting:
> My wife and I came to the United States nearly 20 years ago from India with our daughter, Himani — legally — in hopes of a better life and an aspiration to succeed and contribute positively to American society. Unfortunately, due to immigration laws, she was unable to stay in the United States due to massive backlogs. This is a problem that affects thousands of immigrant children.
> She has lived in Williamson County following all the legal processes — but last year she aged out of the system, when she had turned 21 while we were still waiting for her permanent status. Under the current immigration system, a child can only stay on their parents’ visa as a dependent until he or she is an adult. We had been waiting in line for 20 years to get permanent residence but are now stuck in a massive backlog that is extremely disheartening.
> [...] This is all she knows and can call her “home.”
> Juvenile memories — such as her lemonade stands and attending prom her senior year — are some of the beautiful things she had to leave behind. We still cannot digest the reality of the situation. As a parent, it is bearable to see your child leave home voluntarily for college or their career — but not when they’re forced to leave through the result of unfair laws.
> She initially went back to India alone last year with a big smile and positive attitude. Since then, life has been a struggle to live for her: assimilating to a new culture, undergoing chronic illnesses due to her environment in India, and trying to figure out her life in general.
> She says it feels like someone has spontaneously taken everything away, including her identity. On top of that, her college education in the U.S. was abruptly stopped because she was unable to obtain a student visa; there is a law where gaps between a dependent visa and the college semester start date should not exceed 30 days. Unfortunately, she was five days over the limit. She has since applied to another university in India, where she will spend another four years studying.
> She hadn’t been able to see us for a year but later opted for a visa to “visit” a nation that is practically her home.