The irony is that real FSI language courses generally produce graduates who can read the newspaper and deliver a press release but cannot order food in a restaurant or explain to the delivery driver how to reach their apartment.
I never met an FSI graduate who felt their language training was great. I met many who felt it wasn't, and many who had to effectively relearn the language when they arrived in country.
I simply don't believe that it generally produces graduates who 'cannot order food in a restaurant'. The phrases required for that are almost always simple. Perhaps you mean that the graduates do not necessarily know certain vocabulary (in the sense of not knowing how to precisely specify a 'rack of lamb' whatever) or the correct register/politeness level for every possibility?
I don’t know what exactly the op meant by delivering a press release, but at least I after a four year high school german course can read newspaper articles in german but would struggle quite a lot to order food (granted, I wasn’t very good at it). In a more grammar heavy language understanding is a lot easier than writing which is a lot easier than speaking.
Is it? I don't know of any person using Duolingo or any other app to perfect their language. Most of them either learn from a uni course or something similar.
The post mentions the deficiencies of TCP for mobile devices over unreliable links, but I've had nothing but trouble with Wireguard when connecting from phones via mobile data.
I suspect it's due to my mobile operator doing traffic shaping / QoS that deprioritizes UDP VPN.
In contrast, connecting to OpenVPN over TCP was a huge improvement. Not at all what I expected.
Counter-anecdote: I've been using WireGuard on Android for years with no particular issues to speak of. 0.0.0.0/0 to my home network. I often forget to enable WiFi at home and don't notice (I often have it disabled when out).
I suspect ya you're right - nothing to do with Wireguard. I set it up do I could VPN into my home network from my phone. More than once, I have forgotten to turn it off. Everything worked, and I only noticed days later. Very robust, in my anecdotal experience.
The much more likely culprit is your VPN server's port. If it's running on some no-name port (such as the default 51820), that's likely to get throttled.
I'd bet that switching your VPN server port to 443 would solve the problem, since HTTP/3 runs on 443/udp.
Many people only think of picture rail as what you find in old Victorian homes, but modern picture rail can be much less obtrusive and lightweight. I have a lot of framed art as well. When I finally bought a house I installed STAS minirail throughout. The "wires" are transparent Perlon filament, and anything you hang can instantly be adjusted vertically and horizontally.
This is way better than arguing with partner about the proper height, making a destructive hole, then having to cover/patch when opinions or artwork change. My walls are not drywall, so that was a big factor, but the freedom to arrange/rearrange is a major benefit.
Can confirm you can still replace the ISP provided router from SFR with your own, even if you're on IPv4 CGNAT in France. You do still need to configure the DHCP client ID.
My connection has been very reliable since ditching the SFR box. My own router plugs into the separate ONT.
Having working in US immigration, most reporting on immigration issues leaves a lot to be desired.
Because of the poor reporting, it's not possible to say for sure what happened, but it sounds like Hyundai/LG/subcontractors brought in hundreds of South Koreans on B visas and had them engaging in productive work. That's not what B visas are for. B visas are for meetings, sales, and maybe some light training/setup/integration. When the CEO talks about needing specialized, skilled workers, that's a strong suggestion these workers should have been on L visas.
Unfortunately the same article doesn't even mention the L visa, and cites an immigration lawyer who complains about the difficulty of getting H-1B visas. But L visas are not capped like H-1Bs. In India we approved thousands of L visas specifically for skilled workers to assist with bringing plants/equipment online.
In short, the B visa is not a work visa. Most countries worldwide are quite restrictive about the conditions surrounding work visas, and people who violate the conditions of their visa shouldn't be surprised when there are consequences. Having a valid visa but violating its conditions means you are violating immigration law.
Corporate immigration departments can and do cut corners and may have thought they would save money and time by sending foreign workers on B visas (which they might have already had) or on the visa waiver program. L visa holders don't even have to get paid US-level wages, so one take on the visa type is that it is already a way for companies to undercut US labor.
> and maybe some light training/setup/integration.
What do you mean by "maybe" or "light"? That's an explicitly permitted activity:
> A B-1 visa may be granted to specialized workers going to the United States to install, service, or repair commercial or industrial equipment or machinery purchased from a company outside of the United States, or to train U.S. workers to perform such services.
Modern factories are filled with machines the size of buildings, making that installation sometimes hard to distinguish from the forbidden "construction". It's possible that some of those Koreans were unequivocally on the bad side of the line, but I see zero possibility that the agents could have meaningfully assessed that in the time between beginning the raid and taking the workers away in shackles.
I feel like installing equipment is widely considered to be an illegitimate use of B-1 visas, despite this explicit guidance. I don't understand why. I see from your comment history that you were a US diplomat. Is the internal guidance you received different from what's published?
"If the contract of sale specifically requires the seller to provide these services or training,
and you possess specialized knowledge essential to the seller's contractual obligation to perform the services or training it may be permissible for you to perform these services. In addition, the machinery or equipment must have been manufactured at a location outside of the United States and you may not receive compensation from a U.S. source."
Given how vague the reporting has been, we don't know basic facts like what the workers were doing, what the agents saw, what types of visas they were on, etc.
This PBS article quotes a local labor union leader who claims "unions that are part of her council believe Korean workers have been pouring cement, erecting steel, performing carpentry and fitting pipes." https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/attorney-says-detained-k...
Obivously the person quoted has an agenda and didn't actually witness those activities - so we just don't know. That being said, if that description is accurate, in general that kind of activity would not be appropriate on a B-1 visa and wouldn't qualify for an L visa.
But again, it depends on the details. Maybe the cement base is some special blend for certain equipment, maybe "erecting steel" involves highly specialized welding techniques, maybe this pipe fitting involves specialized high-pressure ratings outside the norm.
When I was a diplomat, our internal guidance (at least, what I was privy to) was never different from public information, just more detailed.
I'd be suprised if the corporate immigration departments of Hyundai or LG messed up this badly. But I wouldn't at all be surprised if some no-name subcontractor decided to play fast and loose with the visa rules to win a contract with a low bid.
> But I wouldn't at all be surprised if some no-name subcontractor decided to play fast and loose with the visa rules to win a contract with a low bid.
I feel like "subcontractor" here could mean "staffing agency used by Hyundai to shed liability", but could also mean "equipment vendor". The latter seems much less likely to be noncompliant, since they get the special benefit of the policy we're discussing and since customer-site labor is a smaller share of their cost (since their primary business is building the machines in Korea).
A lawyer for some equipment vendor staff seems to be alleging that their B-1 applications had been drafted specifically to comply with this policy:
> Kuck said letters included with visa applications that he reviewed spelled out the scope of the work and appeared to meet requirements.
> "It was more detailed than some of the letters that I've written for clients in similar situations," he said. "The vast majority of folks, including the ones I represent, should never have been detained."
I guess it's likely that at least one person detained was unlawfully present, and at least one person detained was lawfully present. The actual ratio is still unknown, but the reputational damage is done--"we took you away in chains, imprisoned you for a week, and deported you, but that's okay because a different worker at your site was noncompliant" is not a great message.
I don't find the claims made by an immigration lawyer representing the workers to be particularly persuasive, just like I don't find the claims made by the local union rep about what they "believe" the workers were doing to be persuasive.
People and companies can and do write whatever they want in letters submitted with visa applications. That has no bearing 1) on what you are actually allowed to do given a certain visa type, and 2) what the worker actually ends up doing.
In other words, the visa applications may very well have been valid and approved on that basis, but the applicants might have been engaging in other activities that were not permissible. This is quite common - people will say "I want to go to Disneyworld" when they actually intend to overstay their visa, or "I want to visit family" when they actually intend to work as a nanny or cook for a few months, then return home.
I'm not saying this raid was conducted properly or that all the arrests were justified, but I do think the reporting on it has been almost negligent. In contrast, here is an old article written by an immigration lawyer discussing the complexities of the B-1 business visa: https://blog.cyrusmehta.com/2016/05/the-b-1-visa-trap-for-th...
People and companies can and do write whatever they want in letters submitted with visa applications. That has no bearing 1) on what you are actually allowed to do
Is it really as kafkaesque as you state? You have to enumerate your planned activities in order to get a visa, but receiving said visa is in no way an affirmation that the enumerated activities are legal to perform? That sounds completely dysfunctional to me.
It is the traveler's responsibility to know what activities are permissible given their visa, and to only engage in those activities. That's no different from everyone's general responsibility to abide by the law.
A US visa is simply permission to present yourself at a port of entry for admission, at which time you may questioned further by border control, and in rare cases denied entry.
Most B visas are valid for multiple entries over 10 years. The fact that you wrote a letter and brought it to your original visa interview (which may have been years ago, and likely wasn't even looked at by the officer, who in a busy consulate has less than 2 minutes to complete your interview) does not mean the US government has affirmatively granted you permisison to do everything on that letter.
I think getting taken away in chains and imprisoned is significantly worse than getting denied entry? I understand you're not saying the raid was conducted properly, but you're consistently downplaying the part that did the damage.
Inconsistent policy resulting in unpredictable denial of entry is bad, but a typical working professional may tolerate that risk. Inconsistent policy resulting in arrest at some random point during your stay followed by indefinite detention (how long would that have lasted without the high-level diplomatic response?) is much worse.
> Is the internal guidance you received different from what's published?
Probably, I doubt anyone in the US government has a consistent view of what immigration laws are _and_ how they're actually enforced. Whole thing feels like a giant slapdash of things thrown together and assessed in whatever way feels right that day.
Here's a fun one: do people born in Hong Kong count as being born in China for green card purposes? Used to be no, then Trump 1 said "yes" with an executive order, then as best I can tell no one in government really enforced that, then immigration lawyers tell me they're counted as rest of world instead of China, and now? Who the hell knows, whoever gets your case probably makes up what they feel is the law.
So the US government does a dog and pony show of ASMR chaining and perp walking Korean engineers constructing a factory vital to our economy and national security?
And this after the admin starts a tariff war against treaty allies for not building factories in the US? Very schizo.
This whole situation is complete insanity and is completely the fault of this administration and the maga movement.
It’s also the fault of the last administration, because when you bend the rules and your reign ends, you have no control over how the next regime is going to enforce the law as it stands. I do not disagree this is insanity, but this is the result of kicking the can on immigration issues for almost two decades. Congress must do its job, but refuses to. Is it not reasonable to both incentivize domestic manufacturing investment while also adhering to immigration visa regulations?
Hyundai has done something similar with children refugees from Central America previously in 2022.
The reporting is light on what these workers are actually doing. Real construction work like pouring concrete is certainly unacceptable on a B visa. But as you have said B visas are fine for light training/setup/integration. It seems to me that these people are actually just setting up the plant by configuring new machinery.
Similarly, highly skilled semi-conductor researchers are not h1b. Semi-conductor workers of various sorts might be, though I note they are trying to make a visa specific the semiconductor industry, but high level researchers who design new chips are not restrained to h1b. I was downvoted for noting this fact recently.
People don’t want honest discussion on immigration. It’s not a good faith debate, rather lies and disinformation., and the populace knows that by now.
If you want a real answer, a big part of it has to do with consular non-reviewability. Basically, there is far less ability for an applicant to make legal challenges to visa decisions made by a US visa officer outside the US.
Another reason is, what happens if you apply for a renewal or different visa type while you're in the US, and your visa is denied? Now we're relying on you to leave the country, whereas if you already had to leave the country to apply and you're denied, you're not still in the US.
There actually was a pilot program for domestic revalidation of H-1Bs. Applicants liked it (no need for a trip outside the US), and those of us working in India liked it (less workload for us). However I doubt this administration will support expansion.
In my experience most renewing H-1Bs planned their visa interviews (or often "dropbox" cases where they didn't even need to come in person) to coincide during a few weeks trip home. They were not generally coming to India, then applying and waiting several months.
The cases that take months are those with some problem - missing some documentation, evidence of petitioner fraud, national security concerns with the applicant, etc. And yes, in those cases people (and sometimes their families) end up getting "stuck" outside the US, kids miss the start of the school year, people can't get back to their apartments and houses and pets. It sucks, but we have vetting for good reasons.
Their point was that this change applies to non-immigrant visas (which in theory are only issued to people who do not intend to immigrate to the US), not immigrant visas.
Year or longer waits for B visas are common in India. Part of the problem is the statutory requirement that first-time applicants need an in-person interview. When I worked in a US consulate in India, we would have loved to have lowered the age at which we could waive interviews from 80 to 70 or even 65, but that would have required action in DC. We also would have loved to have had more staff, but were limited by the amount of diplomatic positions the Indian government would approve.
There's no staff in Haiti to process visas at all, the embassy is on ordered depature. There are staff in Nassau, including people trained in Haitian Creole, and there are many Haitian applicants who apply for visas in Nassau. Where do you think the US should interview Haitian applicants? Also, if someone from Haiti has the resources to travel to the US, they have the resources to travel to Nassau for a visa interview.
It's common for countries to require you to apply from your country of nationality or residence, and to prove lawful residence if you're not a national of the country you're applying in. I'm in the middle of a French visa application for my daughter right now, and she must apply in the U.S. where she's a citizen.
I’m not an expert at this, but is it true that the US is very unique in requiring interviews for all tourist visas and for almost every visa?
I’m American and every visa I’ve had to apply for did not require my physical presence at the embassy and I used a third-party processing service to get everything done.
Therefore, while I would need to apply to these countries from their US embassy because my physical presence was not required, I would generally not need to return to the United States to obtain their visa?
And this aspect of a US visa does make it significantly harder even though the application policy is similar to other countries?
I'm not aware of any other country besides the US that has a blanket policy of requiring at least one interview in almost all cases.
That said, back in the 2000s I had to apply in person at the French embassy for a student visa, in in the 2010s I had to apply in person at a Chilean consulate for a special visa.
Many countries have outsourced the bulk of their processing to contractors like VFS or TLS these days. But also, our experience as Americans is not representative as we generally have fewer visas we need to bother obtaining, and face less scrutiny when doing so.
I'm not sure if the US interview requirement makes it "harder" to get a US visa - it may be that getting a US visa is just harder than getting another country's visa, which might still be true even if we didn't interview people. The big thing that makes getting non-immigrant visas to the US difficult for many people is that, unless shown otherwise, US immigration law assumes you are an immigrant.
I never met an FSI graduate who felt their language training was great. I met many who felt it wasn't, and many who had to effectively relearn the language when they arrived in country.