I want to pick on this point, because it's the general refrain about this topic. If there is some thing that American workers can't do in an in-demand field, and the government sets up a system to allow non-citizens to do those jobs, most people will say that this "helps" America. But does it? If the education pipeline is inadequately preparing Americans for being competitive in this in-demand field then perhaps that is the problem that should be addressed. Right now it feels like we have a (highly suspect) "labor shortage" that is addressed via immigration, which doesn't send a signal back to the educational/training infrastructure that they're doing something wrong.
The benefit to the US if he is a citizen is that then his taxes flow to the US and if he's resident his local spending flows to the US economy and that of any geo immediate coworkers there for the face time.
https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/temporary...
Not understanding what point you are making. Is it that any displacement of US citizens' employment via immigration of foreign tech workers is somehow neutered because Linus is really good at writing code and has a US Passport? Anyway, I thought he became a US citizen somewhat recently, well after the bulk of development of Linux. Wikipedia says 2010.
Just going back in time, do you think the US would be better off if we'd excluded Irish immigrants? Italians? Germans? If blocking immigration somehow benefits native-born citizens, you'd logically have to think our population should have stayed the same as it was when we broke away from Britain. We'd be about the size of say Colombia, maybe with a bit higher GPD
>but the population of the United States is 97.9% not from this continent.
This would be a surprise to the 85% of us who were actually born here. In its most simplified form, what those of us who are skeptical of the current immigration regime are wondering out loud is if these processes do actually make "people born in America" better off. "Immigration is always good" has been the mantra since, as you speculate, the 1960s. Probably worth evaluating that idea from first principles from time to time.
It is worth noting, though, that after the peak of immigration in the late 19th century and ending in the 1910s, the United States very intentionally shut off immigration to allow time for assimilation to do its work.
There is a so-called "Technology Alert List" — a list of critical areas (nuclear, missiles, AI, etc.). If a person has a background in one of these areas, they get an automatic U.S. visa refusal during the interview.
Their visa application gets placed on indefinite hold (the so-called "administrative processing"), which can last for years even if it is eventually resolved.
Why? The U.S. government fears espionage. They worry that someone with expertise in a critical field might immigrate to the U.S., secure a job at a company with access to sensitive, export-controlled technology, and then leak that technology to Russia.
Even without espionage, such individuals could gain valuable experience in critical areas and later emigrate back to Russia — a reverse "brain drain."
Given where he ended up, probably.
Cheap rockets are nice, but speed-running a complete destruction of public trust, culture, and of any illusion that the country is one with rule of law for the benefit of a few insecure billionaire narcissists is a juice that wasn't worth the squeeze.
Just because something is popular doesn't mean it's a net good.
The man himself is an insecure narcissist who can't let any slight, real or imagined go unanswered. It would be sad and funny if he didn't own a speech platform, or hitch himself to an absolutely insane political movement.
Well... not for everyone involved. It's definitely a "lose" for the countries they are leaving from, that educated them.
If thousands of the smartest people from the rest of the world want to move to the US and fill these gaps, doesn't that make America better off overall?
This point, assuming for a moment that it's actually true, would matter if "complex software engineering" was all that this was being used for. Complex for whom?
How many jobs require complex SW engineering rather than basic SW engineering?
But the effect is bigger than that, by allowing skilled immigration, it makes US universities and tech companies the best in the world, at the very least seen as such, which has tremendous larger effects.
It’s not a coincidence that we have the largest tech industry, and it’s not because we magically have smarter people.
It seems unlikely we’ll do either of those things moving forward. At least China’s investing in green tech, I guess.
Canada does not have that and it is going very poorly. Lots of people are calling for the implementation of the same policy.
The "problem" with having that many Indians isn't that they're not adapting to Canadian culture it's that they're bringing along some of the bad things from India like the caste system. It's not as bad as many other cultural problems because it's strictly Indians causing problems for other Indians but it's still a problem.
But when immigrants all come from one small region, they tend to only hire people they know or are vetted by someone they know, they only rent properties to people they know or are vetted by people they know, they start to see the locals of the country they're living in as below them, and it just keeps spiraling out of control.
And notice that I specified no race. I specified no country. I specified no religion or ethnic background. It's simply a universal thing that happens in every country. It always leads to far right swings when not quickly addressed. If what I've said in any way comes across as "racist", that's due to the reader inserting their own racial biases and thus their own racism into this statement, because I'm not in any way implying this is confined to one group. It's something that's been a problem for millennia and governments keep making the same mistakes.
This happens with some races more than others. When you import Indians you are importing caste thinking.
[1] https://www.independent.co.uk/asia/india/canada-khalistan-re...
[2] https://www.thecanadianpressnews.ca/national/party-leaders-c...
[3] https://tnc.news/2024/11/04/arrests-brampton-surrey-khalista...
The reason you have to leave the country is because it is not a “renewal” it is a “re-approval” and if you are denied they don’t have to deport you if you’re already out.
It is a visa. If you don’t want to have to leave, you need a PR. Or some new thing.
But if you leave the country for any reason and your entry visa has expired, you have to apply for a new visa to be allowed to return. And you often have to return to your home country to do that. Which can be inconvenient, as it can turn a short vacation or conference trip to a month-long stay in another country. And for citizens of some countries, there is a high risk of denial. Visiting your family can then leave you stranded in a country that's no longer your home, while being locked out of your actual home and life in the US.
This is a peculiar feature of the US system. In most countries, when you renew your temporary work permit (whatever it's called), you also renew you entry permit.
Why do you need a new physical stamp at all if you are not re-entering? I think your argument is backwards here. What I think you’re asking is “why can I stay in the country without taking this step, but I have to take this step to re-enter.”
Well, because when you leave the country you are subject to certain laws. Even a permanent resident cannot just leave and expect to come back whenever without consequence. Even a person eligible to apply for citizenship must meet a minimum threshold of presence.
Now, your question becomes “why are the laws the way they are” and/or “why doesn’t the law make sense”. I conjecture that these situations are particularly fringe for our legislators so they don’t get a ton of attention, and they make just enough sense to remain as is.
Another incredibly stupid thing of the American system is the fact that your spouse cannot work while you're subject to it.
Yeah, seems like this re-approval concept makes a ton of sense. FedEx at least got some business.
We are Finnish citizens and if the passports really had been lost, we could always get new ones at the Finnish consulate in New York to return home.
I’ve held several types of visas, L-1 and O-1, and I also applied for a PERM whatever that I eventually abandoned because I didn’t want to stay in the country and with that employer. The American immigration system is incredibly poorly designed and frustrating for all parties. It drives honest legal immigrants like us to an “I don’t give a shit” mindset where we just did the minimum to get the paperwork while waiting to leave the country.
Now I still get paid by an American company at the same rates as before, but I pay taxes to Finland instead. The immigrant-hostile system isn’t the success you imagine.
You have made it so complicated and unattractive to stay in the country that you don’t care about losing people who wanted to stay and pay taxes, and instead are enabling these jobs to be exported.
The reason I have strong feelings about this topic is that I want America to continue succeeding, and I wanted to be part of it but it didn’t make practical sense for me.
When I was a child in the 1980s living next door to the Soviet Union, the USA was a beacon of hope to us. It sounds corny but it’s true. (Reagan and Clinton were politicians who seemed to intuitively understand this global mood and were able to leverage it. I disagree with them on many specifics, but they excelled at this.)
I know Americans always feel like there’s too much going on at home to care about the rest of the world. But often in history the solutions at home have appeared by opening up, not closing in.
No. You only have to leave the country to have the visa stamp on your passport. That has no bearing on you being authorized to stay or work in the country.
That’s the simple truth. They do that for all types of visas. My mother had to do it, until she finally (reluctantly) became a US citizen, and she lived here, most of her life.
I think she had long-term visas, though. I only remember her doing it a couple of times. I think I went with her, on one of the trips.
As long as you have a valid H1b status, you can stay in the US indefinitely. Having a physical visa in your passport is optional, you only need it when you want to cross back into the US.
Some DMVs like to pretend they are USCIS and they want to see the physical visa in your passport. Annoyed me to no end.
Edit: and, it's flagged and gone. Voila.
I used the same argument in Brazil to support a strong free software preference in all government functions. Support from voters in Redmond wouldn’t get anyone re-elected in Brazil.
Not really. This is really Customs and Border Patrol/Immigration way of saying, you can always do the default/what everyone else does. You can leave and return six months of the year. The key is leave (which they do), they are already declared non-immigrant, and are self-sufficient.
Also, if you leave for six months, how are you even working in the US? Which is the point of the visa.
I always took it as a means of proving they still could return somewhere if necessary. Which is a reasonable thing to assure on a visa.
Ultimately it just wasted time and money, and causes lots of stress, for no useful purpose.
Ultimately it's known to anyone who applies for a visa that this will be the requirement, and so, if they don't want the economic opportunity of working in the US, they're free to avoid the stress and just stay in their home nation.
probably do not have to tell you this but not all visas are created equal... this one is particular is a dual-intent visa so what you are saying applies to SOME visas, just not this one :)
No. H1b is a "dual intent" visa. It's expected that you will file for a permanent residence while on this visa.
If you hire US-based engineers working on R&D (most software engineers) then you amortize their pay over 5 years. Foreign-based engineers working on R&D get amortized over 15 years.
You get to expense 3x as much for domestic engineers compared to foreign engineers. This means you need to pay more taxes upfront for having a foreign R&D team, which is bad for cashflow. Your company could be losing money (unprofitable) but still owe corp income taxes because of Section 174.
If the gov charged "tariffs" on foreign labor or services provided, especially for certain countries that labor is typically outsourced to, or certain types of labor/services (e.g. support, engineering, etc), that'd probably be an effective way to discourage offshoring.
If anything, the way the country caps work in the US right now make integration harder, because no matter how much they try to integrate and be part of the local community, they could be kicked out at any time. That just encourages people to have one foot out the door at all times.
If India were divided into smaller countries like Europe, the same South Asian population, culture, and diversity would persist, but the artificial constraints tied to the name "India" would disappear.
Specific to North America, most people actually like the idea of someone coming from halfway around the world to try to be a citizen of their nation. They do not exactly like the idea of being "carpetbagged" or being "flooded with people who do not integrate" and those perceptions exist not wholly out of imagination.
They do exist wholly out of imagination in this case. You are professing your opinion and stating it as fact. As far as actual immigration statistics go, Indians are a tiny minority, disproportionately successful on wage, crime, and education metrics, and most importantly, legal.
>offers people from a handful of Indian states (and the highest castes).
I really do not get what caste has to do with anything. Which states ? What is the mechanism that favors people from these states or castes ? The legal immigration pathways to the US/Canada are either education or work, and neither of them has any preference for state, caste, etc.
> It's much much better for America if tech companies hire workers in the US, regardless of whether they are citizens. Americans are eligible for those jobs, and that money stays within our economy. Versus employing workers elsewhere, where American's can't easily be hired, and those resources leave the US.
Makes me wonder how many people gladly support this while at the same time clamoring against the EU's DMA and other regulations and fines it imposes on SV companies.
What you're saying is of course absolutely true! I like how plainly you've stated it, because the directness makes clear to people just how awful of a deal it is for the EU and other countries where US tech companies make enormous profits without hiring any significant number of locals.
I've lived in both the EU which suffers from the above, as well as a place where protectionism and barriers helped strongly restrain US tech and "artificially" give opportunity to local players. The latter has worked out so much better for every party involved except US tech.
Canada suffered because a lack of caps.
It leads to a concentration that can be overwhelming.
FWIW every country requires you leave and come back to change or renew visa status. The computers and processes are all setup at points of entry and just aren’t designed for people that don’t physically leave/enter.
It’s so common the guys at the us/Canada land border call it “flagpoleing” because you literally drive a u turn around the flagpole and go back. I’ve done it a dozen times, even driving 4 hours each way in a gnarley winter storm into Alaska and back to Canada at -45.
Not true for EU, either.
In fact, how it works in EU is (for non-EU citizens):
- Get a D visa (for residency)
- Get into the country
- Get a temporary residence permit which is for up to 5 years
- Renew residence permit when it's about to expire or basis (employment, study) is changed - WHILE being in the country.
Re: the concerns over "immigrants taking our jobs!". As a native-born American working in a large tech company today - the threat is very clearly not from H1B's and other visas. The threat to American tech jobs is when US tech companies choose to build out offices in lower cost of living countries (and I'm very much including Europe in that, I think that's even a bigger problem).
It's much much better for America if tech companies hire workers in the US, regardless of whether they are citizens. Americans are eligible for those jobs, and that money stays within our economy. Versus employing workers elsewhere, where American's can't easily be hired, and those resources leave the US.
If we want to keep opportunities here - that's the issue we should be focus on fixing. What regulatory steps could we advocate for that would address this risk? Immigration is the wrong problem, and the focus on that in certain populist circles really demonstrates they are rather out of touch from what's actually happening in the industries that are driving the US economy today.