Live data from Hacker News

Tech companies are telling immigrant employees on visas not to leave the U.S.

washingtonpost.com

101–110 of 200 posts

Re: Tech companies are telling immigrant employees on visas not to leave the U.S.

#101
post #10

I'm super interested to see what the next HN thread with that proberts lawyer dude is like. I found the commentary in the last post from him to be pretty meagre, whether it was because people were afraid to talk about this kind of stuff or they just didn't know, I'm not sure, but it seems like reality is quickly setting in for a lot of people in the US. Things are changing and they're changing fast. You won't be able…

> Things are changing and they're changing fast.

What has changed?

Re: Tech companies are telling immigrant employees on visas not to leave the U.S.

#102
post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The most interesting thing I see is people overestimate how resilient the system is. Unfortunately, this is at the whim of a president, who with a majority in the court, dictates the law. With a ban or at his whim, even legal residents can find themselves out. We tend to think the system is resilient to this, but ultimately it really isn't. Scholars cannot even agree on whether these tech workers are entitled to the…

Its not like immigrants have had wonderful, controllable and predictable paths to residency in the past. For those who arent Einstein or belong to the over rated HN crowd, the system has always be exploitative. Anyone who isnt born rich and has been through the process has had to live with constant fear, doubt and uncertainty.

I emigrated to the US as a fiancée. It was not necessarily easy or cheap (I'm agreeing with you) and I came from a "low visa fraud risk country" (Australia). Some of the challenges faced:

It probably cost around $30,000 all up. Every visit to a consular office or USCIS cost about $100 in biometrics alone (each time). Fees for applying, fees for adjustments.

My partner and I had an issue where I was supporting her (she was in school). The system is not set up for that, and expects the US citizen to be financially supporting their prospective spouse. I realize that there are challenges around our situation in terms of providing a financial benefit to a USC that could be construed as paying for a visa.

I was interviewing for jobs in the US from Australia as my move date got closer (after the visa was approved). Siemens nearly torpedoed things when they wanted to start a H-1B or other visa app for me even after being repeatedly told I didn't need one.

My fiancees family ended up having to sponsor me, signing declarations of financial responsibility, that they could be made to repay any government benefit I claimed within the first 10 years of living here (tied to that previous issue).

Some of the evidentiary requirements (bona fide relationship) were reasonable and actually quite clever (separated, and asked questions like who usually does dishes, or takes out trash, and what day is trash day for that matter, and beyond) and others were onerous (I had to pay BoA an exorbitant amount to get all bank statements for 3 years, copied and notarized).

In the end, ironically we determined I would have been "adjusted" to a unconditional LPR more quickly, and more cheaply, if I had come here on a visa waiver, promising not to get married, and just got married and said "oops, my bad, can I be converted anyway?" than actually doing it the right way.

Re: Tech companies are telling immigrant employees on visas not to leave the U.S.

#103
post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe they are free to challenge the decision in an administrative court in the US (under Attorney General, not an Article III court) but they can be arrested. In any case, most countries would reserve the rights to kick you out. That's the deal you make with the country when you choose to get their visa and go there.

I don't think the controversy is about deporting people who are no longer wanted in the country. It's about the use of unnecessary force. The principle of minimum necessary force is pretty integral to Western societies. It includes the idea that the authorities are not allowed to arrest anyone until more reasonable options have been exhausted.

Unless there is an imminent threat or you want to send a message and act as a deterrent.

Re: Tech companies are telling immigrant employees on visas not to leave the U.S.

#104
post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The law is unfortunately very vague and thus open to interpretation (which is ultimately subject to the commander in chief, the current clown) That is it exactly. The US legal/governmental system is a house of cards that has been running for at least 150 years on a bunch of wink-wink-nudge-nudge assumptions that both sides were too scared to test or even acknowledge. An ounce of prevention might have been worth a p…

> both sides were too scared to test or even acknowledge I think that’s harsh. I think the folks in government generally believed that the opposition was there in good faith and with the intent of strengthening the nation, even if they disagreed on how. I don’t think that’s the case any longer and institutions based on good faith don’t work when the group in power is willing to light everything on fire.

i think this is a key point, and this is why this problem will remain until we make some drastic changes.

to look at a completely different example: the internet was designed on good faith. year after year more things have been put into place to protect against those not operating in good faith. proof of work against AI bots is just the latest example.

what is really needed is a change in education. we need to teach the next generation that operating in good faith is absolutely essential for the future of mankind. we can no longer assume that good faith is the default. it isn't any more.

Re: Tech companies are telling immigrant employees on visas not to leave the U.S.

#105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The truth is much of it could have been prevented (court packing was one idea that might have been unpopular, but there are many other ideas that could have been acted upon). We live with consequences of failures of the Democratic party for the last decade. Had Ruth Ginsberg been pressured to retire after her numerous health issues, Roe v Wade would never have been overturned (it was a 1 vote swing). Had primaries oc…

> We live with consequences of failures of the Democratic party for the last decade. While that's not completely wrong, I find it fascinating that everyone seems to treat the Republican party as having no culpability. We have a Republican party that's had a policy goal of blowing up the government for a half century with varying levels of how far they were willing to take it, but it's the Democratic party's fault for…

I mean, I think most people who say this do think the Republicans are more to blame. It's just that they also think the Republicans are beyond hope so there's no point attempting to make them feel guilty.

Also we as humans tend to assign a different flavor of blame to people who do bad things than to people who claim to be preventing them while not actually doing so. If a criminal is holding a victim at gunpoint and then they drop their gun and a bystander picks it up and hands it back to the thug, we tend to view that as wrong act even though it's dependent on the criminal's earlier wrong act.

Likewise when Republicans do bad things over and over and then Democrats argue that they'll do better but they just hand the same system back over to the Republicans, people are going to be dissatisfied with that. Added to this is the perception that Democratic politicians do this to protect their own political position and preserve what power they individually have, which makes Democratic inaction even more irritating.

Re: Tech companies are telling immigrant employees on visas not to leave the U.S.

#106
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait until they declare nonresidents are not entitled to properties in the US and seize all bank accounts and 401k, USSR style. The scariest thing, and most absurd to me, is that even though I made that joke just 1 minute ago, now that I think about it, it is not completely impossible in this current political climate... I dread to think about what the US will be 10 years from now. Trump is not the problem. He is a s…

I don’t think your hypothetical is crazy at all. I learned this weekend that much of my close family, who were pretty normal conservatives just a couple of years ago, now believe that all legal and illegal immigrants have been let into the country by jws to eliminate the white race. And that’s not an exaggeration at all. Like I’m mincing words to make them look less bad. My family is not the down and out, they never…

[flagged]

Re: Tech companies are telling immigrant employees on visas not to leave the U.S.

#107
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The system is actually quite resilient. What you are describing is a specific impact the system might have on someone's situation. That makes a specific situation non-resilient, not the system. Everyone in the whole world who is on a visa knows that is not the most resilient situation, by definition. Also, it is well-settled that visa is a discretionary benefit. Green card is more nuanced, but still not a panacea. So…

Sure it's discretionary. But to (a) Revoke it with no warning (b) Instantly making your presense illegal, and you a criminal, and due to your new criminal status(c) immediatly abducting you by masked, unidentified "officers" in an official capacity and sending you on a plane anywhere but here, seems to, I don't know? "stir the pot" as you say? These revocations could be done far more graciously than they are. It cert…

Exactly. It's discretionary, but for reasons I won't go into here, I had to have an immigration attorney for my green card adjustment. Her constant refrain was that I was not to worry as it was "discretionary but presumptive" - my previous efforts and process laid it that the onus was on the USG to show that my green card was or might be fraudulent or in bad faith.

Now? The same applies, but the current administration's attitude is "So stop us."

Re: Tech companies are telling immigrant employees on visas not to leave the U.S.

#108
post #101
post #10

I'm super interested to see what the next HN thread with that proberts lawyer dude is like. I found the commentary in the last post from him to be pretty meagre, whether it was because people were afraid to talk about this kind of stuff or they just didn't know, I'm not sure, but it seems like reality is quickly setting in for a lot of people in the US. Things are changing and they're changing fast. You won't be able…

> Things are changing and they're changing fast. What has changed?

> What has changed?

From the freaking title: “Tech companies are telling immigrant employees on visas not to leave the U.S.”

Re: Tech companies are telling immigrant employees on visas not to leave the U.S.

#109

at this point, what's even the point of immigrating here? if you're still young and haven't rooted yourself to this place (no family / house / significant other), I'd advise to leave and look to build a life in a different country. the best years of your life would be better lived elsewhere.

Yes that's true, I really don't know what the endgame is for this new admin. Growing up south of the border we always knew the beauty of this country was richness in cultural diversity. It seems like we're going backwards now?.

Re: Tech companies are telling immigrant employees on visas not to leave the U.S.

#110
post #98
post #47

Given all the remote work tech that the pandemic helped mature, the answer seems obvious.

Seems but isn't due to the way taxation/jurisdiction/licensure works. Where you are doing your work from and where the benefactor of that work are make a big difference. Example: Doctors can't telehealth over State lines. Lawyers likewise. Employers aren't supposed to allow migrant workers to work from across state lines from their address of record. A great deal of draconian control is actually implemented through e…

Doctors can definitely telehealth through state lines, they only need to get license approval from the specific states.
Post reply on HN