logo
I moved to the US, but got fed up with fighting the immigration system. I've taken a salary hit in Canada, but I feel like I belong.

I moved to the US, but got fed up with fighting the immigration system. I've taken a salary hit in Canada, but I feel like I belong.

This as-told-to essay is based on a transcribed conversation with Sindhu Mahadevan, who moved from the US to Canada in 2021. The following has been edited for length and clarity.
I moved to the US from India in 2012 to study a master's degree in biology.
I graduated and entered the workforce in the States, but slowly began to grow disillusioned with the US immigration system.
In 2021, I decided to stop fighting the system and move to Canada. Although I've left behind the high salaries available in the US, I've traded it for a sense of belonging as a permanent resident in Canada.
I entered the American workforce, but felt vulnerable as an immigrant
I grew up in a city in western India. I had family who lived in the US. I moved there on an F-1 visa for international students and graduated in 2014.
My visa status made me eligible for two types of work authorization — optional practical training (OPT) and curricular practical training (CPT), both of which I used.
I knew that after my student work authorization expired, I'd require a visa sponsorship. Some companies I applied to told me they wouldn't offer sponsorships or ghosted me after they realized I'd eventually need one.
I started a career in the medical device industry and was employed under my work authorization until 2018.
I was very conscious of my immigration status at work. I struggled to have difficult conversations about aligning everyone on compliance issues because I was worried about my job security. Sometimes, I felt this affected how well I could do my job.
The path to a green card didn't feel possible
I got married in 2015, and my husband, who was also on a visa, and I wanted to try to build a life in the US.
I felt I needed permanent residency to do this. I wanted the freedom to visit India and the flexibility to change jobs, which became complicated on an F-1 visa.
In 2016 and 2017, my company tried twice to get me an H-1B visa, which can be a step toward permanent residency in the US. Petitions are chosen for processing through a lottery selection system, but I wasn't picked either time.
Around that time, I started to find out more information about the green card backlog for Indian nationals. There's a cap per country at 7% of all the green cards allocated that year. India has a large population with a lot of applicants, so there is a very long waitlist to have your applications processed.
I felt I was thrashing against the system just to be able to stay in the country and contribute. In a moment of clarity, I realized I wasn't willing to keep fighting.
In 2018, I no longer had work authorization and had to stop working. I didn't like not making an income at all, and it felt like a hard-won career had been yanked away from me.
I moved to Canada as a permanent resident and have found a sense of belonging
As a temporary solution, I tried changing my status from an F-1 to an F-2 visa, which would make me a dependent of my husband's F-1. I was allowed to remain in the US while my application was pending.
Around the same time I filed the application to change my status, I began looking at backup plans. Moving to Canada was on the cards through the "Express Entry" system. It's a points-based system that scores applicants on things like their education, work experience, and language proficiencies. The highest-scoring applicants receive an invitation to apply for permanent residence.
My work experience was American-centric. Canada was a better fit than Europe or Asia. I applied just before the pandemic hit in 2020, when I still hadn't heard back with a final decision about changing my status to F-2.
I received PR in October 2021, and my husband and I went to Canada straight away.
As a permanent resident, I can work and buy property, but I can't vote in elections or stay outside Canada for longer than 730 days in a five-year window.
In the US, I was a passenger along for the ride. In Canada, with PR status, I'm back in the driver's seat. I feel comfortable and in a solid legal position.
As a permanent resident, I can take chances with my career
I haven't had issues getting employment without Canadian experience, a problem some expats face, perhaps because my US experience is seen as valuable in my industry. I had a job lined up before the move.
I've taken a salary hit, but with my PR status I have the freedom to take a chance working for a startup, something I wouldn't have dreamed of while in the US, where if the startup went under and I lost my job, it could mean the end of the road.
Though more politely presented here than in the US, anti-immigrant sentiment in Canada concerns me, even though I haven't personally experienced negativity. People are expressing concerns around strained healthcare and housing, and Canada is experiencing immigration contraction.
I'm fine with Canada's smaller economy
Living in America shaped me in many ways. I admire Americans for their zeal to fight for what they believe in and to speak up. I don't regret moving there. If you're looking for the best universities or economy, the rational choice is the US.
I moved to the US for my education, but the constraints of the immigration system slowly overshadowed the economic opportunities.
I'm fine being in a smaller economy where I have more security.
In a statement to BI, a spokesperson from the Department of Homeland Security said it was "committed to restoring integrity to the visa program" and ensuring people cannot illegally remain in the US.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Speaker Mike Johnson Called Our Donald Trump Over The Epstein Files
Speaker Mike Johnson Called Our Donald Trump Over The Epstein Files

Buzz Feed

time21 minutes ago

  • Buzz Feed

Speaker Mike Johnson Called Our Donald Trump Over The Epstein Files

Hot Topic 🔥 Full coverage and conversation on Politics After standing by President Donald Trump on everything from deploying Marines to quell protests to ramping up deportations, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) is finally breaking with him... over the Jeffrey Epstein files. In an interview with conservative podcaster Benny Johnson on Tuesday, the speaker called for 'transparency' regarding the Epstein investigation, adding that 'we should put everything out there and let the people decide it.' His statements come over a week after the Justice Department and FBI said they wouldn't be releasing any additional files about Epstein after concluding that there wasn't evidence the disgraced financier kept a so-called 'client list' to blackmail influential figures or that he had died by means other than suicide. In a post this past weekend, Trump doubled down on this stance, defending Attorney General Pam Bondi and calling for his followers to move on. On Tuesday, he softened his position somewhat, stating that Bondi should 'release whatever she thinks is credible.' Johnson, who also stated that he trusts Trump, has 'never broken so publicly with the president on an issue,' writes the Washington Post's Marianna Sotomayor. 'I agree with the sentiment that we need to put it out here,' Johnson said, noting that Bondi should explain what she meant when she once referenced having the Epstein client list on her desk. 'She needs to come forward and explain that to everybody,' Johnson said. (White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt has said that Bondi was referencing the 'entirety of all the paperwork' related to the Epstein case.) The speaker's position points to blowback Trump and his administration have received from his base over the handling of the Epstein files, and highlights how Republican lawmakers are trying to acknowledge the uproar while still backing the president. Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) on Tuesday called for the appointment of a special counsel to uncover the 'truth about the Epstein Files,' tagging former Rep. Matt Gaetz, who previously resigned from Congress as the House was investigating allegations of sexual misconduct against him. Johnson and other House Republicans were also widely criticized Tuesday for claiming to want transparency about the Epstein files, but stymying a Democratic effort to push for their release. On Tuesday, Republicans blocked a vote on a measure from Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), which would have forced the release of documents related to the DOJ's Epstein investigation. 'Republicans spent years screaming for the Epstein Files to be released. Now Donald Trump wants to hide them. Today, every R can vote to release the files. Will they give the American people transparency or block the truth to protect Trump?' Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.) wrote on X. — Daniel Goldman (@danielsgoldman) July 15, 2025 @danielsgoldman/X / Via Twitter: @danielsgoldman

Trump and NATO just changed the Ukraine War — now Putin must be forced to choose
Trump and NATO just changed the Ukraine War — now Putin must be forced to choose

The Hill

time21 minutes ago

  • The Hill

Trump and NATO just changed the Ukraine War — now Putin must be forced to choose

President Trump and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte have given Vladimir Putin something to help focus his mind. The July 14 announcement of a new NATO-backed weapons corridor into Ukraine, routed through European allies and structured around arms sales rather than grants, ends for now the prospect of a wholesale American abandonment of Ukraine. Even if the new arrangement is cloaked in political deniability for Trump with his MAGA base and reinforces Trump's shamefully transactional nature, it means that the U.S-European alliance to support Ukraine is back on. In their Oval Office meeting, Trump and Rutte repeatedly referred to a staggering figure: 100,000 Russian soldiers killed since January alone. It marked a rare moment of strategic clarity from Trump. He has noticed that Putin is in no rush to settle for a mere slice of eastern Ukraine, as candidate Trump clearly had expected he would. What Putin wants is a puppet in Kyiv so that Russia can control all of Ukraine. This suggests that Putin really is serious about trying to reestablish the former Soviet Empire. This cannot be allowed. On the other hand, Putin's regime has shown a willingness to engage in nuclear blackmail, and a cornered Kremlin may not be bluffing. The new NATO structure for arming Ukraine grants President Volodymyr Zelensky time, and it also places NATO — which Trump once disparaged as obsolete — back as the centerpiece of a Western alliance that might actually still exist. That should alarm Putin, who, like Trump, made his own miscalculation that there is no limit to his ability to manipulate Trump. But to end the war without another three years of attrition, more is needed — and Trump, ironically, is uniquely suited to deliver it. Trump has the political license to challenge his base, scorn for diplomatic convention and a certain form of credibility — however grudging, fearful and disdainful — with leaders across the political spectrum. He can make a bold offer to test Putin's seriousness and unstick this war. Trump should say he is willing to recognize Russian sovereignty at the current battle lines, including a narrow land bridge to Crimea through parts of Zaporizhzhia, Luhansk and Donetsk that Russia already holds (about one-fifth of Ukraine's land). This would not be moral approval, but sober acceptance of military reality. Ukraine is unlikely to retake these areas without years of fighting; the Ukrainians will likely grumble, but not much more than that. Moreover, Ukraine would formally agree not to join NATO — addressing Russia's central (if overstated) security concern and removing one of Putin's main justifications for war. In exchange, Ukraine would receive immediate bilateral security guarantees from major Western powers (similar to U.S. guarantees to Israel) and a fast-track path to joining the European Union — the actual engine of prosperity and guarantor of alignment with the Western democracies. No, Trump cannot unilaterally promise EU accession. But that's the point. He thrives on pressuring systems into doing what they otherwise wouldn't. If he throws his political weight behind Ukraine's EU integration, Brussels and European capitals will scramble to find a way forward. Ukraine will find a way to address concerns about corruption, its fiscal policies and so on. Russia might even be offered amnesty and an end to economic sanctions. On the other hand, rejection of this deal could come with 500 percent U.S. tariffs on anyone still trading with Moscow. Decisive, outrageous, transactional — Trumpian. It would be a bit reminiscent of Trump's announcement last month that the war between Israel and Iran was over, seemingly before the parties knew about it. Versions of such a plan may have been discussed already, but not in public by the parties involved in this conflict. Words said publicly have another weight altogether. This is true in geopolitics in general, even if Trump's own words (such as his Great Gaza Riviera plan from February) can be absurd. Critics will invoke Munich, where Western powers handed Hitler the Sudetenland in a failed attempt to prevent war in 1938. But that analogy, while powerful, isn't always instructive. History offers examples where land concessions to aggressors — painful as they are — have helped end wars and preserve the sovereignty of the nation under threat. Successful examples include the deals that helped to end the Korean War, multiple wars between India and Pakistan, the Bosnian War in 1995 and the 2000 war between Ethiopia and Eritrea. Syria is today considering whether to concede part or all of the Golan Heights to reach a peace deal with Israel. When done with clarity, backed by deterrence and paired with rewards that preserve and strengthen the sovereign state, an apparent capitulation can stop a war and sometimes even open paths to peace. Putin may declare a victory. But if Ukraine gains EU integration, security guarantees and a Western future, then the core outcome of the war would still be a loss for Putin. And if Putin refuses even that deal? Then Trump's supporters might at last understand that the Russian dictator is an outlaw who must be thoroughly resisted. You cannot run away from every fight.

Mike Johnson seeks to gloss over divisions with Trump over Epstein files
Mike Johnson seeks to gloss over divisions with Trump over Epstein files

The Hill

time21 minutes ago

  • The Hill

Mike Johnson seeks to gloss over divisions with Trump over Epstein files

Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) is seeking to close the distance between himself and President Trump when it comes to the release of the government's files on Jeffrey Epstein, the late pedophile financier whose sordid case has rattled the MAGA movement in recent days. On Tuesday, Johnson said the Trump administration 'should put everything out there and let the people decide,' marking a break with the president, who has urged his followers to forget Epstein and move on. But on Wednesday, Johnson said his words were 'misrepresented,' insisting there's no daylight between his position and that of Trump. 'Go watch the interview I did with Benny Johnson. I was very clear,' Johnson told reporters in the Capitol. 'We're for transparency. I'm saying the same thing the president is that, I mean, you need to have all of the credible information released for the American people to make their decision. We trust the American people. And I know the president does, as well, that's an important principle to abide by here.' Johnson went on to emphasize that any information released surrounding the Epstein case should exclude innocent figures, including the underage victims of Epstein's alleged sex trafficking crimes. 'What they have to do — what the president has to do — is protect the innocent,' he said. 'There are whistleblowers' and minors' names involved in things related to Epstein, obviously, and you've got to be careful not to release that.' The controversy surrounding the Epstein saga has exploded this month after Trump's Department of Justice released an unsigned memo asserting that the government has no evidence that Epstein maintained a 'client list' or attempted to blackmail powerful figures who might have committed crimes with minors. The DOJ also stated that the official cause of Epstein's death — by suicide in his Manhattan prison cell in 2019 — was accurate. The memo directly contradicted claims made by some of Trump's most loyal followers inside and outside of government, who have maintained for years that Epstein's alleged sex trafficking network included wealthy, powerful figures in the public and private sectors alike, and that the government was covering up the details of the case to protect those 'elites.' The skeptics also speculated that Epstein was murdered in prison to keep him quiet — a narrative Trump has also advanced. Among the loudest voices promoting those theories are figures who now hold positions of high power in the Trump administration, including Attorney General Pam Bondi, FBI Director Kash Patel and Dan Bongino, Patel's chief deputy. As recently as February — after she was sworn in as attorney general — Bondi said she had Epstein's client list on her desk and suggested she was ready to release it, only to reverse course this month to say there was no scandal to reveal. The saga has fractured Trump's MAGA supporters, and that divide is also pronounced on Capitol Hill, where some GOP lawmakers are urging the DOJ to release all the files, while others are joining Trump in calling for Congress to move on to other issues. Stoking the clash has been Elon Musk, the billionaire tech mogul and one-time Trump ally who has asserted that Trump doesn't want the Epstein files released for a simple reason: Because he's implicated within them. Johnson had initially deferred to the White House on the question of how to handle the files. But on Tuesday, he told Benny Johnson, a conservative podcaster, that the DOJ should come clean and release all the pertinent records in its possession to put the speculation to rest. 'I'm for transparency,' Johnson said in the interview with Johnson. 'It's a very delicate subject, but we should put everything out there and let the people decide.' Amid the outcry, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), who has frequently clashed with Trump, introduced a procedural measure designed to force a House vote on legislation requiring the DOJ to release the files. It's unclear if the resolution, known as a discharge petition, will secure the 218 signatures needed to force that vote, but at least one other high-profile Republican, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), has already signaled her support.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store