Hey Peter! I wanted to thank you for doing this. I just got my green card last year, and it all kind of started with me asking you a question about H1B caps in a thread like this almost a decade ago. Super appreciate you doing this for people that are dreaming of a better future, dreaming of the American dream.
I know someone who has got a O1 visa to do freelance work, via an employer that has turned out to be dodgy. This employer is giving her mixed messages, on the one hand claiming to have cancelled her visa because she wasn't available for work exactly when the employer needed, on the other saying they haven't really cancelled the visa and she can carry on working for them. She now wonders whether her O-1 entry was during the 60-day grace period after it had been cancelled and thereby unlawful. She doesn't know whether she can legally continue to work because she cannot trust this employer. Compounding this is the fact that she's been engaged to an American for a while and is pregnant. She's now worried about having unwittingly done an illegal entry, and about being seen to have worked illegally, and how that would affect her adjustment of status. I know little of this but I suggested 2 things - (1) collect evidence of the games this employer is playing with you, and ask them to say in writing they haven't cancelled your visa, as proof that you entered the US in good faith and are not knowingly working illegally, (2) possibly contact USCIS directly to check whether the visa is still valid. Any comment on her situation and what she might do?
Agreed :) In case this helps anyone else, she's now talked to a lawyer. Sounds like a spouse of an American can get forgiven for everything anyway especially if they have a kid because otherwise the American would suffer e:g by being a single parent (strangely, being separated from their spouse isn't considered hardship...) I think the employer is playing games to control her and probably hasn't actually cancelled the visa. If she wasn't getting married of course, with the chance of being forgiven, that'd be more of a stress. So, anyone contemplating an O-1 visa, make sure your sponsor is decent!
Hi Peter, thank you for doing this AMA. I am on H1B and I recently lost my job. I only have about 50 days left to get a new job but I have a spouse who is on his own H1B. I wanted to see and find out legal and smooth options to buy more time for myself to find a new job - If anything, it would be those options that do not need me to leave the country and get stamping, if at all. My country of citizenship is India, by the way. If you can help us out, it would be really great. Thank you.
The best and easiest option because your spouse is in H-1B status is to apply to change your status to dependent H-4 status using USCIS Form I-539. As long as this is filed during your grace period, you can remain in the U.S. while the application is pending/until it is approved.
What happens if / when you eventually find a job? Can you file another change of status to a H1B? Does the status of the original change of status app matter? (e.g., can you apply for a COS to H1 while the COS to H4 is still pending?)
Yes, a COS from H-4 to H-1B is an option. However, if the H-4 COS is still pending, you might not be able to get the H-1B petition approved as a change of status but all this means is that to "activate" the approved H-1B petition, you would need to leave the U.S. and reenter with your existing visa stamp (obtained through the previous company) or leave the U.S. and apply for an H-1B visa (if you don't have a valid H-1B visa stamp obtained through the previous company).
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?
The main advantage of the L-1 relative to the H-1B is that there's no lottery so the U.S. company can sponsor you for an L-1 at any time. The main advantages of the H-1B relative to the L-1 is that it's transferable from one company to another and can be renewed indefinitely if you are in the green card process. Regarding which one is better from a green card perspective, the response is that your underlying status has no bearing on your green card options so both are fine.
I assume L1B because you mentioned “engineer” instead of “manager.”
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.
I was assuming that you qualified equally for both visas but from an outcome standpoint, if the employing U.S. company doesn't qualify as a "blanket L" company, then it can be very tough to get an L-1B visa (which is for professionals/non-managers) because the process goes through USCIS. So, from an outcome standpoint, unless the employing U.S. entity qualifies as a blanket L company, it's much easier to get an H-1B visa.
I was rejected initially without a blanket petition and then approved after the blanket petition was in place.
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.
The problem with the H1B is, of course, winning the lottery. The odds are poor and generally getting worse each year. The L1B may be the only realistic option
My personal experience, and I think the optimal case, is to come on L1 but apply to H1B via consular interview. This way, if you're ever fired from your job, you use the H1B to get authorization to work in a new company (need to leave the US and get a visa in a consulate), while keeping L1 benefits as possible (spouse can work and no lottery).
Could you elaborate on this a bit more? If your company sponsors you to come on an L1 visa, how can you simultaneously apply for an H1B? And in any case, how can you get the H1B at all without winning the lottery (assuming your employer is subject to the cap)?
I originally entered on an L1B and was affected by an acquisition layoff. I wasn't able to work until my EAD came through, which took forever due to a certain president who is currently back in power. The single employer limitation carries risks.
You can come on L1B and then try to get into the H1B lottery (will be tough since you don't have a US degree - I assume). I decided to go with L1B since H1B was impossible to get back then and the timeline worked in my favor.
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!
It is grayish but during the past 20 years I've only had one instance where the Consulate pushed back on the issuance of an O-1 visa because the applicant had an approved I-140. That was over 10 years ago and even in that case, the O-1 was eventually issued. So, for all intents and purposes, the Consulates view the O-1 as a dual intent visa. Also, there's some preparation that you can do before applying for your O-1 visa and attending your O-1 visa appointment to minimize the risk if this issue is raised by the Consulate.
Thank you so much for the response! Could you share a bit more on what the preparation looks like? It’s something I’ve seen vaguely mentioned in forums but no one shared the specifics of the prep. Thanks!
If EB1A is approved, my understanding is that the applicant becomes "current" and eligible for the green card at once without any waiting in the queue regardless of country of birth. Is that not correct?
There’s a cap on how many EB1 green cards they give out per year, and there’s also a per country cap within that cap (no country cannot cross 7% of total cap)
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.
For those from China and India, based on the current backlogs, the process would take about 4-5 years; for those from every other country, there is no backlog in this category so the process could take less than 1 year.
Most posted job positions in the US, that I see, explicitly state they will not sponser candidates. But how receptive are they to TN visa candidates and do you see that attitude changing in the near future?
That's mostly a knee-jerk ignorant position since it's oftentimes very easy, fast, and inexpensive to hire a Canadian in TN status. So it's a process of somehow getting through to someone at the company to educate them not to pass on a good candidate simply because they're Canadian. Which of course is a lot easier said than done.
Would emigrating to Canada be a viable path for European citizens to eventually get a US work visa? If so, would it also be a path towards a green card?
The law firm I work for (as lead software engineer) did the TN thing for a Canadian software engineer hire for my team last year. [I was not involved in the paperwork but] my understanding is we got an immigration lawyer to help us write everything the right way, since we had not done it before (and lawyers specialize), and it was not especially expensive and it all worked out quite quickly.
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)?
Isn't the O-1 visa (in tech fields) mostly for PhDs with a strong research track record? I would assume you can get one if you have a bunch of publications and citations without a PhD, but isn't that the usual path?
I guess you're right. I was under the impression that you can apply for the O-1 solely based on a successful career in tech, not necessarily academic success.
hey granted im not an expert like Peter is, But I have gone through a similar series of events as you are describing here. I transferred to the US on a L1B visa in 2022 and after an unfortunate round of layoffs late 2023 I scrambled for another role and managed to get sponsored and obtain O1 status. I had a good background of experience working on some prestigious products, a degree and written testimonials from people "high" up in my industry, studio heads, people high up in award academies etc. there may be extra steps for you as you don't have a degree (if I'm reading that right) but i believe you can prove you have had "equivalent training" to a degree maybe using your experience.
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
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?
Good question and I don't know the answer but this is sure to be a battleground in the coming years, states refusing to enforce federal law or to act as agents of the federal government.
It’s well established that the federal government can’t press state officials and employees into the service of enforcing federal law.
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.
My concern is that for blue states, like Oregon, the funding is tied up in federal money. They will withhold and play games and I don't know if Oregon has the "willpower" to avoid mutating their ideals in an effort to keep their kids in school and keep renting houses.
Well, since "federal law can't impose on state law" has been the SCOTUS party line for the last X years, we might as well use that line of reasoning here...
Where did you get that from? Federal laws usually do override state laws. Whether the states have to help enforce federal law is a different question, though, and seems to be a "no" given the examples of marijuana and immigration.
My understanding is the federal laws only "override" state laws in the context of the "enumerated powers" in the constitution, which are supposed to be few and narrow. This is why no State can pass a "law" that would allow you to enslave others or violate their other rights granted by those "enumerated powers" of the federal government.
Oh, I see. That's a memorandum explicitly stating that marijuana is an exception to this rule - the federal government basically ceded authority on this issue during the Obama era.
An interesting note about the history here. We can all spend some time talking about the reasons why the federal government has no reason regulating that plant and other things, but from a legal perspective I think this precedent was terrible.
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.
I'm not sure we disagree on anything, but yes, the government has interpreted the interstate commerce clause rather broadly. Too broadly, IMO, but the same overreach gets us good things like the FDA/USDA and the FCC.
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.
That's not a new party line or anything that is the 10th amendment:
> 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.
I'm working on my O1 visa and I'm nervous about my portfolio. I'm a developer with plenty of experience, but never spoke at conferences, blogged, or was public. I hires lawyers for the paperwork, but the publicist they recommended me started doing “articles” that just scream fake. I decided to get my own, real stuff instead.
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.
Podcasts, blogs, posts matter little and talks are only marginally helpful. The lowest hanging criteria are essential roles for distinguished organization, high compensation, press, and judging (either serving as a reviewer for an academic journal or conference or serving as a judge at a competition or event, such as a hackathon or startup/business competition). By the way, your gut is right; USCIS is sensitive to fake/manufactured press and this can undermine an otherwise strong petition.
While the publication doesn't have to be a country's or industry's largest, it shouldn't be too small and for the press to count, it must be about you and your work or quote you. Regarding your second question, I don't know the answer unfortunately although I do know that there are a lot of such events.
Hello, I am a computer science research engineer with 2 years of experience in a non-U.S. big tech company research center in Europe.
Before that, I worked as a research fellow at the university after I got my master degree. During that time I published 4 papers, and I was a reviewer for a CS journal (even though I actually reviewed only 1 paper). I actually have 60-70 citations of my works (if it might be relevant in any way).
What are my chances to get an O-1 visa?
Thanks in advance for your time
Peter, I'm a software engineer with a FAANG company, ~20 years experience and at the senior staff level. I lived in the US for a while with my family, and we all have green cards. Last year, we moved back to India (where we're from), with re-entry permits that are valid till July 2026. We'd like to continue living in India for a while (the next 8-10 years, till our kids finish school), but also keep our green cards so that we can move to the US afterwards without going through the Indian-citizen green card nightmare, especially for my kids. I go to the US every 3-4 months on work, my family less frequently. Been paying US taxes and no problems continuing to do so, but I don't own a house in the US. Is there a way I can keep my green card while living in India for 8-10 years? Or should I just give it up when my re-entry permit expires, and find a way to apply again?
I’m not Peter, but you can renew your re-entry permits forever, in 1-year increments. You can even have them delivered to the U.S. consulate abroad. It’s a hassle since they only give you 1-year renewals after a certain period of time (with initially getting 2-year ones), but it’s better than losing the status.
interesting. I thought you are required to be a legal resident of USA to maintain a your green card status. I am interested in answer to this question too.
That's a really good question and of concern to a lot of people. No one knows at this point but the concern is that the new administration will kill the program or at a minimum modify/restrict it.
Hi Peter! Thanks for doing this! I've been watching this thread and reading for so many times but now I have a question.
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?
There is nothing that says you can't, but you have to convince the consulate that you did not have intent to immigrate when you applied/interviewed for the E3 and entered the US. The restriction is similar for the J1.
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).
Hi Peter, thank you so much for your work and for doing these AMAs! I am a PhD student on an F1 at a US university who would very much like to stay after graduation. Without going into too much details, I think I would have a strong O1 or EB-2-NIW application (top US school, multiple publications, awards, reviewing) upon graduation, but I am worried about leaving it until then to start the process as I know it can be very time consuming. What, if anything, can I do to "get the ball rolling" before I graduate? I presume starting an EB-2-NIW application would not be feasible at this point, for example, but please correct me if I'm wrong. Ideally I would enter the job market with a non-employer-specific green card, so that I don't have the additional stress of having to worry about being kicked out. Thank you all the work you do!
Having a PhD is less important than the other stuff - publications, awards, etc. - so there's no need for you to wait until you graduate to start the process. As a first step, I would recommend that you get your qualifications evaluated now because it's possible that you could pursue an EB1A now or an NIW at a minimum.
Do founders need to move to the US to be efficient? Is it possible to incorporate in the US and run the company from their home country without any hassles?
Some family friends are part of a diaspora seeking asylum from Russia. Their hearing dates all fall inside 2026.
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've heard about those concerns but there's really no clear indication yet how asylum applicants from Russia will be treated by the new administration.
I agree with other commenters that the meaning is clear. But I think they underestimate how far the Supreme Court is willing to go to torture the meaning of the Constitution. Hopefully I am wrong.
I think if you want to defend Griswold you are forced to defend Lochner. If “emanations from penumbras” is a legitimate source of constitutional authority that can override democratically enacted laws, that has sweeping implications. Clearly the constitution has an overriding focus on property rights and economic liberty. What freedoms can you find in the “emanations from penumbras” of the contract clause or the takings clause?
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.
I wouldn't. The wording of the 14th Amendment is ambiguous and was arguably misinterpreted by the courts.
"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.
I still think it's extremely unlikely. In other immigration contexts, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" has been interpreted to exclude only diplomats and those not subject to the laws of the U.S. even though they are in the U.S. So children born in the U.S. to diplomats aren't considered citizens at birth.
The same is true for people born into war zones not fully under US control. I still wouldn't write this off. All it takes is a compelling argument for a new interpretation of "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof".
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.
Are you seriously suggesting that undocumented immigrants are immune from US jurisdiction in some respect? This sounds like a reverse version of the odd legal theories proffered by sovereign citizens as to why they should not be subject to judgements in US courts.
What does “subject to the jurisdiction of” mean? Everyone seems to be equating that with diplomatic immunity, but that seems to arise from the state department’s historical interpretation of the term in determining citizenship of children of foreign diplomats.
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.
Wong Kim Ark cites, at length, Marshall's discourse on jurisdiction in Schooner Exchange v McFaddon, which turns entirely on this question. It also notes the language change between the Civil Rights Act and the 14th Amendment, where the revision clarified precisely this issue. It's a frivolous argument. Would you like to put some money on this? I'd give you favorable odds at 7-2, assuming the court composition remains as it is now.
It’s not clear to me that “jurisdiction” is being used in the same context in the 14th amendment as in Schooner Exchange.
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.
I feel we could usefully keep in mind another observation of Marshall's quoted in Wong Kim Ark, seperate from his writings in Schooner Exchange mentioned above:
"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.
Sure, maybe the Slaughterhouse Cases dicta was just wrong. But maybe there is something in the historical use of “jurisdiction” that sheds more light on what “subject to the jurisdiction” means. I haven’t done the deep dive myself, I’m just unpersuaded by the common law argument in Wong Kim Ark unless that really is all the historical record leaves us to go on.
It's not murky, I just picked the most official source. There's no real enforcement of selective service, except that if you don't sign up for it likely bars from subsequent employment by the Federal government unless you can get a waiver.
In practice, immigrants aren't conscripted during a draft.
We haven't had a draft since the 1970s. It's unclear how many draftees were immigrants back then (and the legal definitions around immigration have changed in the meantime) but historically conscription of immigrants has been the norm, not the exception.
Voting, Jury Service, Employment Authorization, and Driver's licenses.
These seem like things from which undocumented immigrants are excluded (by law!), not immunized. Why you think this is an argument in favor of your legal theory is beyond me.
The correct legal term is "illegal aliens" not "undocumented immigrants".
My argument is that the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" may be interpreted to mean that individuals must be under the complete, allegiance-owing jurisdiction of the United States, and because they may not be for a host of reasons, the SCOTUS may reevaluate US v Wong Kim Ark and reinterpret the 14th amendment.
There's also this 1866 Congressional document discussing the 14th after it was passed detailing "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". It reads "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of embassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but it will include every other class of persons." https://x.com/pepesgrandma/status/1057514062899277824/photo/...
> 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.
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".
I am not an immigration lawyer, but I am very interested in immigration law and the effort to overturn this precedent in particular, an interest whch goes back more than 15 years; so I have done a lot of reading on this argument.
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.
As has been noted in other responses to you: Dicta are just that, dicta. Moreover, the Reconstruction-era Slaughterhouse Cases arose in the context of the defeated South's often-violent, century-long attempts to preserve "states' rights" (read: white supremacy). Limiting the reach of the 14th Amendment was one facet of that project; Louisiana's lawyer in the case was a prominent opponent of Reconstruction. The Court's 5-4 judgment has long since been shitcanned [0]; in the modern era it's palpably frivolous to cite its dicta as support.
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."
The Slaughterhouse Cases were decided just five years after the enactment of the 14th amendment, and the judgment is obviously correct and has never been overruled. And the dissent was obviously nuts in suggesting that the 14th amendment protected butchers from state economic regulation.
I'll confess error in my wording above (and it's too late to edit it): The judgment (outcome) was arguably correct, as you say — state governments should indeed be able to do reasonable public-safety regulation.
(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]
It's just the same old bullshit in a new wrapper. Cherry-picked quotes from Congressional debates, a bunch of cases in between the passage of teh amendment and Wong Kim Ark, and then it launches into handwaving with arguments like
The American Revolution was, by its inherent nature and through
its express principles, an effective throwing off of the common
law’s yoke of jus soli and its perpetual allegiance in favor of a
consent-based compact theory of government.
and a page later it's special pleading for Grotius, Emer Vattel, and compact theory. I gave up at that point. Perhaps there's some brilliant new theory buried in the last 1/3 of the article, but if you didn't think it worth reading in detail I'm not inclined to mine it for you!
To be honest, the fact that it's from the Heritage foundation and published in a very conservative journal of law and politics give it a double flavor of polemic rather than scholarship. One can construct eloquent arguments for anything, from reinstating dred Scott to invalidating the Declaration of Independence and the subsequent formation of the USA - and indeed in this age of LLMs I expect legal polemics further proliferate. But when you get down to the actual substantive arguments, this paper strikes me as just another of the 'we wish things were different' type, wishing that the US had built its jurisprudential edifice on a continental rather than a common law substrate. Perhaps if the proponents of this idea invested their efforts in amending the Constitution (or going the Conventional route) they might have more success in building the required consensus.
> To be honest, the fact that it's from the Heritage foundation and published in a very conservative journal of law and politics give it a double flavor of polemic rather than scholarship
I’ll respond to your other point, but 90% of legal academia thinks “emanations from penumbras” is constitutional law. They’re wingnuts and kooks too. Nobody has the color of authority here. We gotta reconstruct the correct answer from first principles.
I'm (legitimately) curious: how does one square the concept of not being subject to US jurisdiction for citizenship purposes, with being subject to US jurisdiction for law enforcement purposes?
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?
It’s not obvious to me that “jurisdiction” could only mean “law enforcement jurisdiction” in 1868.
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.
Yep, it's pretty nonsensical. Presumably those that hold the view that children of undocumented immigrants born in the United States are not citizens also hold they view that they are immune to prosecution for crimes by the United States for the same reason, but they don't seem to talk about that much.
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.
Before the bonkers immunity decision I would have agreed with this. Since then, though, I don't trust SCOTUS on any decision that involves conservative policy. This may come up sooner than expected; Trump has issued an EO attempting to nullify it: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/prot...
There is nothing bonkers about it. Should Obama be subject to prosecution for murder for allowing the bombing of a US citizen in the Middle East? Or should he be immune because he was engaging in an official act as President to protect the US?
Neither, he should not be criminally liable for that, not because he has immunity invented by a Court in clear defiance of the Constitution, but because the act is, in fact, legal pursuant to the 9/11 AUMF.
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.
No, you're wrong. No law from Congress can supersede the Constitution and Obama is not criminally liable because of the Constitution, not because of the law you state. You can't create a law that deprives an individual of his constitutional rights.
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.
The president is obviously immune for official acts! You think Georgia should now be able to prosecute Biden for recklessly causing the death of Laken Riley?
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.
The distinction in the executive order is between "a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident" and everyone else, not just citizen vs. noncitizen or lawful vs. unlawful. As drafted, the children of other lawful immigrants (H-1, J-1, O-1, L-1, etc.) would also not receive birthright citizenship. I've quoted the exact language for the father. The language for the mother is different but seems almost equivalent, excluding "lawful but temporary" status.
I don't expect this to be upheld. Many tech workers will be affected if it somehow is, though.
US citizen by birth, but my parents weren't LPRs or citizens at the time I was born (1986).. they later received green cards and then citizenship in the late 1990s/early aughts.
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)
The order "shall apply only to persons who are born within the United States after 30 days from the date of this order", so you're unaffected even if the order were somehow upheld.
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.
I've read a few different standards for revoking birthright:
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?
Thanks for doing this Peter. I have two questions, advice on either/both would be much appreciated!
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?
1. The EB1C has the additional requirement that the applicant's employment abroad also must have been managerial or executive (which at the end of the day means people management). This is where those who move from L-1B to L-1A sometimes fall short.
2. This requires a discussion unfortunately because if you look at the websites of 10 different schools, you will get 10 different views on whether an F-1 can get STEM OPT through their own company. My reading of USCIS guidance is that STEM OPT can be obtained through an F-1's own company as long as there is a supervision/training component to their employment.
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?
Definitely not H-1Bs (at least no different from non-Canadians). The TN could be impacted, however. My biggest fear is that the administration will limit TN renewals to filings with USCIS (and not allow renewals with CBP) like it did years ago to Canadian L-1 renewals. That change was a negative game-changer for Canadians in L-1 status. I am also concerned that the administration will simply make it tougher for Canadians to qualify for TN status.
If you are currently employed abroad by a related company, then the L-1 visa might be an option. If you are not, then - assuming that you are not from a country with its own visa, such as Australia, Canada, Chile, Mexico, and Singapore - the potential options are the E-1/E-2, H-1B, and O-1.
Just apply for jobs, and the immigration attorneys hired by your prospective employer will figure it out. U.S. immigration by employment is sadly almost entirely based on petitions filed by your employer. The choice of which visa pathway to pursue is not up to you.
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.
Schedule a consultation with me or another immigration attorney to go over your options (because a detailed analysis is required) but likely your only real option will be the O-1 and as senior SWE at big tech, you should be able to qualify for an O-1 or take steps to qualify for an O-1.
I am on H1b visa now. I filed my PERM one month ago. According to some people, it takes 1 year and a half to get my PERM approved and it takes another month to get my I-140 approved. But I want to jump ships soon. If I leave my current company, I will have to start everything over again (Prevailing Wage Determination, Labor Market Test, PERM). I feel I'm stuck in this company. What are the things I could do?
Not much, unfortunately, other than by applying for a green card on your own, one that's not tied to a specific employer, such as a national interest waiver (or NIW) green card application or an extraordinary ability (or EB1A) green card application. Because there's no way around losing the PERM if you leave now.
Hi Peter,
Thank you for the AMA! I am reposting here because my earlier comment was killed [0] and you probably haven't seen it.
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.
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.
This identical comment was posted with three different, newly created, accounts in the span of a few seconds. You have since deleted two of them but the fact remains... need to work on your bot functionality.
Not sure if this is helpful information, but yeah, I did that, because ycombinator is very buggy.
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.
Hello, thank you for hosting this!
I'm applying for green card based on marriage. I've prepared i130, i485, i130a, i864, i131, i601, i765, i693. Is there any form/documents I'm missing? Is there any very crucial marriage, financial, or legal status proof that tends to be overlooked by applicants?
Thank you!
Unfortunately, I can't provide that advice since I'm not representing you and your wife and don't "own" the case and know all the facts. All I can say generally is that it's important to provide financial documents (such as tax returns and W-2s/1099s), evidence of the bona fides of the marriage, and evidence of past and present immigration status.
Thank you a lot. Were Trump to sign new executive orders regarding immigration today, would that affect the current instructions on USCIS website immediately?
Thank you for doing this. I don’t know if this is part of your expertise. I am planning of incorporating the holding of my start up in Delaware, the startup is located in Dubai (I am a resident there, German origin, my co-founder US passport holder). As we are planning on targeting US investors we decided to have the holding in Delaware. Now the question is, what are the potential tax implications for a company from the outside incorporating a holding in Delaware. (1) Is the operational business taxable in the US? Is there a threshold? Or would it only play a role once we would potentially sell the company? The feedback we are receiving is not very straightforward. (2) I am aware that my confounder obviously needs to report to the IRS, but would him holding an Us passport also have an impact on the company or this is completely separate?
Hey Peter, I appreciate what you're doing here. I made a throwaway account since I don't want this part of my personal life to be on HN and tied to me in any way.
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?
I received notice of a successful i140 application (for eb1a) in September 2022 and have been waiting for the past 2.5 years for the dates to become current. The dates haven't moved past Feb 22 for the past 6 months or so. Any speculation on how these dates may move under the new administration?
If the current administration reduces the issuance of family based greencards (which happens mostly through the consulates), those unused greencards will flow through the EB category, allowing EB1 dates to move forward. Something like this happened during Covid.
That's a complete unknown, unfortunately, but to be clear, short of changing the green card law, there's little that an administration can do to impact the movement of the cutoff dates.
All the time and there's no explicit revenue or funding requirement. In the O-1 context, the company-related requirements are minimal; it's much more about the applicant's/beneficiary's qualifications.
We just have to keep our eye on this because almost certainly there will be changes whether to the application process or to the application/interpretation of the regulations.
Any tips or suggestions for a DACA recipient with a year left in Uni for Computer Science, here in the states? I am nervous about my career post-school and am wondering if you could shed some insight as to what my options might be. Thank you for your time.
We represent a lot of DACA recipients and the options of moving to another status are very fact-specific, depending on their status at the time of entry, their qualifications, their country of citizenship, etc. A year isn't a lot of time as we all know so I would recommend scheduling a consultation with an immigration attorney soon.
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!
Any EB1 petition you submit is going to be adjudicated separately from your EB2. If you want your case assessed, you should probably hire a lawyer to discuss the specifics of your case.
You get to use your earlier priority date for any later employment-based petitions. See the USCIS policy manual:
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
No worries. These aren't really immigration companies but I know from experience that founders/employees living abroad can get paid directly by U.S. companies (this is a payroll issue, not an immigration one) or through third-party entities, oftentimes referred to as Employers of Records (or EORs), like Deel or Remote.
We are working to apply for n-565 for my mother in law who has been a working American citizen for 50 years. She now needs naturalization records to apply for Real Id and continue domestic travel.
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 .
I’m a citizen of an EU country that meets the Visa Waiver criteria. I’m working for a startup based in the USA. I’m one of the earliest employees, hence a great asset to the company. I’m considering emigrating sometime in the future but I’m unsure what needs to happen to enable it. Is a company-sponsored visa the only option? How inclined are startup founders to sponsor work visas? I’m convinced this is not attainable now, we’ve got a product to build, I’m only speculating for “when we make it”. Separately, how are startup employees treated when it comes to trying to convert the work visa to a green card? The definitions for EB-1, EB-2 are very interpretable. Thank you!
In my experience, because of the competition for talent, startups often are more open to employing foreign nationals than many large, established companies. The terms EB-1, EB-2, etc. refer to green card categories and the green card process takes a while so that's probably not the initial path toward working in the U.S. The likely visa options will be the L-1 (as a transferee) or an O-1 and oftentimes founding engineers or early stage employees qualify for the O-1 or can take steps to qualify. Both the L-1 and O-1 require company sponsorship.
I've been really curious about the economics of US immigration for foreign workers in information work (software, data, etc).
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?
I heard russian citizens were having troubles getting any kind of U.S. visa due to the political situation in the world. Does this situation still persists? Asking for a friend who still hasn't heard back for his tourist visa.
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?
Hi Peter, a European (Hungary) colleague of us visited Iran once and does not receive any Visa (tourist,...) because of that. He does not even receive answers to his renewed applications. Is there anything he can do?
It's very difficult to get past this issue. We have Iranian citizen clients and non-Iranian citizen clients who have visited Iran whose visitor and work visa applications have been pending for more than a year. One option is for your colleague to ask his federal representative to reach out to the Consulate. This is done all the time but to be clear, it usually doesn't help but there's really nothing else to do. In the non-tourist visa application context, some people file mandamus actions, which oftentimes help but I think such an action would just accelerate the denial of the visitor visa application.
I’m on an H1B visa since 2017. I extended in 2021 and again in 2023 (thanks to approved I-140). But my visa stamp in my passport is from 2017 which expired in 2020. I haven’t made efforts to get another stamp mainly because of the pandemic in 2020 and long appointment backlogs thereafter.
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.
There's no requirement to maintain a valid H-1B visa but under certain circumstances having a valid H-1B visa stamp can make it easier to change H-1B employers.
> The H-1B program applies to employers seeking to hire nonimmigrant aliens as workers in specialty occupations or as fashion models of distinguished merit and ability.
My company is flying over architects / project members for design meetings from other countries for small meetings over the course of of a week. Does this usually require a work visa ?
did a startup -- had wrong visa class -- angry employee called CBP -- got picked up passing through JFK -- 10 year ban -- is permission to reapply actually a thing or a dead-end process? -- thanks --
A few questions regarding the EB-5 visa. Is this still a realistic path to a green card, and if so, how complicated is the process if you want to take the targeted economic area route through a regional center? Do the investments through a regional center usually persist, or in other words, how high is the risk of the underlying business going bankrupt based on real experiences? There's plenty of articles about all of this online of course, but would be interested in hearing any first hand experience you might have.
The EB-5 is still an option although the process largely depends on the regional center/entity that you are going through and requires that you do real due diligence like you would any major investment. The EB-5 is also an area that at various times has been shut down or delayed because of government concerns about fraud and criminal activity.
Hi, I looked at the regional centre-dependent EB5 process but pivoted to the EB5 direct investment route. I have now bootstrapped a single food truck, and we are looking forward to launch it next month. Can such kind of business setup qualify me for O1 instead ?
At my day job, I am a software manager in FAANG.
O1 requires you have considerable outstanding achievements [0], such as widely recognized international rewards, being featured in major publications, scholarly articles, or etc. I don't see how a food truck would help you qualify for any of those. Demanding a high salary, which I assume you do at FAANG, would only tick one box, but to qualify you need to tick at least three.
As applied, although still high, the O-1 requirements are easier than they appear so it's always worth evaluating particularly for the founder of a business. And an O-1 can be for almost any occupation, from a hair colorist to a cancer researcher.
It's surprising to many people what backgrounds/jobs can qualify for O-1 classification so it's not inconceivable that your creation of the food truck business could be a platform to get you an O-1. This would require an O-1 analysis of your qualifications and this business.
Hey Peter - I'm a US citizen currently living in Canada as a permanent resident (my wife is Canadian and we're raising our kids here). I've started startups in the states before when I used to live there, incorporated as C-Corps, but now that I'm living in Canada - if I wanted to create a startup, could I still incorporate it as a C-Corp in Delaware? *I do have my parents address in the states that I can use if needed
It's possible but there are a lot of factors to consider/issues at play which are impossible to go through in this forum so you and he should consult an immigration attorney.
In 2011, we hired someone on an H1B at the startup where I worked. It was a straightforward process. The paperwork added a couple weeks to the process, and IIRC it cost $10k or so in legal fees, but for a great hire, it was definitely not a meaningful barrier.
We were already incorporated as a C corp. I would imagine that some sort of incorporation will be pretty much a requirement.
Hey Peter, been reading these threads for a while and really appreciate your support. I'm on STEM OPT and I want to keep my options open in case I don't get an H1b by the time it ends. What realistically are my options without affecting my future chances at a green card? I've heard that pathways like Day 1 CPT can lead to future I140 denials, which make me skeptical of going down that route.
The nonimmigrant visa applications of those who get day 1 CPT tend to be scrutinized more closely but as long as the program is real, the visas eventually get issued. And the same for green card applications. While this might result in greater scrutiny, green cards get issued if the program is real. So if you go this route, just make sure it's a legit program (classes, homework, tests, etc.). The other option is the O-1. Of course I don't know your background but the O-1 is one option those who don't get selected in the lottery look at.
If a US very early-stage startup hires a Canadian and grants them restricted common stock (similar to what founders get), what are the implications for them (1) from a Canadian tax perspective* and (2) if they move to the US later on*?
*(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" ?
I am on a TN visa and recently got a promotion which elevated my title but largely kept my responsibilities the same. My old title had the name of my TN profession in it, the new one is adjacent but does not. Could this cause issue? I travel with the form I received from USCIS through mail-in TN renewal.
Related, I’m waiting in the green card backlog with a completed PERM. Will this title change affect that?
Whether a new or amended TN is required depends on the job duties, not the title, so it appears that your TN should remain valid. But you should speak with your company's attorney about what you should carry with you when you travel and how you should respond to questions about your job. The same is largely true for your PERM application unless possibly the promotion puts you in a significantly higher comp bracket or significantly changes your place in the company's hierarchy.
I'm not a lawyer, but worked in the US for 6 years as a Canadian TN. The green card eligibility is the big differentiator between TN and H1B. Other than that, there isn't much difference that I could tell. One difference between Mexican and Canadian TNs is that Mexican TNs can switch employers without renewing TN, whereas with a Canadian TN you have to reenter the country when you switch employers.
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 married to an american but we are leaving abroad and we never started the process for me to get a green card as we didn't plan to move to the US yet. Is it true that when I apply and get the card I then have a limited amount of time to move in, and if I don't then I would have to start the whole process again?
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.
I don't think so. She's already an LPR and during his last time in office, other than some processing delays, in my experience, applications that were supposed to get approved got approved.
I have a friend who is a foreigner, and is in a master's CS degree program in the US. He's married to an American woman as of a few months ago.
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?
Largely because of the Biden administration's policy of waiving the in-person interview requirement in marriage-based green card cases, the process has been very fast over the last 4 years, often taking less than 6 months from the time of filing until the approval of the green card application. If the new administration brings back the interview requirement, then I suspect that the processing time will go back to what it was before, which typically was at least 1 year. While a green card applicant is waiting for their green card application to be reviewed and approved, they will receive a temporary work card. The processing of work card applications is all over the place but has been better over the past 2 years and can take less than 3 months now (although it also can take much longer). There is a way to request expedited approval of a work card application but the standard is high. Instructions for requesting expedite review of an immigration application are available on the USCIS web site.
Are there opportunities for those of us in the USA to take in fiancés from other countries in the current climate? I'm currently in the dating circuit for women who have software engineering backgrounds and this situation has made me very nervous about how I'm going to actually bring a fiancé to the USA now.
I think the more reasonable interpretation is that OP is currently looking to date someone. They (as one generally does) hope it will go well, in which case they might want to cement their relationship through marriage. However, they are worried that if they do get married, they may not be able to move to the USA with their spouse.
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?
There would have to be a visa that you qualify for that the company could sponsor you for, such as an O-1 or a country-specific visa, but given how long such a process likely would take, even if you qualified for another visa, you probably wouldn't get it much faster than the J-2 work card.
I am filing an EB1-A petition with a law firm. The law firm says that based on their recent experience, EB1-A cases that have requested Premium Processing (PP) have a lower approval rate and a higher RFE rate.
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?
With all due respect, the firm's data is 100% anecdotal and I would say meaningless. There's no reliable data on this question since there's no control studies (and can't be) on the relative merits of filing EB1As with or without premium processing. We file 99% of our EB1As with premium processing because most of our clients don't want to wait 6 months to hear back from USCIS.
There's not much that an administration can do to impact the delays because they primarily are the result of statutory backlogs and demand. So, unless there is a significant change in the law or a significant drop in demand, these delays are likely to persist.
Thanks, so many interesting answers.
As an European working for a US tech company - regular visiting but world traveler as my passion. Is there officially a list of countries one should not visit (just tourism) that could harm career prospects while working for a US company for visas?
Thank you.
I got 221g administrative processing denial for L1-B recently. I work at FAANG. From your experience is there any chance that this will clear itself soonish or that's kinda the end of the story? I know a few stuck waiting for more than a year. Is such an outcome likely for me?
The reason wasn't specified. Are they supposed to specify the reason like security check?
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.
Sounds like the typical "administrative processing". They typically do not give any reason, just that they "need a bit more information" and "the processing typically concludes in 60 days or less". You may be lucky and that is the case, you may be unlucky and it is stuck for years. Even if you're from e.g. the developer of curl from Sweden in 2016, not a nuclear physicist Russia or Iran in 2025: https://daniel.haxx.se/blog/2020/11/09/a-us-visa-in-937-days...
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.
Recent amendments to work visa rules published in the federal register (and that took effect on January 17, 2025) enables being a founder of a company while on an H-1B, and perhaps might similarly allow that for a TN, but Peter Roberts or another expert would likely know best about it.
Thanks. The law never has explicitly prohibited founders from qualifying for H-1B or TN status but there have been challenges and the changes mentioned above will make it easier for founders to qualify for H-1B status and I think make it easier for founders to qualify for TN status. In fact, we recently had a founder obtain a TN through CBP and her status as a founder was front and center in her application.
thank you peter for doing this. I am on H1B with 140 approved and EAD. What are my options if i want to leave my job and open a start up? how it would affect if my priority date becomes active?
Do you think nonimmigrant worker petition adjudication is stricter at land borders, pre-flight inspection stations by CBP as compared to a filing with USCIS?
How common is it for CBP to deny entry / readjudicate a petition if a worker has an approved USCIS petition and an approval notice?
Adjudications vary considerably from land crossing to land crossing and from airport in Canada to airport in Canada but as a very general rule, it's easier to get a TN through CBP at a land crossing or airport than through USCIS but this also depends in part on specific TN occupation being applied under and the applicant's background. It's rare but not unheard-of for CBP to deny entry to a Canadian with an approved TN petition. Again, the risk varies by land crossing and airport with Pearson probably the worst and to be avoided if there's any concern.
Peter -- many thanks for your continued presence and accessible approach. My wife and I reached out to you several years ago and your response was immensely helpful and comforting. Thanks for what you do.
I've heard good things about LighthouseHQ from friends. The founder agreed to look my case over but then ghosted me. Unclear why, but I followed up and didn't hear back so
Hi Mark — Minn here. So sorry for my miss here. Drop me a line at minn@lighthouseh[dot]com to reconnect. We've worked with hundreds of applicants, many in the YC community and happy to see how we can help!
What are your thoughts on the future of the Laken Riley Act's provisions on empowering State AGs to sue the federal government over immigration enforcement, both in terms of constitutionality and in terms of outcomes if signed into law and upheld?
I'm not a fan but I haven't really analyzed the constitutionality of these provisions although the arguments I've heard regarding their unconstitutionality make sense to me.
Hi Peter, I am wondering what's the best way to move from O1 to Green Card? I have my own startup which has sponsored by O-1 visa but need to get a green card to stay in the Bay Area long term. I am a Canadian Citizen if that helps.
For founders, the two options are EB2 national interest waiver and EB1A extraordinary ability and which path to choose will require an analysis of your background and the company. EB1A is much faster but the bar is much higher although many founders who've created "successful" companies qualify.
Thanks for doing this, Peter. What is a good route for an English national looking to move their profitable software business to the US? E-2? Would this be a path to long-term tax residency in America?
The E-2 visa is usually a very good and pretty easy option as long as the investment is enough (typically at least $100k USD) and there's a good business plan. I can't comment on tax residency.
Hey nand_gate, IANAL but I'm currently on E-2 and ran through the process mostly without lawyer. You can contact me through the form on bitcreed dot us.
What are my possibilities to work a tech job in the US (I do have a company that’s willing and able) but I don’t have a college degree, how likely is it that I can find a way.
My sister is trying to do AOS we have DACA, and a legal entry, but also multiple entries, she is married to a USC. Is there another way to adjust to residency that we do not know of?
H-1B visa holders are tied to their sponsoring employer. Do you mean what they can do outside their H-1B employment? What other things are you interested in doing?
What are potential challenges to getting an employment-sponsored EB2 visa, as an EU citizen with a Master's degree and more than 5 years of relevant work experience?
What is an approximate cost of all fees and expenditures given the premium processing in Bay Area for a company which wants to hire H1B from another one?
What’s your perspective on when the EB-3 and EB-2 rest-of-world priority dates will move into 2024, considering they haven't changed much since April 2023?
I am a Indian software developer and i currently work as in a YC Startup, how hard to find a job in a US? Should I try or its better to find Indian companies?
The options are limited (H-1B, L-1, and O-1, typically) but oftentimes there's a solution; this will depend on your qualifications and the company's profile.
hi Peter, thanks for doing this. My parents were rejected twice for B1/B2 visa (under section 214b I think) - both times before I was a LPR (I had valid visa).
Recently the country of citizenship was announced to be joining VWP - as one of the question is "have you even been refused US visa", is it a lost battle for them?
No, it's not a lost battle. Unfortunately, their ESTA applications likely will be rejected outright because of their past B-1/B-2 visa application denials. But it's still possible that they could get B-1/B-2 visas. They should apply again but given their previous denials, they should consult an immigration attorney.
Just to make sure I understand the recommendation: US based immigration attorney for a tourist visa? (I don't want to sponsor them and they have no intention of moving here - they just want to visit and see us & the kids).
I have an idea for a startup in which the current company that I am a full-time employee for could be a potential customer. It would be a tool to facilitate some of the workflow that we've had an issue with, but nothing related to the industry in which we operate. We didn't really sign a non-compete or an NDA, but I am very curious if there is some kind of basic guideline for potential conflict of interest in a situation like this. Besides the immediately obvious things like never work on it with company equipment or during work hours.
An E-3 requires a job offer but with a job offer, the E-3 is much faster, easier, and cheaper than a marriage-based green card application. After you are here, if you decide that you'd like to make your permanent home here, you can apply for a green card even if you are in E-3 status. That just shouldn't be your intent now when applying for an E-3 visa.
I can't comment on YC and startups and while the administration likely will make changes to the H-1B law and process, I don't see major changes in how remote work is viewed and treated.
He's promised to make a lot of changes immediately, the majority concerning illegal immigration and border security. I'd recommend going to npr.org. There are good summaries there.
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.
1. I would recommend applying to renew your green card as well because it's not clear how long the naturalization process will take under the new administration. Regarding potential complications, last time he was in office, I didn't see any extra issues/delays with my Iranian clients becoming citizens.
2. This process could be impacted because she's outside the U.S. and it's easier for the administration to impact those outside the U.S. seeking immigrant (green card) visas through a U.S. Consulate than to impact those in the U.S. seeking to obtain green cards through USCIS. I don't think it matters whether you get married sooner.
3. Possibly but as you know, even Iranians applying for F-1 students visas can be subject to significant delays.
Canadian and Mexican citizens have their own visa classification, the TN, and so this is almost always the first option to look at because it is often very quick and easy (and relatively cheap) to get. Other work visa options for Canadians (and the citizens of most countries) are the E-2, L-1, and O-1.
I understand there is updates being made to the space export control rules (https://www.space.commerce.gov/new-space-export-control-rule...) regarding space/satellite components that were previously classified as ITAR. I've been curious to know if this will enable Canadians to apply to some space/aerospace technology companies in the US that were restricted to US citizens only?
We've done a lot of work for satellite and space weather companies and the feeling I've gotten from my clients is that these changes will open up jobs at space/aerospace technology companies for foreign nationals but right now, it's too early to tell.
We had a window into the administration 8 years ago and as a result we changed the way that we assessed and prepared cases to preempt fights and we continued with this approach during the Biden administration and will continue under the new administration until the fights start up again. I think that the most immediate significant changes in the area of legal immigration will be the imposition of international travel bans. We'll probably learn a lot in a few hours when the administration starts to roll out its Executive Orders.
The Supreme Court during Trump's last time in office upheld versions of the travel ban that covered the nationals of certain countries (Burma, Eritrea, Iran, Kyrgyzstan, Libya, Nigeria, North Korea, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tanzania, Venezuela, and Yemen). It is expected that most if not all of these countries will be included in a new travel ban. It's unclear what other countries will be included but China and India could be added.
Any idea how the executive orders will effect trans people renewing their passports?
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.
It's not really within my area since this question concerns the rights of citizens but this is something I've been concerned about because we have a lot of LGBTQ clients who are eligible for or in the process of applying for citizenship. I suspect that there will be clarity about this soon and I suspect that it won't be favorable to trans people.
Hi Peter. Thanks again for doing this. Life saver.
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?
I haven't seen that. The delays I've seen are for those from certain countries (such as Iran or Russia) or for those whose area of expertise/study is subject to export control laws/concerns.
> whose area of expertise/study is subject to export control laws/concerns.
Does that intersect significantly with a typical startup? Maybe machine learning researcher or engineer. Or an information security specialist, like a white hat hacker.
America is only 5% of the world's population. Do you want Silicon Valley to hire the best of the world, or only the best of America?
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).
So zero data give by you to support your view that H1B lowers wages (as usual, because data shatters the fake narrative H1B lowers wages).
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)
Don't you see how 2 and 3 contradict 1?
Also, despite H1B why are developer salaries higher in the US than in Europe?
How do you square away your relationship with Y Combinator, which has been by all means positive, with the eager collaboration of its leadership with the most anti-immigrant administration in history?
I've made an egregious error. The Y Combinator leadership has expressed a lot of firm, unequivocal opposition to Donald Trump personally, and I have little doubt that they oppose his anti-immigration policies. Ironically it's because I use no social media, so I don't see these battles play out. I sincerely always liked the organization and its leadership, and I think I was victim to a particular drive-by accusation. Also, it seems like most of the venture capital leadership elsewhere, including powerful S&P500 chief executives, have eagerly collaborated, but it is wrong to generalize.
Ah, got it. No worries! I was just a bit confused because the YC leaders I know have been public advocates for (legal) immigration, for reasons that are not hard to understand: YC helps many startup founders come to the U.S.. Many with Peter's help!
Also, feel like specifying how its collaboration has been "eager" or how it in any relevant way is related to the plight of migrants, instead of just tossing out some accusatory virtue signalling?
Everyone can safely ignore all accusations of “virtue signaling” because it is 1) a manipulative play designed to make you feel like a schmuck for having principles and 2) it is hypocritical in that is does exactly what it suggests you are doing.
No, virtue signalling is a very real thing that's usually easy to see and define. Having principles isn't quite the same as smugly but cheaply signalling some moral stance. I have no idea what you mean with your second statement. Pointing out a case of virtue signalling isn't itself virtue signalling.
Can't speak for the incoming four years, but a look at deportations by year under Trump, Biden and previous to that, Obama show illegal migrant deportations during Trump's first term were lower than they were during every year of Obama's presidency except one, sometimes greatly lower. They were also only moderately higher than they were during the four years of the Biden administration.
A shot of hard facts after being bathed in hyperbole. Oops.
They mentioned nothing about any metrics at all and if you're discussing a politician's stance, having at least one useful, relevant metric is a good idea. That's all I pointed to.
The original comment talked about anti-immigrant sentiment of the new administration. Trump said that immigrants are poisoning the blood of our country. How many citations of Trump and his aides would it take to make you believe that they're anti-immigrant?
It's like you read my response and failed to understand a thing.. I specifically mentioned concrete figures because politicians say all kinds of random shit and Trump is particularly prone to hyperbole, but if you're going to measure the actual deeds and trends behind words, you need to look at metrics, and for all Obama's soft words on immigrants, his admin actually deported more of them than Trump's, it's a noteworthy detail, and a valid measurement, though it's far from the only worthwhile thing to keep in mind about his stance on migrants.
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.
It’s almost like Trump knew that the actions he proposes are controversial at least, illegal possibly, so he tries to scare the illegals so that they leave of their own free will, saving him a trouble.,,
do you think people that know the existence of organ harvesting, human trafficking, Darién Gap would be scared by words? interact with a few see what they are running from will get a few interesting stories to say the least
No, because you’re pointing to a phrase with a verb and object but no subject. What’s the subject in the actual sentence he said? To whom is he referring?
A very similar play book to the one used by the Conservative Party in the UK. They were somehow deemed the "anti-immigration party" of the two major ones, despite having been resposible for some of the highest immigration rates of any era. There's nothing better to distract from rampant inequality and a rapid transfer of wealth from the middle class to the super rich than a boat load of immigrants, that were somehow granted visas by the same government that supposedly reviles them. Without the racial tension, who else is there to point the finger at for the countries woes?
Seriously? That's your take on a specific reference to hard numbers? Has Trump derangement syndrome simply made some people lose their capacity for reason? I don't believe Trump is specifically pro-immigration.
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.
Google searches are free and it's very easy to find the annual deportation quotas by presidential term. Do a little research if you're going to emotionally invest in a politician's claims.
Yeah, so, any chance you could do a monthly-or-so post that explains, in legal terms (of course!) why referring to an entire, diverse bunch of people as "H1Bs" (which, as you know, is just a visa class and pretty much, as you also know, the only path to legally entering the US as an immigrant without family ties or, well, the future-Head-Guy-or-one-of-his-cronies fancying you) is, like, a crime against humanity?
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.
I don't agree with that view/trope since my clients (granted, a limited dataset) are hiring H-1B workers because they believe that they are the best candidates.
I am not as anti H1B as the original poster and have no animosity toward my H1B visa coworkers. But let’s be real. There are thousands of unemployed citizens that could do the work just as well especially when you consider how many work for WITCH companies.
- 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.
It sounds like that term (“H1Bs”) is simply shorthand for foreign citizens that are potential candidates for U.S. work via an H1B visa. Why is that bothersome?
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
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.
> Under what auspices are they supposed to have market power in the first place?
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."
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.
I'm speaking in general principles of what's right and wrong, what's good and evil. As much as the oligarchs want you to pretend that morality is relative and that it is only down to the laws as written, it isn't.
Hey Peter! I wanted to thank you for doing this. I just got my green card last year, and it all kind of started with me asking you a question about H1B caps in a thread like this almost a decade ago. Super appreciate you doing this for people that are dreaming of a better future, dreaming of the American dream.
Wish you the best!
Wow. That's so nice to hear. Thanks!
I know someone who has got a O1 visa to do freelance work, via an employer that has turned out to be dodgy. This employer is giving her mixed messages, on the one hand claiming to have cancelled her visa because she wasn't available for work exactly when the employer needed, on the other saying they haven't really cancelled the visa and she can carry on working for them. She now wonders whether her O-1 entry was during the 60-day grace period after it had been cancelled and thereby unlawful. She doesn't know whether she can legally continue to work because she cannot trust this employer. Compounding this is the fact that she's been engaged to an American for a while and is pregnant. She's now worried about having unwittingly done an illegal entry, and about being seen to have worked illegally, and how that would affect her adjustment of status. I know little of this but I suggested 2 things - (1) collect evidence of the games this employer is playing with you, and ask them to say in writing they haven't cancelled your visa, as proof that you entered the US in good faith and are not knowingly working illegally, (2) possibly contact USCIS directly to check whether the visa is still valid. Any comment on her situation and what she might do?
IANAL, but that sounds like a situation where you need hire an actual immigration attorney.
Agreed :) In case this helps anyone else, she's now talked to a lawyer. Sounds like a spouse of an American can get forgiven for everything anyway especially if they have a kid because otherwise the American would suffer e:g by being a single parent (strangely, being separated from their spouse isn't considered hardship...) I think the employer is playing games to control her and probably hasn't actually cancelled the visa. If she wasn't getting married of course, with the chance of being forgiven, that'd be more of a stress. So, anyone contemplating an O-1 visa, make sure your sponsor is decent!
Hi Peter, thank you for doing this AMA. I am on H1B and I recently lost my job. I only have about 50 days left to get a new job but I have a spouse who is on his own H1B. I wanted to see and find out legal and smooth options to buy more time for myself to find a new job - If anything, it would be those options that do not need me to leave the country and get stamping, if at all. My country of citizenship is India, by the way. If you can help us out, it would be really great. Thank you.
The best and easiest option because your spouse is in H-1B status is to apply to change your status to dependent H-4 status using USCIS Form I-539. As long as this is filed during your grace period, you can remain in the U.S. while the application is pending/until it is approved.
What happens if / when you eventually find a job? Can you file another change of status to a H1B? Does the status of the original change of status app matter? (e.g., can you apply for a COS to H1 while the COS to H4 is still pending?)
Thank you!
Yes, a COS from H-4 to H-1B is an option. However, if the H-4 COS is still pending, you might not be able to get the H-1B petition approved as a change of status but all this means is that to "activate" the approved H-1B petition, you would need to leave the U.S. and reenter with your existing visa stamp (obtained through the previous company) or leave the U.S. and apply for an H-1B visa (if you don't have a valid H-1B visa stamp obtained through the previous company).
Hi Peter! Thank you for doing this.
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!
The main advantage of the L-1 relative to the H-1B is that there's no lottery so the U.S. company can sponsor you for an L-1 at any time. The main advantages of the H-1B relative to the L-1 is that it's transferable from one company to another and can be renewed indefinitely if you are in the green card process. Regarding which one is better from a green card perspective, the response is that your underlying status has no bearing on your green card options so both are fine.
purely from anecdotal evidence from a dozen cases I managed at top50 company: L visas are processed faster than H for gc steps.
I assume L1B because you mentioned “engineer” instead of “manager.”
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.
I was assuming that you qualified equally for both visas but from an outcome standpoint, if the employing U.S. company doesn't qualify as a "blanket L" company, then it can be very tough to get an L-1B visa (which is for professionals/non-managers) because the process goes through USCIS. So, from an outcome standpoint, unless the employing U.S. entity qualifies as a blanket L company, it's much easier to get an H-1B visa.
I was rejected initially without a blanket petition and then approved after the blanket petition was in place.
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.
The problem with the H1B is, of course, winning the lottery. The odds are poor and generally getting worse each year. The L1B may be the only realistic option
My personal experience, and I think the optimal case, is to come on L1 but apply to H1B via consular interview. This way, if you're ever fired from your job, you use the H1B to get authorization to work in a new company (need to leave the US and get a visa in a consulate), while keeping L1 benefits as possible (spouse can work and no lottery).
Could you elaborate on this a bit more? If your company sponsors you to come on an L1 visa, how can you simultaneously apply for an H1B? And in any case, how can you get the H1B at all without winning the lottery (assuming your employer is subject to the cap)?
I originally entered on an L1B and was affected by an acquisition layoff. I wasn't able to work until my EAD came through, which took forever due to a certain president who is currently back in power. The single employer limitation carries risks.
You can come on L1B and then try to get into the H1B lottery (will be tough since you don't have a US degree - I assume). I decided to go with L1B since H1B was impossible to get back then and the timeline worked in my favor.
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.
Hey Peter! Thanks for doing this!
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!
It is grayish but during the past 20 years I've only had one instance where the Consulate pushed back on the issuance of an O-1 visa because the applicant had an approved I-140. That was over 10 years ago and even in that case, the O-1 was eventually issued. So, for all intents and purposes, the Consulates view the O-1 as a dual intent visa. Also, there's some preparation that you can do before applying for your O-1 visa and attending your O-1 visa appointment to minimize the risk if this issue is raised by the Consulate.
Thank you so much for the response! Could you share a bit more on what the preparation looks like? It’s something I’ve seen vaguely mentioned in forums but no one shared the specifics of the prep. Thanks!
That would require a short discussion - give and take - and I'd be happy to prepare you when you get to that point.
Thank you! I’ll talk to the startup that’s hiring me soon to set up a consult with you through formal channels. Appreciate the responses here!
If EB1A is approved, my understanding is that the applicant becomes "current" and eligible for the green card at once without any waiting in the queue regardless of country of birth. Is that not correct?
There’s a cap on how many EB1 green cards they give out per year, and there’s also a per country cap within that cap (no country cannot cross 7% of total cap)
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.
For those from China and India, based on the current backlogs, the process would take about 4-5 years; for those from every other country, there is no backlog in this category so the process could take less than 1 year.
Don’t say unfortunately. With all due respect India needs such talent desperately and you don’t have to worry about 6 years!
Most posted job positions in the US, that I see, explicitly state they will not sponser candidates. But how receptive are they to TN visa candidates and do you see that attitude changing in the near future?
That's mostly a knee-jerk ignorant position since it's oftentimes very easy, fast, and inexpensive to hire a Canadian in TN status. So it's a process of somehow getting through to someone at the company to educate them not to pass on a good candidate simply because they're Canadian. Which of course is a lot easier said than done.
Does this also apply to Mexican's wanting to get a TN as well, I've heard the process is slightly different?
It's a different process for Mexicans because they're not visa exempt like Canadians and so have to get a TN visa at a U.S. Consulate.
Would emigrating to Canada be a viable path for European citizens to eventually get a US work visa? If so, would it also be a path towards a green card?
The law firm I work for (as lead software engineer) did the TN thing for a Canadian software engineer hire for my team last year. [I was not involved in the paperwork but] my understanding is we got an immigration lawyer to help us write everything the right way, since we had not done it before (and lawyers specialize), and it was not especially expensive and it all worked out quite quickly.
Hi Peter! Thanks for doing this.
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)?
Isn't the O-1 visa (in tech fields) mostly for PhDs with a strong research track record? I would assume you can get one if you have a bunch of publications and citations without a PhD, but isn't that the usual path?
I guess you're right. I was under the impression that you can apply for the O-1 solely based on a successful career in tech, not necessarily academic success.
You can definitely apply for an O-1 based on a successful career in tech: https://blog.awais.io/o1-visa
hey granted im not an expert like Peter is, But I have gone through a similar series of events as you are describing here. I transferred to the US on a L1B visa in 2022 and after an unfortunate round of layoffs late 2023 I scrambled for another role and managed to get sponsored and obtain O1 status. I had a good background of experience working on some prestigious products, a degree and written testimonials from people "high" up in my industry, studio heads, people high up in award academies etc. there may be extra steps for you as you don't have a degree (if I'm reading that right) but i believe you can prove you have had "equivalent training" to a degree maybe using your experience.
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
Thanks, Peter.
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?
Good question and I don't know the answer but this is sure to be a battleground in the coming years, states refusing to enforce federal law or to act as agents of the federal government.
It’s well established that the federal government can’t press state officials and employees into the service of enforcing federal law.
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.
My concern is that for blue states, like Oregon, the funding is tied up in federal money. They will withhold and play games and I don't know if Oregon has the "willpower" to avoid mutating their ideals in an effort to keep their kids in school and keep renting houses.
Well, since "federal law can't impose on state law" has been the SCOTUS party line for the last X years, we might as well use that line of reasoning here...
Where did you get that from? Federal laws usually do override state laws. Whether the states have to help enforce federal law is a different question, though, and seems to be a "no" given the examples of marijuana and immigration.
My understanding is the federal laws only "override" state laws in the context of the "enumerated powers" in the constitution, which are supposed to be few and narrow. This is why no State can pass a "law" that would allow you to enslave others or violate their other rights granted by those "enumerated powers" of the federal government.
Look up “The Cole memo”, that is why the cannabis stuff is happening the way it is currently.
Oh, I see. That's a memorandum explicitly stating that marijuana is an exception to this rule - the federal government basically ceded authority on this issue during the Obama era.
The exception proves the rule, however.
An interesting note about the history here. We can all spend some time talking about the reasons why the federal government has no reason regulating that plant and other things, but from a legal perspective I think this precedent was terrible.
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.
I'm not sure we disagree on anything, but yes, the government has interpreted the interstate commerce clause rather broadly. Too broadly, IMO, but the same overreach gets us good things like the FDA/USDA and the FCC.
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.
That's not a new party line or anything that is the 10th amendment:
> 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.
I'm working on my O1 visa and I'm nervous about my portfolio. I'm a developer with plenty of experience, but never spoke at conferences, blogged, or was public. I hires lawyers for the paperwork, but the publicist they recommended me started doing “articles” that just scream fake. I decided to get my own, real stuff instead.
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.
Podcasts, blogs, posts matter little and talks are only marginally helpful. The lowest hanging criteria are essential roles for distinguished organization, high compensation, press, and judging (either serving as a reviewer for an academic journal or conference or serving as a judge at a competition or event, such as a hackathon or startup/business competition). By the way, your gut is right; USCIS is sensitive to fake/manufactured press and this can undermine an otherwise strong petition.
Thank you! What kind of press would I go for? And how would an engineer typically get to the judging roles like these?
While the publication doesn't have to be a country's or industry's largest, it shouldn't be too small and for the press to count, it must be about you and your work or quote you. Regarding your second question, I don't know the answer unfortunately although I do know that there are a lot of such events.
Hello, I am a computer science research engineer with 2 years of experience in a non-U.S. big tech company research center in Europe. Before that, I worked as a research fellow at the university after I got my master degree. During that time I published 4 papers, and I was a reviewer for a CS journal (even though I actually reviewed only 1 paper). I actually have 60-70 citations of my works (if it might be relevant in any way). What are my chances to get an O-1 visa? Thanks in advance for your time
Very high.
Peter, I'm a software engineer with a FAANG company, ~20 years experience and at the senior staff level. I lived in the US for a while with my family, and we all have green cards. Last year, we moved back to India (where we're from), with re-entry permits that are valid till July 2026. We'd like to continue living in India for a while (the next 8-10 years, till our kids finish school), but also keep our green cards so that we can move to the US afterwards without going through the Indian-citizen green card nightmare, especially for my kids. I go to the US every 3-4 months on work, my family less frequently. Been paying US taxes and no problems continuing to do so, but I don't own a house in the US. Is there a way I can keep my green card while living in India for 8-10 years? Or should I just give it up when my re-entry permit expires, and find a way to apply again?
I’m not Peter, but you can renew your re-entry permits forever, in 1-year increments. You can even have them delivered to the U.S. consulate abroad. It’s a hassle since they only give you 1-year renewals after a certain period of time (with initially getting 2-year ones), but it’s better than losing the status.
> You can even have them delivered to the U.S. consulate abroad.
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.
interesting. I thought you are required to be a legal resident of USA to maintain a your green card status. I am interested in answer to this question too.
> interesting. Why are you required to pay US taxes if you are a resident of India now.
The US taxes global income for all residents: https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/freq...
yeah i thought thats only after you get your citizenship. til.
What do you think will change for folks who are paroled under Uniting for Ukraine (https://www.uscis.gov/ukraine)?
That's a really good question and of concern to a lot of people. No one knows at this point but the concern is that the new administration will kill the program or at a minimum modify/restrict it.
Hi Peter! Thanks for doing this! I've been watching this thread and reading for so many times but now I have a question.
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
There is nothing that says you can't, but you have to convince the consulate that you did not have intent to immigrate when you applied/interviewed for the E3 and entered the US. The restriction is similar for the J1.
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...
I came on E3, converted to H1B then applied for a greencard.
Hi Peter, thank you so much for your work and for doing these AMAs! I am a PhD student on an F1 at a US university who would very much like to stay after graduation. Without going into too much details, I think I would have a strong O1 or EB-2-NIW application (top US school, multiple publications, awards, reviewing) upon graduation, but I am worried about leaving it until then to start the process as I know it can be very time consuming. What, if anything, can I do to "get the ball rolling" before I graduate? I presume starting an EB-2-NIW application would not be feasible at this point, for example, but please correct me if I'm wrong. Ideally I would enter the job market with a non-employer-specific green card, so that I don't have the additional stress of having to worry about being kicked out. Thank you all the work you do!
Having a PhD is less important than the other stuff - publications, awards, etc. - so there's no need for you to wait until you graduate to start the process. As a first step, I would recommend that you get your qualifications evaluated now because it's possible that you could pursue an EB1A now or an NIW at a minimum.
That's good to know - thank you so much, Peter!
Do founders need to move to the US to be efficient? Is it possible to incorporate in the US and run the company from their home country without any hassles?
Check out Stripe Atlas - they do what you're asking for
Some family friends are part of a diaspora seeking asylum from Russia. Their hearing dates all fall inside 2026.
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've heard about those concerns but there's really no clear indication yet how asylum applicants from Russia will be treated by the new administration.
NPR reports that President Trump seeks to "end asylum entirely", according to officials within the administration - https://www.npr.org/2025/01/20/g-s1-43650/trump-inauguration...
How viable is the effort to overturn birthright citizenship?
It's in the Constitution (14th Amendment) I would say extremely unlikely.
I agree with other commenters that the meaning is clear. But I think they underestimate how far the Supreme Court is willing to go to torture the meaning of the Constitution. Hopefully I am wrong.
Are you talking about the current Supreme Court, or the folks who think “emanations from penumbras” is valid constitutional law?
It sounds like you think the SC was wrong in 1965 in saying you couldn't ban contraceptive use. https://time.com/archive/6833872/the-law-emanations-from-a-p... Not a stance I happen to agree with.
I think if you want to defend Griswold you are forced to defend Lochner. If “emanations from penumbras” is a legitimate source of constitutional authority that can override democratically enacted laws, that has sweeping implications. Clearly the constitution has an overriding focus on property rights and economic liberty. What freedoms can you find in the “emanations from penumbras” of the contract clause or the takings clause?
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.
I wouldn't. The wording of the 14th Amendment is ambiguous and was arguably misinterpreted by the courts.
"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.
I still think it's extremely unlikely. In other immigration contexts, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" has been interpreted to exclude only diplomats and those not subject to the laws of the U.S. even though they are in the U.S. So children born in the U.S. to diplomats aren't considered citizens at birth.
The same is true for people born into war zones not fully under US control. I still wouldn't write this off. All it takes is a compelling argument for a new interpretation of "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof".
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.
Are you seriously suggesting that undocumented immigrants are immune from US jurisdiction in some respect? This sounds like a reverse version of the odd legal theories proffered by sovereign citizens as to why they should not be subject to judgements in US courts.
What does “subject to the jurisdiction of” mean? Everyone seems to be equating that with diplomatic immunity, but that seems to arise from the state department’s historical interpretation of the term in determining citizenship of children of foreign diplomats.
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.
Wong Kim Ark cites, at length, Marshall's discourse on jurisdiction in Schooner Exchange v McFaddon, which turns entirely on this question. It also notes the language change between the Civil Rights Act and the 14th Amendment, where the revision clarified precisely this issue. It's a frivolous argument. Would you like to put some money on this? I'd give you favorable odds at 7-2, assuming the court composition remains as it is now.
It’s not clear to me that “jurisdiction” is being used in the same context in the 14th amendment as in Schooner Exchange.
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.
I feel we could usefully keep in mind another observation of Marshall's quoted in Wong Kim Ark, seperate from his writings in Schooner Exchange mentioned above:
"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.
Sure, maybe the Slaughterhouse Cases dicta was just wrong. But maybe there is something in the historical use of “jurisdiction” that sheds more light on what “subject to the jurisdiction” means. I haven’t done the deep dive myself, I’m just unpersuaded by the common law argument in Wong Kim Ark unless that really is all the historical record leaves us to go on.
Excepting the Chief Justice, the Slaughter-house justices endorsed the mainstream citizenship opinion just a couple years later.
Yes, of course they are. Just one example is conscription.
Men under the age of 26, documented or not, are required to sign up after being in the US for 30 days, unless they are on a valid visa.
https://www.sss.gov/register/immigrants/
That's murky and it's not enforced. In practice, immigrants aren't conscripted during a draft.
If you want some more examples:
Voting, Jury Service, Employment Authorization, and Driver's licenses.
It's not murky, I just picked the most official source. There's no real enforcement of selective service, except that if you don't sign up for it likely bars from subsequent employment by the Federal government unless you can get a waiver.
In practice, immigrants aren't conscripted during a draft.
We haven't had a draft since the 1970s. It's unclear how many draftees were immigrants back then (and the legal definitions around immigration have changed in the meantime) but historically conscription of immigrants has been the norm, not the exception.
Voting, Jury Service, Employment Authorization, and Driver's licenses.
These seem like things from which undocumented immigrants are excluded (by law!), not immunized. Why you think this is an argument in favor of your legal theory is beyond me.
The correct legal term is "illegal aliens" not "undocumented immigrants".
My argument is that the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" may be interpreted to mean that individuals must be under the complete, allegiance-owing jurisdiction of the United States, and because they may not be for a host of reasons, the SCOTUS may reevaluate US v Wong Kim Ark and reinterpret the 14th amendment.
There's also this 1866 Congressional document discussing the 14th after it was passed detailing "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". It reads "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of embassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but it will include every other class of persons." https://x.com/pepesgrandma/status/1057514062899277824/photo/...
There's a very strong case here.
That hardly means anything about birthright citizenship and says a lot more about the draft
They are required to pay taxes worldwide income [1] and register for selective service as the peer comment stated.
[1] https://calawyers.org/publications/taxation/ca-tax-lawyer-ma...
The state wanting the blood and money of illegals isn’t proof of anything more than the state wanting ever more blood and money
> 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.
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".
I am not an immigration lawyer, but I am very interested in immigration law and the effort to overturn this precedent in particular, an interest whch goes back more than 15 years; so I have done a lot of reading on this argument.
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).
The contrary view is based on dicta in the Slaughterhouse Cases, decided less than a decade after the 14th amendment: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/83/36/
> 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.
As has been noted in other responses to you: Dicta are just that, dicta. Moreover, the Reconstruction-era Slaughterhouse Cases arose in the context of the defeated South's often-violent, century-long attempts to preserve "states' rights" (read: white supremacy). Limiting the reach of the 14th Amendment was one facet of that project; Louisiana's lawyer in the case was a prominent opponent of Reconstruction. The Court's 5-4 judgment has long since been shitcanned [0]; in the modern era it's palpably frivolous to cite its dicta as support.
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...
The Slaughterhouse Cases were decided just five years after the enactment of the 14th amendment, and the judgment is obviously correct and has never been overruled. And the dissent was obviously nuts in suggesting that the 14th amendment protected butchers from state economic regulation.
I'll confess error in my wording above (and it's too late to edit it): The judgment (outcome) was arguably correct, as you say — state governments should indeed be able to do reasonable public-safety regulation.
(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]
[0] https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/83/36/
Here’s an article addressing what the framers of the amendment meant: https://static.heritage.org/legal-and-judicial/birthright-ci...
Haven’t had a chance to dig into it in detail, but it addresses evidence from the drafting process that isn’t addressed in Wong Kim Ark.
It's just the same old bullshit in a new wrapper. Cherry-picked quotes from Congressional debates, a bunch of cases in between the passage of teh amendment and Wong Kim Ark, and then it launches into handwaving with arguments like
The American Revolution was, by its inherent nature and through its express principles, an effective throwing off of the common law’s yoke of jus soli and its perpetual allegiance in favor of a consent-based compact theory of government.
and a page later it's special pleading for Grotius, Emer Vattel, and compact theory. I gave up at that point. Perhaps there's some brilliant new theory buried in the last 1/3 of the article, but if you didn't think it worth reading in detail I'm not inclined to mine it for you!
To be honest, the fact that it's from the Heritage foundation and published in a very conservative journal of law and politics give it a double flavor of polemic rather than scholarship. One can construct eloquent arguments for anything, from reinstating dred Scott to invalidating the Declaration of Independence and the subsequent formation of the USA - and indeed in this age of LLMs I expect legal polemics further proliferate. But when you get down to the actual substantive arguments, this paper strikes me as just another of the 'we wish things were different' type, wishing that the US had built its jurisprudential edifice on a continental rather than a common law substrate. Perhaps if the proponents of this idea invested their efforts in amending the Constitution (or going the Conventional route) they might have more success in building the required consensus.
> To be honest, the fact that it's from the Heritage foundation and published in a very conservative journal of law and politics give it a double flavor of polemic rather than scholarship
I’ll respond to your other point, but 90% of legal academia thinks “emanations from penumbras” is constitutional law. They’re wingnuts and kooks too. Nobody has the color of authority here. We gotta reconstruct the correct answer from first principles.
I'm (legitimately) curious: how does one square the concept of not being subject to US jurisdiction for citizenship purposes, with being subject to US jurisdiction for law enforcement purposes?
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?
It’s not obvious to me that “jurisdiction” could only mean “law enforcement jurisdiction” in 1868.
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.
Yep, it's pretty nonsensical. Presumably those that hold the view that children of undocumented immigrants born in the United States are not citizens also hold they view that they are immune to prosecution for crimes by the United States for the same reason, but they don't seem to talk about that much.
> The wording of the 14th Amendment is ambiguous?
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.
Before the bonkers immunity decision I would have agreed with this. Since then, though, I don't trust SCOTUS on any decision that involves conservative policy. This may come up sooner than expected; Trump has issued an EO attempting to nullify it: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/prot...
There is nothing bonkers about it. Should Obama be subject to prosecution for murder for allowing the bombing of a US citizen in the Middle East? Or should he be immune because he was engaging in an official act as President to protect the US?
Neither, he should not be criminally liable for that, not because he has immunity invented by a Court in clear defiance of the Constitution, but because the act is, in fact, legal pursuant to the 9/11 AUMF.
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.
No, you're wrong. No law from Congress can supersede the Constitution and Obama is not criminally liable because of the Constitution, not because of the law you state. You can't create a law that deprives an individual of his constitutional rights.
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.
The president is obviously immune for official acts! You think Georgia should now be able to prosecute Biden for recklessly causing the death of Laken Riley?
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.
Are you saying aliens are not subject to US jurisdiction while here? Like "sovereign citizens"? That's what it seems like you're saying.
The distinction in the executive order is between "a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident" and everyone else, not just citizen vs. noncitizen or lawful vs. unlawful. As drafted, the children of other lawful immigrants (H-1, J-1, O-1, L-1, etc.) would also not receive birthright citizenship. I've quoted the exact language for the father. The language for the mother is different but seems almost equivalent, excluding "lawful but temporary" status.
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...
Diplomats (not all foreign nationals) and their families who remain subject to the laws of their own country.
Thanks, that's interesting to know! Although my comment was addressed to willmadden, and I think they just do not know what jurisdiction means.
Those also have diplomatic immunity.
US citizen by birth, but my parents weren't LPRs or citizens at the time I was born (1986).. they later received green cards and then citizenship in the late 1990s/early aughts.
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)
The order "shall apply only to persons who are born within the United States after 30 days from the date of this order", so you're unaffected even if the order were somehow upheld.
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.
I've read a few different standards for revoking birthright:
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?
Not a lawyer, but I'd suspect the prime target would be "anchor babies", e.g. children born to parents here illegally.
Thanks for doing this Peter. I have two questions, advice on either/both would be much appreciated!
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?
1. The EB1C has the additional requirement that the applicant's employment abroad also must have been managerial or executive (which at the end of the day means people management). This is where those who move from L-1B to L-1A sometimes fall short. 2. This requires a discussion unfortunately because if you look at the websites of 10 different schools, you will get 10 different views on whether an F-1 can get STEM OPT through their own company. My reading of USCIS guidance is that STEM OPT can be obtained through an F-1's own company as long as there is a supervision/training component to their employment.
Thanks Peter! On 2) is this something you could help with through a consultation, if/when I decide to go try this route?
Hi Peter
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.
Do you foresee Canadians applying for TN/H1-Bs facing more obstacles in the new administration?
Definitely not H-1Bs (at least no different from non-Canadians). The TN could be impacted, however. My biggest fear is that the administration will limit TN renewals to filings with USCIS (and not allow renewals with CBP) like it did years ago to Canadian L-1 renewals. That change was a negative game-changer for Canadians in L-1 status. I am also concerned that the administration will simply make it tougher for Canadians to qualify for TN status.
Apparently all they need to do is wait for annexation.
As an EU citizen, what are my chances of being able to get a visa if hired by an American company?
If you are currently employed abroad by a related company, then the L-1 visa might be an option. If you are not, then - assuming that you are not from a country with its own visa, such as Australia, Canada, Chile, Mexico, and Singapore - the potential options are the E-1/E-2, H-1B, and O-1.
L-1 is primarily for intracompany transfers, right?
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.
Just apply for jobs, and the immigration attorneys hired by your prospective employer will figure it out. U.S. immigration by employment is sadly almost entirely based on petitions filed by your employer. The choice of which visa pathway to pursue is not up to you.
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.
What industry, size of company, and role(s) are you targeting?
I’m a senior SWE in big tech. Targeting big to mid tech and financial companies or startups. I’m weighing my options in case of layoffs and whatnot.
Schedule a consultation with me or another immigration attorney to go over your options (because a detailed analysis is required) but likely your only real option will be the O-1 and as senior SWE at big tech, you should be able to qualify for an O-1 or take steps to qualify for an O-1.
I am on H1b visa now. I filed my PERM one month ago. According to some people, it takes 1 year and a half to get my PERM approved and it takes another month to get my I-140 approved. But I want to jump ships soon. If I leave my current company, I will have to start everything over again (Prevailing Wage Determination, Labor Market Test, PERM). I feel I'm stuck in this company. What are the things I could do?
Not much, unfortunately, other than by applying for a green card on your own, one that's not tied to a specific employer, such as a national interest waiver (or NIW) green card application or an extraordinary ability (or EB1A) green card application. Because there's no way around losing the PERM if you leave now.
Hi Peter, Thank you for the AMA! I am reposting here because my earlier comment was killed [0] and you probably haven't seen it.
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.
0. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42772058
Hey Peter! Thank you for doing this!
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!
This identical comment was posted with three different, newly created, accounts in the span of a few seconds. You have since deleted two of them but the fact remains... need to work on your bot functionality.
Not sure if this is helpful information, but yeah, I did that, because ycombinator is very buggy.
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.
Are there any pitfalls to prepare for or avoid for people trying to get their parents permanent residency/green cards?
These tend to be pretty straightforward easy applications. There really are no gotchas in this context.
Hello, thank you for hosting this! I'm applying for green card based on marriage. I've prepared i130, i485, i130a, i864, i131, i601, i765, i693. Is there any form/documents I'm missing? Is there any very crucial marriage, financial, or legal status proof that tends to be overlooked by applicants? Thank you!
Unfortunately, I can't provide that advice since I'm not representing you and your wife and don't "own" the case and know all the facts. All I can say generally is that it's important to provide financial documents (such as tax returns and W-2s/1099s), evidence of the bona fides of the marriage, and evidence of past and present immigration status.
Thank you a lot. Were Trump to sign new executive orders regarding immigration today, would that affect the current instructions on USCIS website immediately?
That depends on the wording of the EO but they could take effect immediately.
Thank you for doing this. I don’t know if this is part of your expertise. I am planning of incorporating the holding of my start up in Delaware, the startup is located in Dubai (I am a resident there, German origin, my co-founder US passport holder). As we are planning on targeting US investors we decided to have the holding in Delaware. Now the question is, what are the potential tax implications for a company from the outside incorporating a holding in Delaware. (1) Is the operational business taxable in the US? Is there a threshold? Or would it only play a role once we would potentially sell the company? The feedback we are receiving is not very straightforward. (2) I am aware that my confounder obviously needs to report to the IRS, but would him holding an Us passport also have an impact on the company or this is completely separate?
Unfortunately, these very important tax questions/considerations are outside my area of expertise.
Hey Peter, I appreciate what you're doing here. I made a throwaway account since I don't want this part of my personal life to be on HN and tied to me in any way.
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?
Unclear to me why this info can't be (at this point it's the 20th AMA by Peter Roberts) in a faq format.
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.
I received notice of a successful i140 application (for eb1a) in September 2022 and have been waiting for the past 2.5 years for the dates to become current. The dates haven't moved past Feb 22 for the past 6 months or so. Any speculation on how these dates may move under the new administration?
If the current administration reduces the issuance of family based greencards (which happens mostly through the consulates), those unused greencards will flow through the EB category, allowing EB1 dates to move forward. Something like this happened during Covid.
That's a complete unknown, unfortunately, but to be clear, short of changing the green card law, there's little that an administration can do to impact the movement of the cutoff dates.
How often do you see bootstrapped founders get an O-1? How much revenue do they typically have before applying?
All the time and there's no explicit revenue or funding requirement. In the O-1 context, the company-related requirements are minimal; it's much more about the applicant's/beneficiary's qualifications.
Any pitfalls to watch out for for Canadians on the TN? Specifically during this next administration?
We just have to keep our eye on this because almost certainly there will be changes whether to the application process or to the application/interpretation of the regulations.
Any tips or suggestions for a DACA recipient with a year left in Uni for Computer Science, here in the states? I am nervous about my career post-school and am wondering if you could shed some insight as to what my options might be. Thank you for your time.
We represent a lot of DACA recipients and the options of moving to another status are very fact-specific, depending on their status at the time of entry, their qualifications, their country of citizenship, etc. A year isn't a lot of time as we all know so I would recommend scheduling a consultation with an immigration attorney soon.
Understood thank you for your help.
Hi Peter, thanks for doing this!
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!
Any EB1 petition you submit is going to be adjudicated separately from your EB2. If you want your case assessed, you should probably hire a lawyer to discuss the specifics of your case.
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-...
Hi Peter, thanks for doing this!
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
No worries. These aren't really immigration companies but I know from experience that founders/employees living abroad can get paid directly by U.S. companies (this is a payroll issue, not an immigration one) or through third-party entities, oftentimes referred to as Employers of Records (or EORs), like Deel or Remote.
We are working to apply for n-565 for my mother in law who has been a working American citizen for 50 years. She now needs naturalization records to apply for Real Id and continue domestic travel.
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 .
I’m a citizen of an EU country that meets the Visa Waiver criteria. I’m working for a startup based in the USA. I’m one of the earliest employees, hence a great asset to the company. I’m considering emigrating sometime in the future but I’m unsure what needs to happen to enable it. Is a company-sponsored visa the only option? How inclined are startup founders to sponsor work visas? I’m convinced this is not attainable now, we’ve got a product to build, I’m only speculating for “when we make it”. Separately, how are startup employees treated when it comes to trying to convert the work visa to a green card? The definitions for EB-1, EB-2 are very interpretable. Thank you!
In my experience, because of the competition for talent, startups often are more open to employing foreign nationals than many large, established companies. The terms EB-1, EB-2, etc. refer to green card categories and the green card process takes a while so that's probably not the initial path toward working in the U.S. The likely visa options will be the L-1 (as a transferee) or an O-1 and oftentimes founding engineers or early stage employees qualify for the O-1 or can take steps to qualify. Both the L-1 and O-1 require company sponsorship.
Understood, thank you!
What are better chances O1 or H1B? Still need apply for a visa waiver due to a record on my file.
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
Without knowing all the details, it looks like you should have a solid O-1.
I've been really curious about the economics of US immigration for foreign workers in information work (software, data, etc).
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?
I heard russian citizens were having troubles getting any kind of U.S. visa due to the political situation in the world. Does this situation still persists? Asking for a friend who still hasn't heard back for his tourist visa.
Yes, it still persists and can result in visa processing delays of more than one year.
Hey Peter! Really appreciate you doing this.
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?
Hi Peter, a European (Hungary) colleague of us visited Iran once and does not receive any Visa (tourist,...) because of that. He does not even receive answers to his renewed applications. Is there anything he can do?
It's very difficult to get past this issue. We have Iranian citizen clients and non-Iranian citizen clients who have visited Iran whose visitor and work visa applications have been pending for more than a year. One option is for your colleague to ask his federal representative to reach out to the Consulate. This is done all the time but to be clear, it usually doesn't help but there's really nothing else to do. In the non-tourist visa application context, some people file mandamus actions, which oftentimes help but I think such an action would just accelerate the denial of the visitor visa application.
Thank you very much for your time Peter!
Hey Peter!
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?
I’m on an H1B visa since 2017. I extended in 2021 and again in 2023 (thanks to approved I-140). But my visa stamp in my passport is from 2017 which expired in 2020. I haven’t made efforts to get another stamp mainly because of the pandemic in 2020 and long appointment backlogs thereafter.
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.
There's no requirement to maintain a valid H-1B visa but under certain circumstances having a valid H-1B visa stamp can make it easier to change H-1B employers.
> The H-1B program applies to employers seeking to hire nonimmigrant aliens as workers in specialty occupations or as fashion models of distinguished merit and ability.
What do I need to become a fashion model?
If you're being serious, you should sign with an agency as a first step.
My company is flying over architects / project members for design meetings from other countries for small meetings over the course of of a week. Does this usually require a work visa ?
did a startup -- had wrong visa class -- angry employee called CBP -- got picked up passing through JFK -- 10 year ban -- is permission to reapply actually a thing or a dead-end process? -- thanks --
It is an option but it's complicated and not easy so consult an immigration attorney.
A few questions regarding the EB-5 visa. Is this still a realistic path to a green card, and if so, how complicated is the process if you want to take the targeted economic area route through a regional center? Do the investments through a regional center usually persist, or in other words, how high is the risk of the underlying business going bankrupt based on real experiences? There's plenty of articles about all of this online of course, but would be interested in hearing any first hand experience you might have.
The EB-5 is still an option although the process largely depends on the regional center/entity that you are going through and requires that you do real due diligence like you would any major investment. The EB-5 is also an area that at various times has been shut down or delayed because of government concerns about fraud and criminal activity.
Hi, I looked at the regional centre-dependent EB5 process but pivoted to the EB5 direct investment route. I have now bootstrapped a single food truck, and we are looking forward to launch it next month. Can such kind of business setup qualify me for O1 instead ? At my day job, I am a software manager in FAANG.
O1 requires you have considerable outstanding achievements [0], such as widely recognized international rewards, being featured in major publications, scholarly articles, or etc. I don't see how a food truck would help you qualify for any of those. Demanding a high salary, which I assume you do at FAANG, would only tick one box, but to qualify you need to tick at least three.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O_visa#Requirements
As applied, although still high, the O-1 requirements are easier than they appear so it's always worth evaluating particularly for the founder of a business. And an O-1 can be for almost any occupation, from a hair colorist to a cancer researcher.
Thanks for explaining, I was not aware of that, that's interesting.
It's surprising to many people what backgrounds/jobs can qualify for O-1 classification so it's not inconceivable that your creation of the food truck business could be a platform to get you an O-1. This would require an O-1 analysis of your qualifications and this business.
Hey Peter - I'm a US citizen currently living in Canada as a permanent resident (my wife is Canadian and we're raising our kids here). I've started startups in the states before when I used to live there, incorporated as C-Corps, but now that I'm living in Canada - if I wanted to create a startup, could I still incorporate it as a C-Corp in Delaware? *I do have my parents address in the states that I can use if needed
My friend is on h1b. Can he join me as a co founder?
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!
It's possible but there are a lot of factors to consider/issues at play which are impossible to go through in this forum so you and he should consult an immigration attorney.
In 2011, we hired someone on an H1B at the startup where I worked. It was a straightforward process. The paperwork added a couple weeks to the process, and IIRC it cost $10k or so in legal fees, but for a great hire, it was definitely not a meaningful barrier.
We were already incorporated as a C corp. I would imagine that some sort of incorporation will be pretty much a requirement.
(IANAL)
Thanks. It's more complicated when the H-1B beneficiary is a founder/owner.
Hey Peter, been reading these threads for a while and really appreciate your support. I'm on STEM OPT and I want to keep my options open in case I don't get an H1b by the time it ends. What realistically are my options without affecting my future chances at a green card? I've heard that pathways like Day 1 CPT can lead to future I140 denials, which make me skeptical of going down that route.
The nonimmigrant visa applications of those who get day 1 CPT tend to be scrutinized more closely but as long as the program is real, the visas eventually get issued. And the same for green card applications. While this might result in greater scrutiny, green cards get issued if the program is real. So if you go this route, just make sure it's a legit program (classes, homework, tests, etc.). The other option is the O-1. Of course I don't know your background but the O-1 is one option those who don't get selected in the lottery look at.
If a US very early-stage startup hires a Canadian and grants them restricted common stock (similar to what founders get), what are the implications for them (1) from a Canadian tax perspective* and (2) if they move to the US later on*?
*(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" ?
All good questions but outside my limited area of expertise (US immigration). You should consult an international tax expert.
I am on a TN visa and recently got a promotion which elevated my title but largely kept my responsibilities the same. My old title had the name of my TN profession in it, the new one is adjacent but does not. Could this cause issue? I travel with the form I received from USCIS through mail-in TN renewal.
Related, I’m waiting in the green card backlog with a completed PERM. Will this title change affect that?
Whether a new or amended TN is required depends on the job duties, not the title, so it appears that your TN should remain valid. But you should speak with your company's attorney about what you should carry with you when you travel and how you should respond to questions about your job. The same is largely true for your PERM application unless possibly the promotion puts you in a significantly higher comp bracket or significantly changes your place in the company's hierarchy.
Hi Peter, Thanks for doing this. I am a Canadian citizen born in India and recently moved to work for a FAANG company on a TN visa from Canada.
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.
I'm not a lawyer, but worked in the US for 6 years as a Canadian TN. The green card eligibility is the big differentiator between TN and H1B. Other than that, there isn't much difference that I could tell. One difference between Mexican and Canadian TNs is that Mexican TNs can switch employers without renewing TN, whereas with a Canadian TN you have to reenter the country when you switch employers.
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.
Thanks for the insight.
I am married to an american but we are leaving abroad and we never started the process for me to get a green card as we didn't plan to move to the US yet. Is it true that when I apply and get the card I then have a limited amount of time to move in, and if I don't then I would have to start the whole process again?
Yes.
Hi Peter,
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?
I don't think so. She's already an LPR and during his last time in office, other than some processing delays, in my experience, applications that were supposed to get approved got approved.
I have a friend who is a foreigner, and is in a master's CS degree program in the US. He's married to an American woman as of a few months ago.
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?
Largely because of the Biden administration's policy of waiving the in-person interview requirement in marriage-based green card cases, the process has been very fast over the last 4 years, often taking less than 6 months from the time of filing until the approval of the green card application. If the new administration brings back the interview requirement, then I suspect that the processing time will go back to what it was before, which typically was at least 1 year. While a green card applicant is waiting for their green card application to be reviewed and approved, they will receive a temporary work card. The processing of work card applications is all over the place but has been better over the past 2 years and can take less than 3 months now (although it also can take much longer). There is a way to request expedited approval of a work card application but the standard is high. Instructions for requesting expedite review of an immigration application are available on the USCIS web site.
Thank you!
Are there opportunities for those of us in the USA to take in fiancés from other countries in the current climate? I'm currently in the dating circuit for women who have software engineering backgrounds and this situation has made me very nervous about how I'm going to actually bring a fiancé to the USA now.
Huh? You have multiple marriage worthy relationships ongoing in other countries? Or you’re adopting fiancés from a shelter?
I think the more reasonable interpretation is that OP is currently looking to date someone. They (as one generally does) hope it will go well, in which case they might want to cement their relationship through marriage. However, they are worried that if they do get married, they may not be able to move to the USA with their spouse.
If I have a candidate on a h1B at another company that I want to hire, what is the process to get them started at my company?
Great questions and comments. Thank you! I'm taking a break until around 3 pm EST and then will return for several more hours.
Hi Peter, Thank you so much for doing this.
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?
There would have to be a visa that you qualify for that the company could sponsor you for, such as an O-1 or a country-specific visa, but given how long such a process likely would take, even if you qualified for another visa, you probably wouldn't get it much faster than the J-2 work card.
I am filing an EB1-A petition with a law firm. The law firm says that based on their recent experience, EB1-A cases that have requested Premium Processing (PP) have a lower approval rate and a higher RFE rate.
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
With all due respect, the firm's data is 100% anecdotal and I would say meaningless. There's no reliable data on this question since there's no control studies (and can't be) on the relative merits of filing EB1As with or without premium processing. We file 99% of our EB1As with premium processing because most of our clients don't want to wait 6 months to hear back from USCIS.
What's your outlook on work green-card timelines for the next 2 years, esp. given the recent change in administration?
There's not much that an administration can do to impact the delays because they primarily are the result of statutory backlogs and demand. So, unless there is a significant change in the law or a significant drop in demand, these delays are likely to persist.
Thanks, so many interesting answers. As an European working for a US tech company - regular visiting but world traveler as my passion. Is there officially a list of countries one should not visit (just tourism) that could harm career prospects while working for a US company for visas? Thank you.
This is a moving target but at a minimum any country on Trump's soon-to-be travel ban list might cause problems down the road.
I got 221g administrative processing denial for L1-B recently. I work at FAANG. From your experience is there any chance that this will clear itself soonish or that's kinda the end of the story? I know a few stuck waiting for more than a year. Is such an outcome likely for me?
This depends on the reason for the 221g. Security-related reasons can take a while but often 221gs these clear quickly. What's the reason?
The reason wasn't specified. Are they supposed to specify the reason like security check?
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.
Sounds like the typical "administrative processing". They typically do not give any reason, just that they "need a bit more information" and "the processing typically concludes in 60 days or less". You may be lucky and that is the case, you may be unlucky and it is stuck for years. Even if you're from e.g. the developer of curl from Sweden in 2016, not a nuclear physicist Russia or Iran in 2025: https://daniel.haxx.se/blog/2020/11/09/a-us-visa-in-937-days...
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.
Two Canadian cofounders want to start a company in the USA, is O-1 the only option? Is TN a possibility?
Recent amendments to work visa rules published in the federal register (and that took effect on January 17, 2025) enables being a founder of a company while on an H-1B, and perhaps might similarly allow that for a TN, but Peter Roberts or another expert would likely know best about it.
Thanks. The law never has explicitly prohibited founders from qualifying for H-1B or TN status but there have been challenges and the changes mentioned above will make it easier for founders to qualify for H-1B status and I think make it easier for founders to qualify for TN status. In fact, we recently had a founder obtain a TN through CBP and her status as a founder was front and center in her application.
thank you peter for doing this. I am on H1B with 140 approved and EAD. What are my options if i want to leave my job and open a start up? how it would affect if my priority date becomes active?
Do you think nonimmigrant worker petition adjudication is stricter at land borders, pre-flight inspection stations by CBP as compared to a filing with USCIS?
How common is it for CBP to deny entry / readjudicate a petition if a worker has an approved USCIS petition and an approval notice?
Adjudications vary considerably from land crossing to land crossing and from airport in Canada to airport in Canada but as a very general rule, it's easier to get a TN through CBP at a land crossing or airport than through USCIS but this also depends in part on specific TN occupation being applied under and the applicant's background. It's rare but not unheard-of for CBP to deny entry to a Canadian with an approved TN petition. Again, the risk varies by land crossing and airport with Pearson probably the worst and to be avoided if there's any concern.
Peter -- many thanks for your continued presence and accessible approach. My wife and I reached out to you several years ago and your response was immensely helpful and comforting. Thanks for what you do.
some incomplete notes on my recent o1 . i recommend minn at lighthousehq, tell her i said hi https://github.com/swyxio/swyxdotio/issues/477
I've heard good things about LighthouseHQ from friends. The founder agreed to look my case over but then ghosted me. Unclear why, but I followed up and didn't hear back so
Hi Mark — Minn here. So sorry for my miss here. Drop me a line at minn@lighthouseh[dot]com to reconnect. We've worked with hundreds of applicants, many in the YC community and happy to see how we can help!
Hi Minn–thanks for reaching out! I emailed you yesterday and will wait to hear back.
What are your thoughts on the future of the Laken Riley Act's provisions on empowering State AGs to sue the federal government over immigration enforcement, both in terms of constitutionality and in terms of outcomes if signed into law and upheld?
I'm not a fan but I haven't really analyzed the constitutionality of these provisions although the arguments I've heard regarding their unconstitutionality make sense to me.
Hi Peter, I am wondering what's the best way to move from O1 to Green Card? I have my own startup which has sponsored by O-1 visa but need to get a green card to stay in the Bay Area long term. I am a Canadian Citizen if that helps.
For founders, the two options are EB2 national interest waiver and EB1A extraordinary ability and which path to choose will require an analysis of your background and the company. EB1A is much faster but the bar is much higher although many founders who've created "successful" companies qualify.
Thank you, I wasn't familiar with EB2. I did exit my last company in 2021 to a Fortune 500 -- if that counts as a "successful"
Do you believe there are such a thing as nations, or merely different economic zones?
The law distinguishes between the two so from a practical standpoint for me, the answer is yes.
Thanks for doing this, Peter. What is a good route for an English national looking to move their profitable software business to the US? E-2? Would this be a path to long-term tax residency in America?
The E-2 visa is usually a very good and pretty easy option as long as the investment is enough (typically at least $100k USD) and there's a good business plan. I can't comment on tax residency.
Hey nand_gate, IANAL but I'm currently on E-2 and ran through the process mostly without lawyer. You can contact me through the form on bitcreed dot us.
What are my possibilities to work a tech job in the US (I do have a company that’s willing and able) but I don’t have a college degree, how likely is it that I can find a way.
My sister is trying to do AOS we have DACA, and a legal entry, but also multiple entries, she is married to a USC. Is there another way to adjust to residency that we do not know of?
Just curious... are H1-B holders still tied to their employer or have the conditions relaxed?
Can anyone point me to some current (human readable not legalese) explanation of what you can do with the H1-B?
H-1B visa holders are tied to their sponsoring employer. Do you mean what they can do outside their H-1B employment? What other things are you interested in doing?
> H-1B visa holders are tied to their sponsoring employer.
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.
What are potential challenges to getting an employment-sponsored EB2 visa, as an EU citizen with a Master's degree and more than 5 years of relevant work experience?
Sorry. This is a bit too vague. Can you focus your question/clarify your concerns?
What is an approximate cost of all fees and expenditures given the premium processing in Bay Area for a company which wants to hire H1B from another one?
What’s your perspective on when the EB-3 and EB-2 rest-of-world priority dates will move into 2024, considering they haven't changed much since April 2023?
Unfortunately, I just don't know and usually when I guess (because it's just a guess like everyone else), I'm wrong.
I am a Indian software developer and i currently work as in a YC Startup, how hard to find a job in a US? Should I try or its better to find Indian companies?
The options are limited (H-1B, L-1, and O-1, typically) but oftentimes there's a solution; this will depend on your qualifications and the company's profile.
Just apply for any job at Tesla lol
Hi, Can I start an own company on OPT? Also, can I maintain both my job and running the start-up, and if so, how would I have to structure it?
hi Peter, thanks for doing this. My parents were rejected twice for B1/B2 visa (under section 214b I think) - both times before I was a LPR (I had valid visa). Recently the country of citizenship was announced to be joining VWP - as one of the question is "have you even been refused US visa", is it a lost battle for them?
No, it's not a lost battle. Unfortunately, their ESTA applications likely will be rejected outright because of their past B-1/B-2 visa application denials. But it's still possible that they could get B-1/B-2 visas. They should apply again but given their previous denials, they should consult an immigration attorney.
Just to make sure I understand the recommendation: US based immigration attorney for a tourist visa? (I don't want to sponsor them and they have no intention of moving here - they just want to visit and see us & the kids).
I would assume so, since a foreign attorney wouldn't be able to help with US immigration law.
I have an idea for a startup in which the current company that I am a full-time employee for could be a potential customer. It would be a tool to facilitate some of the workflow that we've had an issue with, but nothing related to the industry in which we operate. We didn't really sign a non-compete or an NDA, but I am very curious if there is some kind of basic guideline for potential conflict of interest in a situation like this. Besides the immediately obvious things like never work on it with company equipment or during work hours.
It's good that you have flagged this potential issue but I can't advise since that's outside my area; you should consult an employment lawyer.
If you get an O1 visa, does it have an expiration date? Or can I use it later (in a few years, e.g. when the baby grows a bit older)?
An initial O-1 visa is valid for up to 3 years and can be renewed indefinitely in 1- or 3-year increments.
Hi Peter, I'm planning on doing a Master's in the US starting Fall 2025 - is it a completely bad idea?
Thanks Peter. With an American wife, and an Australian Passport, what would you recommend as the best path to move to the US?
An E-3 requires a job offer but with a job offer, the E-3 is much faster, easier, and cheaper than a marriage-based green card application. After you are here, if you decide that you'd like to make your permanent home here, you can apply for a green card even if you are in E-3 status. That just shouldn't be your intent now when applying for an E-3 visa.
Hi Peter,
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!
Will YC and startups be more or less agreeable on remote work? Will the new administration cause changes to remote work?
I can't comment on YC and startups and while the administration likely will make changes to the H-1B law and process, I don't see major changes in how remote work is viewed and treated.
Hi Peter, I am moving to US with a L1A visa, and my family L2. I can apply for EB1-C directly after arriving to US?
Yes, assuming that you qualify, there's no waiting period but to be clear, the EB1C petition is filed by your employer, not you.
What percentage of new STEM hires are immigrants and what percentage are US citizens or greencard holders?
I don't know but that's an interesting question and I would be very interested to know the answer.
Can you describe the changes that we are anticipated to see as a result of the change in the administration?
He's promised to make a lot of changes immediately, the majority concerning illegal immigration and border security. I'd recommend going to npr.org. There are good summaries there.
Any advice for online forum operators regarding the UK Online Safety Act taking effect in March?
Sorry. My expertise is limited to U.S. immigration law.
Hi Peter,
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.
1. I would recommend applying to renew your green card as well because it's not clear how long the naturalization process will take under the new administration. Regarding potential complications, last time he was in office, I didn't see any extra issues/delays with my Iranian clients becoming citizens. 2. This process could be impacted because she's outside the U.S. and it's easier for the administration to impact those outside the U.S. seeking immigrant (green card) visas through a U.S. Consulate than to impact those in the U.S. seeking to obtain green cards through USCIS. I don't think it matters whether you get married sooner. 3. Possibly but as you know, even Iranians applying for F-1 students visas can be subject to significant delays.
What is required for an H1B visa, and are any accepted from Russia?
What is the typical route for Canadians to work in the US tech sector?
Canadian and Mexican citizens have their own visa classification, the TN, and so this is almost always the first option to look at because it is often very quick and easy (and relatively cheap) to get. Other work visa options for Canadians (and the citizens of most countries) are the E-2, L-1, and O-1.
I understand there is updates being made to the space export control rules (https://www.space.commerce.gov/new-space-export-control-rule...) regarding space/satellite components that were previously classified as ITAR. I've been curious to know if this will enable Canadians to apply to some space/aerospace technology companies in the US that were restricted to US citizens only?
We've done a lot of work for satellite and space weather companies and the feeling I've gotten from my clients is that these changes will open up jobs at space/aerospace technology companies for foreign nationals but right now, it's too early to tell.
Thanks for sharing!
How much do you expect to fight the government in the next 4 years?
We had a window into the administration 8 years ago and as a result we changed the way that we assessed and prepared cases to preempt fights and we continued with this approach during the Biden administration and will continue under the new administration until the fights start up again. I think that the most immediate significant changes in the area of legal immigration will be the imposition of international travel bans. We'll probably learn a lot in a few hours when the administration starts to roll out its Executive Orders.
What kind of travel bans are you expecting?
The Supreme Court during Trump's last time in office upheld versions of the travel ban that covered the nationals of certain countries (Burma, Eritrea, Iran, Kyrgyzstan, Libya, Nigeria, North Korea, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tanzania, Venezuela, and Yemen). It is expected that most if not all of these countries will be included in a new travel ban. It's unclear what other countries will be included but China and India could be added.
As an employer of those under TPS how would you plan for Trump possibly overturning TPS protections under his admin? Anything we can do to prepare?
Any idea how the executive orders will effect trans people renewing their passports?
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.
It's not really within my area since this question concerns the rights of citizens but this is something I've been concerned about because we have a lot of LGBTQ clients who are eligible for or in the process of applying for citizenship. I suspect that there will be clarity about this soon and I suspect that it won't be favorable to trans people.
Hi Peter. Thanks again for doing this. Life saver.
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!
Right now there are many cases with visa administrative processing taking several years after o1 approval. Any changes expected here?
I haven't seen that. The delays I've seen are for those from certain countries (such as Iran or Russia) or for those whose area of expertise/study is subject to export control laws/concerns.
> whose area of expertise/study is subject to export control laws/concerns.
Does that intersect significantly with a typical startup? Maybe machine learning researcher or engineer. Or an information security specialist, like a white hat hacker.
How's it going?
How will the landscape likely change with the new administration given Trump says he likes legal immigration and DOGE aims to reduce red tape?
Are there really not enough qualified American born engineers? Do you see exponentially better talent from H1b engineers?
They see marginally lower payroll expenses
America is only 5% of the world's population. Do you want Silicon Valley to hire the best of the world, or only the best of America?
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).
Do you have any hobbies?
No
Do you feel the H1B system denies jobs to Americans or suppresses wages for those with jobs?
> Do you feel the H1B system denies jobs to Americans or suppresses wages for those with jobs?
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 zero data give by you to support your view that H1B lowers wages (as usual, because data shatters the fake narrative H1B lowers wages).
So according to you
Don't you see how 2 and 3 contradict 1?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?
> Don't you see how 2 and 3 contradict 1?
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.
How does Ukraine's work-life balance look like now and before the war?
The story of the ant and grasshopper has been taught for ages.
You are the one who should be leaving the country with this attitude or destroying the country
How do you square away your relationship with Y Combinator, which has been by all means positive, with the eager collaboration of its leadership with the most anti-immigrant administration in history?
Who/what are you referring to? Perhaps you know more than I do but that does not sound accurate to me.
I've made an egregious error. The Y Combinator leadership has expressed a lot of firm, unequivocal opposition to Donald Trump personally, and I have little doubt that they oppose his anti-immigration policies. Ironically it's because I use no social media, so I don't see these battles play out. I sincerely always liked the organization and its leadership, and I think I was victim to a particular drive-by accusation. Also, it seems like most of the venture capital leadership elsewhere, including powerful S&P500 chief executives, have eagerly collaborated, but it is wrong to generalize.
Ah, got it. No worries! I was just a bit confused because the YC leaders I know have been public advocates for (legal) immigration, for reasons that are not hard to understand: YC helps many startup founders come to the U.S.. Many with Peter's help!
are there any publicly available datasets that can be observed to verify this quantitatively? or does homeland not publish any data
Also, feel like specifying how its collaboration has been "eager" or how it in any relevant way is related to the plight of migrants, instead of just tossing out some accusatory virtue signalling?
Everyone can safely ignore all accusations of “virtue signaling” because it is 1) a manipulative play designed to make you feel like a schmuck for having principles and 2) it is hypocritical in that is does exactly what it suggests you are doing.
No, virtue signalling is a very real thing that's usually easy to see and define. Having principles isn't quite the same as smugly but cheaply signalling some moral stance. I have no idea what you mean with your second statement. Pointing out a case of virtue signalling isn't itself virtue signalling.
Interjecting in a conversation to say someone is virtue signaling and offering up little else is about as smug and cheap as it gets.
Easily? By rejecting your false equivalence between enforcing our country’s immigration laws and being “anti-immigrant?”
Can't speak for the incoming four years, but a look at deportations by year under Trump, Biden and previous to that, Obama show illegal migrant deportations during Trump's first term were lower than they were during every year of Obama's presidency except one, sometimes greatly lower. They were also only moderately higher than they were during the four years of the Biden administration.
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
Please point out where the parent comment said that deportations were the only metric used to make that statement.
They mentioned nothing about any metrics at all and if you're discussing a politician's stance, having at least one useful, relevant metric is a good idea. That's all I pointed to.
The two links are broken for me because of the ... I think. Can you edit and fix the links.
The original comment talked about anti-immigrant sentiment of the new administration. Trump said that immigrants are poisoning the blood of our country. How many citations of Trump and his aides would it take to make you believe that they're anti-immigrant?
https://youtu.be/RKPFjAhd3KQ?si=xiHIFBUfsK6DgQos
It's like you read my response and failed to understand a thing.. I specifically mentioned concrete figures because politicians say all kinds of random shit and Trump is particularly prone to hyperbole, but if you're going to measure the actual deeds and trends behind words, you need to look at metrics, and for all Obama's soft words on immigrants, his admin actually deported more of them than Trump's, it's a noteworthy detail, and a valid measurement, though it's far from the only worthwhile thing to keep in mind about his stance on migrants.
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.
It’s almost like Trump knew that the actions he proposes are controversial at least, illegal possibly, so he tries to scare the illegals so that they leave of their own free will, saving him a trouble.,,
do you think people that know the existence of organ harvesting, human trafficking, Darién Gap would be scared by words? interact with a few see what they are running from will get a few interesting stories to say the least
Someone high profile in the administration just did a Nazi salute while on stage during the inauguration.
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.
> Trump said that immigrants are poisoning the blood of our country.
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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKPFjAhd3KQ
The meaning of what he said is clear in the phrase "poisoning the blood of our country".
No, because you’re pointing to a phrase with a verb and object but no subject. What’s the subject in the actual sentence he said? To whom is he referring?
This sophistry is delicious.
A very similar play book to the one used by the Conservative Party in the UK. They were somehow deemed the "anti-immigration party" of the two major ones, despite having been resposible for some of the highest immigration rates of any era. There's nothing better to distract from rampant inequality and a rapid transfer of wealth from the middle class to the super rich than a boat load of immigrants, that were somehow granted visas by the same government that supposedly reviles them. Without the racial tension, who else is there to point the finger at for the countries woes?
> despite having been resposible for some of the highest immigration rates of any era
But at least they got the poles out, right?
Poland is supposed to surpass the UK economically (maybe per capita) in like 10 years.
curious what data do people look at? GDP growth? interested for a personal project
I think it was GDP, probably ppp.
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.
You're claiming that Trump is pro-immigration?
Seriously? That's your take on a specific reference to hard numbers? Has Trump derangement syndrome simply made some people lose their capacity for reason? I don't believe Trump is specifically pro-immigration.
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.
Your links are broken. No one here can see your "hard numbers"
Google searches are free and it's very easy to find the annual deportation quotas by presidential term. Do a little research if you're going to emotionally invest in a politician's claims.
Yeah, so, any chance you could do a monthly-or-so post that explains, in legal terms (of course!) why referring to an entire, diverse bunch of people as "H1Bs" (which, as you know, is just a visa class and pretty much, as you also know, the only path to legally entering the US as an immigrant without family ties or, well, the future-Head-Guy-or-one-of-his-cronies fancying you) is, like, a crime against humanity?
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.
I don't agree with that view/trope since my clients (granted, a limited dataset) are hiring H-1B workers because they believe that they are the best candidates.
I am not as anti H1B as the original poster and have no animosity toward my H1B visa coworkers. But let’s be real. There are thousands of unemployed citizens that could do the work just as well especially when you consider how many work for WITCH companies.
What “best” means could be unpacked.
- 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.
It sounds like that term (“H1Bs”) is simply shorthand for foreign citizens that are potential candidates for U.S. work via an H1B visa. Why is that bothersome?
> why referring to an entire, diverse bunch of people as "H1Bs"
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.
> Qualified Americans losing their jobs (e.g., relatively recent layoffs) and struggling to find work. Meanwhile, H1Bs remain employed [...].
Why do you want to destroy market power for people on visas even further, leading to even more exploitation than exists today?
> Why do you want to destroy market power for people on visas even further
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.
> Under what auspices are they supposed to have market power in the first place?
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.
https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/immigration/h1b
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.
I'm speaking in general principles of what's right and wrong, what's good and evil. As much as the oligarchs want you to pretend that morality is relative and that it is only down to the laws as written, it isn't.
Dupe