> The O-1 nonimmigrant visa is for the individual who possesses extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics, or who has a demonstrated record of extraordinary achievement in the motion picture or television industry and has been recognized nationally or internationally for those achievements

But at the same time, the immigration system historically penalized anyone who engages in prostitution and actively denied entry to people found to be engaged in it. There is an explicit question about this in all immigration forms. Which is why it’s surprising that O-1 visas are being awarded to OnlyFans models. Maybe OF isn’t prostitution according to how it’s being interpreted, but it’s very surprising.

They're also not fungible and extremely mobile. People get attached to specific OF stars and the medium inherently requires remote work. So it's an inherently global labour force that protectionism won't help. American OF models won't magically make more money if you ban immigration unless you also ban cultural imports.

The government isn't displacing local talent by importing OF models and gets tax dollars for essentially doing nothing. Those tax dollars pay for schools/hospitals/etc.

OF also skews towards young, unmarried women, which balances the gender surplus of unmarried men that generally tries to immigrate. Since they're young, they also have more productivity before drawing on benefits like Medicare or Social Security.

By any objective standard OF models are the ideal migrant.

I watched the Mr. Beast episode of David Letterman's show, and I had no expectations but figured he must have some charisma as the most watched youtube person. He was unable to explain basic concepts, had no self-awareness, and generally seemed detached from any sort of reality. It was shocking to think that is who is shaping young peoples minds.

And TikTok is the antithesis of culture. It's consumerist rubbish that encourages a vapid, thoughtless, and illiterate consumption of shallow material. The article even mentions the monetary motivations of those posting. Any gimmick will do just to make a buck.

Let us not relativize culture. If you relativize it, then your argument falls apart anyway. Authentic culture serves human beings. It involves learning from, developing, deepening, refining, and correcting what came before. Trash content doesn't do this. It is cultural poison. It ruins people's minds and wrecks society.

This use of O-1 visas is merely another sign of the downward trajectory of our polity. We are following Plato's description of social decline perfectly. Perhaps aesthetically, it is fitting that Trump is the poster boy of this abuse of O-1 visas, but he is at best an emanation and a catalyst of broader and deeper social and cultural processes. In the absence of a minimum of sound moral authority, you can expect the poison that lurks in the mud to hatch out and begin to dominate the polis.

that's why they accept so much, the circulation of money would bring an enormous currency more than "traditional" job ever could

It would be unwise to filter out the fun people. We'd all become a bunch of unfun nerds.

https://www.pathlawgroup.com/o1b-visa-requirements/

    For all other candidates, at least three of the following criteria must be met in order to qualify for the O1B visa:
    Having been or will be performing a lead or starring role in productions or events which have a distinguished national or international reputation (as evidenced by critical reviews, advertisements, press releases, publications contracts, or endorsements)
    Critical reviews or other published material in professional or major trade publications or in the major media by or about the applicant which show that the applicant has achieved national or international recognition or achievements
    Evidence of performance in a lead, starring or critical role for organizations or establishments with distinguished reputations
    Evidence of a record of major commercial or critically acclaimed successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales
    Evidence of significant recognition for achievements from organizations, government agencies, or other recognized experts in the field
    Evidence of having commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for services in relation to others
    Other comparable evidence (This category is not available for those in the motion picture industry)

For an influencer... some number of anonymous followers?

There are certainly some that would qualify... but it they should be held to the same standards as others.

When someone describes themselves as an "influencer", it is entirely appropriate to ask what sort of influence they're having, and whether we want that.

...are a member of scholarly/professional organizations;

...have published original research works scientifically and internationally (peer reviewed publications);

...that you have judged the work of others (supervised and/or examined Ph.D. candidates);

...that you have consulted to governments;

...that you have repeatedly been invited as guest speaker at conferences, trade fairs or universities;

...that you won major international scholarships and awards (e.g. best paper awards at conferences, Masters's/doctoral scholarships from prestigious universities like Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard or MIT;

...that three referees that are themselves O-1 level equivalents deem you worthy of receiving O-1 status;

...that you are a named inventor on patent applications and granted patents;

...that you have received media coverage;

...that you abilities are reflected in higher than typical compensation/salary/remuneration;

...that you won major international scholarships and awards (e.g. best paper awards at conferences, Masters's/doctoral scholarships from prestigious universities like Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard or MIT; or

...that you have published significant works (i.e., works that created impact through citations, business creation, or software systems using the methods described therein).

Usually, from an official ist similar to the above (which I re-wrote from memory here), three out of nine or so checkboxes is the lowest bar for an O-1, and if you tick all of them and work with a specialist law firm, then it should be a slam dunk; my O-1 took about six months from application to grant back in 2008 (no payments of any "expediting fees" if they exist were made as far as I know).

Me dumping oil on the ground -> bad.

megacorp paying some engineers to make up a number for just how much oil is ok to dump on the ground and paying for government permission -> good

Diddy flying hoes around -> bad

OF models paying the .gov to fly around -> good

(I'm joking here, but not nearly as much as I wish I was)

> Evidence of a record of major commercial or critically acclaimed successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales

> Evidence of having commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for services in relation to others

A high earning OF model ticks both of those boxes pretty easily. We don't want to put dollar amounts on it to only attract movie stars because other professions don't pay as well would be blocked out and an explicit filter on (heh) explicit O1 visas would be a content based restriction that would (or at least imo should) be a 1A infringement. [0]

https://www.pathlawgroup.com/o1b-visa-requirements/

[0] IMO a 1A restriction to who can come to the country is defacto a restriction on speech in the country.

I thought that was Rachel Bloom.

Is she passing the torch to the next generation?

Anyway, it's not that different from having the extraordinary ability of having hand-eye-coordination on a 7-foot frame.