Cool option if you have found some candidates in Singapore or Chile but they’re two small-ish countries (relatively speaking - ~25 million combined, compared to the >7 billion in the rest of the world), that probably won’t move the needle much.
I’m on E3, and my wife is on a TN - the company has to do nothing for a TN visa beyond what they already do for US citizens. Even that was too much friction for many places she interviewed at. The conversation was, "Are you authorized to work in the USA today?" No, but give me an offer letter, and I will be tomorrow morning. "Sorry, bye-bye".
A simple process isn’t enough when most companies are terrified of dealing with immigration topics due to unknown (often non-existent) issues.
It is that simple, but the question comes up early from recruiters and first round interviewers, not the hiring manager. If you are honest, you get disqualified at the gate. If you say “yes” to these folks, and it works, the first thing you now have to say to your real manager will be “I lied about a legal matter and now need you to sign something to help me get out of it”. Helleva first impression.
I don't think you have to word it quite that way. You could be honest and lay it out plainly - "I know how the TN visa works but I know recruiters filter heaps of candidates out needlessly. Anyway here's the process, it's super simple..."
Or you could layer on another lie if you were feeling frisky - "I don't remember being asked that specific question, we briefly talked about it but I thought they understood the implication of the TN visa. Anyway, here's the process, it's super simple..."
If they're an organization with a competent HR department they should be able to manage - they'll be happy enough that they found a good candidate. As long as it's as simple as the person claims (sign letter, problem solved) it'll only be as much of a "problem" as finding out someone you offered an non-remote job to wanted to work 2 days out of each week from home because they have a kid.
It is not ridiculous. It is also the will of a democratic people. Maybe you aren't compatible with the American system as you seem to want some sort of classist system (let in more of the 'GOOD' people where you define who is 'GOOD'). We had that system before this one, and 'GOOD' was defined as western European. We decided we didn't like that system and decided that everyone should have a chance.
The US of A let Singaporeans in easily, but not South Africans or French. You let Chileans easily in but not Mongolians or Equadorians. You let Australians in easily but not New Zealanders or Albanians.
Explain how these exceptions are not "some sort of classist system" that favours some nations over many others?
Define how this was the "will of a democratic people"? Who got asked for these special country exceptions? Do the American people even know about this?
American immigration is utterly broken. I stand by that.
Nobody's here to argue that the system is fair or good. But I don’t think this particular carve out is classist. If it was like Monaco, Switzerland and Norway maybe you could argue that it’s favouring the wealthier upper class. Singapore and Chile are quite different nations economically though, they aren't really one individual distinct class.
