Edit: Thank you again for the great questions and discussion. I'm taking a break now and will return in about an hour. If I miss any questions before the AMA ends today, I'll do my best to respond tomorrow
Wish you the best!
Thank you!
I'm a software engineer with 3 years of experience and a MSc degree in computer science. I'm currently working in a big tech company in the UK and I would like to move to the US in the near future. At the moment I'm more leaning toward an L1 because I don't have to go through the lottery but I'm exploring other scenarios. Would you recommend trying to move to the US with an L1 or an H1B? Does an L1 provide a path to a GC? What are the cons of an L1 visa compared to an H1B?
Again, many thanks!
I’m currently on an L1B visa, which is a three-year dual-intent visa extendable for another two years. This should provide ample time to initiate and complete a Green Card application under Employment-Based 2nd preference.
However, I would consider choosing the H1-B visa for the following reasons:
It’s getting harder to get L1-B because USCIS are asking more questions about if a candidate has specialized knowledge to meet the requirements.
The processing times for Green Cards and PERM are increasing and five years might not be enough in the near future. In that case you would need a very cooperative employer to allow you to continue the application via Consular Processing from the UK.
My own Green Card application began in 2022, and I’m not likely to receive it until 2026 due to the substantial backlog for applicants from the Rest of the World (ROW) category, which includes British-born individuals.
On an L1 visa, you’ll be tied to your current job until either your Employment Authorization Document (EAD) arrives and you have portability under AC21, you’re approved for an H1-B visa with a different employer (which will reset your Green Card application timeline); or you’re approved for a Green Card.
If you switch to an H1-B visa, you have the flexibility to change jobs before your Green Card is approved. You can also retain your Priority Date (PD), which represents your position in the Green Card queue, although you’ll need to restart all the steps of the process again. Additionally, your H1-B visa is extendable indefinitely after receiving an approved I-140 petition.
This immigration system here is a mess and it’s getting worse. Not to discourage you but this is the worst time for Brits to move here.
My experience matches exactly what you have said.
One benefit I forgot to mention of L1 is that spouses can work incidental of status. L2S is essentially an open work permit but is tied to the validity of the L1 visa.
I came to the US via L1B but went straight into green card. Unfortunately EB2 ROW is backlogged at the moment so you might be looking at 2-3 years. And if your company does lay off, they'd have to pause the PERM process for 6 months, which will add further delays to your timeline.
I’m trying to understand the dual intent nature of O1A. I’m a PhD student with EB2-NIW and EB1A approved. Unfortunately, I am not expecting a green card in the next 6-12 years due to my country of birth.
I am eligible for O1A, but it seems like the dual-intent of O1A seems to be in grey area unlike H1B. Would I have any issues with O1A stamping in foreign embassies or during reentry given that I filed I-140 and showed immigration intent? Or is it safe to assume that O1A is also dual intent? Thanks!
Unfortunately, there are a lot of EB1C greencard applicants from my country (India) as the bar for L1 and EB1C is pretty low. Since all EB1 visas (EB1A, EB1B, and EB1C) are counted together towards the cap, that means that even though I required a muncher higher bar to qualify for EB1A, I have to wait in queue with all the EB1C applicants who applied before me.
Based on my estimate, it’ll be more than 6 years (or even more) for EB1A priority date to come to late 2024.
I'm a college dropout working as a SWE at one of the FAANG companies in Europe.
I understand that there are two paths I can take -- getting transferred by my company on an L-1B or try to compensate a degree with 12+ years of experience for an H1-B. Do you have any tips for people without degrees from what you've seen in practice? How often do you see people without a degree getting any of the visas?
Is there any chance I can get an o1 if I have a really good resume (10+ YOE, half of it at very-well-known companies)?
Do you think a state like Oregon can continue to have a state constitution it does with support for immigration as a sanctuary, etc. or is Oregon supposed to be more duty bound by local state constitution? What happens when they are mutually exclusive or the federal government gives orders that are unlawful locally? Does this become a 10th amendment issue?
The upcoming conflict, however, is going to be about a different issue: state and local governments actually interfering with and hindering the enforcement of federal law. I suspect that is going to get smacked down hard on supremacy clause grounds.
The exception proves the rule, however.
My understanding is that cannabis regulation in the United States is mostly predicated on a case where a farmer grew his own non-cannabis, I believe it was wheat, and then the government compelled everyone to sell their wheat at a specific price, which he did not want to do. He protested and I believe turned the wheat into other products, which caused this court case.
The result of the case was that the government was able to justify use of the Interstate Commerce clause because the actions of NOT selling the wheat could cause economic disruption.
The case is Wickard v. Filburn (1942)
This was essentially re-upped in 2005 with Gonzales v. Raich (2005)
Wickard v. Filburn established "activities local in nature can still be regulated by Congress if, in the aggregate, they could substantially affect interstate commerce."
The effects of this ruling are broad. Like all things there are plenty of things that as it stands right now are built on top of that legal "system" like bills that enforce clean drinking water, but those can be done a different and correct way and we don't need the government using this method to accomplish that.
It's possible they are avoiding the marijuana fight in order to keep this broad interpretation, though. I have a pet theory that the equal rights amendment isn't in the constitution to avoid a legal fight that would also strike down the income tax, but these are all sort of just theories.
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
But you need to present in USA to apply for a new permit and attend biometrics in USA?
OP will have to bring his his family to usa every year, afaik.
The US taxes global income for all residents: https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/freq...
If I come from Australia with an E3 visa, what is the pathway for me to get a greencard? On the US Gov website, the E3 visa is a non-immigrant visa. does this mean that I can't convert to H1B or greencard if I came with E3 visa?
Thankyou
You can't land and immediately start applying for a green card, but if say you worked a 2-3 year contract and decided you wanted to stay, you could pursue a green card that you're eligible for. Most immigration firms that specialize in green cards will give you free advice on what the best route is (based on your background).
For some discussion: https://www.lightmanimmigration.com/blog/e-3-visa-green-card...
1) Partner moved to the US in L1B status, after 2-3 years successfully adjusted to L1A status, based on having been promoted and perhaps been initially misclassified. Would they be eligible for the EB1C green card?
2) How can an individual on the STEM OPT extension best work on their own entrepreneurial ventures? Would it be sufficient to incorporate as a C-Corp and have 1-2 Americans on the Board, with the authority to fire me, serving as my supervisors? They have relevant work experience and could easily be my manager in a corporate environment. Or do they have to own >50% of the company too?
Part of their asylum plea is admission to activities that Russia criminalized during the invasion of Ukraine - draft dodging, dissemination information about the invasion, and sending aid money to their relatives in Ukrainian.
If they were deported back to Russia, their asylum plea would ostensibly be used as an admission of guilt.
With the change in administrations, there is a lot of consternation in the community that their hearing will go badly or be cancelled altogether. Is there any indication what will happen with these cases yet?
I don’t think Griswold is wrong per se. Rather, I think it’s based on a libertarian view of the Constitution that almost none of Griswold’s proponents actually support.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, AND (capitalized for emphasis) subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
If they can get the SCOTUS to reconsider United States v. Wong Kim Ark from 1898 it could go either way - the court is conservative and public sentiment has shifted.
It's pretty easy to make a compelling argument.
The 14th Amendment was intended to address the citizenship status of freed slaves and their descendants post-Civil War. It was not meant to apply to the children of immigrants, particularly those who were not legally present or had not pledged allegiance to the U.S.
A stricter interpretation of "subject to the jurisdiction." means it should require complete, exclusive allegiance to the U.S., which might not apply to children of undocumented immigrants due to their parents' legal status or nationality.
You could also argue that the current interpretation dilutes national sovereignty by automatically bestowing citizenship without a clear reciprocal pledge of allegiance from the parents.
The fact that children of diplomats do not automatically gain citizenship due to not being "subject to the jurisdiction" in the fullest sense could be expanded to include children of undocumented immigrants, arguing that these parents, too, are outside full U.S. jurisdiction.
Finally, United States v. Wong Kim Ark was decided under different circumstances. The socio-political context has changed. This could be used to justify revisiting the original interpretation.
Wong Kim Ark doesn’t answer the question, because it doesn’t even try to interpret the term. Instead it assumes that the framers of the 14th amendment meant to incorporate English common law of citizenship. Maybe that’s true, but that’s not what the Court thought the term meant in the Slaughterhouse Cases two decades before that.
Justice Harlan also had a well reasoned dissent in that case, noting that English common law on citizenship arose out of feudalism and wasn’t necessarily an appropriate source on the question.
I think it’s unlikely this will get overturned, but it’s not a frivolous argument.
Regardless, I wouldn’t call an argument supported by clear dicta in one Supreme Court case and a solid dissent in another “frivolous.” But I’d put the odds of the Supreme Court ruling in Trump’s favor substantially below 10%. You lose 100% of the shots you don’t take, though.
"It is a maxim not to be disregarded that general expressions in every opinion are to be taken in connection with the case in which those expressions are used. If they go beyond the case, they may be respected, but ought not to control the judgment in a subsequent suit when the very point is presented for decision. The reason of this maxim is obvious. The question actually before the court* is investigated with care, and considered in its full extent. Other principles which may serve to illustrate it are considered in their relation to the case decided, but their possible bearing on all other cases is seldom completely investigated."
* The question in Slaughterhouse cases being on the topic of whether the 14th Amendment automatically subsumed the legislative authority of states in important respects, rather than the eligibility of children of foreign nationals for US citizenship.
If you want some more examples:
Voting, Jury Service, Employment Authorization, and Driver's licenses.
[1] https://calawyers.org/publications/taxation/ca-tax-lawyer-ma...
This would imply that neither jus soli nor jus sanguinis citizenship would be applied to the children of US citizens who hold dual citizenship, that wouldn't fly at all, given that it would leave such folks entirely stateless.
> The socio-political context has changed.
This does not matter to a textualist reading of the constitution, which the majority of members of the current court claim to apply.
> The fact that children of diplomats do not automatically gain citizenship due to not being "subject to the jurisdiction" in the fullest sense could be expanded to include children of undocumented immigrants, arguing that these parents, too, are outside full U.S. jurisdiction.
The counter to this is that undocumented immigrants would be totally outside of the jurisdiction of any US legal enforcement except for deportation. The local police cannot arrest or detain someone who is outside of their jurisdiction. If a parent is outside of the US jurisdiction, they have some equivalent of diplomatic immunity. You can't say "you're under jurisdiction of the US for law enforcement purposes, but not for immigration purposes".
The whole phrase about 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' refers to the fact that foreign diplomats (and often, their families) are not subject to the jurisdiction of their countries of residence, a concept known as diplomatic immunity. This sometimes leads to people with diplomatic privileges avoiding legal consequences that would otherwise result in fines or custodial sentences, as in this recent case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Harry_Dunn
Regular, not-diplomatic people of foreign origin who are in the US are subject to the jurisdiction of US courts like anyone else. I have never found any legal justification for the opposite view other than the intense desire of the proponent for things to be different. Usually people who want to sweep aside this precedent rely on an 18th century book called The Law of Nations by Swiss legal theorist Emer Vattel, which opts for a concept of de jure (naturalized) citizenship rather than jus soli (of the soil) citizenship as exists here and in some other countries. They argue that it was a very popular book in its day and that Washington, Jefferson, and other founders of the US had certainly read it. when asked why they didn't just write this into the Constitution you usually get a hand-wavey answer about how it was so obvious they didn't see any need (at best) or the person just stops responding or gets mad (at worst).
> All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
> The first observation we have to make on this clause is that it puts at rest both the questions which we stated to have been the subject of differences of opinion. It declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States. That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.
In any event: Longstanding actual practice has followed the conventional interpretation of "subject to the jurisdiction"; see, e.g., former British prime minister Boris Johnson, who was born in NYC to British citizens and thus had to pay U.S.-citizen taxes until he renounced his citizenship. [1]
Finally, as has also been noted: No sane person would assert with a straight face that a suspected thief, murderer, or unsafe driver was immune from arrest and prosecution in the U.S., merely because s/he happened to be born in the U.S. to undocumented parents and therefore was supposedly not "subject to the jurisdiction."
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slaughter-House_Cases#Analysis
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/08/boris-johns...
(Whether Louisiana's action in granting a private monopoly on meat processing was a reasonable way to promote public safety was another question: The Court's opinion focused on the 14th Amendment and federal privileges and immunities vs. those under state law.)
The 5-4 majority's rationale went too far: As the opinion says, the Reconstruction Amendments (13 through 15) were intended to hem in state governments — notably but not exclusively those of the South, which by and large were dominated (often through murderous mob- and militia violence) by white, racist, recent- and still-aspiring enslavers — but the majority left the door too open to the possibility of states'-rights arguments. [0]
In all other exceptions to the 14th amendment, either you are dealing with an invading army, or you are dealing with people who have diplomatic immunity, all cases where they are not subject to American Civil law (and law enforcement). So how does the court thread the needle to allow law enforcement to interact with folks who it is claiming are not subject to US jurisdiction?
Wong Kim Ark cited Schooner Exchange, which explained that nations have absolute jurisdiction over persons on their territory. It framed the cases you’re talking about, those having diplomatic immunity, as being a waiver of jurisdiction that was customary under international law.
It is only ambiguous read in a vacuum. Read in the comtext of the US legal tradition in which it was written and the way the prior English common law tradition was incorporated into that tradition, it is...rather unambiguous. (Most notably, its exactly how the Supreme Court had applied the principles of English common law involved in multiple citizenship cases before the 14th Amendment establishing a uniform Constitutional rule for birthright citizenship was drafted and ratified. )
> If they can get the SCOTUS to reconsider United States v. Wong Kim Ark from 1898 it could go either way.
Sure, if they can get the court to ignore the clear meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the context in which it was written, it can go either way. But Wong Kim Ark isn't like Roe and the line of cases descended from it, its not controversial even within the kind of conservative legal tradition that dominates the court.
The Trump Administration could probably get such a case before the Court if it really wanted to, but even this court I can’t see splitting more favorably to overturning the status quo on this point than 8-1 against.
That the decision is wrong is pretty clear from the Constitution itself: where it intends there to be a Constitutional legal immunity for official acts for Constitutional officers, it explicitly states it (e.g., the speech and debate clause in Article I.) The absence of any such statement for the President and the narrow one provided for members of Congress make it clear that creating a broad Presidential official act immunity ex nihilo for the President is contrary to and an inversion of the Constitutional design, putting a single actor above the law rather than bound by it.
However, presidential immunity did give Obama the ability to launch a drone strike against him in the name of national security. He could basically execute the individual and was protected because of his presidential immunity.
Immunity is implied by the Constitution because of separation of powers, and it's been a long-held policy that the president has immunity so that he can do his duties without fear of criminal or civil prosecution, and this is a perfect example of this.
The only thing SCOTUS did was make it clear that the President does have immunity when conducting official acts. This was something that was long-held policy but never officially declared until last year.
It’s not the Supreme Court’s fault that Jack Smith charged Trump based in part on his instructions to his own DOJ. A smart prosecutor would’ve written an indictment based purely on conduct that was obviously unofficial acts, which the Supreme Court held was not protected.
I don't expect this to be upheld. Many tech workers will be affected if it somehow is, though.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/prot...
1. Probably the weakest notion is to revoke birthright going forward on children born in US to parents without legal status.
2. A stronger notion seems to be the revocation of birthright going forward on children born in the US to parents with green cards but not yet US citizenship. This seems to be a popular form of jus sanguinis in some EU countries.
3. I'm not sure how serious is the talk about revocation of birthright retroactively for all those born on US soil but to parents who at the time only had green cards.
Does anyone have an idea of the momentum behind the stronger forms of revocation?
I recognize that it's unlikely that this part of the order would stand in the end, but in the meantime is it plausible I might run into issues in interactions w/ the federal government? ('the fight is the point') Are there any documents I should get in order that might help? (already have my passport, having trouble track down original visa documents for my parents from when they first came to the US in the 70s)
A future child in your situation would not gain American citizenship, and I think you asked a legitimate question. The immigration system is particularly sensitive to executive power, and thus likely to show the biggest near-term effects.
Is the L1B path available for people who contract for US companies from abroad?
Lots of software engineers in the EU work for US companies using a B2B contract as sole entrepreneurs without an official employer/employee relation, but they bill 40h/week so in fact these are full time positions. I'm in a situation like this. Every month I issue an invoice where I state exactly how many hours I worked. Does it make me eligible for a L1B transfer to the US office?
Thank you for your time, cheers.
I’m seeking advice on the optimal path for immigration to the U.S., as I see significant opportunities there, both in research and the startup ecosystem.
A bit about my background: I am Ukrainian and currently finishing my PhD in the EU. I have several first-author publications in tier-one conferences, although I once had a visa rejected to attend a U.S. conference to present a paper. In addition, I have contributed to non-first-author papers and workshops. Previously, I co-founded a startup in the EU focused on improving the educational system, which is still in operation. Currently, I am completing an internship at a FAANG company in the EU and planning to launch another startup in the near future.
Thanks in advance!
Try posting without having an account from mobile. Website asks you to type login and password, then says that such account already exists and you need to create a new one. What I did not know, it was creating accounts and posting without my knowledge.
Have a good day.
I am a STEM postdoctoral researcher currently in the first year of my STEM OPT, and I am planning to apply for a green card in the coming months alongside my STEM OPT extension. After consulting with an immigration lawyer, I have been advised to pursue the NIW EB-2 category.
I would greatly appreciate your insights on the following questions:
1. Based on your experience, how would you rank the importance of the following evidence in supporting an NIW EB-2 application (from most to least important)?
- Citations
- Competitive awards and fellowships
- Experience as a peer reviewer
- Letters of recommendation
- Expert opinions (independent letters of recommendation)
- Research in an area of high importance to the United States
2. The legal fees quoted by my lawyer seem very high compared to figures I’ve found elsewhere online. Given my current severe financial constraints, I was wondering if you could share what you consider a reasonable range for all legal fees associated with an EB-2 application (NIW I-140 petition, Adjustment of Status, RFEs).
3. If you have worked with any immigration lawyers or firms that would be appropriate for cases like mine and that you would recommend, I would be very grateful for your suggestions.
Thank you so much for your time and advice. I truly value your perspective and any guidance you can provide as I navigate this process.
O-1 would require demonstrating acclaim - not sure how that is done.
E1/2 - the significant trade part isn’t that clear to me. Not sure who qualifies.
H1B is a lottery.
I can’t quite gauge my chances to be honest.
If you're curious: the vast majority of Europeans currently moving to the U.S. for tech jobs typically do so on L-1A or L-1B visas. To qualify, you must work for at least 12 months at the European subsidiary of a U.S. company before being transferred to a U.S. office. There are the occasional O-1 cases but you need significant work experience and recognition to qualify. Lawyers will definitely ask you questions to determine whether you are a good candidate for it.
In the past, H-1B was a way more common route, especially when there was no lottery or at least when selection odds were higher. However, with current lottery odds at just 10-15%, many companies now prefer hiring you abroad and then going for an L-1. As long as you satisfy the foreign work requirement, you are more or less guaranteed approval for an L-1 and there is no uncertainty.
Companies also love transferring employees on L-1 because unlike H-1B it is an employer-tied visa. This means you cannot switch to a different employer, effectively locking you in for the duration of your employment until you obtain a green card, if and when that happens. Keep that in mind if you are offered an L-1: you should carefully consider the green card pathways offered by your employer before you move.
I desperately want to leave the UK with an exceptional talent visa.
SWE engineer building an AI copilot for finance. +10 years of experience.
I plan to get a small press release for it too.
What are my odds? Are exceptional talent visas worth it?
My employer has been helpful to file for my green card. I recently got "CERTIFIED" on my PERM and the lawyers are working to get my I-140 ready to file. I have some publications as first author and as a co-author is a highly respected journal.
I wanted to know if there is a path to move from EB2 to EB1? If there is, what would be the requirements to qualify? I ask this my I-140 priority date is late 2024, and the current date for my nationality is 2012. EB1 current date seems to be 2022. Is it possible to move to EB1 and carry over the priority date from the (hopefully approved) I-140?
Many thanks! I have read several of your AMAs and found them helpful!
You get to use your earlier priority date for any later employment-based petitions. See the USCIS policy manual:
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-e-chapter-...
For O1 - I have a company
- I'm getting published soon (Springer Nature. I only have a Bachelor in Science)
- I have articles written about me
- I published 2 articles in a large newspaper
- I was a judge at a hackathon
We have a co-founder who is from the UK. We are a Delaware company. Is there an easy way for 1/ paying him and 2/ taking SEIS investment from UK investors? Sorry if I'm misunderstanding what an immigration attorney knows about
I'm currently waiting for about 6 months to get my marriage case reviewed with USCIS (CR-1). The USCIS website at one point said it'd take a few weeks, now it's back to a few months; Reddit is unanimous: don't trust what the USCIS website says. I've looked at Visa Journey and based on that it seems to take about 15 months, if I recall correctly.
In your experience, how long does it take? When should we ring the bell when it is going too slowly? Also, does it matter that I'm from a northern/western European country or does it not matter at all?
What are the primary drivers of someone wanting to immigrate to the US vs working remotely, and on the corporate side what is the incentive to sponsor immigration with great outsourcing available? Obv. Hardware or physical professions are NOT the same. Personally, I'm happy to move for work, but many people seem reluctant to leaving their family, friends, and life for a job. How much of a factor does signaling play into it in your opinion? How much of a factor do business conditions in the United States impact things?
What do I need to become a fashion model?
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
Is there a necessity to always keep a valid visa stamp in my passport? Apart from the ease of travel are there any other reasons to always keep a current visa stamp in my passport? I do have all valid I-797 documents of status and have kept my status current all the time.
He has done zero work/contribution so far because he is tied to his sponsor.
I would like to have him as a co founder and would like any advice you can offer. Thanks!
We were already incorporated as a C corp. I would imagine that some sort of incorporation will be pretty much a requirement.
(IANAL)
*(1) e.g. is there anything like the 83(b) election or similar.
*(2) how do 83(b)s work for folks that might move to the US later, especially given "might" ?
My wife has a green card, and has since October of 2021. We have filed the paperwork for her to get citizenship in November of last year, but of course these things take time to process.
Due to the anti-immigration rhetoric of the incoming Trump administration (particularly against Mexico), I am extremely worried that this might end up with delays or even a halting of the citizenship process.
Are my fears founded?
Related, I’m waiting in the green card backlog with a completed PERM. Will this title change affect that?
I just moved to the USA as J2-Dependant. I have already submitted form I-765 to get a work permit (EAD) but this can take between 3 and 4 months. A European company that just opened an office in the USA would love to hire me but might not want to wait that long. Is there anyway to speed up the process by them sponsoring me?
I used to work for a company in the US on OPT, and since I couldn't obtain an H1B, I moved to Canada as a permanent resident. Due to the nature of work I did at the company, I moved to a contracting role.
I have since been able to get the H1B via the same company, and they would like for me to move back. However, being born in India, even if I move back to the US, the path to permanent residency feels long and nearly unattainable. Is there any other alternatives for me for attaining a green card in a shorter span of time?
While the statistic may be true, is there a causation between PP and RFE/denial or is it just that cases created in a rush with PP might simply get more RFE or denial?
Thanks
The officer told me to send CV, job offer and support letter on email. Even though these were available at the interview so this ask looks to me more like a facade.
I've heard about a person waiting for 4 years for their B-1/2 U.S. visa recently.
I haven't heard a single story where any kind of feedback or realistic timeline was provided to anyone, be it the applicant, the employer, a lawyer, a congressman. Not once.
How common is it for CBP to deny entry / readjudicate a petition if a worker has an approved USCIS petition and an approval notice?
Can anyone point me to some current (human readable not legalese) explanation of what you can do with the H1-B?
Thanks, that answered my question. I have no intention of working in the US at the moment, just keeping myself informed in case i ever change my mind.
Tbh I thought some random HNer would post an explanation before you got to this.
The company is asking if I want to apply for a H1B visa this year. Are there any obvious advantages of H1B other than eligibility for green card.
Given the current political climate, is there any projections on how work visas might change going forward.
When I was switching jobs I encountered a handful of companies that would consider H1B holders but would not consider TNs because they simply had no experience hiring TNs. I didn't fit their hiring pipeline.
I had some banks give me a rough time when seeking financing for buying a house, who were not familiar with TNs. Wells Fargo were willing to work with me.
Another issue I experienced (I think, my memory is fuzzy on this one) is because various members of my family had passports that expired on different dates (kids get a 3 year passport only), the TN and TD (dependent) were only granted up until the expiry of the passport, so less than 3 years that a TN could be granted for. To avoid costly plane flights I used to drive down to the Mexican border where the border folks were nice enough to renew my TN/TDs.
The US/Mexico border folks don't get many Canadians entering there so they aren't really set up for it. One time they erroneously gave me a Mexican TN authorization which I didn't learn about until I went back there to renew after switching jobs and the border person basically told me to get lost because I had a valid visa. I had to do some quick talking because even though I had a stamp, the visa was invalid because it is up to me to ensure I have valid work authorization.
The website for Canadians entering the US for TN purposes is clearly geared to Canadians entering from the Canadian side of the US, but doesn't explicitly say Canadians shouldn't enter from the Mexican side. It worked out in the end but no guarantees.
My advice: if the company is offering to switch you over to H1B, take them up on it. My employer originally said they would apply to switch me over to an H1B, but when it came time to actually do it, they no longer had budget to do it. This eventually became important because in Texas it affects the ability of your kids to apply for (state?) student loans (I'm fuzzy on this one). I ended up moving back to Canada to be with my kids while they go through university.
I am in a similar position, however am looking to do my masters in the US first.
Would the path be: F-1 during masters, get a job offer, apply for E-3, then apply for GC?
Also, roughly how long after being granted E-3 would it take to get the GC?
Cheers!
First of all, I wanted to thank you for taking the time and offering your help for the community! I had a couple of questions. For context, I'm Iranian and I've been a green card holder for the past 10 years, 5 of which I've been residing continuously inside the US.
1. I'm planning to apply for my citizenship this summer. Do you think there would be any complications with my naturalization given the current political climate and that Trump's now in office? Since my green card is also expiring around that time, would you recommend that I request its renewal separately or would I be fine waiting to apply for citizenship right away?
2. After obtaining my citizenship, I'm also planning to petition a visa for my fiancé (which is also an Iranian living inside Iran). Do you think that request would still be processed same as before during this new administration? Would requesting for a spouse visa be any better if we were to get married sooner?
3. Would it be any better if my fiancé were to apply for a college/university in the US instead? I'm asking this because I've heard rumors that Trump would be much easier on student visas than immigration visas.
What things are the best from POV of effort/benefit? Open source projects, talks, podcasts, blogging, posts on community sites like devs? Trying to build my own dev-centric twitter, YouTube, something else? I know how to build stuff, but I know very little about all of this stuff.
I am an Australian citizen looking to do my Masters in Computer Science in the US, and live there afterwards. I particularly want my green card so I can work at SpaceX / Starlink / other companies that require it.
Would the path be:
F-1 during masters, get a job offer in the US, E-3 sponsored by said job, GC?
Also, what is the rough time frame from E-3 being granted to GC being granted?
Cheers!
A trans friend already changed the gender marker on his passport, and it's expiring in two years. He's deciding whether to renew it ASAP or wait. Any guess how likely it is to come back with the wrong gender marker, or get stuck in a bureaucratic mess?
Thank you so much for doing these! No worries if this question is outside your wheelhouse.
Sure it's helpful. But it seems on the surface to be lead generation for an attorney and
I'm sure there are tons of other professionals (legal or otherwise) that would like the same free advertising.
Does that intersect significantly with a typical startup? Maybe machine learning researcher or engineer. Or an information security specialist, like a white hat hacker.
The issue is that she had a divorce and name change, and we can’t find her name change record with the county superior court. N565 requires the name change evidence
We have tried FOIA request to US CIS and no records were found
Can we use her 50 year social security contribution record as evidence of the name change ? What other pieces of evidence could we present ?
Is there a hearing or more dynamic forum we could present the case to ? The forms for naturalization and real id have narrow and rigid qualifications .
Without immigration, an American only Silicon Valley would surely lose out to places like China and India that can source talent from over a billion citizens. Or lose to a more immigrant friendly country that can source talent from the whole world (which is what America currently does).
What is the reasonable amount of time it should take for him to be able to get a green card and work here in the US?
And is there something he can do to help expedite any process(es) (maybe not a greencard?) so he can legally work and support himself and his new family?
Yes.
If you have a problem with that, move to Europe.
The US is known for making money. Not for taking care of its citizens.
So according to you
1. H1B lowers wages,
2. America is known for making money
3. Yet more professionals from Europe want to move to the US than the other way around (as seen in this thread)
Also, despite H1B why are developer salaries higher in the US than in Europe?
https://4dayweek.io/salary/software-engineering-europe-vs-un...
Are European companies exploiting their workers?
Nope.
Because even with the lower H1B wage, it is still 3x higher than Europe.
Europeans know this. Americans know this. And you know this.
> Are European companies exploiting their workers?
Nope.
It just turns out, ambitious Europeans don’t give a shit about work life balance. Hence the desire to move to US.
The story of the ant and grasshopper has been taught for ages.
A shot of hard facts after being bathed in hyperbole. Oops.
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/.../biden-deportation-record https://ohss.dhs.gov/.../immigration/yearbook/2019/table39
I too think Trump says grotesque things on many fronts, and his words about immigrants are partly in that range, but it's tedious to see the often unfounded accusations progressives casually throw at him and those who support him without even always knowing what the fuck they're talking about.
You’re substituting a different word here for the word Trump actually used, in an effort to deceive as to the meaning of what he actually said.
The meaning of what he said is clear in the phrase "poisoning the blood of our country".
Twice!
When I saw it first I thought it was bad quality AI stuff and checked the actual stream. It was real.
Even here in HN that fact was flagged and shut down pretty quickly.
But at least they got the poles out, right?
Poland is supposed to surpass the UK economically (maybe per capita) in like 10 years.
This explains it a bit better:
https://cebr.com/blogs/claims-that-poland-will-be-richer-tha...
It was hyperbole, but the ppp gap will keep on shrinking and with that the desire of poles to even go to the UK will keep decreasing.
I think he leans more to whatever the hell benefits his popularity with the people most likely to support him in any given moment and part of that revolves around harping about illegal immigrants, though the actual numbers in terms of deportations are worth looking at and they show a tendency during his previous administration that didn't reflect the extremism of his talk, So far. It's possible that the next four years show us something far worse.
https://bsky.app/profile/drrosena.bsky.social/post/3lg75xw2q...
The visas are here to stay longer than it would take every MAGA clown to eat their red hat.
Because that has always been a trope amongst HN commenters (a large subset of which is supposed to be future HN founders), and it bothers me. A lot.
- Just best for the job
- Best retention since the visa is tied to the employer
- Best price, i.e. lower wage
All of that amounts to “best” without outright lying.
The bell curve (people tend to narrowly focus on IQ when it comes to “best for the job”) should look the same everywhere. So it seems a bit roundabout to look all over the world when you have a “culture fit” in your own backyard.
So it does seem to just come back to mutually beneficial exploitation of the employee. But the clients never have to talk about it in such plain terms.
Even though you seem to be getting downvoted aggressively, I’m going to provide a short, good-faith reply.
First, I’m not Peter, and I’m not an immigration lawyer, but I can provide insight as someone who knows and has worked with many H1Bs.
Second, this thread covers the major points, imho:
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/1huxnn1/why_is...
For tech folks in particular, I think that there are two particular pain points that cause H1Bs to be referred to pejoratively sometimes (which I think is what your underlying issue is with):
1. Companies like Infosys that are gaming the system aggressively, often times using dark patterns. Net loss for the economy, and unnecessary stress on the immigration system, imho.
2. Qualified Americans losing their jobs (e.g., relatively recent layoffs) and struggling to find work. Meanwhile, H1Bs remain employed and new ones are added regularly. This doesn’t pass the sniff test of “lack of talent” in the domestic market. Additionally, folks on the inside know that the reality is that either the company is gaming the hiring/h1b system and/or the company has a broken hiring process.
Note that I don’t necessarily advocate for a rapid and aggressive culling of h1b workers like some do, but the h1b system could definitely use some improved oversight and/or refined regulation. It’s being abused at scale by multiple actors.
Why do you want to destroy market power for people on visas even further, leading to even more exploitation than exists today?
Under what auspices are they supposed to have market power in the first place?
H1B folks are supposed to be here to make up for deficiencies in the labor market. When those deficiencies don’t exist, we don’t need to add more of those jobs.
There is definitely a humane way to do this (e.g., don’t just yoink people out of jobs), but the current situation with companies claiming no qualified candidates is often farcical.
> leading to even more exploitation than exists today?
Imho, poor implementation and oversight of the h1b program is the cause of a much of the exploitation that exists.
Right-sizing the number of h1b positions in the country based on data that’s in the ballpark of realistic is not an unreasonable ask.
As I have said elsewhere, I know and have worked with many h1b folks, and I love that the program exists.
That said, there’s no need to continue to allow the abusers to abuse it.
Labor rights? Equality? Freedom? Does today mark the day we just give up on these ideas?
> There is definitely a humane way to do this (e.g., don’t just yoink people out of jobs)
But you strongly implied exactly that with "Meanwhile, H1Bs remain employed". There is no reasonable reading of this which doesn't strongly imply that visa workers should be the first to be fired and the last to be hired.
> but the current situation with companies claiming no qualified candidates is often farcical.
Do you not understand that the oligarchs are the enemy? Not other workers, oligarchs.
> That said, there’s no need to continue to allow the abusers to abuse it.
You are very deliberately and carefully advocating for depressed wages. Later, you will complain about visa workers having depressed wages.
You can read here exactly what the terms of this are: "The intent of the H-1B provisions is to help employers who cannot otherwise obtain needed business skills and abilities from the U.S. workforce by authorizing the temporary employment of qualified individuals who are not otherwise authorized to work in the United States."
H1Bs writ large do not have "market power" as you say: "The law establishes certain standards in order to protect similarly employed U.S. workers from being adversely affected by the employment of the nonimmigrant workers, as well as to protect the H-1B nonimmigrant workers."
https://news.crunchbase.com/startups/tech-layoffs/
If we can't find talent in the 380k people laid off in the last 3y there is a problem.
As for abusers abusing it, you don't have to go far to read about InfoSys and Tata who have been taken to court over their misbehavior re:H1Bs. The system should be overhauled, so that it lives up to its intent. If we want to brain drain other countries, we should continue doing that. However hiring a person to run a 7/11 in a flyover state for 30k a year on H1B is clearly a violation. The data is public, look for yourself.