US to suspend immigrant visa processing for 75 nations, State Department says

Meta: Thread flagging and politics

• Some discuss why an earlier submission on this news was flagged, pointing to:
  • HN’s stated rules against most politics/crime stories “you’d see on TV news”.
  • The tendency for political threads to devolve into low-effort, hostile exchanges.
• Others argue this topic is on-topic because visa pauses directly affect the tech industry and many US-based readers.

Visa types and tech/work impacts

• Confusion over terminology: people ask whether “immigrant visas” include work visas or are more about permanent immigration and family reunification.
• Some worry about impacts on tech, but it’s unclear from the thread whether employment-based or student visas are directly affected.
• One commenter critiques work visa systems as creating an underclass that suppresses wages, proposing:
  • Salary floors (e.g., six figures for imported tech workers).
  • A 100% tax on visa workers to fund STEM education.

Criteria and logic of the 75-country list

• A posted list from a news source includes a wide mix of countries (e.g., Afghanistan, Jordan, Brazil, Thailand, Uruguay, Russia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, etc.).
• The official justification quoted: high welfare use by immigrants from those countries.
• A commenter checked overstay data and found:
  • Some listed countries have high overstay rates, but others do not.
  • Some non-listed countries have high overstay rates.
  • A statistical test suggests “overstays” are not the main selection criterion.
• Hypotheses raised (often skeptically or as speculation):
  • Overuse of welfare/public benefits.
  • Race/religion (many Muslim-majority or poorer “shithole” countries; Russia as an outlier).
  • Pro-/anti-Israel alignment, though counterexamples (e.g., Jordan, Egypt) weaken this.
  • Citizenship-by-investment/passport-sales microstates (e.g., Saint Kitts and Nevis).
  • Patterns of illegal or semi-legal work and overstays from particular regions (e.g., parts of the Balkans).
• Several posters note surprising inclusions (Uruguay, Morocco, Bhutan, Fiji, Thailand, Brazil) and the absence of others; overall logic is viewed as opaque.

Trump administration and immigration stance

• Many participants see the move as further evidence the administration opposes legal immigration, especially from nonwhite or poorer countries.
• Others argue the picture is more mixed:
  • Trump has at times praised H‑1B labor and been responsive to business demands (e.g., agriculture, hospitality).
  • But policy moves like a proposed $100,000 H‑1B fee and past temporary suspensions show hostility in practice.
• A longer subthread claims:
  • Republicans publicly attack illegal immigration while tolerating or enabling it to suppress wages.
  • Enforcement often targets workers rather than employers; serious employer penalties are rare.
  • Historical examples (e.g., Bracero program) are cited as alternatives based on documentation, not exclusion.

India, H‑1B, and offshoring

• Multiple comments note India is not on the list and suggest:
  • Indian immigrants are often highly educated, entrepreneurial, and net tax contributors.
  • US tech and executives heavily rely on Indian talent.
• Debate on whether big tech still “needs” H‑1Bs:
  • Some say companies increasingly rely on offshore subsidiaries and Global Capability Centres instead.
  • Others counter that offshore work quality and ownership are often weaker, and firms still benefit from importing teams on lower wages with visa leverage.

Broader consequences for the US

• Several argue the policy:
  • Undermines US soft power and friendships abroad.
  • Signals hostility even to elites from targeted countries (e.g., Russian, Moroccan professionals).
  • Accelerates aging and population decline by cutting legal immigration, comparing unfavorably with Japan, Germany, etc.
  • Reduces immigrant diversity and may push talent to stay home or go elsewhere, bolstering foreign industries and eroding US competitive advantage.
• Others stress the symbolic damage: it makes the US look arbitrary or discriminatory and “stupid and weakening” from a long-term strategic perspective.

Perception of (il)logic and bias

• Multiple comments question whether any coherent, evidence-based rule produced the list; some suggest it was driven more by politics and prejudice than data.
• A side exchange references an alleged DHS social media post about removing “non-white Americans,” used as evidence of racial animus; no consensus or deeper verification appears in-thread.
• Overall, the selection criteria and strategic rationale remain viewed as unclear.