assemblyman

As a trained high-energy physicist who loves the subject, I wouldn't want the destruction of forests, tiger and elephant habitats (or any other habitats) for "science". There are always alternatives - alternate sites, alternate designs, alternate experiments.

One of my primary disagreements with my friends and colleagues was based on their insistence that opposing a new facility was anti-science and only done by the "uneducated". IMO, while this was true for a small subset of opposing factions, there were often real reasons for not building which took realities outside research into consideration.

Of course no one reasonable would paint a huge population with a brush like that. I am pushing back on the narrative in this thread because many non-immigrants in this country infer the experience of an immigrant (like you, I am an immigrant and spent an inordinately long time before eventually naturalizing) from news. Are there powerful people in the government who might have these tendencies? Of course, it's possible! But, like you, my personal experience (which probably also doesn't apply to everyone) even in rural parts has been very positive.

At the same time, it is reasonable for people to point out the unpredictability of the system. Going to get a visa renewal and getting stuck for several months is unpredictable. Having to make plans at the last-minute is stressful. One can take the stance that the America doesn't owe anything to a non-citizen and, while I lean towards a similar stance, some of the arbitrariness is unreasonable.

This might seem like an academic point but the support of all xenophobic people for these changes doesn't imply that some non-xenophobes don't support these changes (or ones in the same spirit) as well. I don't know what the relative numbers are, but the support of a negative group for a cause doesn't invalidate the cause.

US immigration can be very slow and bureaucratic (even pre-Trump). I hesitate to say but generally, it's not as arbitrary as people think. If things are clearly above board, it works out.

The US still is a destination in very high-demand. There are a huge number of qualified and unqualified people, who would come here in a heartbeat (and it goes without saying, there are a huge number of people who have no interest in moving here).There are clearly agents like the H-1B body shops who have exploited the system. Similarly, masters programs were launched effectively to trade full tuition for an opportunity to enter the US labor market (e.g. all the masters in financial math programs). This doesn't mean we don't get amazing people on H-1Bs or in masters programs but these pathways have been exploited.

Many people desire a sane immigration policy and experience. One that allows promising candidates into the country. The exact definition of a "promising candidate" was outsourced to universities and companies sponsoring these visas. A lot of people have lost trust in those institutions. I don't know what a good solution is but the rise of these policies is a symptom that the current system is not working.

I was questioning the renewals every six months and asking about US visas which are granted for 6 months (i.e. expire after 6 months). I am aware of renewals requiring leaving the country.

At least the procedure used to be that one would try to get an appointment at the US consulate in one's home country and then arrange the trip around it. Also, at least in my experience (but importantly, not with this administration) was that one was never required to leave the US.

The main constraint is re-entry into the US and being able to travel outside the US. If one stayed here, there was no problem switching schools, programs, jobs, adjusting status to permanent residency or naturalization. On the other hand, for re-entry, one needs a valid visa stamped on a passport which necessitated a trip to one's home country. This stamping visit could be unpredictable.

Ideally, one would like to travel freely to see family and friends but I see a lot of comments implying that one is forced to leave. It might be true now but a lot of comments here are conflating several issues together.

Were the visas for the US? B1/B2?

I know stuff like this happens for digital nomads in southeast asia or Schengen but the US generally doesn't approve of "visa runs".

I don't want to minimize your friend's situation. But, a spousal visa is very different from being a permanent resident (maybe I am misunderstanding). If he got it through marrying a US citizen, there's a 3-year wait for naturalization and otherwise it's a 5-year wait.

Naturalization never required leaving the country, at least in my experience but things might have changed.

At least for F1 and H-1B visas, one wasn't required to get a new visa physically stamped (for which one would have to leave) to switch schools (undergrad -> grad) or jobs. Is this forced now? Of course, if one wanted the freedom to be able to travel or visit one's home country, a new stamping was required if the old visa expired.

It's not ideal but a lot of us basically didn't leave for several years (even pre-Trump 1) to avoid the hassle of a new stamping.

My point is that it's really the storytelling/gregarious nature character. There is no shortage of people who were at the Manhattan project and won Nobel prizes or were prominent. A partial list: Oppenheimer, Bethe, Rabi, Teller, von Neumann, Compton, Fermi, Segre, Ramsey, Alvarez. There are easily many more. Schwinger was at Rad lab.

Schwinger was considered a tremendous educator. I think he had ~90 PhD students and four won Nobel prizes. His lectures were often described as Mozart symphonies. I have studied parts of his books and the experience was always eye-opening. But, his education was focused on students, mostly graduate students. He was also a shy character.

In any case, I still love reading Feynman and Schwinger's works. I would also include Sommerfeld, Pauli, Landau, Weinberg in that list.

I think you are writing your comments conditioned on not just what you are responding to but also a lot of internal assumptions about their intentions. The person you are responding to said or implied nothing about surveillance or Western assumptions about China. They are making the claim (apologies to them if I am misrepresenting) that societies or governments achieve extraordinary goals (i.e. goals that they were not expected to achieve within a certain time-frame) because of the physical, economic and social conditions and not because of cultural elements. Cultural explanations are post-hoc i.e. they are used after the fact to boost morale or give a sense of unity. More concretely, if China, the US, the EU, Japan, India, Russia can launch spacecrafts to the moon, so can Nigeria and Kenya given enough time, resources and the right incentive structure even if they are culturally very different from the countries above.

I feel the American media and general public has gotten psyched by the recent announcements coming from China. This might be new weapons or Deepseek or conveniences in the cities. I wish the Chinese people all the best and sincerely hope they prosper. At the same time, I really wish Americans would get out of this panic mode. You answered several challenges over the last 250 years. Some were existential threats. America generally lays out its problems for everyone to see. Americans tend to be extremely self-critical. This is often misconstrued by some to be signs of weakness. Anyone who believes this is, in my opinion, delusional.

As an aside, there are some comments about the "Chinese way of thinking" and the "American way of thinking". I generally think these discussions veer off into notions of cultural superiority. That, also in my opinion, is the mark of weak minds. The fact is once something is shown to be possible, it is exponentially easier to duplicate and improve it. America did this with German technology, China did it with American technology and I am sure countries like India are going to quickly get there too (I am not suggesting the Germans didn't learn from others themselves). This sets a firm base for iterative improvements.

To riff off another comment, China's progress wasn't done by God. America will learn and adopt what's valuable and discard what's not. If I have learned anything about Americans (of all backgrounds), they don't shy away from a challenge. For all its faults, I still personally will root for a society based on something like the American constitution.