[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!

[aceofspades19]

> 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.

Yes this would make sense if the US & other countries had a policy of non-intervention. When the US & its allies are actively destabilizing these countries, you can't turn around and be like oh now its your fault your country is messed up and you are solely responsible to fix it after we bombed, invaded, or otherwise economically destabilized the region. The long term solution to stop people from immigrating to the US for a better life is to promote political and economic stability in those countries, ie. not bombing them, invading them, removing their leaders, promoting trade with them etc.

I live in Canada and the US is actively trying to destabilize my country through threats of annexation, disregarding trade deals and implementing tariffs, promoting separatism. What can I do to stop the US from doing this exactly? If the US ends up destroying my country, is it my fault? am I solely responsible to fix it?

[welshwelsh]

Nobody said it is their fault. But it is their responsibility.

United States immigration policy is supposed to benefit the United States. It doesn't need to be fair.

The US can bomb a country if it's in US interests, and then deny immigrants from that country if that immigration is not in US interests. It really is that simple.

[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

[AkshatM]

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.