[testing22321]

I don’t want to defend the cure administration, but it’s very common and normal for a country to require a person to leave to change status.

Every time my Canadian work visa expired I had to drive over the border, enter the US, turn around and drive back to start the new one. The border guards call it “flag-poling” because you do a U turn around the flag pole.

When I went from work visa to permanent resident I had to do it, in January, in Alaska, at -44 degrees and nasty ice on the roads. That border required 30km of driving through no man’s land before I got into Alaska. I asked the Canadian as I was leaving if I could just u turn his building and come back right now, and he was very firm I had to enter the US, even if for just 20 seconds. Nasty drive, but all ok

[array_key_first]

Okay but this has not been the case in the US and everyone knows that. We can try to make things up to rationalize why this being done.

Or, we can be honest, and acknowledge these actors have proven themselves to be irrational. What is happening is that an end-goal is desired, and then the trump administration is working backwards to make it happen.

[declan_roberts]

H1B as a visa status (and the one nearly everyone in this thread being affected by the green card status) is only 36 years old.

The immigration act of 1999 very clearly created it as a temporary visa not a stepping stone to a green card. That's a modern invention.

[attentive]

congress made h1b dual-intent in 1990

[array_key_first]

The "only" is doing A LOT of heavy lifting. Also, you're being a bit dishonest here, because this does not only apply to H1B visa holders.

Also, are those people not the exact demographic that so-called "anti illegal" Republicans should want? They're highly educated and desirable, not welfare queens right?

I will repeat my point. You have been lied to. The Republicans do not give even a single shit about what is legal and what is not. What they desire is less brown people, and then they work backwards to justify it. Any other interpretation is just not reasonable at this point, with the evidence we have been given.

[Arun2009]

> What they desire is less brown people, and then they work backwards to justify it.

Which is a perfectly fine thing by the way. I can't see anything wrong with it. If the Americans want fewer "brown" people in their country, that is entirely their prerogative. It's their country, after all.

I am from India. Indians themselves have preferences for the kind of people they'd like to allow to immigrate to India. Bangladeshi muslims are not desired, whereas Tibetans are welcome. Intra-regional migration is a problem within India itself, with certain populations being seen as less desirable in certain areas.

Perhaps the "brown" people can work on fixing their home countries so that they wouldn't have to emigrate in order to enjoy a better quality of life.

[aceofspades19]

> Perhaps the "brown" people can work on fixing their home countries so that they wouldn't have to emigrate in order to enjoy a better quality of life.

That's an ignorant thing to say. Even in democratic western countries, it can be very difficult for the average person to institute change even at a local level. If you have to battle corruption or war on top of that, it could be impossible. For example, would it be fair to say that a Sundanese villager should just fix their country as PMCs being hired by the UAE(and others) are committing genocide? Or would you consider that reasonable to flee the country in search of a better life?

We have to admit there are lots of cases where people can't just "fix" their own country as there are complex geopolitical issues that a normal person, or a group of normal people are not able to fix. If Americans want fewer "brown" people in their country, the idea should be to promote global economic and political stability so that people can reasonably make their countries a better place, not to just tell them to go away and fix their own problems.

[Arun2009]

> If Americans want fewer "brown" people in their country, the idea should be to promote global economic and political stability

Speaking as an Indian: "brown" people's countries are "brown" people's own responsibilities. If their countries are messed up, they should also own the task of fixing them.

Other countries can feel free to pitch in if it suits their interests, as you say. But the primary responsibility for our motherlands is with ourselves.

> that a normal person, or a group of normal people

We just have to become not-so-normal then!

[abalashov]

> Which is a perfectly fine thing by the way. I can't see anything wrong with it. If the Americans want fewer "brown" people in their country, that is entirely their prerogative. It's their country, after all.

Which Americans? Whose country is it that "their" is referring to here?

[gsky]

Bangladeshi Muslims demanded and got a country for Muslims as they wanted that's why they are not welcomed by Indians. Read history

[quixoticaxolotl]

I'm from India too. It's disingenuous to say things like "Bangladeshi Muslims are not desired" and not mention the massive backlash the Citizenship Amendment Act received. It's almost as if people recognize arbitrary discrimination is the opposite of just.

Attitudes like yours - justifying entitlement without holding its corruption accountable - is why people have to leave their home countries: their own insufferable countrymen.

[declan_roberts]

Nobody would care about this if it didn't affect H1B. The confusion is whether h1b is a temporary visa or some kind of stepping stone. According to the immigration act of 1990 and US law it's a temporary visa and subject to this rule.

For example O-1 is not affected because O-1 is not considered a temporary visa in US law.

O-1 also has no cap. The USA can take in unlimited O-1 immigrants.

[nvgrw]

O-1 is nonimmigrant in the statute, so by definition we take in zero O-1 immigrants. It’s a temporary work visa.

People care about this because it is arbitrary and capricious and runs counter to decades of established practice.

[s1artibartfast]

What are the Canadians up to and why are they doing it?

[freetonik]

That’s strange. I was able to renew a work permit in Canada while staying (and continuing work) in Canada. Same for study permit. This was over a decade ago, so perhaps things have changed.

They also were not called visas, but permits. Visa is for entering the country, permit is for staying.

[annagio_]

The article is about U.S and not Canada. Also yes, you can stay in Canada while apply + wait for the final decision, but if you get rejected, you have to leave. Also in your application, you have to state where you applying from. I find the Canadian immigration system clear and fast, login, input data, pay, wait.

[brimwats]

you can renew the same permit without, but you can't go from one type of permit to another (student to working prof in my case) without flagpoling; you also can't go from a visa to a permit without flagpoling

[zaptheimpaler]

Even if it is common (i don't think this is required any more anyways), just why? Why do we need to make someone run back and forth across the border for the immigration department to do some paperwork? It seems purely designed to inconvenience people for absolutely no gain to anyone.

[sigseg1v]

My guess: If they end up being denied then it's easier to not let them back in by not letting them cross the border whereas if it's in the country it's harder to locate them to deport?

Seems pretty brutal to me though.

[testing22321]

I was “denied” re entry doing a flag pole run once.

They let me in, but had me sign something that I would leave within 30 days.

[LorenPechtel]

I have a strong suspicion this is another way of doing an end run around the courts. If the person is denied entry can they realistically get that changed by a US court? I doubt it.

It also means that if you came here fleeing persecution that you might not be able to return.

[Majromax]

> Even if it is common (i don't think this is required any more anyways), just why?

As far as Canadian law goes, there are two factors at play in the parent's events;

* NAFTA work permits are applied for at the border, on entry; they operate differently from the 'normal' work permit streams.

* Permanent residence is conferred at the border, but the application process can happen either inside or outside the country depending on the stream. There are also limited 'inland' options which evidently have expanded (https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/se...) in recent years.

In neither case does Canada have a blanket rule that an applicant must leave the country during the whole of an extended application process, and even 'abroad' processes can often be carried out while an applicant is living in the country on other status. (It can get awkward if a consular interview is required, though.)

Unlike the US, Canada is generally comfortable with 'dual intent', where intent to apply for permanent residence through legal channels is not disqualifying for other sorts of statuses.

[pandaman]

A consulate overseas is more equipped to vet someone from the country where it is located than a USCIS office in New Hampshire. E.g. it has people able to read the documents in the local language and access to the officials who can validate those, it has people able to call or mail local authorities to ask about an applicant's involvement in crime, it has people who can recognize affiliations with local extremist groups etc.

It is actually really bizarre that the USCIS would essentially take the applicant's word without any vetting before this memo.

[scheme271]

Depending on the person, they may have spent years or possibly a decade or more in the US before trying to get an AOS. As such, the USCIS is probably a better adjudicator than a consulate.

[pandaman]

If someone came in as a child then it's true, and thus there is a discretion. Adults have history in their home country which does not disappear in 10 years or any period of time.

[zaptheimpaler]

Maybe they've heard of email, faxes, phone calls?

[pandaman]

I am sure they had, how is it relevant?

[testing22321]

Because the people and computer systems and processes to admit people into the country and start a visa or PR or whatever are located at the borders.

It’s just how things are done.

[brimwats]

largely/generally this is how it's done for NAFTA visas

[infamia]

> I don’t want to defend the cure administration, but it’s very common and normal for a country to require a person to leave to change status.

This new policy is different than the "flag poling" you've described. The new guidance requires immigrants to return to their country of origin, then apply for the change in status, and wait in their country of origin while the change in status is being processed/considered which can take many years. If the status changed is approved, they can move back to the US.

[rplnt]

You say "normal" and then add the other paragraphs, which are very clearly not normal. Common maybe.