I’m not doing either of those things. You made a claim by misunderstanding terms for hyperbole. I said that your claim isn’t true. You backed up your claim with more hyperbole. I rebutted that with how it’s standard practice globally and even in within a larger scope is a more reasonable standard.
QED, the US visa program is not indentured servitude, by colloquial or exact definitions, and not ultra-capitalistic by any stretch. These are not whataboutism or dodging. They directly address your statements.
If you want to simplify it, then it’d be
If you want to live and work in a country, you have to be sponsored by a company. If you’re laid off, you have 60 days to find another sponsor
One of the largest downsides to an H-1B visa is that your immigration status is dependent on fulfilling the terms of your employment. If your employment ends for one reason or another, you will likely lose your lawful status. If you remain in the country without lawful status, you will start to build unlawful presence––too much unlawful presence will bar you from legally entering the U.S.
That happens if you get laid off or fired, and if you just up and quit because the conditions are too horrible:
Some of the most drastic consequences of losing your job may come if you are the person who terminates your employment. If you voluntarily quit your job, the employer will no longer be required to pay for the cost of your transportation back to your previous country of residence.
When you quit, your sponsored status will end immediately and you will begin accruing days of unlawful presence.
That doesn’t contradict what I said? It matches everything I’ve said as well. And there’s a 60 day grace period generally speaking. Can you define and name any similar with indentured servitude?
Me: Sorry, no. “Work at this specific company or you’re deported” is very much an ultra-capitalist position. I have no idea why you think otherwise.
You: That isn’t the rule for h1b visas.
Link: “If your employment ends for one reason or another, you will likely lose your lawful status. If you remain in the country without lawful status, you will start to build unlawful presence––too much unlawful presence will bar you from legally entering the U.S.” and also “When you quit, your sponsored status will end immediately and you will begin accruing days of unlawful presence.”
You: That doesn’t contradict what I said?
It literally contradicts what you said because it literally says you have to work at a specific company or you’re deported.
Which one of us is blind here? Because I don’t think it’s me.
I’m not doing either of those things. You made a claim by misunderstanding terms for hyperbole. I said that your claim isn’t true. You backed up your claim with more hyperbole. I rebutted that with how it’s standard practice globally and even in within a larger scope is a more reasonable standard.
QED, the US visa program is not indentured servitude, by colloquial or exact definitions, and not ultra-capitalistic by any stretch. These are not whataboutism or dodging. They directly address your statements.
Sorry, no. “Work at this specific company or you’re deported” is very much an ultra-capitalist position. I have no idea why you think otherwise.
That isn’t the rule for h1b visas.
If you want to simplify it, then it’d be If you want to live and work in a country, you have to be sponsored by a company. If you’re laid off, you have 60 days to find another sponsor
It absolutely is.
That happens if you get laid off or fired, and if you just up and quit because the conditions are too horrible:
https://www.lawfirm1.com/non-immigrant-visas/h-1b-visas-employee-quits/
Is it that you didn’t look this up yourself or did you think I wouldn’t bring receipts?
Also, down votes aren’t supposed to be for people who are correcting you (or people you disagree with 😘)
You’re getting downvoted because you’re wrong
That doesn’t contradict what I said? It matches everything I’ve said as well. And there’s a 60 day grace period generally speaking. Can you define and name any similar with indentured servitude?
…
Me: Sorry, no. “Work at this specific company or you’re deported” is very much an ultra-capitalist position. I have no idea why you think otherwise.
You: That isn’t the rule for h1b visas.
Link: “If your employment ends for one reason or another, you will likely lose your lawful status. If you remain in the country without lawful status, you will start to build unlawful presence––too much unlawful presence will bar you from legally entering the U.S.” and also “When you quit, your sponsored status will end immediately and you will begin accruing days of unlawful presence.”
You: That doesn’t contradict what I said?
It literally contradicts what you said because it literally says you have to work at a specific company or you’re deported.
Which one of us is blind here? Because I don’t think it’s me.