Tech companies are telling immigrant employees on visas not to leave the U.S.

Fragility vs. Resilience of the U.S. System

• Several commenters argue the legal and political system is far less resilient than people assumed: a president with a compliant court and cabinet can radically reinterpret vague immigration and national-security statutes and upend lives of even legal residents.
• Others counter that the “system” is functioning as designed: visas and even green cards are discretionary, non-citizens have always been legally vulnerable, and what’s changing is mainly public awareness.
• There is debate over blame: some fault Democrats for failing to use hardball tools (court expansion, retirement pressure, primary challenges) while others insist Republicans and their long-term anti-government project are the core problem.
• A recurring theme is the collapse of “good faith” norms: institutions and laws depended on self-restraint that no longer exists; once bad-faith actors face no consequences, rule of law becomes paper-thin.

Immigration Law, Due Process, and Speech

• Lawyers are reportedly advising visa holders (H‑1B, TN, etc.) not to leave the U.S. and to travel only with “clean” devices; a Canadian firm and a U.S. law firm are cited as giving explicit travel-warnings to clients.
• Commenters describe U.S. immigration as long exploitative and anxiety-inducing, even pre-Trump, with high costs, arbitrary-feeling decisions, and risky “loopholes” that are in fact semi-official pathways.
• Strong disagreement over current deportations:
  • Critics say revocations, street detentions, and transfers to harsh foreign prisons without hearings violate 1st, 5th, 8th, and 13th Amendment principles and weaponize immigration law against protected speech (notably criticism of Israel).
  • Defenders stress that statutes like 8 USC 1182 and the Alien Enemies Act explicitly permit broad executive discretion, that many details are classified, and that non-citizens have no right to remain.
• Comparisons are made to Finland and Argentina, where deportation usually follows court review and minimal-force principles; U.S. practices are viewed by some as outside liberal-democratic norms.

Nativism, Radicalization, and Social Climate

• Multiple comments describe mainstreaming of “replacement” and antisemitic conspiracy theories among previously “normal” conservatives, driven by alt-right media and social platforms, leading to fear about where this trajectory ends.
• Some fear escalation from visa crackdowns to property restrictions or asset seizures for non-residents, while others note the U.S. already has partial analogues (land-ownership limits, civil asset forfeiture).
• There is concern that once due process is eroded for immigrants, it becomes easy to deny it to citizens by simply contesting their status.

Tech, Remote Work, and the Value of Immigrating

• Tech companies’ travel warnings to employees are framed as rational responses to legal risk, not altruism.
• Commenters note that remote-work “just work from abroad” is constrained by tax, employment, and licensure rules; U.S. law effectively pins many high-skill workers to specific jurisdictions.
• Some urge young immigrants to avoid or leave the U.S., arguing the risks and instability now outweigh the upside; others insist that, despite problems, U.S. compensation and everyday life remain significantly better than in most alternatives.

International Comparisons and Safety

• China is mentioned as now easier to enter and, anecdotally, feeling safer in day-to-day life—yet other commenters highlight China’s arbitrary detentions and hostage diplomacy as a warning that it is not actually safer in a political sense.
• Overall, there is a sense that many major countries are converging on more coercive, less rights-respecting migration regimes, but the U.S. shift feels particularly sharp to people who had believed in its myth of stability and rights.