It seems that I have received the first true chastisement for what a reader deemed wrongful or uninformed writing–though I might argue that it is undeserved. The comment by Anthony on the last entry demands that I get a dictionary because: “Guest Worker means that you should go back, which is the right thing to do.”
See Tony…if I may call you that, the thing is that I never spoke about Guest Workers. Believe it or not, that term is not a reality–at least not yet. The term refers to the status that an unskilled worker would have received if the president’s plan had been approved. But, it wasn’t approved, so it doesn’t exist.
What I did speak of was a skilled worker who has applied for an H1-B visa. These are three-year visas that can easily be renewed for an additional three years. Once you have held one for five, you are eligible for permanent residency (a green card). Once you are being processed you can get extensions for another couple of years, but by then you are likely already approved or denied residency and know what your status is. These people tend to stay long-term and are invitees of the US. So in that sense, I suppose they are guests, but they have every right and opportunity to become residents.
Semantics aside, am not sure that I agree with the statement that “going back is the right thing to do.” If an American choses to settle abroad, nobody thinks twice about it. If some non-westerner decides to settle down in the good-ole’ USA, then they lose dignity and become burdens to society (despite the fact that most immigrants pay taxes and do not qualify for welfare or medicaid type services).
Moreover, the point of the last argument was that denying LEGAL immigrants such as H1-b recipients or college students the right to apply for a driver’s license is a discriminatory and oppressive practice. Think of it this way: If you are a brilliant engineer hired by a firm; or a medical specialist brought into a hospital; or simply a student with a full ride to UM; why shouldn’t you have a driver’s license? Is the idea that because you have to go back in half a decade or longer you shouldn’t drive? It is almost impossible to get insurance with an international license. You can’t drive a car off the lot without insurance. You need a car to go to work. A company just hired you because they need you to do that work. Catch my drift here.
This is a law that makes more sense politically than in any realm of practicality or ethics. I have a dictionary and I also study immigration law as closely as I can. I invite comments, but let’s keep to facts and discourse, not rhetoric and accusations. That said, thanks to everyone for reading and taking the time to post your comments. Keep them coming, I’ll post comments that disagree with my views unless they are vulgar, irrational, or simply hateful. Thanks again for reading.
February 2, 2008
Semantics and discourse
Posted by Mariano under Comments, Immigration, MichiganLeave a Comment
See Tony…if I may call you that, the thing is that I never spoke about Guest Workers. Believe it or not, that term is not a reality–at least not yet. The term refers to the status that an unskilled worker would have received if the president’s plan had been approved. But, it wasn’t approved, so it doesn’t exist.
What I did speak of was a skilled worker who has applied for an H1-B visa. These are three-year visas that can easily be renewed for an additional three years. Once you have held one for five, you are eligible for permanent residency (a green card). Once you are being processed you can get extensions for another couple of years, but by then you are likely already approved or denied residency and know what your status is. These people tend to stay long-term and are invitees of the US. So in that sense, I suppose they are guests, but they have every right and opportunity to become residents.
Semantics aside, am not sure that I agree with the statement that “going back is the right thing to do.” If an American choses to settle abroad, nobody thinks twice about it. If some non-westerner decides to settle down in the good-ole’ USA, then they lose dignity and become burdens to society (despite the fact that most immigrants pay taxes and do not qualify for welfare or medicaid type services).
Moreover, the point of the last argument was that denying LEGAL immigrants such as H1-b recipients or college students the right to apply for a driver’s license is a discriminatory and oppressive practice. Think of it this way: If you are a brilliant engineer hired by a firm; or a medical specialist brought into a hospital; or simply a student with a full ride to UM; why shouldn’t you have a driver’s license? Is the idea that because you have to go back in half a decade or longer you shouldn’t drive? It is almost impossible to get insurance with an international license. You can’t drive a car off the lot without insurance. You need a car to go to work. A company just hired you because they need you to do that work. Catch my drift here.
This is a law that makes more sense politically than in any realm of practicality or ethics. I have a dictionary and I also study immigration law as closely as I can. I invite comments, but let’s keep to facts and discourse, not rhetoric and accusations. That said, thanks to everyone for reading and taking the time to post your comments. Keep them coming, I’ll post comments that disagree with my views unless they are vulgar, irrational, or simply hateful. Thanks again for reading.