Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 200 posts

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

#91

Post by simonw »

parineum wrote: post #73
simonw wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

H1B is a dual-intent visa, which means holders are allowed to pursue permanent residency (upgrading them to an immigrant by the US legal definition) by applying for a green card. Most people use the term "immigrant" for people who have chosen to live in another country without considering the "non-immigrant" status of their visa.

Is there some rule that says other people aren't allowed to pursue a green card? That doesn't seem like a differentiator to me. That's a real question, I have no idea how any of it really works in the practical sense.

Yeah, see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_intent

> Persons with H-1B visas (for specialty workers and their spouses and minor children with H-4 visas), K visas (for fiancees or foreign spouses of US citizens and their minor children), L visas (for corporate transferees and their spouses and minor children), and V visas (spouses and minor children of lawful permanent residents) are permitted to have dual intent under the Immigration and Nationality Act.[1]

> Most other foreign visitors and workers, like those on H-2B worker, H-3 trainee/worker, B-1 business, B-2 tourist, Visa Waiver Program visitor, F-1 student, J-1 exchange visitor, M-1 student, journalism, and entertainer visas should not have immigrant intent. Such visa holders can be denied admission if the consular or port official reasonably believes that they have interest in permanently remaining in the United States (i.e., in pursuing a green card).

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

#93

Post by OccamsMirror »

addicted wrote: post #62
zombiwoof wrote: post #24

[flagged]

That’s fine. All those H1Bs will go back to their home countries, work for the same companies at a fraction of the salary and instead of paying taxes and rent and other expenses in the US will pay in their home countries. And when they are laid off, or drop off to start their own companies, those companies will be based in their home countries instead of in the U.S. I think this is a great and moral plan to reverse t…

As an Australian I'm pretty keen to start seeing a higher tier of people choosing Australia over the US to move to now.

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

#94

Post by tgma »

cjbgkagh wrote: post #89
tgma wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The terminology makes all the difference, though. You cannot just handwave it away. A US National is not removable by the discretion of U.S. Secretary of State, but a LPR can be found deportable based on that. The law could not be more clear. This is not a First Amendment concern. You don't have to commit a crime or to be charged with one. Even your mere presence is enough to trigger the statute. You can debate if Ru…

In general the people making appeals to freedom of speech as a traditionally held cultural value are the same ones who not long ago espoused that freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. It was a bad idea then, it’s a bad idea now, but I would have much more sympathy for the left had they maintained a tradition of freedom of speech as a cultural value throughout and not only when its convenient for…

Your point in hypocrisy of appeal to Freedom of Speech (cultural, not constitutional) is well-taken, but I would argue it is a red-herring: unless you have studied their intelligence files, it is not at all clear to the general public whether the deportees are merely selected because of a speech concern or some more nefarious intent or association.

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

#95

Post by jltsiren »

tgma wrote: post #75
jltsiren wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Finland (and I guess in some other European countries) deportation in itself is not a sufficient reason for arrest. Once you have been informed of the decision, you get some time to leave voluntarily, or to challenge the decision in the administrative court system. But you won't be arrested until the decision is final and you have failed to leave voluntarily, unless there are specific reasons to the contrary. And…

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.

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

#96

Post by tgma »

nxhxgs wrote: post #88
MPSFounder wrote: post #12

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.

+1. This.

As an alien you would have generally been extra wary of your behavior. Civil disobedience and dedication to political action is not what you should expect of an average alien.

Some natural born citizens seem to have been introduced to the immigrant experience yesterday.

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

#98

Post by salawat »

xfp wrote: 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 employment and licensure law, and as with most things in real life, come bundled with a surprising amount of detail. Part of why I've become particularly dissatisfied with the U.S. as of late, as so much of it is predicated on actually keeping you locked into one geographical location.

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

#99

Post by riffraff »

jmye wrote: post #46
BrenBarn wrote: post #23

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 recall McCain in 2008 telling a republican supporter that Obama was a decent person and they shouldn't be afraid if he won.

Things have escalated quickly and recently.

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

#100

Post by cjbgkagh »

tgma wrote: post #94
cjbgkagh wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In general the people making appeals to freedom of speech as a traditionally held cultural value are the same ones who not long ago espoused that freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. It was a bad idea then, it’s a bad idea now, but I would have much more sympathy for the left had they maintained a tradition of freedom of speech as a cultural value throughout and not only when its convenient for…

Your point in hypocrisy of appeal to Freedom of Speech (cultural, not constitutional) is well-taken, but I would argue it is a red-herring: unless you have studied their intelligence files, it is not at all clear to the general public whether the deportees are merely selected because of a speech concern or some more nefarious intent or association.

Keeping secrets from the public is a good way to lose the public trust which they’ll need to stay in power. Otherwise their replacements will have their own secret reasons to be deporting people.

I’ve already resigned myself to the reality that freedom of speech no longer exists and hasn’t existed for some time. I think only the times when we thought we had freedom of speech was when information was very tightly controlled and the few cranks in the periphery were not a threat to government legitimacy. An increasingly weak and illegitimate government cannot afford to allow free speech.

Post reply on HN