[rayiner]

To be clear, H1B is not an immigrant intent visa. It’s a non-immigrant visa. “Dual intent” is like Schrödinger's intent. It allows someone who is on a non-immigrant visa to avoid the presumption of immigrant intent that would otherwise apply—rendering them deportable—when they apply for a green card.

The statutory protection for H1Bs is thin. In 1990, Congress excluded H1B from the requirement applicable to other non-immigrants that they retain a foreign residence, and from the rebuttal presumption that someone who applies for a green card has immigrant intent. That’s it. The common operation of H1B as being an immigrant-intent visa is mostly a matter of administrative grace.

[jrockway]

I guess "plausible deniability" is the best anyone intending to immigrate to the US can do. It's crazy how difficult we make it.

[rayiner]

The system is byzantine because it is a hack around public opinion. Since 1965, support for more immigration peaked around 35%: https://nypost.com/2022/08/08/more-americans-want-fewer-immi..., with everyone else wanting it to either stay the same or be reduced.

The 1965 immigration act was sold to americans on the idea that it was simply ending country-origin discrimination, and wouldn’t increase immigration or change america’s demographics: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/29/podcasts/the-daily/electi....

So Congress can take advantage of the fact that a lot of people are okay with the status quo, but can’t affirmatively enact legislation that would be seen as creating a new pathway for permanent immigration. So the current system was built on a series of small measures that could fly under the radar. Eliminating the rebuttable presumption of immigrant intent in subsection blah blah blah doesn’t sound like it’s going to create a new pathway for permanent immigrants.