in the EU there is no need for any visa (within member state) and essentially it's a desired feature of the EU.

Another point is that speaking the local language in a richer country of the EU is less likely than speaking English (with English being official only in Ireland and Malta), so it's harder to settle - esp. with kids and school.

Yes but if you are worth that money to any company why would you assume one day it will all just end? That's not typical or normal for most careers

It's not really money. Frankly, no 20 year old thinks that much about money. They do things that they like, whether that is going to school, working at a job, or starting up. And you don't know about the broken immigration system from the outside. The reason this problem is unique to India is due to country caps/DEI which prevents people from India on H-1B from getting a green card.

By the government: "This nonimmigrant classification..." [1]

[1] https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/h-1b-spec...

I don't really like the concept of "guests" being applied to people living somewhere for years, working, paying taxes, making families and friends, sending children to school and so on. I think it would be more humane if this concept was minimized, and instead the concept of "no taxation without representation" was applied. Fast track people as much as possible. Maybe one year as a voiceless "guest" is okay for a human being, but not more than that.

> If you throw a party and a guest refuses to leave

Show me where the govt has actually revoked their visa? Instead, because they cannot cancel the visa legally they are trying to create as much pain as possible for these visa holders hoping that some will give up and leave.

These people are productive members of our society who enrich our country and our economy. The idea that they are guests we are hosting is absurd

The big beautiful bill included a 1% foreign remittance tax for outbound international transfers funded using physical cash, money orders, and cashier's checks.

I’m informed on this topic…

Can you correct the mistake?

If I show up in China (or the USA) on a tourist visa with the plans to pursue a marriage and permanent residency, does that mean I get to backdate my permanent residency to the tourist visa because I’m able to pursue a marriage (PR)?

[flagged]

> If I enter China on a temporary work permit visa, with a 15 year plan to obtain Chinese citizenship, no one will have sympathy for me if that plan is interrupted

I would have sympathy for you if it was interrupted by suddenly changing the requirements through no action of your own.

Like, if you commit a crime, are a belligerent drunk, or whatever and they don't renew your visa over that, I have no sympathy.

If you're unable to secure employment for an extended period of time, and they don't renew your visa, I also have less sympathy since that's part of the bargain you knew going in.

If you play by the rules, but they reject a visa renewal for a reason like "we have too many immigrants from $x country, so we're rejecting y% of renewals" , well that's legally within the government's rights to do, but I'll have sympathy for you and think that you're morally in the right and China's failing its duty to its foreign residents.

Likewise, this US one is a case of capricious rejection, the US government is not holding up its end of the deal you both thought you were agreeing to. Like, the deal with a work visa, even if it's not permanent, is "if you follow the rules and keep good steady employment, you can live here, but yes it's conditional on the work thing".

I have sympathy for this hypothetical you, and also I have sympathy for those holding american visas who are impacted.

I agree. Please point to the one you're referring to.

> There are too many people here in the comments who act surprised

That may be so, but since the person they're responding to is not one of them, I don't see the relevance of their comment.

I don't really think anyone is disputing that the government is able to change their approach to immigration (though it's telling they're doing it by just freezing appointments rather than passing a law), but that you can make changes to immigration law in a way that respects immigrants as human beings. The government is just choosing not to.

Responding to "it's cruel" with "they're allowed to do it" is kind of sidestepping the core of the complaint.

This is a nonsense debate, really. The H1B is a non-immigrant visa but it's also dual intent so it allows you to pursue immigrant status.

https://global.temple.edu/isss/faculty-staff-and-researchers...

> The doctrine of H-1B dual intent has the following legal bases:

> Unlike many nonimmigrant categories, I.N.A. § 101(a)(15)(H)(i) contains no requirement of proving there is a "residence in a foreign country which he has no intention of abandoning;"

> The H category is specifically excluded from the I.N.A. § 214(b)'s presumption of immigrant intent;

You say:

> You're not supposed to rely on it to build a life in the US with no backup plan

when in fact the visa very specifically allows it (as per the "no intention of abandoning"). People arriving in the US on an H1B visa with immigrant intent are absolutely following the law. Is it a good idea? Much more debatable. But they're not acting without precedent nor without specific legal text allowing it.

Hilarious. My comment was replying to another comment that was discussing a different case, not the one in the article.

Yet you throw around insults and labels at me. Who is the callous one here?