I spent the last 15 years trying to become an American and failed - <AUTHOR> http://www.vox.com/2015/6/23/8823349/immigration-system-broken <comment><USER4> The US legal immigration system is perfectly described by the adjective, Kafkaesque. In terms of the arbitrariness of bureaucracy, it has more in common with what I saw in the socialist days of India and what one reads in books by Solzhenitsyn and Kafka. The iniquities have been discussed repeatedly in popular press, with almost no changes wrought in the process. Many years ago (yes, 2011 was 4 years ago) Newsweek ran a story about how irrational bureaucratic delays derailed a guy's career in a consulting firm: [http://www.newsweek.com/story-one-mans-immigration- ordeal-66...](http://www.newsweek.com/story-one-mans-immigration-ordeal-66537)

I know at least 6 other people who have had similar experiences: well qualified people in great skill-specific jobs who were caught up in bureaucratic nightmares. Unlike the subject of the Newsweek article, these people had employees who could afford to keep them on the payroll.

New York Times also ran an article on this issue, of a Google employee who had to move to Canada because of arbitrary bureaucratic rules concerning the work visa. [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/12/business/12immig.html?page...](http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/12/business/12immig.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)

Further, green card applications have country quotas, which, in the context of citizenship were deemed unconstitutional during JFK/LBJ's civil rights actions.

In spite of such iniquities, there seem to be no political efforts to fix the system.

<comment><USER5> Part of the problem with improving the system is that there's simply no incentive. Immigration reform almost entirely centers on managing undocumented/illegal immigrants. Law Makers don't have to listen to petitions from people outside of the country let alone their own jurisdictions.

The other part is that people who've suffered through the process don't turn around and try to fix it, I remember when my wife was going through the process almost 2 decades ago (and it took us something like 2-3 years to get through it), not one of the employees in immigration we dealt with were obvious former immigrants. If people who finally made it in turned around and went into government service and tried to fix the hellscape they went through, it would probably be better. But most people seem to be glad to get through the process and then get as far away from it as possible.

All that being said, people who I know who've gone through the process recently report a vastly simpler and streamlined process from the one we went through. So there is improvement being made.

For better or worse, the difficulties around immigration come purely from limiting the number of immigrants. If immigration entry was virtually unlimited, these stories wouldn't happen. I'll leave it up to you to decide if unlimited immigration is a good or bad thing.

<comment><USER6> > If people who finally made it in turned around and went into government > service and tried to fix the hellscape they went through, it would probably > be better.

I suspect that people who are persistent and qualified enough to get through that legal system have opportunities to pursue better job opportunities. And at the other hand, I wouldn't expect them to be wealthy and successful enough to easily sacrifice their careers to work for a public cause full-time.

<comment><USER7> Also, many of those government service jobs could require security clearances, making it harder for naturalized immigrants to apply.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Disclaimer: I am a Canadian permanent resident.

> I like it here.

This is the real problem, you have a severe case of non-reciprocal love. In that case the answer is obvious: move over, find another love, come to Canada or go to Northern Europe.

U.S. immigration is an American problem,since they are the ones loosing talent and entrepreneurial people. It is not an immigrant's problem, since they don't have the powers to fix it.

Here in Canada we have a much more open immigration policy and, IMHO, better quality of life. I strongly suggest you considering coming to Canada.

<comment><USER9> > Here in Canada we have a much more open immigration policy

"Much more open" is a relative term, I suppose. I am a Canadian citizen, born in Canada with all my family (save my wife) living in Canada. I live in Japan with my wife who is Japanese. A few years ago my wife wanted to move to an English speaking country so that she could improve her English and live abroad.

I'll just be plain. It was easier for me to get a visa for myself and my wife to work in the UK than it was to get a visa for my wife in Canada. Had we decided to go to Canada, she would have had to come on a tourist visa. She would have no health care coverage, nor ability to work. After 6 months she would have to apply for an extension to her tourist visa on humanitarian grounds. Her application would be reviewed by a single border guard and could be denied for any or no reason. There is no right of appeal. If her application is denied, she would be barred from entering Canada again thereafter. If she is granted the extension, then she gets another 6 months. After the 6 months are up, she gets to apply for _another_ extension on humanitarian grounds with the same restrictions. After a total of 18 months (and after paying $1500 for the application plus submitting all of our emails together for the last 3 years plus pictures of us together for the last 3 years), she _might_ be granted permanent residence status.

That's for my _wife_!

In constrast Japan gave me a 3 year working visa after seeing the paperwork showing that we were married. The application was free and took 1 week to process. I can renew after 3 years. The last time I renewed my visa in Japan (before I was married) they just wanted to know if I was still working and after that gave me a renewal (the entire process took 1 hour and cost the equivalent of $60). After 5 years in the country I can apply for permanent residence status (which is similarly rubber-stampy). In the meantime I get national health care insurance and even a pension. (Note: citizenship is generally difficult to get in Japan, though. You must live in Japan for at least 10 years and you must show that you have integrated with the community).

Having said all that, being an immigrant myself I feel that immigration is a privilage not a right. If a country doesn't want immigrants, then that's their business. If you come on a student visa, or on a work visa that is intended to fill gaps in the local economy, then you are expected to return to your home country some day. That's just the way it is.

I feel for the guy because I would be devastated if Japan decided not to renew my visa for some reason. I love living here. I hope they invite me to stay permanently, but I still think that it's Japan's right to decide what they want to do.

<comment><USER10> I'm a Canadian citizen who just finished the process of sponsoring my Australian wife for permanent residency in Canada.

What you've written isn't true unless there's some extenuating circumstances you're not disclosing. My wife was automatically eligible for PR, and in fact it was much easier than the reciprocal process (me applying for PR in Australia). It took about $2000 all up, and took about 8 months in total. Easy!

<comment><USER9> Seriously??? My friend's wife even had to go back to the US to give birth because she couldn't get health care! I wonder if it has changed. That would be great news!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I personally consider that opening borders is a moral imperative, but I understand why it is controversial. I understand that the arguments against "letting everyone in" have some merit, though I ultimately disagree with them.

What is a real head scratcher to me is the US policy on highly-skilled immigrants. There are certainly some political constituencies in favor of those, but I can't think of anyone against, at least not one with a modicum of political pull.

One could imagine a regulatory capture scenario where large companies benefit from the regime, because they have an easier time obtaining visas than their smaller competitors, but in practice even those lobby for more, not less immigration.

So who's lobbying against this exactly?

<comment><USER12> Any chance you'd be willing to write a bit more about your support for open borders? In particular, I'm interested in knowing whether you think this is a situation where it would be both moral _and_ beneficial, or if you feel that it is simply wrong to limit where people can live and work based on where they were born (or even where their grandparents were born) even if the overall effect on current citizens of some regions would be negative.

Interesting that the author of this piece comes from New Zealand, because NZ is the country that often springs to mind when I think of a nation that might could change dramatically with open borders.

I haven't been there, but I understand New Zealand is a country about the geographical size of California and Oregon put together (a bit larger), with spectacular natural landscapes, and a very small population (much smaller than the island would be capable of supporting). What would happen to New Zealand if they unilaterally opened up their borders? To keep it simple, let's not worry about malicious people, I just mean honest, hard working immigrants who seek a better life. Should New Zealand open up borders to unlimited migration? Is there a moral imperative for them to do so?

<comment><USER13> The debate the politicians in my state (Schleswig-Holstein, a state in Germany) had about this was really interesting, sadly it's in German.

Essentially, it boils down to two issues:

Morally, we all are descendants of immigrants, or at least most.

Economically, most immigrants are willing to work hard. Combined with the fact that our society has a birth rate below replacement rate (1.3 vs. 2.1) we need immigrants just to keep our standard of living. And if we can give them a better life at the same time, it's definitely great.

<comment><USER14> Another frequently-cited benefit of opened borders is that -- for the most part -- current citizens own everything in this country, and stand to make a bit of cash if there's an influx of new faces looking to buy houses, used cars, rent rooms, etc etc etc.

<comment> steve-howard I can only follow that argument if we're talking about citizens that already have assets. Increased competition for houses, used cars, and rentals will drive up prices, which is good news only if you own houses, cars, and rental property respectively.

<comment><USER15> Productivity is the root of all prosperity. Read this excellent article: [http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2015/02/always_keep_you....](http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2015/02/always_keep_you.html). Workers become on average ~20x more productive when they migrate to the first world. Because we are capital rich and we have sane government and law and order. Imagine if you were moved to Haiti and you got stuck there. How much could you contribute to society in Haiti? You could maybe slice some coconuts on the side of the road - is that gonna make the world a lot richer? Roadside sliced coconuts? Nah, much better for you to be in first world even if you're doing a low skilled job here like delivering catering to a high tech startup. That catering company is able to produce food much more efficiently, and in SF or NYC you're able to distribute it much more efficiently, and you're part of this souped-up economic engine that's changing the world. That's why they make 20x or up to 40x more (in the case of the extreme poor) when they migrate to the first world. It's better for everyone! Economists estimate that moving from the status quo to fully liberalized migration (i.e. open borders) would roughly _double global gdp_ \- that's an insane silver bullet. That's everyone getting way fucking richer in one fell swoop.

Please see my comment here for more info: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9769632](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9769632)

<comment><USER13> And that's exactly why the politicians in my state were the first in europe to allow all refugees and asylum seekers to live and work like any citizen. Because that productivity increase also boosts the local economy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> As a New Zealander going through the US immigration process, this whole post rings extremely true to me. People who have not gone through immigration before have no idea what its like for your entire life to be dictated by the whims of an opaque bureaucratic system. The most frustrating thing about it is that you have essentially no opportunities to better your situation via your own initiative. Don't like your job, well you can't go and find a new one unless they are willing to sponsor you for a visa. Want to start a side business - nope, thats a grey area that I've had immigration laywers advise me against. Think you deserve a promotion - nope, your residency application was for a particular job description. The list goes on.

A few months ago, I came very close to being deported due to the business unit I worked in being divested to another company - this isn't a problem for H1B employees, but I had an L1 which is non-transferrable to a new company, and since my job at my existing company was no longer present I would be made redundant if I couldn't get employment at the aquiring company. Luckily for me, my residency application became current 2 weeks before the aquisition closed (I had been waiting on this application for almost 3 years), so I was able to move into another immigration status that allowed me to move over to the acquiring company.

If that hadn't happened I would have been left with no job, A pregnant wife (who would also lose her job - as her work auth is tied to my visa) and facing an expensive move back to NZ (relocating a family internationally is really expensive btw). Fortunately for me I'm now on the home stretch (I hope) and I check my mailbox religiously waiting for the day my greencard turns up, and I can start living life on my own terms.

<comment><USER17> Why did you leave NZ? I ask because I was thinking about moving there.

<comment><USER16> Career opportunities mostly. The startup I was working in was acquired by a US tech company and they decided to close the NZ office and give us the option to relocate to San Francisco (or stay in NZ and find another job :). I was pretty happy with this situation though as there isn't much in the way of a tech industry in NZ, so there's much more interesting work available here, especially in the bay area (same goes for my wife who is in biotech). Oh and despite the insane living costs in the bay area, the pay is far higher than you can get in NZ, I make more than three times as much here as in NZ (Plus NZ tech companies are notorious for not giving out equity or stock options to employees - even early startups).

NZ has its good points with regards to being able to have a more relaxed lifestyle, and its great for outdoorsy types - but skiing, hiking etc. doesn't really interest me that much, and I kind of like the bluster and hustle of the bay area.

<comment><USER18> Things are getting better wrt companies granting options here. The law has improved slightly but still isn't perfect. At least it's simpler than the US.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> As a foreigner (including myself) the OP should have realized what's required to stay in the US beyond the H1B. In his case, it was applying for the green card lottery and employment based green card. Since he is a citizen of NZ, if he had applied for an employment based green card, he would've obtained it in less than 2 years. This might sound harsh, but there is no point complaining about the immigration system which we have no control over. It was his responsibility to make sure he accept a job offer with written commitment by the company to apply for his green card (this is commonplace in STEM, I'm not sure about law firms, but hey anything is negotiable). If they said no or stalled at his request, move on to the next employer. I know I'm making it sound as if it's easy to get another job, but wishful thinking or being lackadaisical is not a solution either.

<comment><USER20> If you read further, you'll see that his employers refused to sponsor him for an H1B.

He did in fact go for another job, which has fallen through. And so he must leave the country.

<comment><USER19> Well he only mentions that the higher ups wouldn't sponsor the employment based green card. The only thing he mentions about H1B is that it is renewable only once for 3 years. Where do you see that his H1B wasn't being sponsored? He would've being working on an H1B anyway.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> US immigration process is cumbersome, and painful for people born in some countries (like India and China,) but certainly not prohibitive.

Quote:

        Additionally, an H1-B visa (the most common form
        of work visa and the only form available to most)
        is only valid for three years and renewable only
        once. This means that the skilled legal immigrant
        must obtain permanent residency or a green card if
        he or she wishes to stay for more than a few years.
        Again, an employer can sponsor an employee's green
        card, but the employer must again bear the costs,
        which can run to the tens of thousands of dollars,
        and again the employee cannot offer to pay the cost.

I personally was able to find online (!) lawyer who did all the greencard paperwork required for about $1,500 (most of it indeed had to be paid by company, but not all of it.) About the same had to be paid to federal government by company, and few hunder later to actually adjust status and receive greencard (paid by me.)

Unlike OP I had no money to pay for college, so I found Austin company, worked for them as a freelancer and then convinced to sponsor H-1B visa. Unlike OP I had no way to just come over to talk with potential employers while on tourist visa - US embassy twice refused to give one to me because of a high risk me staying illegally in their opinion. So, sorry, but this story is just a story about "how privileged i feel, i got two degrees", not about "impossible to get citizenship". It is weird that after obtaining two degrees OP still could not follow bureaucratic process...

</comment><comment><USER22> Without discussing the larger issue of immigration, might I suggest that the right outcome was reached in this particular case?

Job opportunities in the legal profession have decreased drastically in the last decade, and for all his rhetoric of "America wanting the best and brightest", it may have been hard to justify letting him stay when there is a glut of lawyers. This probably factored into the decision of his bosses not to pursue a green card for him.

<comment><USER23> I'd say sponsoring for a green card is usually not a good move for an employer, as the employee will have more freedom to change jobs once he gets the green card. Also it's a very long and costly process.

They'd have to _really_ want to keep the employee, and to have exhausted all other visa options.

<comment><USER24> I know that some employers treat green card sponsorship similar to a bonus: if you leave before _z_ years after getting the green card, you owe them $x0,000.

<comment><USER25> this sounds like indentured servitude, and i suspect there are laws against this.

<comment><USER26> They could just pay you less and say that you will get so much in bonus after working there for z years.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I work for customers in the US as a software consultant (paid at New York rates) but because of the hassle and difficulties to get a visa there, I do not live there. This means that I get money from the US but I do not reinject it in the economy, I also do not pay taxes in the US. I'm a net loss for this country all because of the visa policies.

<comment><USER28> I agree with the gist of what you're saying, that the US is losing out on that valuable tax money.

However, I'd argue you're still a net gain for the US, because your work - <USER2> value derived from it - is very likely quite a lot more valuable than what you're charging for it. In tech, often worker input is worth several times what they're paid for it. You're making a valuable net contribution to the US economy.

Not as much of a net gain as it would be if you were here also paying taxes.

<comment><USER27> That is true. Otherwise I wouldn't be working for very long :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I'm also from New Zealand, also went to Yale (albeit as a graduate not undergrad), and also had my mother tell me I was "very American". And I also ran out of options for US visas after 5 years (10 years away from NZ in total), despite a Yale MBA and McKinsey on my resume.

More to the point I stopped trying, seeing that the system was structured against me, and that my ambition of starting my own company(s) was not going to be doable in the USA. (I'd previously started a company in Canada, and already knew that stable immigration status is a prerequisite for a stable/growing business.)

I've been in New Zealand since 2003. It's increasingly wonderful here.

It's so easy to start businesses (I've co-founded several), to invest in businesses (over 20 so far) and to get things done. The early stage eco-system is taking off, led by companies like Xero, Trade Me, Orion Health and Vend, and with others like Timely (@timely), Raygun.io and a growing ecosystem around Xero following _. We have seen successful start of crowdfunding, but raising money is still not as easy as it could be (I 'm trying to help change that).

Meanwhile the politicians are accessible and not corrupt or extreme, the country is staggeringly beautiful, the food delicious and nutritional, and the economy floated through the GFC as our bankers were sensible and bolstered by solid laws. Auckland is increasingly multicultural and we have free trade agreements with China and many other countries - over 2 billion people worth. And we consistently get near the top of the World Bank's Doing Business rankings and Transparency International's (lack of) Corruption Index - justifiably. I hope the author comes home - NZ is a different place 15 years on.

_Investor in some of these, directly or through Punakaikifund.co.nz.

<comment><USER29> I graduated in Auckland 2 years ago and had assumed I would have to leave the country to find interesting work. Stumbled into the startup community and now I'm completely addicted, yet don't see myself needing to leave the country any time soon. And I'm not even working out of a main center.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> It seems to me that labor is at a significant disadvantage when capital can move from country to country and is welcomed with open arms wherever it goes, but workers are locked into whatever situation they were born into.

<comment><USER31> Free movement of goods, labour and capital. Miss out one and you don't have a free market, you're just being scammed.

<comment><USER13> And that's what makes the huge difference between Schengen and free trade agreements like TTIP. (If one ignores the protection part of TTIP)

<comment><USER32> Schengen is for citizens only. If you are third-country national who is a permanent resident of a Schengen country, with an unlimited right to work, you have exactly ZERO right to live or work in any other Schengen country. Sure, you can travel by land without having your passport checked, but that's as far as it goes.

The European Union is a Union until you need it to behave like one, and then it isn't.

<comment><USER33> Isn't Schengen only about passportless travel? I thought it didn't have anything to do with right to work?

<comment><USER13> As always, with the EU, it's complicated, but often the "free to work, live and retire everywhere in the EU" is considered part of Schengen.

<comment><USER34> Is it? Then how come Romanian and Bulgarian citizens get the same rights without being in Schengen? Or don't they?

<comment><USER35> You are correct. The main pillar of the European Union is the common market including the free movement of goods, capital and people.

Schengen was originally a treaty outside of the framework of the EU but has since been taken over by it. There are EU countries outside of Schengen (GB, Ireland) and there are non-EU countries part of Schengen (e.g. Norway, Vatican, Switzerland). However all countries that join the EU now eventually have to join the Schengen area.

Besides Visa free travel for residents of these countries Schengen also includes a common Visa for foreigners traveling to these countries (so you only need one Visa to to travel to France and Germany) and allows the police to cross the border when perusing suspects and detain them on the other side.

<comment><USER34> Thanks for the explanation!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> A friend of mine works in shipping at a reputable and profitable firm. His roommate, a Greek national also engaged with the firm, was "deported". Twice. He wasn't literally thrown out of the country but it amounted to as much, having similar visa issues.

His employer, unlike the author, sponsored him. However, two separate lawyers were unable to secure him a place in the country. One made a costly mistake and was fired, however the damage was done. My friends roommate made it back to the company for a month or so, before having to permanently relocate to one of the other offices, again, this time permanently.

These stories are not unique. People who are well educated and top performers in their sector are being turned away. Look at many successful entrepreneurs, Levchin, Musk, Collison, etc. and it is obvious the US benefits extremely well from allowing well qualified individuals immigrate.

<comment><USER37> Has it actually been shown that if we were to throw open the borders to STEM employees that it would result in a net economic gain? Because as far as I can tell, movements to get droves of women and immigrants into software is entirely driven by companies' desire for cheaper labor.

<comment><USER36> I don't know of a comprehensive study that has been done (although there probably is) that links qualified individuals immigrating with net economic growth. However, if you look at it like VC investing, it would be worth letting 1000 people in to get an entrepreneur capable of making a Stripe, Tesla, etc. According to this forbes article[0] 40 percent of Fortune 500 companies were started by immigrants. Obviously, many were started a long time ago, however I think the sentiment is the same. We want to benefit from brain drains in other countries, and we want smart people who are emigrating to see America as a top choice.

[0][http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml](http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml)

<comment><USER37> I think it sounds good on paper but in practice… the question is more along the lines of: is it worth depressing the wages of 1M employees in order to try to capture the next Zuckerberg, who creates a company that only employs a few thousand people?

<comment><USER38> Why does your cost-benefit calculation not include the benefits to those foreign workers who are allowed to compete for jobs in the U.S.?

The academic literature* shows much, much larger productivity and income gains to those who migrate to richer countries than any negative effect to native workers. Even if an influx of immigrants depressed some existing Americans' wages by a small amount, that delta would only pale in comparison to how much better of the immigrants would be.

Do you oppose efforts to educate more American's as computer scientists? This too would "depress" the wages of existing computer scientists but you would (hopefully) find it abhorrent if someone used your "wage depression" logic to stop teaching CS in inner-city schools.

Unless you think that the lives of non-American's are not worth considering, these hugely positive impacts of immigration should be part of your calculation.

* [http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~jkennan/research/OpenBorders.pdf?ne...](http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~jkennan/research/OpenBorders.pdf?new) [http://www.cgdev.org/files/1425376_file_Clemens_Economics_an...](http://www.cgdev.org/files/1425376_file_Clemens_Economics_and_Emigration_FINAL.pdf)

<comment><USER37> Would you willingly train/mentor somebody if you knew the outcome would be that she would compete for your job personally, or that your wage would go down 20%?

Frequently calls for equality are made by those who imagine their own situation could not possibly worsen; it's always some anonymous others who will pay.

<comment><USER38> I agree it sucks for anyone to lose their job, but using that as an excuse for xenophobic policy is a non-sequitur.

Do you honestly think there would have been a national uproar against Disney if they'd asked their employees to train other Americans?

Try replacing "foreign H1B worker" with "person of another skin color" and see if your arguments don't sound abhorrent. If you think the later sounds racist, the former is xenophobic.

>> it's always some anonymous others who will pay

Couldn't agree more. In the case of immigration and labor policy, the anonymous others who pay are those that didn't have the good fortune to be born in this country.

<comment><USER37> It's more like replace "H1B worker" with "anybody". The idea is that tech workers are being asked to expand the labor pool and basically contribute to eroding their own value without realizing it. It doesn't matter the race gender or citizenship; by reducing the scope to individuals instead of anonymous groupings it becomes clear what is happening.

It is probably noble to say that you would personally hand your own job over to somebody else. But of course it is never framed that way even though that is what is actually happening.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> "Numerous American friends, when the subject of my immigration status came up, have said to me things to the effect of, "Why don't you just become a citizen?""

I totally recognize my own friends in this. Americans have no clue how difficult it is to obtain a green card or a citizenship.

One of my friends was dating a girl from Asia, she was in the US under a work or student visa. She decided to attend a school in Europe for 2 years, their plan was to do the long distance thing for 2 years and then she would come back. I told him many times "Dude, if she leaves and gives up her visa she won't be able to come back". They ignored me, naively thinking that she would just get a new visa. 2 years later, she couldn't make it back to the US and stayed in Europe (or moved back to Asia, not sure).

<comment><USER40> fiance visa, can take a long time and she has to stay outside of the US during that time, but that was the proper though very annoy approach for that situation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> As an American who immigrated to The Netherlands I would like to know of this mythical country in the world with a working immigration system. AFAICT they're all rather broken.

US immigration might be broken in different ways than some other countries, but from the many stories I've heard of friends moving all over the world, they all pretty much suck.

<comment><USER42> Australia. I got my PR (green card equivalent) after working 3 years and applying for citizenship now (5 years since I arrived here). Spent less than AUD 10k total for immigration, including my partner visas. Processing times are reasonable and very transparent.

It's not a perfect system but way better than most countries.

<comment><USER43> I'll admit it's less broken than most places, but it's still pretty nuts at times: [http://gyrovague.com/2012/08/10/notarizing-your- fingerprints...](http://gyrovague.com/2012/08/10/notarizing-your-fingerprints- for-fun-and-profit/)

Singapore used to be ridiculously awesome (work visa approvals usually processed in under 24 hours), but they've really tightened the screws in the last few years, particularly on granting permanent residence, due to political reasons.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> This strikes too close to home. I am packing my bags and heading out soon too. I have spent 5 years here and have a masters in computer science from a top ranked school. The H1B visa is essentially a lottery which locks out talent from American companies. I failed to get a visa through the lottery process and I have to head back home too.

<comment><USER45> The H1B is now primarily used by outsourcing companies to move jobs overseas. Previously 15 years ago it was largely used to bring talent to the US not to take the jobs outside.

Changing the H1B so it a) it cannot be used to transfer jobs outside of the US and b) provides a path that after the first 3 years the employee can apply for a green card without sponsorship.

Both those things would largely solve a lot of the current H1B issues.

<comment><USER46> > _The H1B is now primarily used by outsourcing companies to move jobs > overseas._

How do they do that?

<comment><USER46> Ok, maybe this is the mechanics:

 _" some of the most active users of visas for visiting workers are Indian outsourcing firms, which appear to be training workers in the U.S. and then sending them home"_

[http://www.businessweek.com/debateroom/archives/2007/02/outs...](http://www.businessweek.com/debateroom/archives/2007/02/outsourcing_wheres_uncle_sam.html)

<comment><USER45> Correct. Outsourcing company sends workers to the job site to document the job responsibilities so that the position can be transferred overseas. Usually it takes about six months to a year.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> If he came illegally from Mexico, there would be plenty of people fighting for him to stay.

Drawing on this story and [others]([http://politicaloutcast.com/2013/02/usa- trying-to-deport-chr...](http://politicaloutcast.com/2013/02/usa-trying-to- deport-christian-homeschooling-family-knowing-they-face-persecution/)), it seems immigrants are only protected if they are willing to break U.S. law. It is a very dangerous incentive to deport those not breaking the law and welcome those who do. People might get the wrong idea.

</comment><comment><USER48> As somebody who has lived 18 years in this country and just _barely_ managed to get a green card 2 years ago, I __completely __understand what you are going through. I am sorry it has come to this - it sucks big time and most people will not understand how little you can do about this. IMHO, the best course of action would be to find an employer and apply for a visa next April. If you are lucky, you 'll be able to get back here by September. I hope it all works out.

</comment><comment><USER49> I am in a similar situation, except I am an entrepreneur. I came to the US in 2007 on an L-1 visa to start up a new business here. The business needed to reach ten full-time employees to allow me to transfer to a Green Card, but after six years and hundreds of thousands of dollars investment of my own money, the business failed, and with it my visa and any chance of the Green Card disappeared. So now, after all that investment, and years of employing U.S citizens, I have to start the entire process again from zero. I have to leave the U.S. and re-apply. That said, it's worth it because the U.S. market is where the action is. I hope that the entrepreneur visa will come along soon and make it a little easier for job creators like me to be able to stay here.

</comment><comment><USER50> Reading this types of cases and I really don't understand the american immigration system, I am from Honduras and there have been hundred of thousands hondurans migrating illegally to the US since the 90s, and a lot of them became legal due to threaties like the TPS, and most of them don't even have university degrees

</comment><comment><USER51> It's a feudal, authoritarian immigration system. I suggest a return to pre-1914 policies: any peaceful, healthy, productive individual is welcome. (Footnote: this means abolishing the Welfare State. Ready?)

</comment><comment><USER52> Yes the immigration system is broken; it's difficult to obtain sponsorship from an employer. But I feel like the author gave up after asking the few places where he worked. Sometimes you need to try harder.

<comment><USER53> "Sometimes you need to try harder." You mean search for an employer whom would sponsor citizenship? The article explained it is quite expensive - do employer sponsored citizenships happen?

<comment><USER52> Nobody sponsors citizenship. They can sponsor you for a green card (permanent residency). It costs thousands of dollars (I have been told in the range of $12,000, without considering attorney's fees). But it locks you in with the employer for several years, and when you consider the amount of money that you can generate for a company, combined with the fact that you will probably get an average or below average salary to compensate for the green card costs, this is not an absolutely terrible deal for the employer. You have to have some valuable skills that justify the employer knowing right away that he/she wants to keep you for several years!

<comment><USER54> I worked for my employer for about 6 months when we started green-card proceedings. I was a junior engineer on an H1-B then, having been hired straight out of college from the Netherlands. The job-req I applied for had been sitting there for well over a year, no American worker could be found to fill that position (many interviews were done, no suitable candidate found). I got my green card (EB3) in January of this year, 5 years later and am now the lead security architect on a large project. In those 5 years I've never been paid below average. I'd say it panned out quite nicely for both me and the employer.

<comment><USER55> How long did it take to get your green card after first filing?

<comment><USER54> That's a good question. I had a hard time getting letters from my previous employers, so that part took the better part of a year. If you ignore that, I'd say 3 years? I was EB3 'other'. EB2 or EB1 category applicants from 'other' probably end up taking about a year. If you're unlucky enough to be in the India or China region, you're going to be waiting much, much longer than that though. EB3 India is probably more along the lines of 7-12 years.

Edit:

I think it's sort of important to note that I came to the US in 2010, which was a weird year for H1-Bs. The economy was bad, and I was able to file for an H1-B in August after I graduated. This lack of H1-Bs in 2010 probably resulted in fewer GC applications down the line as well, so your mileage may vary.

<comment><USER56> EB2 'other' anecdote: I came to the US in 2009 on a H1B (job offer in October, granted in December) and filed for my green card almost immediately. I had my card within 18 months, most of which was PERM.

I realise I was _very_ fortunate in three things: timing, nationality (British) and education (two Master's degrees, so EB2). During this time I was paid market rates, though I did go through a period of minor panic when I realised I basically couldn't leave Google while my green card application was pending and I had no idea how long it would actually take. But articles like this make me extremely sad that others can't be so fortunate, and I wonder what it is we (non-voting residents) can actually do about it...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I agree with the author that the process is absurd, as many of my colleagues have gone through it. But, as far as I understand it, employer sponsorship is not the only path to a green card. One colleague and friend works at a startup, and he is pursuing his green card himself, through an immigration lawyer he hired. It is not cheap - with lawyer fees and all, I believe it's in the $20,000 range - and it requires making the case that you're a top performer in your field.

At the least, if you find yourself in the author's position, consult an immigration lawyer.

<comment><USER57> That top performer category is hard to get. It's for world class people, like professional athletes, world renown artists, or Nobel Prize winners.

<comment><USER24> It is hard to get, but I don't think you need to be literally a Nobel Prize winner: [http://www.curranberger.com/eb1_niw/eb-1a-frequently- asked-q...](http://www.curranberger.com/eb1_niw/eb-1a-frequently-asked- questions)

I believe it's the category my colleagues have gone for, but meeting 3-5 items in that list comes as a result of graduating from a PhD program.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> Here's one solution: [http://www.hblist.com/immigr.htm](http://www.hblist.com/immigr.htm)

"This is a defense of a policy of absolutely open immigration, without border patrols, border police, border checks, or passports."

</comment><comment><USER59> Its a slow evening and I was curious about how many times people mentioned different places (countries) in the comments to this post. So I ran the Stanford (Named Entity) Analyzer on the copy of the comments so far.

Here is what I got so far (a gist is here: [https://gist.github.com/ayush/6efe681ba968123605fd](https://gist.github.com/ayush/6efe681ba968123605fd)):

US 108 Canada 42 America 42 U.S. 25 Zealand 20 Europe 18 NZ 17 Japan 16 China 13 France 12 India 11 UK 10 USA 10n Australia 10 EU 9 Germany 9 United 8 Switzerland 7 States 6 us 6 Netherlands 5 Korea 5 South 5 Asia 5 area 4 York 4 Auckland 4 Mexico 4 California 3 Italy 3 Spain 3 china 3 U.S 3 Bay 3 Brazil 2 bay 2 London 2 Ireland 2 Norway 2 Denmark 2 kameez 1 Usano 1 america 1 Francisco 1 Arabia 1 North 1 Vatican 1 Colombia 1 devouredSouth 1 Berlin 1 Africa 1 Britain 1 U.S.Another 1 City 1 Hollywood 1 Turkey 1 Saudi 1 Tesla 1 Honduras 1 U.S.A. 1 S. 1 Amazon 1 Oregon 1 San 1 south 1 shalwar 1 Pakistan 1 Amsterdan 1 PERM 1 Amsterdam 1 Numbeo 1 Nigeria 1 Croatia 1 Philippines 1 StatesFolks 1 Samoa 1 States7 1 GOSPLAN 1 earth 1 Israel 1 Schleswig-Holstein 1

<comment><USER59> Here is an update on this US 132 Canada 49 America 46 U.S. 32 New 23 Europe 23 Japan 20 Zealand 20 NZ 18 Australia 17 China 16 USA 15 India 13 France 13 UK 12 EU 10 Germany 9 Switzerland 9 Netherlands 9 United 7 Haiti 7 Mexico 7 us 6 States 5 South 5 Brazil 5 Auckland 5 Korea 5 Asia 5 Britain 4 Amsterdam 4 Spain 4 area 4 Italy 4 York 4 china 4 California 3 Pakistan 3 Ireland 3 Norway 3 Denmark 3 U.S 3 Bay 3 bay 2 Turkey 2 London 2 Nigeria 2 Croatia 2 Samoa 2 Israel 2 Montreal 2 Schleswig-Holstein 2 Colombia 2 Honduras 2 Portugal 1 america 1 Western 1 Francisco 1 Vatican 1 devouredSouth 1 Seattle 1 17 1 18 1 Africa 1 Hollywood 1 Saudi 1 Tesla 1 U.S.A. 1 S. 1 Amazon 1 Yemen 1 south 1 Adelaide 1 Thailand 1 Amsterdan 1 btw 1 the 1 States7 1 GOSPLAN 1 kameez 1 Usano 1 Arabia 1 North 1 new 1 Berlin 1 Moldova 1 U.S.Another 1 City 1 Texas 1 Oregon 1 San 1 Afghanistan 1 shalwar 1 Manila 1 Russia 1 Rotterdam 1 PERM 1 Numbeo 1 US.I 1 Philippines 1 Quebec 1 StatesFolks 1 earth 1

</comment></comment><comment><USER60> Articles like this describe one of my biggest problems with proposed immigration reforms. How many countless people have left the U.S. due to losing their legal status - or been outright denied a visa to begin with? It seems to me that giving status to people that have already broken the law is downright unjust to those that have followed it...

</comment><comment><USER61> For people from some countries like India and China, the wait after finding an employer willing to sponsor green card is still a big killer. Typically people have to wait for 6-7 years now to get green card after first filing it. While I agree with the author, I feel he did not try to find someone willing to sponsor his green card with other employers. If your employer does not respond favorably to your requests about sponsoring your green card, find another employer willing to sponsor it while you still have time left on your current visa. And since the author is from NZ, it would not have taken him more than a year to get his green card had he found someone willing to sponsor him.

<comment><USER62> It looks like the author was working in the legal profession, with a large number of lawyers also looking for work. I suspect that in this case, it becomes harder for the company to file a green card application.

</comment></comment><comment><USER63> Last I checked, there are a lot of unemployed lawyers, including grads from Ivy League Law schools. So why should someone from another country be employed law job (as opposed to some esoteric field of science where there simply is nobody to do the job) when there are Americans that are searching for jobs?

Instead of choosing a profession like law where there is a surplus of lawyers, he should have chosen a job like nursing where there is a shortage and then he could have been a US citizen.

Simply baffling to me that this guy chooses a career like law where there is a surplus of Americans looking for jobs instead of a career like nursing where there is a shortage and then he complains!

</comment><comment><USER64> Is it much easier in the EU? For example, can I go to Switzerland or France and easily get permanent residency?

<comment><USER65> Switzerland is not a part of the EU.

<comment><USER66> Right, but it's part of the Schengen area, which also covers most of the EU countries, so once you got a visa to e.g. France, you're free to work and live in Switzerland as well.

<comment><USER67> Nope. There are many different types of Schengen visa [1] and it generally does not allow you to work. For this you need a national visa from a specific member state [2]. So, no, if you get a work permit in France, you are not free to live and work in Switzerland. In fact, EU citizens generally need a residency and work permit if they wish to live and work there.

[1] [http://www.schengenvisainfo.com/schengen-visa- types/](http://www.schengenvisainfo.com/schengen-visa-types/) [2] [http://www.schengenvisainfo.com/frequently-asked- questions-s...](http://www.schengenvisainfo.com/frequently-asked-questions- schengen-visa/)

<comment><USER68> > In fact, EU citizens generally need a residency and work permit if they wish > to live and work there.

No, they generally don't.

[https://www.ch.ch/en/working-switzerland-eu- efta/](https://www.ch.ch/en/working-switzerland-eu-efta/)

<comment><USER67> From the page: "For employment lasting longer than three months, a residence permit is required."

I named their permit incorrectly: should be "residence permit" instead of "residency and work permit". The point remains that EU citizens generally need an official permit to work in Switzerland.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER69> The article comes across as whiny because he's a New Zealander. So cut the guy some slack, he can't help it :)

As an Australian working for a large tech company, I totally feel this guy's position. It never leaves me, the sense of being an imposter in this country on limited time. I've paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes in this country, hired dozens of Americans as a manager, and mentored many of them to greater heights. I am lucky to work for a company with deep pockets that wants to invest in my green card process, but if I step outside this bubble I step immediately into the world this author describes.

It is madness for the United States to put road blocks in front of skilled immigration. As a hiring manager, I can tell you that I _always_ prefer to hire a local American where possible, simply because it's easier. That in itself is not great - to serve this large American company's interests on American soil, I should hire the best possible talent, not the most convenient talent, no matter their origin.

But in my case there is little American talent to hire. It is not because I'm a picky arsehole (although some would say I am), but just a function of the kind of positions I hire for and the place I do it. Once you cut it down to:

1) people who want to relocate to the Bay Area

2) people who want to work in the South Bay

3) people who want to work for this company

4) people who want the job

5) people who can actually do the job

There is just a tiny trickle of people left, and frequently I'm in competition with other tech companies to acquire them. And for foreign candidates, you can tack two small items on to that list:

6) people who want to move to the United States

7) people who qualify to get a work visa for the United States

Folks carry around this assumption that foreign workers are cheap Indians on H-1Bs who can blow in and out of the country on a whim, and that a large % of unemployed Americans are waiting in the wings to swoop in and take those positions if tech companies only paid the prevailing wage to attract them. The reality is way more complex than that. Not every immigrant is an Indian and not every unemployed American is a reprogrammable robot, able to do any open position I have on my books.

What I want to bring to this country - not that the United States government factors this in to my immigration status - is growth. That is what gave me the opportunities that got me here, and that is what I want to give back. Right now, I can go talk to my boss and create a job. I can create a job out of thin air! That pays >$100k a year! Me, a foreigner, I can do this. There is always more work to do.

And if I can hire the best and brightest then I can be more successful, and create more jobs. I stand a decent chance to create economic circumstances that bring opportunities across a spectrum of skills inside and outside my company. With more jobs, I can take risks on hiring under-qualified Americans to train them, just like people took a risk on me, a university drop out. And with more success I can attract more of the best and brightest Americans too.

My tangible contribution to this conversation is that work visa holders should have a full year to find another position, and should be allowed to start companies during that year. That would enable valuable economic risk taking for the people already here. For those trying to get in to the US, that's a diatribe for another day.

<comment><USER70> @hagmonk You have made some very good points. However "Not every immigrant is an Indian and not every unemployed American is a reprogrammable robot, able to do any open position I have on my books." is true but incomplete. Not every Indian is a cheap immigrant who's willing to work for less than their American counterparts. H1b was meant to "supplement" American workforce and not to "replace" them. Also in majority cases, H1b is filed by companies and the not individuals, so the way it is used is largely dependent on the business model of that company and how it best suites them. It's sad to see that an educated person like you boxes all Indian Immigrants as cheap laborers.

<comment><USER71> I agree that comment was probably unnecessary, but to be fair he said "... this assumption that foreign workers are cheap Indians on H-1Bs". He did not say all Indians are cheap or on H-1B's.

<comment><USER69> Yes, @dreamcatcher is misinterpreting my sentiment, or I was not clear in communicating it. I absolutely do not support any racial stereotypes of Indians or anyone else - my point is that _others_ do this because they wish to oversimplify the immigration argument.

I have an Indian guy on my team going through the visa process just like me, so slandering of Indian workers hits especially close to home. He's the only other person in my entire office who knows for sure that cricket is the superior sport … without him I'd be alone and defenseless amongst baseball nerds!!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER72> So no one seems to mentioning the one obvious fact (to me)... it seems like it's working as designed and there is a good reason why:

Part of US diplomacy is to educate foreigners and let them go back to their own countries so that those who are improving/leading said countries are more friendly to the US. It also is part of diplomacy to spread education so that the rest of the world can buy into our model of functional capitalist countries so we can have trade and not war or famine.

<comment><USER72> Wow a bunch of down votes, and why? Is it inaccurate? If so, leave a comment.

</comment></comment><comment><USER73> This article hit so close to home, and it brought a tear to my eye for the author. Just minutes before I saw this show up on my feed, I got an email from USCIS saying that my O1 petition has been approved after having attempted to get a visa for about 4 years (I know, it's kind of magically short in the grand scheme of things) down a variety of paths. It's still kind of surreal and hasn't fully registered, I can't wait to go back to the only place I've ever called home, the Bay Area.

My heart goes out to anyone else who is going through or will have to go through what I had to for the last 2-3 years, trying to work on my startup remotely as a digital nomad. It sounds like a romantic lifestyle, but it's wrought with difficulties leaving one on the edge of depression the whole time.

I'm happy to lend an understanding ear to anyone going through this right now. Having a government whimsically decide what direction your life takes professionally, socially, and culturally with no say of your own really makes you feel powerless.

</comment><comment><USER74> I suppose immigrant laws are very scrupulously applied in case of immigrant lawyers. Why make it easier for foreign competition?

</comment><comment><USER75> Wow, as an american I find this situation intolerably embarrassing. People like this built this country, and the fact that some useless bureaucratic entity designed by xenophobes and racists is kicking people out is incredibly depressing. I'd rather deport the inventors of these idiotic rules, we'd all be better off for that.

<comment><USER76> nothing is going to change, not anytime soon. At a minimum, this generation of immigrants is doomed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER77> I am fortunate enough to work for an employer who does sponsor employment- based residency. I'm also fortunate to be in the home stretch (should get my PR later this year). I'm also fortunate to be born in a country that doesn't have a massive backlog that add years to the process (those countries being India and China primarily).

Even so, by the end it will have taken almost 4 years. This isn't bad by the standards of what others have gone through but it's terrible we're in a situation where 4 years for PR is defined as "not terrible".

So I sympathize. I want to stay here too. But there are three things I want to say here.

1\. As another poster said: maybe this is how it should end up. There is, after all, a glut of lawyers. This makes it difficult for an employer to justify the expense of going through the process;

2\. Job losses and an abundance of qualified applicants make getting an LC far from certain. This isn't really a problem for tech companies. I imagine it's a huge problem for a law firm;

3\. I see no mention of the DV lottery. I don't know the exact probabilities but applying 10-15 times from New Zealand must have a decent chance of your number coming up. Did he ever apply? If not, why not?

Contrary to what at least one poster said, it absolutely has _zero_ impact on your nonimmigrant visa applications to have entered the DV lottery. over the years I applied probably 6 times? My number never came up. Not unexpected. I've met several people whose number did come up.

How long is the typical career in corporate law? How long does a job typically last with a law firm? I don't know. I'm not a lawyer. Is it 5-10 years? If not, will the employee still be around at the end? It seems reasonably likely they won't be.

So, my sympathies. It's a shame you're not Australian, because we have it easiest of probably anyone barring arguably Canadians.

</comment><comment><USER78> Also a New Zealander. I did a 3 month internship in the Valley, and then did a 1 year internship after graduating - the idea was for me to get a H1B and stay on after that, but due to the cap being reached and losing out on the lottery my application was returned unprocessed. So I returned back to NZ and started a company here instead, we recently made our first two hires.

I still love the US and would much prefer to be building my company in the valley, but apparently I'm not wanted even after paying over a hundred thousand in taxes within a year of being there. The stress caused from not being able to stay in the country where I was building my life due to purely random chance, with nothing I could do about it, was massive.

I do hope to return to the US permanently at some point and that the system will be improved, but it seems that will take a while.

<comment><USER79> 100k in taxes? You made 300k as an intern?

</comment></comment><comment><USER80> How different is American immigration policy than other similar countries, like Canada, the UK, Australia, and the author's New Zealand? I'm sympathetic to everyone trying to immigrate to the US, but I'm guessing he would have similar issues in any country. Probably less frustrating, though.

<comment><USER81> It's almost trivially easy to get to Australia as long as you work in an "in demand" sector: STEM, nursing, etc.

Source: I did it.

<comment><USER80> By "get to" do you mean "live in Australia more or less permanently" or become a citizen? Just clarifying, since the article was discussing the latter.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER82> I'm a New Zealand citizen. It's true. We do dream like that. But I visited America and I don't think I'll ever go back. I didn't see any culture. But I live in Asia now. There's heaps of culture here.

<comment><USER83> I didn't realize that culture was quantifiable?

</comment></comment><comment><USER84> Honest question: If the author "had come to America to attend Yale." didn't they also research the requirements for citizenship or an extended stay? Did they decide the benefits outweigh the cons or did they just "hope" things would work out? Maybe they made the decision _after_ attending Yale - was this decision not well informed?

I think criticism of the immigration system is warranted and valid, just that potential immigrants need to understand the flaws in the system before they invest in a new life within America's borders.

<comment><USER24> It is very unusual for 18-year-olds to accurately plan for what they will when they are 33.

Most people don't plan their lives out like you are suggesting. They take opportunities as they come, and build their life as it comes along. He attended Yale, liked America, stayed, worked and built a life for 15 years. I find this reasonable, and consider it unrealistic to expect him to, at any point during that time, to just abandon his current life because he might not be able to stay.

<comment><USER84> Right, but what happened between 18 and 33. At some point the author must have realized "the system is fucked" but decided (for multiple reasons) to risk continuing to work and live with the US.

It's one thing to attend university for 4 years, get a job and then head home. Quite another thing to base/commit your entire life/career in the US without a clear path to citizenship.

I'm not saying the author should "suck it up" but rather it seems many take this risk, knowing the dangers and therefore shouldn't be surprised or shocked to eventually have to leave (given a gap in employment)

<comment><USER85> I am in the situation you are suggesting.

People like the author and me are not surprised, but rather disappointed (and sad).

<comment><USER85> I should add, sad because it is very hard to build and plan a life where you do not know where you will be in 3 or 6 years. For example, why would you try to buy a house if you don't know what will happen? Because of all this I am probably considering to not even bother with H1B.

<comment><USER86> The GC application should follow the H1B immediately. Don't accept an offer from an employer that cannot promise you that they will do that. Either they don't know what they are doing or they can't imagine you still working there several years later.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER87> For me most awful thing in immigration that i can't marry green card holder at all. Because we need to wait 5 years abroad and she can't leave country for more than half year for conversion Green Card to citizenship and i can't came to US because i am married in permanent resident. Why, hell, i can't may woman that i love and with whom i want to make family? I am extremely skilled worker and done two businesses in my country and i wanted to make more in US.

</comment><comment><USER88> Are there any countries where the immigration system is not "broken" in this way?

I have seen some in the past with "entrepreneur" or "retirement" visas: you are allowed to stay in the country if you promise to spend a lot of money, but that doesn't seem optimal for this kind of case. I've also heard of places desperately seeking workers, but that also doesn't seem to fit the current American situation.

<comment><USER89> Canada (and I believe some other countries, like Australia) has a points based system. You can fill in a PR (equivalent to US Green Card) application from the comfort of your home country. When you are filling up the application, you can tally the points and know for sure whether you meet the cut-off to have your application be granted - i.e. you don't need to submit if you aren't going to make it. Points are given for your age (younger is better), education (masters is better than just bachelors) and your language proficiency (in English and French), among others.

Then, you wait a while and once the application is granted, you directly get PR. You have a period of time - say 1 yr - to move to Canada, and another period within which you should find a job.

i.e. - when you apply for a job, you are already a permanent resident.

Now that's what I would call a humane immigration system that also manages to attract 'desirable' immigrants. If Canada had America's weather, I would have never moved to the US.

<comment><USER90> I spent many years waiting to get my Canadian paperwork sorted out and spent a small fortune doing so. In the end I gave up and moved back to NL.

<comment><USER91> I was awarded Permanent Residency to me and my wife without either of us ever having visited Canada or a firm job offer(s).

No other country does that. The Canadian immigration system is one of the most generous around.

<comment><USER92> Australia is the same. Got permanent residency without being in Australia.

<comment><USER91> Recently? What is the program name?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER93> Forget the immigration laws.... It's impossible to live legally in US as skilled worker or anything like this. I know a lot of people who went there, lived as illegals without graduation or any kind of specialization for a long time and now they have green card or citizenship. But I also know two guys who had H1B or academic visas, the only one who is still there got married, to other one had to come back.

</comment><comment><USER94> This hits home in so many ways than one. I came to this country at 17 to attend college, 2 degrees and 8 years later I was recently let go. Thankfully I'm an Engineer in SF so it shouldn't be too bad to find another employer and get back, but still I'm looking at a good 6-7 weeks out of the country in order to get a new visa for a new employer before I can transfer my status.

</comment><comment><USER95> Considering U-6 unemployment is about 12% right now, perhaps this is a feature and not a bug. I still don't understand why Disney and others are allowed to do the things they do with abusing H1B's. Or why firms think they need someone with some fraudulent/substandard foreign degree instead of investing in domestic workers.

There's a discussion about labor to be had here and it should be focused on domestic labor abuses. Unfortunately, these things are rarely discussed and H1B and other abusive programs only rarely flare up in the news, everyone sees them for what they are, but there's no political will to fight them.

Immigration's external costs are ignored as well. The source country is constantly having a brain drain, for example. Its amusing to me to see HN'ers with this pretentious global perspective who have no problem taking the top 20% of the people from countries that need them and thinking themselves humanitarians because they got them a coding job in the valley.

If we started being serious about cutting immigration, there would be more political pressure for these foreign countries to get their shit straight. More local entrepreneurs, more devs focusing on local problems, etc. The status quo right now of fleeing to Western ecomomies just guarantees poor outcomes in poorer nations. We shouldn't be proud of that. Jogesh shouldn't be writing disposable freemium games for some rich guy's son who thinks himself "the next Steve Jobs," he should be helping Indians and the Indian economy with his skills.

<comment><USER96> "If we started being serious about cutting immigration, there would be more political pressure for these foreign countries to get their shit straight."

Spoken like someone who never had the idea of moving to another country.

Here is the problem - those 12% unemployed will still walk around pretending that USA is the bestest country in the world where people have 'gotten their shit together', than to move to a different country and get a job - <USER3> that is unbelievably insanely easy if you are an American citizen.

<comment><USER97> Well said. Those 12% can move abroad, with the manufacturing jobs, for example. But no, that would be out of the question.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER98> Come to Australia. If you have two degrees and speak English, should be reasonably easy. Also Australia is better than America :)

</comment><comment><USER5> I sympathize with the author, the path to a green card is ridiculous. [1] But that's where my sympathies stop.

It's not a hidden process either. If staying here matters to you _better_ work tirelessly to put yourself on a path to permanent residency and _you_ better be the one to push it daily or it won't happen.

Here we have a highly educated, Ivy Leaguer with a _LAW DEGREE_ , who didn't.

But about 500,000 people a year _do_ and I can guarantee that very few of those people have the kind of education chops this guy has.

> From college to law school to professional life, from student visa to work > visa, I have scrupulously followed every immigration regulation, paid all my > taxes, filed all the papers I had to file, and have not so much as received > a parking ticket.

Fantastic, thanks for being a conscientious visitor. None of these things are part of getting permanent residency.

It sucks, but here's the options for somebody in this pickle:

1 - Only take a job that's willing to put you on a path to a Greencard. It costs your employer money, so be willing to take a pay-cut to compensate. It might suck, but deal with it because once you get your papers you're home free and can go out and pursue other work on the market at higher pay. It might take years to get it, but you need to keep pressing this issue if it matters to you. It mattered to the author, and he left it up to the whims of other people.

2 - Marry a citizen/permanent resident. Welcome to America, we have literally tens of millions of prospects for you. In this case the author had 15 years to hit the dating scene. (this is how my wife immigrated, and we were stupid college kids without a lawyer or any degree, before there were several major simplifications to the process and we managed it on our first try by using the novel technique of reading instructions, following them, then following up with immigration to make sure things were progressing. It took us about 3 solid years, but we managed it. I understand from other people who've been through the process more recently that it's much simpler and faster than what we went through back in the stone age)

> But if you wish to follow the rules, as I do, then it must be a bona fide > marriage. And if you take important personal decisions such as marriage > seriously, then you may not wish to have their timing dictated by Homeland > Security...And now is not the right time for marriage.

Insert snarky response about not finding somebody after 15 years of hitting the dating scene. It can't be _that_ bad.

3 - Apply for the Lottery. 50,000 Green-cards are issues yearly.

It doesn't appear that in 15 years, the author bothered to do that. [2]

Sorry that's the way it is. But it is what it is. I have a hard time stirring up any more sympathy. This is an essay of excuses.

So given the three available options, two of which the author appears to be aware of (and learning about the 3rd took me all of 35 seconds), he didn't strongly pursue any of them? Part of the American Religion is figuring this stuff out. And the hundreds of thousands of issued green-cards per year, often to people who don't even speak the majority language, is testament that this is not only achievable, but is _regularly_ achievable -- it just takes a little tenacity.

It's a terrible system, possibly the worst in American government, but it's not like it's unknowable or unachievable. In fact here's the website to do it [3]

Reading is hard, action is harder.

1 - [http://immigrationroad.com/green-card/immigration- flowchart-...](http://immigrationroad.com/green-card/immigration-flowchart- roadmap-to-green-card.pdf)

2 - [http://www.uscis.gov/green-card/other-ways-get-green- card/gr...](http://www.uscis.gov/green-card/other-ways-get-green-card/green- card-through-diversity-immigration-visa-program/green-card-through-diversity- immigrant-visa-program)

3 - [http://www.uscis.gov/greencard](http://www.uscis.gov/greencard)

<comment><USER99> I think you overestimate the straight-forwardness of this. Option #2 means including economic incentives in your relationship ("I better rush towards marrying someone, lest I get kicked out!"). Option #3 is very restricted -- if you are on a non-immigrant visa (e.g. student visa), then the simple fact of applying for the lottery (and thus signalling immigration intent) will likely make you ineligible for a renewal.

<comment><USER5> But you see, that's it. Those are the options. Option #4: treat people who want to immigrate with decency, isn't available.

I think it's fair to complain that this option doesn't exist, I'd like it to exist. But it doesn't and options #1-3 are what the author had to work within, yet chose not to pursue any of them.

If he still wants to get in, once he's back in New Zealand, he's free to continue pursuing permanent residency. Going back to New Zealand doesn't prevent him from continuing to pursue these options. But he simply doesn't have the tenacity to do it, not while he was in the U.S. and probably not once he returns home.

<comment><USER100> Obviously, you can overcome any legal hurdle with "tenacity".

Lottery is out if he intended to stay. I am wondering if you are a troll for even having suggested it. It is meant for people outside the US - with no intent of ever visiting. It signals immigration intent, so even tourist visas can be denied on that alone. It is a lottery, not an application. Very low odds that would actually make it harder for him to stay in the country. He seems to have a couple of brain cells, so he didn't go for that.

Marrying may not be an option, or maybe not yet. He may not want to, he may not have found someone he truly wants to marry (and doing it for the sole purpose of getting a visa is fraud), he may not even like women. I don't know why he didn't, and you don't either.

Getting a job that will want to sponsor a visa only really works if the demand is truly ridiculous to justify it - such as computer science or engineering. Changing what appears to be a successful law carreer for another in, say, computer science is not really an option without leaving the US, which the author did not want to do in the first place.

So, once he's back in New Zealand, what are his options? Other than the lottery, which is a _lottery_ , not a guarantee. There are a few avenues he could try, but I can think of none that don't have the risk of rebuilding his whole life and getting deported a few years later, once again.

No matter how tenacious he is.

<comment><USER101> Participating in lotter does not signal immigration intent. I participated in lottery for my parents for ten years and they had zero problem renewing their visitor visas every two year. It's pretty well documented that it's ok to do lottery without while on visitor or student visa.

The fact that none of his employers wanted to sponsor him for visa tells you how valuable he was to those employers. Full in cost of employment-based greencard is only 5k-10k including legal fees. All company has to do is to provide financial information and to sign several forms - everything else is done by outside lawyers. I could not imagine any company refusing to do it for any professional employee unless he was extremely replaceable.

<comment><USER100> > Participating in lotter does not signal immigration intent

Can you back this up? It is open to interpretation as far as I know.

US immigration assumes you intend to immigrate by default. It's up to you to prove that you have no interest in doing so. It gets harder to claim that you have no intention when you are, in fact, participating in the lottery, so you want to immigrate after all.

Perhaps your parents had enough ties to their home country that it didn't matter.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER102> Moderate, specific levels of immigration, legal only. Weighted point system; random draw.

Capital can move to where labor is cheaper. No need for USA to have population density of Japan, China or India.

I can't blame people for wanting to flee corruption, but some people staying and fighting is a better way to make the world better.

</comment><comment><USER103> I spent 2.5 years living in Europe and just moved back to the US because my wife couldn't find a job there. After two months back in a place with values (buy all the things) and culture (work all your life) I find abhorrent, I'm terrified we won't be able to get back in.

</comment><comment><USER104> Possibly more important, "becoming an American" (which seems to mean Usano as I am an American because I live in one of and have citizenship in one of the countries of America) means you get to pay US incometaxes on your income anywhere in the world for the rest of your life.

</comment><comment><USER105> "Again, an employer can sponsor an employee's green card, but the employer must again bear the costs, which can run to the tens of thousands of dollars, and again the employee cannot offer to pay the cost."

Why don't you just reimburse the employer the costs?

<comment><USER106> This isn't how the law works, a court would most likely not treat this any different than directly violating the law

<comment><USER105> I see. It would be the same as marrying just to get a green card.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER107> It is kind of surprising to learn that those Big Law Firms rolling in huge piles of cash minute by the minute do not want to spend a mere couple of thousands for a member of their team.

Is it because petitioning for a candidate without a STEM degree is that much harder?

<comment><USER45> For most people to sponsor an employment green card you have to show that you cannot find a qualified citizen or PR to fill the position. This is easier for some professions (STEM most notably) than others.

Also there are restrictions on when a company can file. For example if the company has gone through layoffs then generally it can't sponsor people for several months.

<comment><USER107> > you cannot find a qualified citizen or PR to fill the position

This is something I can believe. There definitely is a bigger percentage of US citizens and PRs going to Law School, even in the small sample set I have encountered.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER108> I spent 14 years in France on the same fool's errand. Same situation.

</comment><comment><USER76> The biggest factor in one's chances of success in life depends upon one's country of citizenship. That's a fact. It should be obvious so I am not stating any sources or research data.

</comment><comment><USER109> As a Canadian here on a work visa, this was sad to read.

Luckily us Canadians have NAFTA so its easy to get a work permit. It's sad that this great country is turning really intelligent people away.

</comment><comment><USER110> Yeah similar story is happening to me. The USCIS denying my VISA transfer requests for no reason. They fail to provide anything other than utter bullshit.

</comment><comment><USER111> The article mentions we kick out the brightest, but there's actually a way to specifically immigrate using your educational prowess [1]. Basically, you need a masters of higher.

You got 2 degrees, were here for ~15 years.. surely research was done to find out how to immigrate? If you spent the time to get 2 degrees, I'd figure getting a masters would have been the more obvious choice...

[1]: [http://www.workpermit.com/us/employer_eb2.htm](http://www.workpermit.com/us/employer_eb2.htm)

<comment><USER112> Green Card needs to be filed by employer and cannot be independently by the immigrant himself. The author is not disputing the point that there is a way to get in. The challenge is that at all points you have to completely rely on your employer to file and pay for all the visas and green cards. As anyone who has gone through the green card process can attest, it is a very complicated and lengthy process. It requires you to convince your company to spend 10s of thousands on dollars to file for your green card which doesn't potentially benefit the company itself. It requires putting out ads on newspapers, interviewing some candidates and then explaining why they can't be a fit. This is unlike some other countries (such as Australia or UK) where you can file your own immigration application if you check off certain things (such as level of education, no. of years employed etc.)

Also, the visa itself is not a guarantee considering it is a lottery. So even if you have a masters degree, it won't help you a lot in terms of getting you through the H1 lottery.

<comment><USER111> I was specifically referring to the National Interest Waiver, which, according to the page, says the alien may apply a Green Card themselves.

Also:

> The national interest waiver applicant sponsors him or herself and is not > required to have a job.

And my wife has actually gone through the whole naturalization process and is a citizen. It is not a fun process, and is definitely lengthy, but for anyone that is motivated is totally doable.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER113> There is another way to get a green card that I don't think anyone has mentioned. EB5. However, you have to already be rich to apply.

</comment><comment><USER114> and the reverse? how hard is it to become a citizen of New Zealand?

<comment><USER43> Easy compared to the US: [https://www.newzealandnow.govt.nz/](https://www.newzealandnow.govt.nz/)

TL;DR: Get a job offer for a "skill in demand" (like IT), live in NZ for five years on a work visa, and granting citizenship is almost automatic.

<comment><USER114> I also know many people who lived and worked in the U.S. and got a green card in 5 years.. YMMV

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER115> US immigration rules would be much saner if people born here had to jump through the same hoops, wait in the same lines, fill out the same forms, and go through the same process for citizenship, as people not born here.

<comment><USER116> In fact, it's downright oppressive that the government of the United States treats its own citizens differently than citizens of foreign countries.

<comment><USER115> You're missing the point. Birthright citizens have nothing but "geographic location of birth" to qualify them as citizens of their country. They literally (in the real meaning of 'literally') did nothing to become citizens. Their children will also likely have to do nothing to become citizens, as long as they're born within the same borders. What motivation do people who expended zero effort to become citizens currently have to help or vote to make immigration rules more sane?

<comment><USER117> Just fyi: most countries do not operate a jus soli-based citizenship system. Probably because of the reasons you outline.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> "I have two Ivy League degrees. And I am on the verge of deportation."

So _you_ obviously deserve to come here, while the people living on $1 a day in extreme poverty and under oppressive regimes, they should be kept out? No, you didn't say all that, but I'm passionate about the cause of open borders ([http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2011/08/the_efficient_e....](http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2011/08/the_efficient_e.html), [http://www.openborders.info](http://www.openborders.info)), and I can tell you a lot of Americans think exactly that way - they have a poor understanding of economics and they imagine that importing relatively unskilled laborers into our country would somehow 'taint' or bring down our economy toward their levels of poverty. (See here: [http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2015/02/always_keep_you....](http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2015/02/always_keep_you.html) if you have yet to be disabused of this fallacy.) And your suggestion that you should be allowed in because of your degrees is suggestive of that kind of broken thinking. Productivity is the root of societal prosperity. And labor, whether skilled or unskilled -- in fact, _especially_ unskilled labor -- is able to be much more productive when allowed to move to the first world. That extra productivity benefits _everyone_. Economists estimate, on average, that a move from the status quo to fully liberalized migration (open borders) would result in a _DOUBLING OF GLOBAL GDP_. That's an INSANE silver bullet.

And most of those gains would go to the extreme poor: in fact, it would be _by far_ the most effective step we could take to reduce extreme poverty - which a lot of people don't realize is the _single worst humanitarian crisis of all time, killing ~10 million people per year, a higher rate than WWII, which was the deadliest war ever_. Open border should be foremost on every smart, informed, ethical person's mind, and it's a crying shame that it isn't. Instead you see people whining about the plight of 1st-world Uber drivers and middle class Americans and not being able to stay in the US with their Ivy League degrees. Spoiler alert: all those people are crazy rich relative to the extreme poor. There are ~1 billion people, 1/7th of the world's population, living in extreme poverty, which is defined as making less than $1.25 per day. That's _PER DAY_ , NOT PER HOUR. They are literally starving, malnourished, have no clean water, no education - they have practically nothing. So unless you can show me evidence that you've spent many hours worrying about open borders and the extreme poor, screw your first world problem.

And by the way, I'm a rich american with an Ivy League degree myself, so this is not coming from a place of ivy-envy or anything. I've just spent a lot of time reading and thinking about open borders and the state of the world and I'm disappointed in my fellow educated first worlders that they're so oblivious, apathetic, uncaring, so this gets me angry.

Please see my other comments in this thread for more of my thoughts.

Great links: [http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2014/01/sitting_on_an_o....](http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2014/01/sitting_on_an_o.html) [https://vimeo.com/15000835](https://vimeo.com/15000835) [http://www.bottombillionfund.org/extreme_poverty.html](http://www.bottombillionfund.org/extreme_poverty.html) [http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/29/magazine/debunking-the- myt...](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/29/magazine/debunking-the-myth-of-the- job-stealing-immigrant.html) [http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/04/if-...](http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/04/if- people-could-immigrate-anywhere-would-poverty-be-eliminated/275332/) [http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2011/08/the_efficient_e....](http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2011/08/the_efficient_e.html) [http://www.openborders.info](http://www.openborders.info)

<comment><USER118> Excellent comment, thanks!

I feel that even something much smaller (esp. in the US), like allowing labor shortages to be filled would make a huge difference. Simplifying the process so that a farmer in need of workers doesn't have to hire a lawyer to do complicated paperwork that takes 6 months would be a first step. Granting these workers green cards on entry (instead of the restrictive H-2 visa) would ensure their freedom. The same goes for skilled workers. Even just allowing all workers in fields where there is a huge variation in skill (e.g. STEM, journalism, culinary arts, etc) to immigrate on the basis of well-paying job offer would make a huge difference.

</comment></comment><comment><USER119> cannot agree more

</comment><comment><USER120> It would actually be a great experiment to create a new libertarian nation which could let in everybody who is willing to contribute (work/business experience/bank account statement as proof) and see how that turns out. Something like a new US/Singapore started from a fresh slate.

<comment><USER121> Honduras tried (is trying?) a libertarian city in special development regions. The article I remember reading is actually from December 2011; I didn't think it was that long ago and I haven't read anything new. Here's the article that might be a good starting point for you though:

[http://www.economist.com/node/21541391](http://www.economist.com/node/21541391)

And here's an article on seasteading (basically huge platforms/ships that sit in international waters) from around the same time:

[http://www.economist.com/node/21540395](http://www.economist.com/node/21540395)

<comment><USER120> thanks for the readings

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER122> I get it that a degree in US law is only relevant in the US, but after 15 years you should really take a hint and move on.

</comment><comment><USER123> He's thinking like a desperate poor person and not as the affluent American he aspires to be.

If I were in this position, I'd start a company to employ me and get an investor to foot the bill for keeping me in the US. Someone as smart and well- connected as the author should be able to manage that. It's difficult to get personal goals to align with the government's wishes, but it's not difficult at all to throw money at the problem.

There are scores of ways to get into and stay in the US, the problem is understanding and navigating the bureaucracy. He managed for 15 years. I read stories all the time of creative strategies yielding a green card and eventual citizenship. I don't even ask the many non-Hispanic immigrants I meet whether they have citizenship or not, they all managed to work the system.

<comment><USER124> Did you read the part in the article where he his legal forbidden from starting up a company or even working at a startup?

He should have just stuck with the job until he found another one that would support his green card efforts. Switching careers part way through he should have known was risky. The lack of information that is presented on him for his reasoning besides "Well they weren't sponsoring me anyways" seems pretty lack luster and not well thought out for someone who is well educated and as intelligent as himself. This article seems like a desperate plea after making a mistake.

I hope he finds a legal way to stay in the country, or come back but the article was pretty whiny about something he already should have known.

<comment><USER125> He isn't prevented from working at a startup. Startups can sponsor people. But startups need devs not lawyers.

<comment><USER124> Someone should tell him that then. :P I'm not American so I can't really say what is and isn't but that's what I had gathered from his article.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER126> There a lot of things "broken" in this country: healthcare system, elementary/middle school education, guns out of control, racial issues, etc. Still probably the best place in the world.

<comment><USER127> Have you loved for a longer period in another country? :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER128> Not enough job supply for all of the law school graduates and this guy is surprised that they dont allow foreign competition to immigrate. Sorry to break it, we dont need more lawyers at the moment. Maybe try again in 10 years?

<comment> why-el What a terrible thing to say. The guy also did his bachelor's here, has friends here, and lived enough to consider this place his home.

<comment><USER128> Difference of philosophy. Every one wants to come here. NPR did a bit about this this morning, and claimed one study found that 500 - 700 million people would like to move to the US if they had the chance. We cant just let anyone live here, have to be selective. The guy argues that talent should be a factor that decides who gets in. But what if you have the wrong talent? What if you are trying to work in a collapsed field like Law?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER129> He's doing it wrong. He just needs to get married.

</comment><comment><USER130> Should have just snuck across the border in Mexico. People who follow the law are treated like criminals and those who break it are treated like heroes in California.

<comment><USER131> Not many of those have professional careers in STEM, law or medicine, the "highly qualified" potential immigrants in question.

</comment></comment><comment><USER132> The slavery-like dynamics of the immigration system is a surprising mismatch, versus the typical American business culture.

For comparison, I've spent time in a few countries where a slavery-like relationship with employers is completely expected and even supported by the employees. (Culture shock!) They imagine that it's the only way that businesses can function.

This isn't the type of business culture you want to live in, no matter the perceived benefits.

<comment><USER133> > a slavery-like relationship with employers is completely expected and even > supported by the employees

Actually, that sounds like America's start-up culture

<comment><USER132> What are the penalties for trying to leave it? I think that that's the defining factor, for what we're talking about here.

<comment><USER133> When equity is being traded for a reasonable salary, you lose your lottery ticket. It may not be as big of a carrot, but it's a carrot nonetheless.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER134> I fail to see how your complaint is valid beyond just a personal disappointment and/or frustration. The two main bullet points in your post and my comments are :-

1\. When the rest of the world sends America its best and brightest, America says, "Go away" : No country/entity _sent_ you here. You came here of your own volition. You said that you have lived here legally. That means you followed the law. The US immigration enforcement agency also has a law to follow and they are precisely doing that. As a result of the law you are not qualified to become a permanent resident or citizen (yet). There is absolutely no law here that says the US is required to absorb all of the world's best and most skilled. It is not in the US constitution.

2\. American immigration law leaves the skilled immigrant feeling like an indentured serf : I disagree w.r.t skilled immigration. It cannot be true as a blanket statement. All the labor laws treat US workers equally regardless of their immigration status. Some corporations misuse loopholes or down right violate them. That is not the fault of the immigration system. It is against the law and the law will punish those corporations/businesses to the extent that is practically possible (not an excuse for failure to do so). And where the laborers, skilled or otherwise, are being exploited it becomes the duty of lawmakers and enforcers to take action.

Each country has their own laws with regard to immigration. It is their right as a sovereign nation to craft laws as they see fit. In come countries it is almost impossible to permanently immigrate unless you are born there and in others you could virtually buy citizenship. Even the country you come from has immigration laws and I am certain that many find it burdensome or extremely difficult. But it is still within their right.

<comment><USER135> You've got some flawed logic in your second point. While labor laws say that you must treat workers the same that has no impact on immigration law. If a skilled worker on a visa loses or leaves their job they need to leave the country unless they start a new job in a short time frame. This is a huge burden that citizens and permanent residents do not have.

</comment></comment><comment><USER136> I'll supply an anecdote of my own. My parents both immigrated to the US, both obtained permanent residency, and are both on the path to citizenship.

This guy has been trying for 15 years. It doesn't explain in the article why he doesn't at least have his residency yet.

<comment><USER137> The article explains it very well and in detail. None of his employers wanted to sponsor a green card, because it was too expensive, too much hassle, and too risky.</comment></comment>


How We Write Github Issues - <AUTHOR> http://wiredcraft.com/posts/2014/01/08/how-we-write-our-github-issues.html

<comment><USER2> > _A bad issue: too much in the title._

"Fixing the performances after the rollout of the last Express.js" is _much_ more descriptive than "performance tool in development environment".

Descriptiveness counts—scanning through a list of issues I'd know immediately what the first one entails. I wouldn't with the second.

> _Keep titles short and descriptive._

Yes to descriptive, no to short if you're compromising on descriptiveness.

<comment><USER3> That'd depend of the context. If you have a lot of issues related to Express/performance, then maybe being slightly more verbose is the way to go.

<comment><USER2> Say you revisit that issue in three month's time. Would you know what the cause of the "performance tool in development environment" issue was? Probably not. "Fixing the performances after the rollout of the last Express.js" tells you straight away though.

Admittedly it's a minor issue, but overzealously enforcing "keep titles short" will make titles less descriptive.

<comment><AUTHOR> It is a good point. However by keeping most of the issues in a milestone and making sure those issues are based on actual deliveries help to keep things in context without a need of a fully verbatim title. This will be the subject of another post.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Definitely good advice, but bad issues will always be present, no matter how many articles are written about it. I fully expect in 10 years to still have to deal with people pasting entire stack traces in github titles ;)

<comment><USER3> I think it's a matter of peer pressure. You can't necessarily guarantee this on a OSS project, but between colleagues you should be able to set expectations; "I'm taking the time to properly explain what I'm working on, and so should you. Especially if you want me to help".

Doing so is also drastically reducing the amount of misunderstandings and the length of your Scrum meetings.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Does "/cc @johndoe" do something that I'm missing? (The "/cc" part is irrelevant of course, but specifically tagging someone.) I have yet to figure out what it accomplishes in terms of notifications or queries, seemingly very little. But for all I know there might be something I'm missing, or a setting that could be adjusted?

(Edit: maybe it seems superfluous because I typically want notifications for everything in the repositories that I have greatest interest in)

<comment><USER3> You get notified, depending on your settings. It basically subscribes you to the issue: [https://github.com/blog/821](https://github.com/blog/821)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Good article, I really agree on an issue being like a log that you can see the thoughts develop over time. Invaluable for getting people up to speed that are new to an issue.

What's your take on using labels?

<comment><USER7> This is how we do it at Broadleaf. We use a combination of milestones and labels: [http://www.broadleafcommerce.com/blog/broadleaf-issues- power...](http://www.broadleafcommerce.com/blog/broadleaf-issues-powered-by- github)

I also followed this up a bit by solidifying our CONTRIBUTING doc: [https://github.com/BroadleafCommerce/BroadleafCommerce/blob/...](https://github.com/BroadleafCommerce/BroadleafCommerce/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Very interesting points, I mostly follow this kind of rules and use labels as well to improve visual context.</comment>