If you agree with this write to you Congressman:
1. Repeal all existing work visa programs. H1, L1, O, TN, OPT. Cancel them all. People in those visas already to be grandfathered so as not to impact lives and businesses, but stop taking new applications.
2. Add all those visas to the employment greencard pool. Literally transfer the entire h1 quota over, and for visas without a quota transfer the historic average number given in past years. Should be around 150k l1 + 150k OPT + 85k h1 + 15k TN + 15k O = around 415k additional visas to the greencard queue plus the existing 140k for a total of around 555k new greencards per year but NO OTHER work visas issued.
3. Allocate these visas to COUNTIES. There are 3007 counties in the US so that's 184 visas per county per year.
4. Have a COUNTRY CAP where not more than a third of the visas for a COUNTY go to a single country. That's 60 per country per county per year. Way higher than the current 7 percent and way higher than any countries share of the world population.
5. Make geencards CONDITIONAL on living or working in your assigned county. If you are assigned Santa Clara country you either need to live in that county or work in it for the duration of your greencard. After five years when you get citizenship you can then freely move wherever you want. So this is a restriction on your first five years in the US.
6. Let people apply to counties. If the county is "full" for their country they can either choose a different county OR they can join a queue and wait, BUT they will be waiting outside the US. Also let people transfer to a different county if it has available quota.
7. Provide complete visibility to everyone on the application data so candidates and employers can make good decisions about where to apply.
This represents a theoretical 180,420 greencards per year for India which would get everyone currently in queue a greencard in under five years, assuming we give priority to existing visa holders and they find jobs in a country with available quota.
This solves several problems:
A. No one waits in limbo for a greencard. Everyone in the country to work gets a greencard and a stable future. People can start families and be confident of their status.
B. No more immigrants than today, the same number, just with real status, so this doesn't flood the country. You could even reduce the number from 555k to say 350k and STILL clear the India backlog in eight years.
C. No demographic ghettos where too many people from one country live all in one place, like Santa Clara country. People are required to integrate across the whole country where they will Americanize faster.
D. No industry bias. Not all counties have tech jobs, providing a path for doctors and nurses and others who are disadvantaged by the Indian consulting companies spamming applications. We could also limit applications to a specific industry to no more than 2/3rds of the visas in a county but I think it's not necessary.
E. Encourage the immigrant heavy industries to spread out and create satellite offices in more American communities in order to access more visas instead of concentrating all those high salaries in only a couple of counties.
- Basic problem with this guy's flawed strategy. People cannot be jailed into a county. They are free to move once in the US and apply for jobs wherever they want to work. They should be free to move around. What if you have a kid and need better school district? What if you married your spouse who works elsewhere. What if the company moved it's office or team?
This county based nonsense will lead to gerrymandering by immigration status and you'll have 1 company per county dominating employment there. Think logically, don't promote bogus ideas.Dec 22
- New ktFx33This smells like planned communism. You can’t plan out an economy like this. Workers go where the demand is
- Nah this county stuff is stupid. The workaround that everyone will be whining about in less than a year is why they have to live in the middle of Nowheresville, South Dakota and figure out an office space to rent for themselves so they can be employed “in” that county while they work for a company HQ in an actual city.
When you centrally plan an economy you get stupid unintended consequences.Dec 23
- @op, your county will be a Nebraska county. You'll be sharing it with all other 20 people. Please move there and start working on your new job where you'll be catching rattlesnakes for next 5 years.
- Ummm.... OP is Indian? Typical “burn the bridge” after “I” get through Indian style.
- I'm not Indian and not on a visa. I think the proposal in post 1 is fair to people of all countries, fair to people waiting in limbo in the queue, and most of all benefits the American people, while shutting down the consulting company spam and creating paths for people outside tech like nurses and doctors who got shut out of the existing h1 program by the tech spam.
- Sprint lxCy58Dumb approach tbh. Can’t do this based on counties. How would you go about selecting which immigrants go to which counties? And can’t force someone stay and work in a particular county, we are not communist.
- Microsoft oNas14Theoretical exercise. Do all counties even have jobs? Consider free market economy truly free with capital, resources and consumption and let that dictate demand for visa. Agree it should be a easy, transparent and clean system fair to existing population and future aspirants
- Flyover country doesn’t want that bullshit.
Just yank out the county aspect of this plan and it works so much better. No need to track where people are at, no need to manage fraud for their living arrangements (people will rent a place in those counties and never live there), no need to have people work in the middle of nowhere unnecessarily...
- I think you are under the impression flyover country doesn’t ever see any immigrants. You haven’t been to flyover country before, I guess, although I think your idea about what flyover country needs is cute, given your inexperience.
Flyover country doesn’t want this because it forces a never-ending turnstile of people who don’t want to be there showing up, not enjoying themselves, and then leaving every five years. The folks in small towns that are going to dislike this want people who want to live there, not people who got stuck there because they didn’t luck into someplace else.
- Good point about never-ending turnstile of people who move after a few years. But this is not unlike immigrants in Silicon Valley and elsewhere. That's a fact of life, immigrants, by definition, make for less stable neighbors. Similarily, people only work in Amazon until they can transfer to Google which doesn't make it not worth it to hire them in Amazon. I don't think any area specifically wants immigrants, but many are willing to take them if they will contribute taxes, can bring companies who will hire some locals too etc.
You're not right about my knowledge of America. I've done a road trip in the Midwest and lived in a North Carolina suburb (not technically flyover but still more core American) for a few months. I've also lived in conservative areas outside of America so I understand how these people think about immigrants.
- Half the US population lives in less than 150 counties. If a bunch of people move into, for example, Arthur County, Nebraska, they’re going to be in a town of just over 100 people. Let’s assume for a minute the immigrants assigned there actually move there instead of renting an address and living somewhere else to beat the system... based on the number of immigrants OP assigns to each county, the town just doubled in size, full of people who won’t stay there for the most part after 5 years. All those people need a whole bunch of infrastructure... places to live, to work, food to eat... those homes and offices need roads, electricity, high speed internet, plumbing, etc. Who foots the bill for all of that? Corporations doing the hiring? They won’t want to hire those immigrants anymore. It’s too expensive.
Let’s suspend reality for a moment and pretend all of that is doable. If it is, it will change the shape of the county in both good and bad ways. The biggest hurdle will be the gentrification of those counties. People who already live there will be pushed out by higher rent and real estate prices as their quiet little town grows in an unusual way. Where do they go? How do you suppose that will change the way they feel about immigrants? Do you think they’ll want their congressional reps to vote for something like this if they realize how the end result impacts them?Dec 31
- Basically you can never marry someone in nearby county or state and move there. Basically, you can't marry someone from outside county. What next, you can't have kids and if you have and your kids had special needs, they can't move to a be district that has better Schools for special needs without getting kicked out? What if the only school got shutdown (think Detroit schools-which are having problems) and your new school is far away.
2 seconds and I have 20 problems.
- I will give another example, a close friend of mine whose wife had advanced stage ovarian cancer, moved closer to Stanford for treatment from LA. There aren't many cutting edge places in whole of US for the stage of cancer she was in. Luckily, she is now in remission, thanks to the wonderful doctors, who saved an advanced stage cancer patient. She is a living miracle and a fighter.
Of course now she will have to die in her county where doctors referred her to Stanford because of the complexity in her case or be kicked out of country because of this guy's rules and die.
Are you bringing in slaves to live for 5 years or humans?
- Egypt that's not super terrible, one spouse can move with h1 transfer, the other spouse in remission can resign their job, but not life.
In my friend's case with op's 'smart' idea, you have no choice but to die or leave country.
Op's intellectual orgasms knows no bounds and feels hasn't been an immigrant for enough time to face corner cases.
- H1 transfer is not as simple as that. What if one person works in Seattle, the other in New Orléans. Seattle does not have a company office in New Orleans or can't find a company to sponsor them. Or at least until they do, the couple is separated.
In this scenario, one of them can check for availability of their job and quota in the spouse's County and transfer.
Even where they don't find availabilty, the separation is only temporary as each is on a green card and on a path to citizenship.
In the case of h1, even if you do find a sponsor, you have to worry about renewal every 3 years and of keeping your job, every 3 years until your PD becomes current....
- Well, if both don't work then problem solved, no? This system would work easily since only one person needs a job but the gc slot will be taken up by 2 people from the available quota.
I mean this is a difference between certainty and uncertainty. If you were told that you could do the job you love, get paid what you 'deserve' but have to live in a US town to get GC, instead of being forced to move to Canada, what is wrong with that?
- Again, the doctors in LA said they can't handle her situation and that they are I'll equipped. They infact said she has few months to live based on what they know.
Again, she will likely die because of OPs intellectual orgasms.
By asking her to stay, you gave her the death penalty.
- To the naysayers, the proposal is better in every way to the current situation. I read your replies this way: "Hey great idea overall but in actual legislation there are a few exceptional situations we should allow for". Pretty much every immigration condition for any visa has possibilities like that and waivers to cover them. That's normal.
For example the current greencard also has a residency condition that says you must reside in the US and not leave the country for more than a year, but of course there can be family or medical emergencies, military deployments, and other situations that arise. Fortunately you can file a waiver explaining the reason why and not lose your greencard.
This proposal simply updates the existing residency requirement to be within a specific county rather than within the country and the existing system of waivers on the existing residency condition can easily be tweaked to cover it.
It already covers all the situations you mentioned and so that is no new complexity. Enlisting in the military, medical and family emergencies, are things for which residency waivers are already routinely granted.
- #5 making green cards conditional on living in your assigned county. What if you county in the middle of nowhere has no other company in your industry. You become an indentured servant stuck to the job, with no hopes of a raise for 5 years, because you removed the element of a free market with all those rules.
- Like Canada that wants doctors to remain in remote locations as a condition of residency.
There are many jobs in under populated locations and companies struggle to fill them. You would be surprised. Outside tech there are many Job opportunities in small towns. Oil and gas, medical, manufacturing, teaching etc.
- Not every country will have a job in YOUR industry and that's the point. It will ensure that there are greencards available for ALL industries.
The tech industry effectively carried out a denial of service attack on the h1b system, overwhelming it with so many applications that it became unusable by other industries.
Requiring geographical diversity of the applications will implicitly ensure industry diversification of the greencards as well.
Allocating greencards geographically is a donor solution to that problem that does not require any complex per industry quota where you would get all kinds of debate about what is or isn't a tech industry job.
- As for the "indentured servant" comment, this is a dramatic improvement for hundreds of thousands of people.
First you are a permanent resident, you can seek other employment in your county or transfer to another county that has quota available.
Compare that to life on an l1 or TN visa where you are really locked in to one employer. You have far more rights. Even on an H1 you are restricted to employment at qualifying jobs, as a greencard holder you could take ANY job, or just start you own business.
Second you are on a straight path to citizenship. Compare that to being on an h1b for you entire career with no hope of even getting PR status. In this proposal you START with PR status.
You can certainly complain about any restriction, but a good immigration system does need to impose certain policies to make sure it's working to benefit the country. It's not in the interests of the country to cluster immigrants so into one industry and one location.
And compared to what exists today this is extraordinarily welcoming and fair to all people who come to the US, putting everyone on a clear path to becoming full citizens.
Once people are citizens they could move anywhere but the hope would be that many made connections and put down roots where they are and don't just remigrate.
- I'd rather prefer to be locked to a location than to a job. Especially if the lock down duration is certain and temporary.
You can develop yourself and your skills. You don't have to worry about your family's future because you are on a sure pathway to citizenship. No worries about visa renewals, stamping, lca, traveling and re-entry.
The only downside is that you may not get to work in the city of your preference but that's not a biggie
- Yeah, and even if you did move to silicon valley in the end, assuming the naturalization process takes a year or so you will have 6 to 7 years of living embedded in the full culture, outside your country's cultural bubble by the time you made your way to the bay area.
You would move to the valley far more Americanized than you would be if you moved there initially and only surrounded yourself only with your own culture.
I think this produces much better citizens, which is a big win for the US.
- Instead we get this immigration sub culture that is a carry over from the non-immigrant experiences.
The process from non-immigrant to immigrant is long, drawn out and fraught with so much uncertainty that it creates some bad blood.
Although, there might always be a need for temporary visas, for people who have no intention of immigrating and such visas should not allow immigration intent
- So just giving everyone a greencard works. If you don't want to stay just cancel your greencard and leave. That's a decision everyone can make after having been in the US awhile.
Some people who expected their stay to be temporary will fall in love with the country and stay. Others who expected to love it will find that they don't and decide to go home. That's ok.
But one visa for everyone empowers people to make those decisions.
- What makes them stay in that county if anything?
I rather do it by income. If you make what is currently top X% of of median (like 150k+), you're in pending background check. Country needs more net positive tax contributors.
US has plenty of room, just that most jobs are in few cities that become overcrowded.
- They have to stay there while on their greencard as a condition of the greencard. They can apply for citizenship after five years (or just apply to remove the condition from their greencard if they want to keep a different citizenship), and then they can go live anywhere they please.
The goal is to make sure people integrate. After 5 to 6 years if you do decide to move to the Bay area, or New York, you will do so as somebody who really does get America and the culture, having spent five or six years living outside your own culture.
- Let's say somebody claimed to be living and working in Omaha but actually went to work for Facebook in California. How do you propose they fake it?
You're proposing five years of lying on their taxes, having an invalid drivers license, having some kind of fraud paystub (so their employer is in on it), etc, all so that they can risk lying to obtain an immigration benefit?
If at any time in the future the criminal fraud is detected their entire citizenship could be revoked in the grounds that they lied to obtain it.
- Most people don't care about most issues. The winning solutions are the ones that solve a number of different problems.
You can sell this solution as a job creation incentive to congressmen from districts that are struggling with unemployment. It gives them an extra tool to promote investment in their county.
- If you suggest this to Trump he'll just pick the "stop issuing new visas" part and call it a day.
- Lol. Being able to cherry pick the best talent born in other countries is what gives the US the edge it has in tech. Cutting that is like telling the Seahawks they can only draft players from Washington, while the other teams can hire from anywhere. You'd be just setting your team up for failure.
- Alright but why? What's the benefit of blacklisting North Dakota? Isn't it inherently better to be able to pick players from there too?
Also India has about 1/5 of the world's population.. so the analogy would be you can't draft from CA and you can't draft from TX. Sounds like self inflicted harm to me...
- If you are stuck in a greencard queue you may think there is some problem. If you have seen your community overwhelmed by immigrants who replace your culture with your own you may also think so.
This actually solves both, clearing the greencard queue WITHOUT flooding any community with too many new immigrants, and actually increasing immigration while doing so.
- It certainly does. I gave numbers in post 1. There are 600k to 700k people in the India backlog. This will clear that queue in under four years for those willing to comply.
So it does solve that problem. It gets hundreds of thousands of people who are stuck in a horrible limbo into a stable situation and a clear path to citizenship. They can start families knowing they have a future in this country.
It also solves the problem that consulting companies carried out a denial of service attack against the h1b system, effectively blocking non tech industries from using it. There are about 3000 countries and even if they tried to send applications to all of them 2/3rds of the visas in each are still available to everyone else. That basically stops them.
It's a classic DDOS response to a classic DDOS attack: create a large number of nodes and throttle traffic from each incoming network.
So it solves the problem too.
It also solves the integration problem since new immigrants will live in more American environments for their first five years. Even if they then just move to the valley they will be Americanized by then. That makes them better citizens which is ultimately the real goal of any immigration system.
So it solves that problem too.
- We need free market for visas, green cards and citizenship. Whoever pays more should get visa/green card/us passport. Their payments will be used to build the wall.
- This will only work if we deport the OP. Easy to set rules when you’re being befitted by them.
- My first comment on deporting you was troll like, agreed. The point I was making is that your recommendations seemed hypocritical because you’ve already benefitted from the system you are now against. Now, based on your comments, I May have incorrectly assumed that you were once a foreigner that benefited from the current process. If so, I retract my comments and will just concentrate on the fact that your solution is neither simple nor elegant.
- PayPal lmaolmaooOP, seriously! Is this how you spend your weekends? Here's a suggestion: why don't we start a pilot run and you are given some county like kansas city or tulsa.
Tell me how it was, in 2024!
- Why do I think a plan like this would have a sudden sprawl of counties. The bay would break up into 20 tiny counties, and immigration opposed states consolidating in counties.
Interesting you chose number of counties. For the US Congress we have have the House by population and Senate by # of states.
Even in the formation of the country, they had to balance these opposing factors that changes the balance of power.
How is there no industry bias? You either put limits on an industry or one can completely deplete the other industries. Even with a 2/3 limit others some industries would get none. there are professions other than tech and doctors which you mentioned.
My guess is the reason you are being called a communist by other posters is because you believe you have a solution, if everyone will go along with the rules you set up, you can make things"fair".
For every rule, you create winners and losers. Even the rules that are meant to be balance other rules takes from someone who will dislike it and blame the rule maker.
I know Amazon will have 3 HQ, but not every company want to be, or can afford to be spread out this way across the country.
- I didn't say easy. No law reform is easy.
It is simple: Only one employment based immigration category. No more h1b lottery, no complicated ac21 system, no OPT audits, no l1 transfer evaluations, all that gone. Just a straight forward i140 demonstrating an employment need.
No one in the country in limbo, clears the backlog, doesn't bias in favor of tech, doesn't create demographic bubbles, doesn't allow any one country or industry to spam the system denying others access.
It solves all those problems by using the inherent diversity of the 3007 counties across the country. You could probably even raise the country cap to 50% without causing a bubble and without allowing one country to deny others access.
- Bear in mind that I am not necessarily saying ops suggestion would work but I'm only stating that for every reason against it the current system is even worse.
Weird that people have subjected themselves to such a system without thinking about it and all the consequences, before hand.
- So this is all based on the idea of letting in easily people that want to live anywhere in the US, no matter what.
Can you spot any difference with the current system? Maybe why they wouldn't be interchangeable?
- The current system is allowing hundreds of thousands of immigrants to concentrate in a handful of counties whether they lose the opportunity to integrate for lack of exposure to American culture.
It leaves those people in limbo with no prospect of getting a stable immigration status for decades.
It allows consulting firms to spam applications that utterly overwhelm the visa process to the point where it's effectively a denial of service attack on the h1b and greencard systems.
- Salesforce / EngboohoohoohWon't pass the house because does not include step for bringing hordes of uneducated illegals and granting them right to vote for Democrats right away.
- You could easily extend the same concept to the entire greencard program including family immigration and unskilled immigration, using the same geographical system to end backlogs in those systems as well.
I focused on skilled employment here because it is a good solution to that problem, but it actually solves the problem for all immigration categories. Some of them have less of a current issue but all of them have issues with immigrants clustering in a few places