Are you still here?

I'm sure there are still cases where companies might sponsor an international assignee for U.S. permanent residency, though I do hope it is a rare exception.  I maintain that the written intention by the assignee to accept the terms of localization should absolutely come first.

I learned soon after joining a new organization, that we had more than a few assignees whose assignments had gone for more than five years, and that some even already achieved permanent residency status in the U.S., yet still were receiving all their assignment benefits.  Nice gig!

The rationale was that previously the spouse (an L-2 visa holder) had previously not been able to work in the U.S., and so therefore the green card was sought to provide this ability to the spouse.  Recently, I did a search on this topic and could not confirm, but nevertheless, this is what I was told.

We put a stop to the practice and really received no push-back from assignees or their managers once we explained the position.  Clearly, the temporary nature of their assignment conflicted with the individual's intended immigration status - it was not a difficult position to argue.

Some assignees would soon receive their green cards.  The company no longer wished to repatriate them, but would not move them to local terms and conditions until they became U.S. permanent residents.  This position was supported by the belief that we should not actually localize anyone unless we were sure that they would receive the green card.  True, that there are no guarantees when it comes to immigration.  But never a slam-dunk case for a green card could be had - I thought we could take that 'risk.'

But here we have a scenerio where, years past the intention to repatriate the assignee has gone away, the employee continues receiving benefits that are in line with an intention for the assignee to return home.  

This situation was further complicated by the fact that we offered no 'phase-out' of assignment benefits to persons who localized in the U.S.  So with a green card already in hand, just what was I offering assignees as an incentive to localize?  Less than nothing, the localization was a true take-away.  It was pretty much, welcome to local terms and conditions - say good-bye to your housing allowance and other benefits, now sign here!

Despite having the upper hand, the assignees would still agree to localize.  Perhaps as they saw it inevitable and also, they already had years to prepare for the day.

In changing the practice of offering the option to become U.S. residents as the one and only 'benefit' of localization, we at least had something to offer in return for losing a good chunk of income.  

I would have preferred to have some sort of phase-out of assignment benefits (at least housing the housing allowance), but as I wasn't having any difficulty localizing assignees with the 'take a long walk off a short pier' approach, and so the gradual benefit step-down wasn't incorporated into the policy.