Canada is benefiting substantially from the recent US immigration policies. My Ai team at Microsoft Canada was stacked with talent, all immigrants, and most expressed to me that they would have “normally gone to the US.”
I don’t have to remind this community of the laundry list of tech giants started by immigrants. However, if anyone outside the US is reading this we’d love to have you in Canada. Come here, please.
I’ve been thinking about going to Canada for a long while, and this might sound silly but I was wondering, do people on HN who have immigrated to Canada arrange a lot ahead of time like doing interviews with companies via teleconferencing? Or do you go there to meet people in person first and to investigate opportunities? Or something else?
And when you did go, did you get a job at the company you thought you were going to work for, or did you have to interview with other companies instead?
Furthermore, has anyone here had the misfortune of trying to immigrate but ending up not finding work and having to cancel their immigration plans? If so, what were your experiences like and what would you do different this time?
I’ve seen all of the above. Not specifically with Canada, but otherwise. A lot depends on your personal situation and priorities.
Do you like to go there now, knowing nothing and no one and have a bit of an adventure finding a home and a job? Or do you have dependents and want the safety off having sorted out all the essentials?
Some people start from a hostel with a laptop in a backpack. Some people buy a house and sign an employment contract before the move.
Have a way to support yourself before you go. Either comfortably on savings or through remote work freelancing. That way you have way less risk of either having to cancel because of financials or get exploited by a bad employer.
The current approval time for residency applications is 49 months.
I'm sure it's less for straight-up worker visas, though.
EDIT: I was not sufficiently precise. I'm not speaking of Express Entry / skills-based applications here. If you have a high score in the CRS system, you are eligible for other programs which may be much faster.
According to IRCC, 80% of Express Entry applications for permanent residency are approved on less than 6 months [1].
There are many different residency programs, some of which take longer than others, but the Express Entry program is probably the default option for most HN readers.
I can confirm it was about 6 month - before Covid. Since then some parts of the government slowed down, and processing might take much longer. For a step that should typically have taken up to 6 weeks I had to wait 4 month.
But since things normalize it might now be getting better again.
I know PRs can enter Canada right now but you don't get your PR until you land, so is it possible for new immigrants to come at the moment with the restrictions on entry?
Sorry, I don't know. I guess your best bet is trying to contact the immigration offices - but it might be hard to reach anyone since things are so overloaded.
wow. A decade ago Canada specifically targeted H1Bs promising 6 months special fast trek instead of the typical 18 back then. Interesting why such a change since then - too many applicants and/or budget cuts?
Edit in response to the comment below: i'm talking about permanent residency - the points, etc - not just work visa.
Again, if you apply for a work visa, it's probably faster. If, instead, you go directly for a permanent residency application, it's slower and more difficult. There are accelerated programs (like the Québec Investor program) that can get you through certain hurdles much faster, but they're not cheap. And even then, that preliminary process can take a couple of years, after which you get thrown into the 49-month Federal queue.
It's nowhere near that. It was like that back in 2008-ish when there was a backlog hundreds of thousands of people long. It has not been like that since Express Entry was fully implemented. Check the processing times here for yourself:
It is for non-Express Entry applications.
Those of us too old for CRS-score based applications, or who are not looking for jobs evidently get put into a different queue.
The longest queue is still up to 15-19 months long. There may be some expired streams that are taking longer than that, but none of the current immigration streams are supposed to take anywhere near that long.
I can only speak from personal experience. I've been in the process since 2015, and have had confirmation that I can't expect resolution for up to another 30 months.
I'm a bit skittish about posting too many specific details on a public forum until my application has been processed. This may be foolish, but I've put a lot of time and money into it, and significant aspects of my future are riding on being approved. I'd message you details directly if I could figure out how.
That's true, but thankfully I planned my life around the Express Entry pre-requisites.
Right after graduating in 2011 (BEng->MEng accelerated Electronic Systems Engineering), I went to Canada on Working Holiday, decided it was nice, and after visiting NZ and a few other places until 2014, went to Taiwan to get the years of continuous relevant work experience. I'm turning 31 next week; my girlfriend is 3 years older. A 6-8 month process is fine, a 49 month process is not.
USA-ian in Canada. I do IT (network engineering) remotely for a US/global F500.
It is pretty straight-up for worker visas, honestly.
Permanent Residency (PR) only matters if you want to stay. There are short term (2) year work permits available, Express Entry permits if you're young-ish and have skills and degrees.
There is also the NAFTA "TN visa" which is just for US/CAN/MEX which is basically one you apply for at the border if you have a valid job offer. It's good for 3 years, can be renewed an unlimited number of times, but it's not a path to PR. As in, you'll have to move to another visa and then follow the steps to get PR that way... but it's quick and easy, and is a decent idea if you don't want to live here forever but do want to do something different for a while.
You could also go to school or marry a local.
There are also a few other more obscure work permits, like Provincial Nomination -- the province needs jobs filled, often in rural areas, so they'll sponsor for somethings. Often these are surprising, as in I knew someone who got sponsored to be a barber in rural AB.
There are also "investor" visas -- aka buying your way in at around 400k -- and a start-up visa, though that requires funding from a handful of approved start-up/VC related groups in Canada. I know tons of folks with a PR, all of whom came in different ways, but I don't know any who did the start-up visa :/
Also keep in mind that the CAD is tied heavily to oil prices, and that salaries in STEM are just, all around, not as high as the US. I'm in AB, and compared to the 2 states that I used to live in the most (VA and WA) the taxes are crazy high -- but they're the lowest in Canada. Investing rules (the dreaded PFIC) and cross-border taxes are also a PITA, and are ones that never really came up when I lived other places overseas.
I could go back to NoVA or Greater Seattle and get a 30-50k USD pay raise... and if the US wasn't under the thumb of Trump, I'd seriously consider it.
Are other countries even allowing US citizens in right now? It was my understanding that we’re pretty much banned from the rest of the world due to our batshit insane Covid response.
Depending on your specific situation, you may be eligible to apply for permanent residency directly from the US. The process could take as little as 6 months and you would enter Canada as a permanent resident. You would not need a job offer or employer sponsorship for this.
If you are not eligible for that, you could be eligible to apply for and receive a work permit at the border provided that you have secured professional work in Canada beforehand.
When I've looked into that, it doesn't seem like I have enough points to apply for permanent residency. And it seems like it's really hard to have enough points if you don't have a Canadian spouse, although being young and speaking French (neither of which I am) helps.
But the person I was replying to seemed to be implying it was straightforward to get qualified foreign people legally hired at Microsoft Canada. They said "if anyone outside the US...", but I guess it wouldn't be any harder for someone inside the US? But I don't know what process is involved there either way.
I don't know why this is getting downvoted. I'm from the US but live in Edmonton and there were plenty of people talking about what a bitch Hilary is back in 2016.
When the locals find out you're from the US they immediately want to ask you about politics.
Rural AB (and a lot of rural Canada) is basically no different than rural Kansas, save for a different passport and the Queen on their dollars.
If you know Daniel, you know that this is one of the stupidest things the US government could possibly do regarding immigration. Daniel is literally one of the most brilliant computer programmers alive today. He created cURL:
Speaking of "blocking... Fleetwood Mac," a number of hip hop and rap artists have been denied entry to Canada due to their criminal records. For instance:
> Entry to Canada may be a challenge to those with a record of criminal conviction, including celebrities looking to perform in Canada. Many rappers, including DMX, The Game, Lil Wayne, Coolio and 50 Cent, have been denied entry to Canada and unable to attend their scheduled performances. [0]
Of course, one can be denied entry to many countries with a felony record, but a conviction need not be a felony in the home country for Canada to use it as reason for denial. If the offense would be considered an "indictable offense" (the rough equivalent of a felony) in Canada, then they will deny. Among other things, IIRC, DUI is considered an indictable offense, which causes issues for a number of celebrities.
> Tar and curl are staples in a developer’s toolbox; beginning today, you’ll find these tools are available from the command-line for all SKUs of Windows. And yes, they're the same tools you've come to know and love!
Running curl -V on my Windows gives me this. Is it wrong?
Which version are you using? In Win2016 if I try in CMD I get "'curl' is not recognized as an internal or external command, operable program or batch file." And when I try in Powershell I get "cmdlet Invoke-WebRequest at command pipeline position 1 Supply values for the following parameters: Uri:"
Edit: It seems to work in CMD in server 2019 and onwards.
To me it's just another explicit example of how the current government structure is obsolete.
And I know people will say that it's just the current government is a bad apple. But why do they have the ability to screw things so fundamentally here anyway? And if people think they are going to supposedly get a "good" government next time, I can pretty much guarantee if you like the next government you will hate the one after it. Because it swings between extremes.
> Daniel is literally one of the most brilliant computer programmers alive today.
I’m sure he’s a great guy and he surely doesn’t deserve this treatment, but “one of the most brilliant computer programmers alive today”?
Donald Knuth is one of the most brilliant computer programmers alive today... If Daniels claim to fame is curl then I’d say that makes him good at forecasting demand for an open source utility, or something along those lines.
This is absurd. I'm a US citizen, so I'll contact my Congressman to have his staff look into it. I don't have any special power, any US citizen can contact their congressman, but maybe that will kick-start something.
Unless you're a billionaire who can actually get a Congressperson on the phone, you're burning cycles. They've got an army of staff that do nothing but write stock replies, print and sign documents with stamps and mail them back to constituents.
That's what involvement in our government has become in America - a bunch of people shouting into an endless void, and the people in power doing more or less whatever fits their needs most at that particular moment.
> They've got an army of staff that do nothing but write stock replies, print and sign documents with stamps and mail them back to constituents.
While this is certainly true and billionaires have far more sway than a random citizen, I don't think it's quite as dire as you say. I've heard from multiple people who work in politics that letters like these are tracked by the staff and the tallies considered by the representative. Which all makes some sense because for every person motivated to write a letter there are likely hundreds or thousands who feel the same but didn't bother to write.
I wouldn't spend a bunch of time writing a finely crafted letter, but a short personal note sent to a Congressperson is very quick process and has some chance of mattering. I've done this a handful of times and there's usually a form on their website that makes it all quite easy.
Citizen letters aren't going to counteract major lobbyists, but a lot of issues that Congress handles don't really have entrenched financial interests on either side. It's in an elected reps self interest to keep their constituents happy and scoring some easy wins in response to citizen complaints is well within their wheelhouse.
My Congressional Representatives' Office called me this morning. They want a little additional information about Daniel Stenberg, and then they will write a letter to the US Embassy.
Obviously that's no guarantee that the problem will be resolved, but at least there are efforts to try to resolve this problem. I hope this breaks the logjam.
I am self replying to give everyone an update. I just got another email from my Congressman's office. It said:
> Our office has submitted an inquiry on your behalf to the US Embassy in Stockholm, Sweden which included a letter of support on behalf of Mr. Stenberg. As soon as we receive a response I will update you accordingly.
Obviously by itself that does not resolve the problem, but at least it will trigger some additional review.
As I noted before, I'm sure my congressman did not directly see any of this, but that isn't the point. This is just the usual way in the US federal government to deal with broken processes.
I'm hoping that this will eventually fix the problem. We will see.
Exactly. I'm not expecting my letter to actually be read by my congressman, that's not the point.
Every US Congressman has staff who get letters like this everyday. They send them to the appropriate agency, and track them. It's the standard process in the US to deal with the bureaucracy when it gets stuck, it is somewhat like the ombudsman role in other systems. There is no guarantee, but there is a chance.
The funny thing is that if he had gone work as a temporary worker in Canada, two years would have given him permanent resident status. Then two more years he can become a citizen, then he would be free to enter USA. This would be faster and better solution overall. But anyways, I don't think it is ever worth the trouble going there.
While correct, it’s not clear at what level Daniel has been “banned“. He was denied an ESTA and told to get a visa, but that hasn’t been denied (yet?). Canadians need neither, so he might be cool if he showed up at a PoE, or maybe not.
And a visa/ESTA isn’t required for most Europeans arriving at a land Port of Entry, so who knows what would happen then. But they do ask more questions when you don’t have an ESTA.
I guess if the USA wanted to arrest him, they would’ve been very fast at granting a visa.
Hmm, becoming Canadian just to enter the USA seems like a difficult and roundabout way of going about it....
I'm reading Daniel's page and it seems to me that a number of commenters here are confusing his intent, which is "visiting", not "immigration". I've noticed that in the US, people tend to use the word "immigrate" for anyone trying to get into the country, whereas the word immigrate has a much more specific meaning. Technically, to "immigrate" means to apply for permanent residency -- i.e. to stay in a country indefinitely, and to live and work here. That is decidedly NOT what he's trying to do.
(I guess it's fair since most people don't have actual experience with immigration, so the term is a little fuzzy.)
Daniel is trying to "visit" the US temporarily and leave after. The long and the short of it seems to be:
1) Daniel is citizen of Sweden.
2) Under US law, citizens of Sweden qualify for the Visa-Waiver-Program (VWP), which means they do not require a visa to visit the U.S. for tourism, business or transit.
3) A few years ago, the US (and other countries, including Canada) introduced an additional requirement as a security measure: electronic pre-authorization or ESTA in case of the US [1] (which incidentally is NOT a visa). This means citizens of countries (in the VWP) who could previously enter the US with nothing but a passport, now had to apply for an ESTA online (which takes anywhere between 3 seconds to 3 days to get approved). Again the ESTA is not a visa -- only a pre-auth. Citizens of these countries still do not require a visa to enter the U.S.
4) Daniel has applied for ESTAs many times, and was approved many times before, but the last time he applied, he was denied.
5) When a VWP citizen is denied an ESTA and still wishes to visit the US, they have the option of applying for a regular visitor visa the old-fashioned way, at a US consulate/embassy. This is a lengthier and more bureaucratic process -- which presumably involves more thorough vetting.
6) Daniel still hasn't received his visitor visa.
(Side note: the only 2 countries whose citizens have "visa-free" access to the U.S. are Canada and Bermuda [2]. Citizens of these countries do not require ESTAs).
I wasn't suggesting that a Congressman directly go to bat, though that would be awesome. Any US citizen can contact their Congressional Representatives' Office to request that some bureaucratic problem be resolved, and the Congressional office directly contacts the relevant organization within the executive branch. I live near Washington DC, and it's just part of the process.
I've had a phone call, and email, and a follow-up email from my congressman's office to discuss this case. Again, that's no guarantee that the result will be what we want, but there is clearly traction.
Again it's not like my congressman is talking to me, but I was not expecting that. For Congressional staff this is just part of the job.
I had a friend who worked in constituent services for a US Senator, and...yeah, if you can get someone's attention in that setting, they can make stuff happen that otherwise would have fallen through the cracks. Been awhile since I heard stories, but one came to mind was someone getting the right visa for his bride in time for the wedding. Another one had to do with getting some kind of medal for a soldier.
Not sure if doing things on someone else's behalf can be as effective, but it almost certainly won't hurt to ask.
They have an incentive to do it because the congressman is my representative, and I am a voter who is a complaining.
I live near DC, so I guess I assume others know more about the US system than is common knowledge. My apologies. Please let me explain.
Of course the congressman will not actually read the letter. That's not the point. The point is that every congressman has a mechanism for accepting requests from constituents, routing them to the correct agency, and tracking them to make sure they are resolved. You fill in a web form, prove that you are a constituent, and then the information gets routed to their staff. My daughter was did this job a few years ago, there are small armies that do it. It's just part of the US system.
There's absolutely no guarantee that this will be resolved the way I want, but this is the standard US mechanism for dealing with stuck bureaucracies.
Other US citizens could do the same. It might be a good idea, because with multiple complaints, then the US state department would get the clue that this is important and needs to get worked on.
I definitely know it works for people stuck in the immigration system, but this particular example (a visa for a temporary trip to the US) doesn’t seem like it would rank all that high on a Congressman’s priorities.
My guess is they’ll look into and tell you there isn’t anything they could do. Might speed up the rejection though.
The Congressman himself doesn't read these things. There are staffers in his office who do this. It's the usual way to try to get things unstuck.
I already got a phone call back from the Congressman's office from a staffer. She explained that she needed a few additional pieces of info. I've already contacted Daniel Stenberg as well. So we will see!
I had a co-worker whose wife was applying for US citizenship. In the middle of processing her paperwork the immigration department decided they needed to paint the office. The story goes - and I believe her lawyer told her this - the immigrations employees went home one day and the painters came in and covered all of the desks with plastic. They then took the next two years to paint the facility. At the end of two years the tarps came off and the workers returned - with all of their paperwork from two years prior exactly where it had been left.
Sounds crazy but is somehow believable. I had a similar experience last time I was at the New York DMV where I handed an agent my papers, he looked at them for a bit then got up and left without saying a word, he went and had lunch for an hour, then came back as-if nothing had happened. I had twenty plus people standing behind me in the same queue. The other queues around us kept moving, we all stood there for an hour while the guy ate.
The headline is odd, this has been going on for 870 days, as documented on his site. It looks like the last update is from 2019. The headline reads like he cant come in for the next 870 days.
> The headline is odd, this has been going on for 870 days, as documented on his site. It looks like the last update is from 2019. The headline reads like he cant come in for the next 870 days.
Maybe adding "for the last 870 days" would clarify it a bit.
I remember at some point a few years ago realizing that “hey, I’m more nervous, hassled, scrutinized and having my privacy compromised entering the USA than mainland China”.
That change happened in not that many years. And it is not to say that China improved in any significant manner.
It’s been a couple of years pre-COVID that I now avoid (and haven’t been) traveling to or through the USA, a country Ive always otherwise enjoyed my stay in.
I am also significantly more hassled entering the US than any other country. And I'm actually a US citizen.
The worst part about going to Canada is coming home. Typically a 40 minute affair where 5 different officers pull all the luggage out of my car, dump the contents on the ground, pull out the seats, inspect the engine and all other major cavities, and leave me with a mess that has ruffled and scratched my vehicle.
I went to Canada once to pay the import duties on a gift and mail it to my friend on the other coast. When I told the Canadian border guards that that is why I was visiting Canada, they told me to pull over and go inside. I went in, they took my iphone, asked for the pass code, charged me the duty on the item I was importing, and then had me sit there for two hours while they went over my car. After letting me go on my way, I drove to Surry, taped the box closed and dropped it at the UPS Store there. Then returned to the US. When the US guards saw my entry time they asked why I visited Canada for only 30 minutes. I told them the exact same thing I told the Canadian guards, they laughed and waved me through.
BTW, Canada won't let you in if you have a criminal record or even a DUI citation.
When I flew to Rome a couple years ago there are two lines for immigration. One is for Europeans and the other is for everyone else. A guard saw me standing in the everyone else line while holding a blue American RFID enabled passport and pulled me from the line and sent me through the Europeans line. It took me two minutes to get through immigration. My friend arriving from SEA spent an hour and a half and was interrogated about where we were staying, what we were doing, verified a return ticket, and so on.
The moral of the story is that every country weighs risks, costs, and benefits every time they let someone in.
Borders are a thing and controlling who crosses borders is one of the fundamental and defining characteristics of a country.
I had the opposite experience as a Canadian. I got shit on nearly every time I went back to Canada (e.g. accused of smuggling, lying about what I was going to do in Canada). Entering the US? I usually got a "welcome back".
I think it has more to do with crapping on your own citizens because "I don't need to roll out the welcome carpet and there isn't anything you can do about it".
I am a US citizen living in Tijuana to save money and have really limited my trips walking across the border because the officers or whatever usually give me a hard time. They want to know why I am crossing the border and where I am going but they often act as if they assume I am a criminal low-life. Like a drug mule or something.
The last time I got nervous because of the way the guy was staring at me and the guy made me like back up and go back to the counter while he scowled at me. It's gotten to the point where I am wondering if it's because I am ugly or tired or something but anyway I just let my mailbox in San Ysidro expire and just pay extra for Mercado Libre instead of Amazon or whatever if I need something. It's not worth dealing with the agents to go back to the US.
On a flight from Toronto to the US... I don't think I interact with the TSA at all? I interact with Canadian security in Canada. I interact with US border control in Canada. I walk out the front door in the states without interacting with security at all.
I could be wrong about the agencies that some of the people I interact with work for though.
By the time it's in the US (i.e. there is TSA around) it's getting off the plane not on. Why would they bother? Why would they have a pipeline to process such luggage?
(Of course it's presumably scanned by the Canadian security in Toronto... just not the TSA).
(FWIW, CBP also does border security at preclearance airports. Local airport staff handle security checks, including the TSA-style bag checks before entering the preclearance area.)
> It's getting to the point where one must ask why someone wealthy enough to fly internationally would want the hassle of entering the US.
Sometimes it's the only sensible option - e.g. as far as I know (the Kiwis I know all go via LAX), London to Auckland via LAX is cheaper, quicker, easier, etc. than going a non-US route like Singapore.
"All passengers that travel via Los Angeles International Airport, must be travelling on their own machine readable passports and complete the ESTA online form at least 72 hours prior to departure from the UK."
* Changing aircraft (NZ1 - NZ5 & NZ6 - NZ2) - Clear customs
* Connecting from Air New Zealand to another airline - Clear customs
* Connecting from an international flight - Clear customs
The only one that doesn't specifically say "Clear customs" is:
* Continuing on the same aircraft (NZ1 & NZ2)
That does say "directed by ground staff to US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) processing" but apparently the luggage does stay on the plane. (Although this route disappears in a month because almost no-one uses it, "<7% in 2018".)
I concede that <7% of passengers from LHR to AKL won't need to specifically go through customs with their luggage.
That is really bizarre. From an outsiders view, sterile transit seems extremely intuitive; forcing people to buy a visa if their plane gets fuel in the US just seems annoying.
You also have to recheck your luggage at the first point of entry in USA/Canada - at least if you continue in a domestic flight.
This is also time wasted, as you have to get through imigration, wait for your luggage, get your luggage, get through customs, check in your luggage (again), and go through security (again).
OTOH if you are flying back to EU/Schengen Area, you'll get your passport checked at EU/Schengen Area point of entry, get through the sterile transit, and only pick up your luggage at your destination.
I mean it's not like it's so important to visit the US anyhow. Their national parks are great, but that's about it. And there's plenty of nature elsewhere. Cities are dangerous, expensive and mostly rather ugly.
I wouldn't cry if I was in his shoes. It's an annoyance, not really a great loss.
Because they want to visit specific people in the US. Unfortunately for the US, this is getting solved by attractive people leaving the US, and people who do have the right to visit are choosing to hold conferences in more-free countries.
One of the most common reason to be denied an ESTA of a Visa to the United States is because of a criminal conviction or a criminal charge in your home country. I'm not saying this is the case here, but that is one of the most common reasons.
Then again, it might be just because he's a "hacker".
> Then again, it might be just because he's a "hacker".
Given the number of non-US people successfully traveling to BlackHat and other explicitly "hacking" conferences... This is not the most likely explanation.
Most countries don't give the USA carte blanche access to their citizens criminal history unless it is in their interests to declare (I base this on observations of people who have past criminal convictions yet still get ESTA approvals and travel to the USA). However, the USA may have become aware of something that they previously were not aware of.
Why are all the comments here about immigration? Daniel Stenberg is trying to visit, not move to the United States.
Having said that, I'm not sure why this is being posted here today, since there haven't been any updates since his two-years-in blog post some months back.
$5 says this is stuck in some bureaucratic sinkhole somewhere. Barring a _good_ reason, I'd much rather have Daniel's brain here in the US than anywhere else.
> I'd much rather have Daniel's brain here in the US than anywhere else.
This sentence strikes me as very odd, and I can't quite put my finger on as to why. Like - why? Why does it matter? Is this some sort of competition? Is this like poaching talent into your company? Do you feel pride from sharing a territory with someone important?
I feel this deserves an answer from the guy who made the comment.
First, I'm nationalistic. I want my home to be the best possible place it can be.
There is an undeniable benefit to the economy, culture, general education level, ability to get things done, and overall 'coolness' of a country to have people like Daniel in it. If we're lucky he'd want to immigrate, and he'd get to vote. The US could SORELY use more tech savvy people in the electorate.
Also, make no mistake, it IS a competition. Nations rise and fall on their ability to create, retain, and attract skilled and intelligent citizens.
The network effects of intelligent people in your country are positive. On average, you want their voting behavior, their parenting skills, their risk assessments, their economic and tax contributions, and their cultural contributions.
It's the 'than anywhere else' part that I have an issue with. If that's the way you see it, you're doing this at the explicit detriment of everyone outside your country.
There's ways to grow that 'intelligence pool' locally, without having to see the rest of the world as just a pool of immigration candidates. Not to mention, just because someone travels to the US doesn't mean they want to actually immigrate there...
Maybe you are learning that being actually "nationalistic" (ie maximizing the prosperity of the nation) implies supporting strong high skilled immigration pipelines because of the incredible benefits these immigrants have for the nation and it's native inhabitants.
It's a great irony that those who reject taking the best and brightest are the "nationalists" and those who want to take the best and brightest are the "globalists".
The "globalists" are also in favor of illegal immigration, because it provides them with cheap labor (gardeners, nanny's, construction workers), while never providing any threat to their livelihood - the illegal immigrants are not competing for white-collar and professional jobs. The people whose livelihoods are adversely affected are the poorest people in the US, working unskilled and minimally skilled jobs
More often than not, I've heard so-called "globalists" being in favor of substantially open borders so that the immigration you describe would be legal.
This doesn't make sense. Their labor can benefit your economy even if they don't live there, and they can consume your countries goods without living there.
Yes, but the effect is magnified if they're in your country. You would collect local taxes, and the majority of money spent would circulate inside the economy, rather leaving.
Taxes are absolutely zero sum. In most cases only one country gets to collect the taxes from a person.
Stenberg is one of those rare cases where he has a huge impact on multiple companies in multiple countries. Most of us aren’t like that; I personally work for a US company paying US taxes, consume in the US paying more taxes and enriching US companies, and I don’t make any libraries or services with international impact. My contributions to the economy is so lop sided that it’s almost zero sum. If I were to move to another country, I’d deprive the US of my tax revenue & consumption, and provide all of that to my new country.
> If I were to move to another country, I’d deprive the US of my tax revenue & consumption, and provide all of that to my new country.
Your labor could still be used by an American company, and your labor is by far your biggest contribution to the economy. This isn't even close to zero sum, that's why globalism and colonialism are things.
I guess that's true in some sense, but I wouldn't frame it that way. When I say I'd like my company to hire some great engineer, that doesn't mean I see other companies as just a pool of job candidates or that I'm trying to stick them with bad employees.
maybe minus the cultural part.. in most of the USA, every social act is monetized by someone, meaning (among other things) that real cultural contributions must get sold (since you personally have bills for waking up each day) or else they are moved to the backseat in the public eye by something else that is similar and is being monetized.
As a US citizen I personally think this was not a bad thing at first (minority culture cannot be dis-allowed) but over time, there are 100x more disposable cheap plastic things than any genuine cultural expression in public.
source - worked in the cultural arts instead of going to college, in the USA
Unfortunately, he's not trying to vote, raise children in the US, or earn money. He just wanted to tell people how to write better software (conference speaker) and his non-immigrant visa is apparently not forthcoming.
Speaking as someone from anywhere else, I'd rather have smart people outside the U.S. so they're less exposed to the maelstrom of suck which is currently engulfing the country.
As someone that's also been stuck in bureaucratic processes before, in all likelihood the application is indeed lost somewhere in the system and won't ever see the light of day without intervention.
I'd fully expect Daniel to have to at minimum file a formal complaint (is there even someone to complain to in this case?) to get any traction.
Sorry to say it's a similar story across the entire English-speaking world. There's a whole group discussing the situation in New Zealand, and there have been protests. I'm not particularly involved in the activism, but I am in the queue (since Feb 2019) and watching the group to know when the decision about my life's future is likely to be taken. https://www.facebook.com/groups/297880251255491
Australia pays very well and has pretty reasonable overlap hours with much of Asia if you've got family or friends that you want to catch up with virtually.
Probably 90% of my colleagues and customers aren't from Australia (including me!) so it's pretty welcoming in of Australia (there's obviously still issues here, but no worse than you'd experience in other Western countries)
But Australia is not making it easy too. I studied and graduated UQ (but only for a year, so no work for me), and a number of my friends did too and continued to work in Australia. But it's not easy. Most job openings prefer PR/citizens. My friends who got a job can only stay for maximum 2/3 years, with uncertainty related to the point and visa grant system.
If there's a way for me to work in Australia or even get into the work visa stream without spending AUD100k+ on a 2 yr masters + living costs, I'd definitely consider it.
If you're already qualified, it's been slow but easy for my friends to get sponsored. Yes, it ties you to your employer - but the transfer process between employers is relatively simple since the recent visa changes, but does just seem to take forever (even pre-COVID).
My suggestion when applying to large orgs is to not mention your visa status. It's quite often HR policy not to ask about it until an offer is made, then you've got a lot more leverage.
But yes, getting that initial sponsor is a royal pain in the butt.
The U.S. has a brain drain problem. This is what I was trying to explain to all my friends who jumped ship after the 2016 presidential election. The only way to save the U.S. is for all the good people to stay but "noooooooooooooooo", all the smart people wanted to run off to canada or germany or whatever.
your bubble does not represent reality. the u. s. is and has been the destination for brain drain for decades. and our decades long green card application list shows it’s not going anywhere
Ten years ago the U.S. was the default destination to go and get rich as a tech worker. Now, I don't think I know anyone who wouldn't have serious misgivings about moving there.
Things have changed. Young budding engineers, researchers, medical professionals and others are actively choosing not to come any longer. This has rippling effects. Once this cohort settles into their lives in whatever country, they will be less inclined to come to the US.
It's not too hard to imagine. Serious people with kids and families will never come to a place where they are harassed or their lives can be uprooted by a bureaucratic process abruptly.
Things were different until a few years ago and all the immigrants and tech companies you see today are the rewards of seeds down earlier.
I have a lot of French and Indian friends that we have met in the Bay Area in the last seven years. 7 out of 8 of the French tech workers we met here have gone back to France within 5 years. Out of the 40 or so Indian immigrant tech folks I know, there have been very few recent immigrations, a lot of the flow dropped off about three to four years ago, all preferring to go to Europe or Canada. Of those who did come here before that time period, around 5-6 have gone back to India, as the number of unicorns in Bangalore have increased and salaries in tech giants there are pretty good now. Another 2-3 left for Europe. All of them are elite school grads from India.
The reasons cited are mostly (1) random lottery to move from f1 to h1b, with less than 50% chance of making it, (2) the decades long queues for h1b to green card with lots of process overhead, low certainty, random restrictions on travel and arbitrary changes in immigration laws.
The queues will still be long for years to come, as the old applications clear out... But the trend downward has already started.
I think that has reversed for Europeans at least somewhat. I’ve talked to a German very successful Havard Professor, who considered a move back to Germany because of the situation in the US. I personally would have loved to work in the US at some point in the past, now I am not sure it is worth it.
Anecdotal, but: I work in an engineering department at a major U.S. university. Non-citizen grad students (i.e. grad students) I personally know -- and their friends at other universities -- upon graduation decided to seek (and obtained) employment abroad (Netherlands, Canada are the two countries I know of) rather than stay in the U.S. Before Trump they wouldn't have considered this.
I doubt our handling of the covid-19 crisis has helped, either. My wife is German and in frequent contact with her family in Germany. They look at us with pity. I feel like my country has really lost its shine. Maybe permanently (hopefully not).
Brain drain happens because of compensation and some way to immigrate. The Canadian tech industry still does not pay nearly as well as the Canadian side or the rest of the world for the most part.
The people in Canada who 'would have went to the USA' are there because of immigration dice.
While I appreciate the US as a tourist, the psychopatic, hosile employees at the border made me change my mind a few times and go spend my euros elsewhere.
Russia was the only other country so openly unfriendly in letting me in.
Seriously, that should be fixed,the US have great places to visit.
Yeah, 78 days of tech layoffs due to the public equity market crashing will drive demand for cheap foreign labor, just as in January 2001. How I miss having an Indian show up offering every imaginable skill set for $7/hr. How ironic that the catalyst for that crash was the gov’t finally acting on “old” Microsoft and 20 years later, they have a technocratic Indian CEO that came of age in all of that.
Clarifying, market crashed in April 2000 and October 2000, then the shock in September 2001 before the freeze that lasted until 2006. (I implied Oct ‘99 or Nov ‘00, but same difference.)
Just get a projector and let him present via webcast. Not sure I'd want to risk coming to the US if the authorities might detain me for something I did as a teenager. (not saying this individual did that, but example.)
'we want smart people' I agree with this sentiment, but feel in both the US and here in Australia it is used to deflect examination of the specifics of how immigration is being used. I think in our eagerness to oppose xenophobic ideologies, we are currently failing to articulate the problems with immigration programs.
I fear in Australia we are creeping towards a regressed, more limited form of democracy. Foreign workers who come here not as free agents, but within the constraints of a specific work contract are an ever increasing fraction of the population - a fraction that skews heavily towards non-professional working class - and have no access to political representation.
This leaves them vulnerable to exploitation, and that exploitation is used as an economic lever against the entire population.
I believe bringing people to work in our economies without a clear fast path to full citizenship is eroding citizenship for all.
Why do you need to replace population? Is Japan really that bad of a place? And Japan's population has been in the 120-130 million range for the last 35 years, so it's not like there's been a huge swing either way.
Japan has had issues with finding workers to support their elderly population. No, it isn't a bad place. But yes, there are issues to solve that come with an aging population and a shrinking population.
And yet Japan has the second-longest life expectancy in the world. The "we need open borders or we'll end up like Japan" argument just doesn't seem very strong when Japan does well in most quality-of-life metrics.
> The resources in the US are simply too scarce to support unfettered immigration.
I fundamentally disagree with you, but I’m interested in hearing your viewpoint. Would you be willing to expand on what you mean by this statement? Are you referring primarily to jobs and government assistance?
Depends on your timespan. In the modern era only failed states that can’t actually secure their own borders have unfettered immigration; but it’s pretty rare for people to want to go into such countries.
Scroll back a few centuries, and what we’d consider to be “open borders” was much more the norm.
Then again, a few centuries before that and the vast majority of residents in Europe couldn’t legally leave the land that they were on, forget the concept of immigration. Leaving town could make you an outlaw, let alone your country.
The United States before 1924 for one. Passports and travel documents didn't really exist at all until Napoleonic-ish times and weren't widespread until about WWI.
I personally feel that defining "citizen" in any other way than "people who are currently living here" is a form of apartheid and antithetical to our constitution.
Part of why immigration law is so confusing and contradictory is that the framers of the Constitution had no concept of someone living in a country (with intent to stay) and not being a citizen. Even slaves and women were considered citizens.
Given my downvotes it seems others here are not so interested. Nevertheless, I will give you an example.
Housing. I am a bay area native and through my lifetime I have seen certain immigrants from Europe and South Asia, push up the cost of housing. Those tech H1B workers only serve to exacerbate this issue.
I can no longer afford to buy a property unless I work in tech or win the lottery. Others like myself have grown resentful, rightfully so, of these transplants and immigrants.
So what makes you think that immigrants are the tipping point? If there were no immigrants, who's to say white people (who are themselves... descended from immigrants) wouldn't fill those housing units?
Edit: housing prices are somewhat a function of demand, and I don't think you've adequately shown that any excess demand is driven by (recent) immigrants. You're being downvoted because this rhetoric is blatantly jingoistic. There ARE nuanced conversations to have about immigration policy; "immigrants make Bay Area housing expensive" is not one of them.
I say this knowing that it is a blunt statement, but if you believe that being born (and your ancestors being born) in America (the continent) entitles you to the land more than newcomers, the notion doesn’t hold much historical water.
I don’t have to remind this community of the laundry list of tech giants started by immigrants. However, if anyone outside the US is reading this we’d love to have you in Canada. Come here, please.