So she had lived in the US for six years and still had to beg the government for permission to change jobs? I had no idea it was this bad.
The system is gamified by outsourcing companies and body shops, that are more worried about their people in, play the numbers game and clog the H-1B and GC routes, make it difficult for everyone who is trying to do quality work without playing cheap tricks.
The dearth of middle income jobs in the USA is in part caused by these body shops flooding the domestic market with questionable talent, driving down wages and living standards severely.
References/data for that?
>Generally, a citizen of a foreign country who wishes to enter the United States must first obtain a visa, either a nonimmigrant visa for temporary stay, or an immigrant visa for permanent residence. Temporary worker visas are for persons who want to enter the United States for employment lasting a fixed period of time, and are not considered permanent or indefinite.
https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/employme...
Does the U.S. need a real skilled immigrant visa? Maybe. That's really a separate question.
https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/About%20Us/E...
(A) Prior to 1990, the processing times for employment-based immigrant visas were in the order of a few years. Practically speaking, no employer ever sponsored someone for an EB green card if they weren't already working for them at an office abroad. Congress wanted to provide a practical pathway for skilled immigration. The quote "non-immigrant" H, L, O, are explicitly intended to be stepping stones to permanent residence. Look up the Congressional record on this matter (ie debates on the 1990 Act) . There were also some articles from the Cato Institute elucidating this, but I don't remember their names.
(B) The original 1990 bill explicitly exempted H, L, O visa holders from having "non-immigrant" intent. The fact that folks on H, L, O are "non-immigrants" is an accident of how the Immigration and Nationality (INA) is structured. If you're not required to maintain "non-immigrant intent", and are explicitly allowed to call the United States your home by the law (specifically, the INA) you are in no sense a "non-immigrant". The later AC21 bill went further and made people waiting with approved employment-based green card applications, exempt from the 6-year H-1B limit.
Finally, it is insulting and degrading to be called a "non-immigrant" when you have lived for over 10 years in the U.S., by people who have no understanding how the system works, like yourself. I'm trying to be less triggered by comments like yours on HN, but it's difficult. I have to say that based on your commenting history here, I've noticed a very clear pattern of xenophobia, so even if you did understand how horrid the US system is, you'd still likely enjoy insulting people who've lived here for 15 or 20 years, by calling them "non-immigrants". But that's your prerogative/freedom. TBH, despite being a lawyer, rayiner, you have no knowledge of the legislative history of the INA, and shoot out falsehoods from your mouth, with an air of authority. I don't know what causes you (or caused you) to be so incredibly hateful towards immigrants, and I don't really care why either. But please don't turn HN into such a hostile place for non-citizens living and working in the US. I remember reading your comment from a month or so ago, where you called Canada's immigration policy "ruthless". That's a degrading term (towards Canada). I think their skilled immigration policy is the best in the world. Canada is a country that values skilled immigrants, and treats them with respect and dignity. I deeply wish the US had an immigration system similar to Canada's. But it doesn't. Canada is doing something good. But you chose to insult them for it. Canada's immigration system is the best in the world, and it actually allows a skilled person to get permanent residence quickly, and doesn't force you to spend a 10+ years on visas with limited rights, freedoms, etc. So please don't insult Canada. And ironically, while I can make $200k+ in the US, I am tempted by the freedom that Canada offers, despite lower pay there. It's unfortunately all-too-common for anti-immigrant folk on HN to paint all people on work visas (H, L, O, etc) as working for bad employers, or being thoroughly underpaid -- but this is rooted entirely in ignorance (or in willful dishonesty). My base salary is $140k+ which is an "OES Level 4 Wage", and I've made over $200k with bonuses in the past. Then there's folks like throwaway082729 who make $650k/yr: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20473537 When xenophobic people on HN are confronted by facts like this, it causes them cognitive dissonance, and throws into muddy water the foundation for their hatred for immigrants. And what happens? They simply downvote. They can't accept the fact that everything they've believed about skilled immigrants (e.g. being low-paid) is utterly false. Please don't be like that. Please try to be a better person.
It's the visa to get for the so-called "best and brightest". Of course, the catch is that you need to be really skilled and be able to prove it.
The "dual intent" concept is for the non-immigrant visa. If you don't want to read the official explanation, posted around here many times already, it means that you don't have to prove strong ties with your country when applying for such a visa. For visas without dual intent you have to prove the lack of immigration intent. For dual intent ones you don't.
I wouldn't have that problem if I was on, say, an H1B Visa.
These firms have been abusing the H-1B system for years, giving the visa (and often the workers who have it) a bad name.
This means, regardless of wage(!), big companies have a bigger pool to hire from.
Or am I mistaken?
The standard is somewhat lower than EB-1. While EB-1 requires what Congress calls "extraordinary ability", the O-1 requires "exceptional ability".
Again, the way things work is that whichever officer looks at the case, subjectively decides if it qualifies (in his/her opinion).
Nothing like the highly-objective points-based skilled immigration system you have in some countries.
https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/immigrat...
https://www.citylab.com/equity/2019/04/hudson-yards-financin...
On the other hand, it is actually easier to get a green card if you are an illegal immigrant - which is the real thing that boggles my mind. I was talking to an Uber driver the other day who was from Congo but came illegally to US and got his green card within 2 yrs. Not saying that the Congo folks shouldn't get green cards but a high skilled legal immigrant, who is able to command $300k+ in salary (which is sufficiently high to categorize them out of the IT body shop type work), is someone US should try to value at least as much (if not more) vs. an illegal immigrant.
The OP comes to America as an immigrant (as did I), makes more money in one year than most American's make in 20. My comment simply put his "problem" into perspective.
The purpose of the H1B program is for foreign specialists to do work for which no American worker can be found. It's not for foreigners to come to the US and go job hopping.
Job changes are very dangerous for H1-Bs in other ways and employers know it (and abuse it, nearly all of them). Basically if your employer finds out you're looking for a job and you don't already have another job lined up, they can fire you out of spite, and you'll have to GTFO the US within (IIRC) 2 weeks. There's absolutely no recourse. Even if you are in a protected class, you're very unlikely to sue unless you're in the US and have lots of money (which H1-Bs typically don't). So few people bother unless the situation is really dire.
It's not just H1-B either. F1-OPT gets abused in a similar fashion.
I think there was a grace period of 60 days introduced in 2017 though I am not sure on the status of it now.
It used to be worse, BTW: it used to be that you couldn't really change jobs at all, and until fairly recently, your spouse (who is typically on H4) couldn't work. Or to be exact, she/he could, but couldn't get paid (volunteering was OK).