[rayiner]

If you come to the U.S. on a visa that’s explicitly labeled a “nonimmigrant” visa for people who are “coming temporarily to the United States to perform services,” then it’s not “cruel” to actually enforce that. Those words are literally in the law.

[kelnos]

The law doesn't describe reality, though. The so-called "non-immigrant" visas are really not that. "Non-immigrant" has a specific legal meaning, and like many legal terms, they don't match up with what you might consider everyday usage of the term.

And even if they were truly non-immigrant, who cares? If someone comes to the US, does good, useful work, and stays out of trouble, I want them to be given the opportunity to stay permanently. You may not, perhaps, but, well... I don't care.

[rayiner]

When the reality doesn’t match what the law says, that’s a bad thing!

> The so-called "non-immigrant" visas are really not that. "Non-immigrant" has a specific legal meaning

The legal meaning here is the same as the common usage. For example, H1B is defined as someone “who is coming temporarily to the United States to perform services.” The words here are being used in their ordinary way.

> And even if they were truly non-immigrant, who cares?

You should care that the actual operation of the immigration system reflects the laws Congress actually passed through the democratic process. Congress didn’t have the votes to pass a permanent immigration pathway back then, and it doesn’t have the votes today.

If you want to make your case to change the law, be my guest. There’s zero appetite for it in the GOP, and very little willingness to use political capital on the issue by Democrats. Think about the fuss Democrats have made over deporting illegal immigrants. But they’ve said almost nothing about Trump’s attempts to restrict legal immigration.

[selimthegrim]

Are you talking about Hart-Celler or 1990?

[rayiner]

1990. The 1990 law was a compromise that kept H visas as a nonimmigrant temporary worker visa. The 1990 law created EB-1 visas, which are explicitly immigrant visas. So there was a clear intent to reserve the guaranteed permanent residency pathway only for people meeting very high standards.

[CWIZO]

The law is ever changing and is not always a reflection of what's right, moral, ethical, etc.

You have plenty of historical examples of this, most prominently slavery being legal.

It's ok to defend a thing, but just because the law says so is very rarely a good argument.