Essentially they're trying to change the rules by aggressive re-interpretation of the existing legal framework, and not actually changing any laws or regulations.
I don't follow all of it, but it seems to be arguing that the "ordinary consular process", leaving the country and applying for a visa from abroad, is the long-established default, and that "adjustment of status", where your immigration/green card status changes while you're already in the US, is merely an extraordinary exception and "a matter of discretion and administrative grace." Even though applying for a green card while in-country (an "adjustment") seems like the only sane and reasonable process.
It feels goofy watching them marshal decades of prior case law to try to frame this as just a "reminder" rather than admitting this is a real change. (Since changing laws is harder I assume)
Adjustment of Status has been on the books since the start in the 1950's, and was greatly expanded leading into what might turn out to be the high point of the country in the late 90's and early 2000's.
What “the books” say is that H1B is a “nonimmigrant” visa for people “temporarily” in the U.S. It’s right there in 8 USC 1101(a)(15)(H).
“Adjustment of status” is an option at the discretion of the administration (8 USC 1255(a)):
> The status of an alien who was inspected and admitted or paroled into the United States … may be adjusted by the Attorney General, in his discretion and under such regulations as he may prescribe, to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence
Note the “may” and the “in his discretion.” Basically, if the government really likes you, it can change your status. But that doesn’t change the primary purpose of the H1 visa from a temporary worker program into a permanent residency program.
> Note the “may” and the “in his discretion.” Basically, if the government really likes you, it can change your status. But that doesn’t change the primary purpose of the H1 visa from a temporary worker program into a permanent residency program.
Where this falls apart is that the K-1 Fiance visa is also a non-immigrant visa, that through Adjustment of Statuses (based on your demonstration of a genuine and sincere relationship) becomes a green card pathway. All "may", "at their discretion", on a non-immigrant visa.
But then what is the purpose of the K-1 visa? To allow you a US citizen then perhaps, maybe, one day, be allowed to stay in the same country as your spouse? At the government's discretion, of course?
The K visa actually proves my point, because someone on a K visa (by itself) isn’t eligible for adjustment of status at all! The K visa only allows admission for purposes of getting married within 90 days.
What entitles alien spouses to petition for permanent residency is not the K1 visa, but section 1154: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim.... So, for example, the citizen could marry their fiancé in the fiance’s home country.[1] And they’d use 1154 to petition for permanent residency. The K1 visa just allows the marriage to happen in the U.S. but is unrelated to the ultimate basis for permanent residency.
[1] Our family friend did this. We set him up with the daughter of our next-door neighbor in Bangladesh. They had a wedding over the phone with him in the U.S. and her in Bangladesh. Then she came over on an 1154 petition.
Right, I met my wife in the US when she was here on a non-immigrant student visa. We actually married in the US before the end of her CPT/OPT quota. After that, I became an expat when we both relocated back to her original country.
After about 4 years there, I relocated back to start a new job, arrange housing, etc. We started the USCIS petition in her country during one of my visits. She eventually finished the whole process and got her immigrant visa to come back and join me.
It worked out smoothly for us, but mostly because we understood the general process timeline and pipelined it to coincide with other professional and personal life factors that drove things. We were going to be separated for a bit anyway, because I wanted to chase the new job back in the US while she still had obligations to wrap up overseas.
> So, for example, the citizen could marry their fiancé in the fiance’s home country.[1] And they’d use 1154 to petition for permanent residency. The K1 visa just allows the marriage to happen in the U.S. but is unrelated to the ultimate basis for permanent residency.
Per my immigration attorney, the K-1 entirely bypasses 8 USC 1154 at the petition stage. 1154 governs immigrant visa petitions (I-130, I-140, I-360, etc.). The I-129F is technically a nonimmigrant petition even though it's understood by everyone as a pre-immigration vehicle.
K-1 AOS does not require a separate I-130. The approved I-129F plus the marriage to the petitioner supplies the petition basis. This is one of the cleaner cases where 8 USC 1154 is genuinely sidestepped, not merely deferred.
For K-1s, the path to residency is firstly via 8 USC 1186a, and is automatic and statutory, granting the conditional LPR.
Then at 2 years of marriage, 8 USC 1186a again handles the removal of conditions.
However, many attorneys will file I-130s, according to her, and such, simultaneously, though not required if you follow the process to the letter. And that does go via 1154.
USCIS forms aren't the law. The statute is the law. And however USCIS has chosen to structure its forms, the legal basis for a K1 visa holder's eligibility for permanent residency isn't the K1 visa itself, but instead other provisions of the law that confer eligibility for permanent residency on immediate family members of citizens.
"Once in the United States, the K-1 nonimmigrant is required to marry the U.S. citizen petitioner within 90 days. K-1 visa holders are permitted to work in the United States during this time if they file for employment authorization. The foreign national is eligible for lawful permanent residence as an immediate relative if the marriage takes place within 90 days and the fiancé(e) is otherwise admissible."
It's the status as an immediate relative of a citizen that confers eligibility, not the visa itself.
I've seen it decades ago. It wasn't "really likes you", but whether they believed you were seeking an adjustment of status because of a change in circumstances since your original entry.
40 years ago--we had no knowledge of each other's existence when she entered the US. Life put us in proximity, our hearts decided they wanted more proximity. Adjustment of status was granted. She's 20 feet from me as I write this.
This interpretation makes the entire immigration system extremely arbitrary and capricious. It's almost as if Trump supporters just want to give non-citizens a hard time for no reason. The cruelty is the point.
Many things, but for example the taboo against showing off your money has diminished. I know someone whose dad probably worth half a billion dollars. I knew her for several years and had no idea. That’s very different from my culture (south asian) where social hierarchy is very important and heavy emphasis is placed on signaling your wealth to establish your place in the hierarchy.
When I grew up in northern VA in the 1990s, that taboo was still strongly in place. There were lots of rich people (my dad once ran into Dick Cheney at the CVS). But people drove old Volvos. I only ever saw one Porsche growing up, and it was an old one owned by my neighbor who was an engineer who could do his own work on it. Since then there’s been a huge immigration from south asia and the middle east. And the houses got way more opulent, luxury stores started opening in the malls, people started driving Maseratis, etc.
Culture evolves, but slowly and on a trajectory.[1] Immigration changes the trajectory in a very visible way. You can compare places in the U.S. that experienced more versus less immigration. For example, the taboos against showing off your wealth are still strong in Oregon where my wife is from.
[1] The French refer to "les payes Anglo-Saxon," the Anglo-Saxon countries: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24517581. The term describes the deep cultural and political commonalities between the UK, Australia, Canada, the U.S. and New Zealand. Before the mass immigration of the 2000s, Toronto and Sydney were more similar to each other than I think residents of either city would want to admit.
Would also this means that all sorts of interference with other countries is also bad and should not happen? I can think of a couple of countries right now with a massive problem of illegal immigrants on ships but they use uniforms
The US has become less of a high-trust society than it was.
In the Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey (SCCBS), 40 US communities were studied, some high in ethnic diversity, some low. In the communities high in diversity, people trusted neighbors less,
had fewer close confidants,
volunteered less,
and withdrew from community life more generally.
One of the principals (namely, Robert Putnam) behind this study described this behavioral pattern with the phrase “hunker down.” In diverse neighborhoods, according to his analysis, residents of all ethnic groups became more socially isolated, including from members of their own ethnic group.
> Wanting to control immigration flows so immigrants don't change American culture isn't "xenophobia.“
Such desires can be and have been xenophobic. You’re welcome to prove that they’ve never been. I would like to see you revise the Federalists’ own history for once, instead of someone else’s.
> It's the moral right of people in a democracy to control the flow of people to limit cultural change.
You’ve elided a premise along the lines of “moral rights cannot be exercised in a xenophobic manner,” which is incorrect.
Immigration changes society. People who like their society the way it is, and don’t want it to become more like the places the immigrants come from, are entitled to vote against that. They don’t owe you any explanation.
what do you mean by "makes" . It has always been arbitrary ppl get denied at airports arbitarily. my brother and i have the same background and education. i was given an f1 visa and he wasnt.
A misrepresentation. 'Adjustment of status' is not 'if the government really likes you', it's a process that's available by rule. And the federal rulemaking process, as you are fully aware, involves publication in the federal register, solicitation and and collation of public comment, and republication of teh final rule, again, in the federal register.
Incidentally, we don't have an attorney general at present, only an acting one (Trump's former personal lawyer), and I question the standing of an unconfirmed federal officer to alter existing rules, never mind to bypass the federal rulemaking process entirely.
> misrepresentation. 'Adjustment of status' is not 'if the government really likes you', it's a process that's available by rule
I’m using a colloquialism to convey how much latitude the administration has under the wording of statue. It says that the “status of an alien who was inspected and admitted or paroled into the United States … may be adjusted by the Attorney General, in his discretion and under such regulations as he may prescribe…”
When the statute says an officer “may … in his discretion” do something, that’s Congress giving very broad latitude to the executive to make case by case determinations.
The word “discretion” has a special meaning under the APA. The APA says that courts can’t review agency actions that are “committed to agency discretion by law.” The Supreme Court has read that carve out narrowly (because otherwise I think you have serious due process problems). But Congress using the word “discretion” here at the very least conveys how much latitude Congress intended to give the administration with respect to adjustment of status.
That's a lot of words because you no counter to the point I made about rulemaking. This blanket change seems to me to violate the APA, and as I mentioned above it's questionable whether Blanche has authority to set policy at all given his lack of confirmation. I anticipate this being set aside as arbitrary and capricious.
It depends on what kind of change in practice is at issue. Was it a practice that was dictated by rules? If so you need a new rule making. But I don’t believe that’s the case here. The memo here says that, to the extent decisions are within the discretion of immigration officers, remember that you don’t have to let anyone adjust their status.
You don’t need a rulemaking to release guidance on the exercise of discretion, even if that new guidance changes prior agency discretionary practice. Agencies do that all the time.
1. You just quoted 8 USC 1255(a) because it's at the top of the USCIS memo without understanding it; or
2. This is just the most ChatGPT comment.
I say this because you clearly don't understand this stuff. From reading your comment history, you're a Trump supporter [1] and you seem to have done the most MGA Thing of being told what your position is and then looking for a justification.
8 USC 1255(a) is a carve-out that basically gives the AG authority to let people adjust. It doesn't go the other way and say the AG can withhold permission to adjust. The entire section details the requirements to adjust, detailing admissibility requirements.
So how did we get from the AG can allow someone to adjust to the AG can override the entire section that details adjustment requirements?
Also, you don't understand what "nonimmigrant" means in relation to your H1B comment. Yes, H1B is a nonimmigrant visa. That just means they're not a lawful permanent resident ("LPR"). It doesn't mean they can't adjust status.
It's a bit like taking the description fo a woman as "non-pregnant" and taking that to mean they're not capable and/or not allowed to get pregnant.
> 8 USC 1255(a) is a carve-out that basically gives the AG authority to let people adjust. It doesn't go the other way and say the AG can withhold permission to adjust.
That’s exactly what “may” means. The AG “may” do it, but he doesn’t have to.
To make that clearer, the statute also says “at his discretion.” That means the AG can adjust or not at his choice. That’s what the word “discretion” means in a legal context: https://dictionary.justia.com/discretionary
> The entire section details the requirements to adjust, detailing admissibility requirements.
You need to read more carefully. The rest of the section describes conditions where the AG cannot adjust the status. They don’t require the AG to grant the status adjustment to anyone who meets the requirements.
For example, subsection (d) says: “The Attorney General may not adjust, under subsection (a), the status of an alien lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence on a conditional basis under section 1186a of this title.”
So subsection (a) gives discretion to the AG to adjust status at the AG’s choice. Then other provisions say that he can’t adjust status under certain circumstances.
> Also, you don't understand what "nonimmigrant" means in relation to your H1B comment. Yes, H1B is a nonimmigrant visa. That just means they're not a lawful permanent resident ("LPR").
No, because there are also “immigrant” visas. Those visa holders also aren’t LPRs. So what’s the distinction between immigrant and non-immigrant visas in your reading? The difference is that immigrant visas are intended to be a pathway to a green card, while nonimmigrant visas are intended to be for temporary workers who will typically go home.
Note that subsection (H) also includes H2 visas for unskilled temporary workers. Those visa holders can request an adjustment of status too. But the expectation is that generally that will not be granted.
For anyone wanting to loose the time on this discussion ok. But this account is weird AF. Look all the interactions and comments this user appears.
Probably the bots or the comment army got to hacker news.
A way to silence people is to cause commotion so people get dizzy by the noise.
There is no menace. There was no evil plan. There was nothing like that. Accusing others of what you want to do is a classical trick.
And my theory is that the US only looked good because there were no competitors: Break up of the Soviet Union left the constituents without economies of scale. Similarly European markets were still desperately fragmented. China was growing, but from a low base.
So capital flooded to the US.
So we all have our own theories.
The real question remains "What's best for America right now ?"
Soviet Union was never the place where large scale immigration happened.
Actually the opposite. There were severe restrictions to emigration. They didn’t want people leaving the Soviet Union (or the satellite states) and going to the West. The Berlin Wall for example. Things weren’t so rosy behind the Iron Curtain.
And if you have unforgivable student loans because you believed the k-12 propaganda, then you can never "leave". You might be done paying them by the time you, uh, die.
Not only is changing laws harder. Changing regulations requires following the Administrative Procedure Act. They might also be short circuiting APA - as in typical for this admin to attempt.
What part of this memo changes the regulations? The punchline is this: “Where adjustment of status is in the discretion of USCIS, officers are reminded that they are to consider all relevant factors and information in the totality of the circumstances in exercising that
discretion.”
All the memo is saying is reminding USCIS officers that adjustment of status is an act of administrative grace and applicants aren’t entitled to have their status adjusted. That’s always been true.
That is what the memo is trying to say. That no regulations or laws are changing, but it's simply pushing for a certain interpretation of the law that doesn't seem to have been the status quo for awhile.
Some stats I found online report that ~60% of greencards are granted to people already living the US. This memo makes it seem like that route will now be much harder. So while its true that the law as written has always been true, they're definitely pushing for a change that will result in past behaviors no longer being true.
Except it is completely contrary to how the immigration system has worked in the US for decades. It is absolutely standard for people who are already in the US on other types of visas to apply for Green Cards.
More like he's been given a political mandate to be needlessly cruel to non-citizens, and he's constantly finding new ways to do so - whether legal or illegal.
The latest move even forces spouses of US citizens to leave the country before they can apply for a Green Card. Why? No reason except spite. Hating on foreigners is good politics.
And then all sorts of people will come out of the woodwork to try to explain that this is all normal and fine, and that nobody should be upset by it.
The last time the U.S. had this level of foreign born population, it enacted extremely restrictive immigration laws and the foreign born population dropped from 15% to under 5%.
> Bait and switch"? Applying for a Green Card while in the US is allowed by the law, and has been the norm for decades.
The law was marketed to voters as a temporary worker program. That’s not what it ended up being. That’s the bait and switch.
> Yes, the US has had other xenophobic phases in its history. That doesn't justify the new wave of xenophobic politic
The immigration restriction was necessary to Americanize the immigrants culturally and dissolve their foreign identities and affinity for their own cultural groups. It was fairly successful, too!
It’s bizarre to have to explain this concept on HN. Silicon Valley companies spend so much time on culture and fit, and with good reason. Cultivating a successful culture is extremely important. It’s curation, not “xenophobia.”
The central belief that defines Americans is that the country is open to immigrants, and that it will accept anyone who embraces the civic creed: democracy and civil rights, as defined by the Constitution.
The attempt by Trump and his supporters (yourself included) to replace that American identity with a xenophobic, exclusionary identity is a major deviation from traditional American values.
> The central belief that defines Americans is that the country is open to immigrants, and that it will accept anyone who embraces the civic creed: democracy and civil rights, as defined by the Constitution.
Insofar as America has a "civic creed," it's principles like limited government, federalism, property rights, free markets, and individual liberty.[1] We know that, because America's founders were prolific writers and wrote down everything they thought was important: https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/full-text
It's definitely not immigration. Here's Alexander Hamilton on immigration: https://www.iwp.edu/articles/2016/12/21/hamiltons-actual-vie... ("The safety of a republic depends essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits; on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias, and prejudice; and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education, and family.")
Alexander Hamilton thought you needed a "common national sentiment," "uniformity of principles and habits," and "love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education, and family." Hamilton would have hated Mamdani.
> We know that, because America's founders were prolific writers (...)
Every single one of them was an immigrant. I mean, check the country's history.
By the way, the current US administration is questioning the legal principle which would support the idea that the founding fathers or even their descendants were citizens.
> It's definitely not immigration.
You have a massive statue at the gateway to your biggest city with a big ass plaque stating "give us your tired huddled masses".
It is the symbol of the country.
Are we so desperate to whitewash this mess to even dare to gaslight about such a fundamental topic?
Alexander Hamilton was a monarchist. He's hardly the single authority on what American values are.
If we're playing the "what did the founders think?" game, then I'll see your Hamilton and raise you a Washington [0]:
> The bosom of America is open to receive not only the opulent & respectable Stranger, but the oppressed & persecuted of all Nations & Religions; whom we shall wellcome to a participation of all our rights & previleges, if by decency & propriety of conduct they appear to merit the enjoyment.
And then I'll double down with a Jefferson [1]:
> and shall we refuse to the unhappy fugitives from distress, that hospitality which the savages of the wilderness extended to our fathers arriving in this land? shall oppressed humanity find no asylum on this globe? the constitution indeed has wisely provided that, for admission to certain offices of important trust, a residence shall be required, sufficient to develope character and design. but might not the general character and capabilities of a citizen be safely communicated to every one manifesting a bonâ fide purpose of embarking his life and fortunes permanently with us?
And of course, the most famous statement of the American attitude towards immigration:
> Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
> With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
> Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
> A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
> Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
> Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
> Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
> The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
> “Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
> With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
> I'll see your Hamilton and raise you a Washington [0]
If America can be defined in terms of a "creedo"--which is your position, not mine--then surely that creedo can't include things that architects of the country like Hamilton and Jefferson disagreed on? The creedo must be the things they had in common, like federalism, republicanism, and property rights?
> And of course, the most famous statement of the American attitude towards immigration:
The American creedo cannot logically be defined by some poem some activist wrote a century after the founding.
Jefferson is much closer to the American credo than Hamilton was, though the United States did not remain stuck in the 1770s-1790s, so it's just a fallacy to treat the founders as the sole source of American identity.
But if you do want to play the founders game, Jefferson had a much larger impact on American self-identity than Hamilton. Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, created the Democratic Party, which is the only party that has survived throughout all of American history, and championed the idea of democracy, which Hamilton was highly skeptical of. Hamilton was a monarchist, as I mentioned before. He had a major impact on the American financial system, but was much less successful as a political figure in his own right and did not shape American cultural and political identity in the way Jefferson did. His political party collapsed within 20 years, and his conceptions of an elite politics were overtaken by the rapid democratization of the US.
There have always been minority streams in American politics that have been xenophobic and have opposed immigration - you just happen to belong to the latest one. But these movements have consistently lost out over the course of American history. Successive waves of immigration have brought new groups to the United States. Xenophobes like yourself have constantly said that every new group would ruin America. The Irish didn't ruin America. Neither did the Germans. Neither did the Italians. Giving African Americans civil rights didn't ruin America. Chinese and Indian people haven't ruined America. Haitians aren't ruining America.
You seem to have some sort of obsession with Mamdani, which is weird, since he's as American as Apple Pie. It's actually difficult to think of anything about Mamdani that comes across as particularly foreign. He speaks perfect American English. He acts just like any other progressive New Yorker. He's extremely hooked into American culture. What, exactly, is it about Mamdani that's foreign or dangerous to America?
When you ask what makes immigration part of the American credo, this is what does that: the US is not a country founded on any ethnic identity. It's a country founded and peopled by immigrants, whose only common identity is belief in the American project, which is defined in purely secular and civic terms. Throughout its history, immigrants from all over the world have embraced that identity and have been rapidly incorporated into the society of the country. You don't like that, and want to undo it. Too bad.
> principles like limited government, federalism, property rights, free markets, and individual liberty.
A laundry-list of principles the current federal Republican regime has been destroying or violating the last two years, and surely each one far more important than (non-)immigration.
It started by abusing the responsibility of "immigration" to violate the First Amendment, punishing people purely for op-eds and opinions the President didn't like. [0] Then he unilaterally declared an "invasion" by a Venezuelan street gang, using that as an excuse to round up dozens of people (without charges, let alone evidence) based on a crazy "any tattoo I can't recognize" rubric (for a gang that doesn't even use tattoos) and violating court orders to deliberately ship them into a third-world dictator's brutal gulag. [1]
That was, what, just the first month? We've had dozens of other things that ought to have been scandals worse than Watergate since then.
> Hamilton would have hated Mamdani.
Hamilton would have embraced Mamdani as a brother, if the alternative was Trump having any position of public trust.
Discussing immigration, it seems a little strange to target the mayor of a particular single city, instead of the enormous cartload of impeachable offenses being committed by the highest office of the land that actually does immigration stuff.
> Hamilton would have embraced Mamdani as a brother
No. Hamilton was very worried about immigrants bringing foreign social and political views to the U.S. Jefferson, meanwhile, though the immigrants would support the Democratic Party, and favored those radical ideas. It's the same debate we have today: https://www.iwp.edu/articles/2016/12/21/hamiltons-actual-vie.... Hamilton was the MAGA of his day.
That's unfair to Hamilton: There's huge difference between "kinda wanted a kingly system" versus "would have approved of that becoming king while breaking the rules of a different system."
> on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias, and prejudice
If that includes Russian and Hungarian influence, Mamdani is waaaay closer to that then the JD Vance, Trump and the rest of Putin + Orban loving group.
In fact Mamdani and left are way closer to having actual consistent values they operate on, positive national sentiment then the above gentlemen. The right is in the process of destroying to values and replacing them with wast amount of corruption on the oligarchs sake.
> and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found
The people you promote hate America as it is. Their literal project is to destroy it and rebuild completely different feudal setup - the one based on suppression and violence.
> to be closely connected with birth, education, and family
It is again right who is trying to destroy education and to modify family into mini dictatorship where connection does not matter, because you will do as ordered of punished.
not just de facto standard and not just in the US, it's a logical way to intepret the laws, in many western countries. The laws should streamline and welcome people who have already established connection and contributed to the success of America. It makes no sense for people to have to leave the country to apply for permanent resident, and be treated like all those to-be immigrants who have never lived in America.
> The laws should streamline and welcome people who have already established connection and contributed to the success of America
The law should do what it was designed to do. The H1 system reflects a compromise between people who wanted skilled workers and those who didn’t want foreigners becoming permanent residents. So the compromise was a temporary worker program where most people would go home afterwards.
The law should be interpreted to give effect to that compromise. Your approach of streamlining immigration wipes away that compromise.
> Essentially they're trying to change the rules by aggressive re-interpretation of the existing legal framework, and not actually changing any laws or regulations.
If you want to make that argument, you have to confront the fact that H1 is by its terms a “nonimmigrant” visa for people who are “temporarily” in the U.S. 8 USC 1101(a)(15)&(a)(15)(H). While adjustment of status was possible, it was never intended to be a de facto immigrant visa that typically leads to permanent residency.
You have to think about what "dual intent" actually means. The relevant provision is 8 USC 1184(h):
> (h) Intention to abandon foreign residence
> The fact that an alien is the beneficiary of an application for a preference status filed under section 1154 of this title or has otherwise sought permanent residence in the United States shall not constitute evidence of an intention to abandon a foreign residence for purposes of obtaining a visa as a nonimmigrant described in subparagraph (H)(i)(b) or (c), (L), or (V) of section 1101(a)(15) of this title or otherwise obtaining or maintaining the status of a nonimmigrant described in such subparagraph, if the alien had obtained a change of status under section 1258 of this title to a classification as such a nonimmigrant before the alien's most recent departure from the United States.
What does the text in italics mean? It's there because having an intention to abandon your foreign residence makes you ineligible for a nonimmigrant visa, including H1B. All 1184(h) says is that a petition for permanent residency cannot by itself be used as "evidence of an intention to abandon a foreign residence" for purposes of renewing your H1 visa.
That's all "dual intent" means. It's a fiction where you can keep saying "I intend to go back home after my temporary work in the U.S."--which remains a fundamental requirement of H1B status--and the government can't point to a permanent residency petition as evidence that you are intending to stay in the U.S. permanently. The law doesn't give the H1B holder any right or expectation of being granted permanent status.
The law does have immigrant visas for people who can come here and say "I want to work here and seek permanent residency. I'm not intending to go back." H1B isn't like that.
> The law does have immigrant visas for people who can come here and say "I want to work here and seek permanent residency. I'm not intending to go back." H1B isn't like that.
you are, obviously, interpreting the law to fit your narrative:
""The fact that an alien is the beneficiary of an application for a preference status filed under section 1154 of this title or has otherwise sought permanent residence in the United States shall not constitute evidence of an intention to abandon a foreign residence for purposes of obtaining a visa as a nonimmigrant described in subparagraph (H)(i)(b) or (c), (L), or (V) of section 1101(a)(15) of this title or otherwise obtaining or maintaining the status of a nonimmigrant described in such subparagraph"
All this means is that you, indeed, can be dual intent and apply for permanent residency while holding a H-1B, like generations of Americans have done before ourselves.
It’s a shame that I had to scroll past pages of invective and name-calling to get to your comment, which is the first one to substantively deal with the policy change.
Like you, I tend to think this is a ham-handed move, but like one of the sibling comments, I also have to acknowledge that it’s common for other nations to require change-of-status applications happen outside the country. For example, Japan requires this for some (but not all!) visa modifications.
Also, I’ve seen otherwise reliable sources making unsupported claims about this (e.g. “Existing applicants will lose their ability to apply again if they leave the country”) that aren’t clear from the minuscule amount of information that has been released so far.
As usual with these debates, the content is far more heat than light.
Japan only requires leaving for converting a tourist/digital nomad visa and some Working Holiday Visas to a normal working/spouse visa. And WHV to normal status is really dependent on the partner country. For example Australians don't need to leave, but Canadians and Brits do, and I've heard that immigration will sometimes just grant the change of status anyways. So that seems to indicate that Japan doesn't really care.
Needing to leave to convert a normal working/spouse status to PR is not the norm anywhere.
> Additionally, Japan has a very clear and straightforward process to convert HSP Visa (Highly skilled visa) to a permanent residency.
I mean, that's true as far as it goes, but HSP is one special visa amongst many, and they're not all so easy. Also, Japan is currently in the middle of its own dramatic restructuring of the immigration system related to HSP, including a number of new requirements that would drive critics of the US system to apoplexy (i.e. language fluency requirements).
Overall, the Japanese system looks a lot more conservative than the US one, though the sanity and consistency level is far higher.
> HSP is one special visa amongst many, and they're not all so easy.
Japan has a selective immigration system where the profiles JP gov considers as "necessary" are made easy to immigrate, and the others not so much.
One can disagree with the method, but at least it is consistent.
Near that, half of the American tech (and associated GDP) is constructed highly qualified immigrated engineers on H1B visas, and still the US gov openly shit on them.
> US system to apoplexy (i.e. language fluency requirements)
JP mainly just put some Japanese language level requirement on the HSP visas related to roles with communication. That honestly does not shock me.
We agree that the Japanese system is far more consistent. I think it's better!
But let's not kid ourselves: if the US instituted a CEFR B2 language requirement [1] for anyone on an H1B visa to gain residency, it would be an absolute shitshow.
[1] This is the new Japanese language requirement.
Assuming English is the language, CEFR B2 is roughly 75 in TOEFL, such a low standard that community colleges would think twice before admitting such internationals students. In reality H1B tech workers easily blows 100+.
Right, it's obviously your assumption, but you stated the resulting shitshow as an obvious fact—"let's not kid ourselves".
I doubt H-1Bs would oppose taking that test. Many already took English proficiency exams by the time they apply for the visa.
I assume Americans in general would favor this extra requirement too.
And companies, if we decide we care about what they want, really have no reason to oppose the test. There's a large enough number of applicants that they can easily pick from the ones that do speak English fluently.
So to conclude it would be a shitshow because of the politics is likely incorrect, certainly defeatist, and gives up on the actual thing we should strive for, which is to make the H-1B visa better.
I think one of the primary divergences of thought happening here is whether H1B is indeed a temporary visa or whether it was meant to be a stepping stone to a green card.
H1B is only 36 years old. The Immigration Act of 1990 always meant it to be a temporary status, which is why it is so easily imperiled.
Yes, it's temporary, but the 1990 act explicitly established dual-intent, which clearly made the visa eligible for adjustment of status under INA 245. Nobody is really debating that fact, but the announcement memo is also not clear about what they're going to try to do in terms of actual administrative process.
Part of the noise around this topic is that the administration just announced something vague with no detailed guidance, which leaves the door open for bad-faith interpretations by everyone.
It's also necessary for media to exist as an industry. The objective of nearly all news articles is clicks, comments, and sharing. Bad-faith interpretation is by far the best way to increase the count of all of those things regardless of how detailed the guidance might be.
I don’t want to defend the cure administration, but it’s very common and normal for a country to require a person to leave to change status.
Every time my Canadian work visa expired I had to drive over the border, enter the US, turn around and drive back to start the new one. The border guards call it “flag-poling” because you do a U turn around the flag pole.
When I went from work visa to permanent resident I had to do it, in January, in Alaska, at -44 degrees and nasty ice on the roads. That border required 30km of driving through no man’s land before I got into Alaska. I asked the Canadian as I was leaving if I could just u turn his building and come back right now, and he was very firm I had to enter the US, even if for just 20 seconds. Nasty drive, but all ok
Okay but this has not been the case in the US and everyone knows that. We can try to make things up to rationalize why this being done.
Or, we can be honest, and acknowledge these actors have proven themselves to be irrational. What is happening is that an end-goal is desired, and then the trump administration is working backwards to make it happen.
The "only" is doing A LOT of heavy lifting. Also, you're being a bit dishonest here, because this does not only apply to H1B visa holders.
Also, are those people not the exact demographic that so-called "anti illegal" Republicans should want? They're highly educated and desirable, not welfare queens right?
I will repeat my point. You have been lied to. The Republicans do not give even a single shit about what is legal and what is not. What they desire is less brown people, and then they work backwards to justify it. Any other interpretation is just not reasonable at this point, with the evidence we have been given.
> What they desire is less brown people, and then they work backwards to justify it.
Which is a perfectly fine thing by the way. I can't see anything wrong with it. If the Americans want fewer "brown" people in their country, that is entirely their prerogative. It's their country, after all.
I am from India. Indians themselves have preferences for the kind of people they'd like to allow to immigrate to India. Bangladeshi muslims are not desired, whereas Tibetans are welcome. Intra-regional migration is a problem within India itself, with certain populations being seen as less desirable in certain areas.
Perhaps the "brown" people can work on fixing their home countries so that they wouldn't have to emigrate in order to enjoy a better quality of life.
> Perhaps the "brown" people can work on fixing their home countries so that they wouldn't have to emigrate in order to enjoy a better quality of life.
That's an ignorant thing to say. Even in democratic western countries, it can be very difficult for the average person to institute change even at a local level. If you have to battle corruption or war on top of that, it could be impossible. For example, would it be fair to say that a Sundanese villager should just fix their country as PMCs being hired by the UAE(and others) are committing genocide? Or would you consider that reasonable to flee the country in search of a better life?
We have to admit there are lots of cases where people can't just "fix" their own country as there are complex geopolitical issues that a normal person, or a group of normal people are not able to fix. If Americans want fewer "brown" people in their country, the idea should be to promote global economic and political stability so that people can reasonably make their countries a better place, not to just tell them to go away and fix their own problems.
> If Americans want fewer "brown" people in their country, the idea should be to promote global economic and political stability
Speaking as an Indian: "brown" people's countries are "brown" people's own responsibilities. If their countries are messed up, they should also own the task of fixing them.
Other countries can feel free to pitch in if it suits their interests, as you say. But the primary responsibility for our motherlands is with ourselves.
> that a normal person, or a group of normal people
> Speaking as an Indian: "brown" people's countries are "brown" people's own responsibilities. If their countries are messed up, they should also own the task of fixing them.
>Other countries can feel free to pitch in if it suits their interests, as you say. But the primary responsibility for our motherlands is with ourselves.
Yes this would make sense if the US & other countries had a policy of non-intervention. When the US & its allies are actively destabilizing these countries, you can't turn around and be like oh now its your fault your country is messed up and you are solely responsible to fix it after we bombed, invaded, or otherwise economically destabilized the region. The long term solution to stop people from immigrating to the US for a better life is to promote political and economic stability in those countries, ie. not bombing them, invading them, removing their leaders, promoting trade with them etc.
I live in Canada and the US is actively trying to destabilize my country through threats of annexation, disregarding trade deals and implementing tariffs, promoting separatism. What can I do to stop the US from doing this exactly? If the US ends up destroying my country, is it my fault? am I solely responsible to fix it?
Nobody said it is their fault. But it is their responsibility.
United States immigration policy is supposed to benefit the United States. It doesn't need to be fair.
The US can bomb a country if it's in US interests, and then deny immigrants from that country if that immigration is not in US interests. It really is that simple.
I never said that they can't bomb a country or deny immigrants. They certainly can and are. I also never said that it needs to be fair.
I'm saying its ridiculous to be mad when people are trying to immigrate to your country for a better life and you're tell them to go back to their country & fix it when you're the one(or your close friends are) actively making it worse on purpose. I'm sure you can see the hypocrisy in this.
I'm not sure what is controversial about if you want to reduce people trying to come to your country then you should promote global economic & political stability so they don't have any reason to come. Especially when you are the most powerful country in the world that is already meddling in everyone's affairs.
> Which is a perfectly fine thing by the way. I can't see anything wrong with it. If the Americans want fewer "brown" people in their country, that is entirely their prerogative. It's their country, after all.
Which Americans? Whose country is it that "their" is referring to here?
I'm from India too. It's disingenuous to say things like "Bangladeshi Muslims are not desired" and not mention the massive backlash the Citizenship Amendment Act received. It's almost as if people recognize arbitrary discrimination is the opposite of just.
Attitudes like yours - justifying entitlement without holding its corruption accountable - is why people have to leave their home countries: their own insufferable countrymen.
Nobody would care about this if it didn't affect H1B. The confusion is whether h1b is a temporary visa or some kind of stepping stone. According to the immigration act of 1990 and US law it's a temporary visa and subject to this rule.
For example O-1 is not affected because O-1 is not considered a temporary visa in US law.
O-1 also has no cap. The USA can take in unlimited O-1 immigrants.
That’s strange. I was able to renew a work permit in Canada while staying (and continuing work) in Canada. Same for study permit. This was over a decade ago, so perhaps things have changed.
They also were not called visas, but permits. Visa is for entering the country, permit is for staying.
The article is about U.S and not Canada. Also yes, you can stay in Canada while apply + wait for the final decision, but if you get rejected, you have to leave. Also in your application, you have to state where you applying from.
I find the Canadian immigration system clear and fast, login, input data, pay, wait.
you can renew the same permit without, but you can't go from one type of permit to another (student to working prof in my case) without flagpoling; you also can't go from a visa to a permit without flagpoling
Even if it is common (i don't think this is required any more anyways), just why? Why do we need to make someone run back and forth across the border for the immigration department to do some paperwork? It seems purely designed to inconvenience people for absolutely no gain to anyone.
My guess: If they end up being denied then it's easier to not let them back in by not letting them cross the border whereas if it's in the country it's harder to locate them to deport?
I have a strong suspicion this is another way of doing an end run around the courts. If the person is denied entry can they realistically get that changed by a US court? I doubt it.
It also means that if you came here fleeing persecution that you might not be able to return.
> Even if it is common (i don't think this is required any more anyways), just why?
As far as Canadian law goes, there are two factors at play in the parent's events;
* NAFTA work permits are applied for at the border, on entry; they operate differently from the 'normal' work permit streams.
* Permanent residence is conferred at the border, but the application process can happen either inside or outside the country depending on the stream. There are also limited 'inland' options which evidently have expanded (https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/se...) in recent years.
In neither case does Canada have a blanket rule that an applicant must leave the country during the whole of an extended application process, and even 'abroad' processes can often be carried out while an applicant is living in the country on other status. (It can get awkward if a consular interview is required, though.)
Unlike the US, Canada is generally comfortable with 'dual intent', where intent to apply for permanent residence through legal channels is not disqualifying for other sorts of statuses.
A consulate overseas is more equipped to vet someone from the country where it is located than a USCIS office in New Hampshire. E.g. it has people able to read the documents in the local language and access to the officials who can validate those, it has people able to call or mail local authorities to ask about an applicant's involvement in crime, it has people who can recognize affiliations with local extremist groups etc.
It is actually really bizarre that the USCIS would essentially take the applicant's word without any vetting before this memo.
Depending on the person, they may have spent years or possibly a decade or more in the US before trying to get an AOS. As such, the USCIS is probably a better adjudicator than a consulate.
If someone came in as a child then it's true, and thus there is a discretion. Adults have history in their home country which does not disappear in 10 years or any period of time.
> I don’t want to defend the cure administration, but it’s very common and normal for a country to require a person to leave to change status.
This new policy is different than the "flag poling" you've described. The new guidance requires immigrants to return to their country of origin, then apply for the change in status, and wait in their country of origin while the change in status is being processed/considered which can take many years. If the status changed is approved, they can move back to the US.
They have repeatedly taken incredibly broad if not downright delusional interpretations of legal precedent and used them to set policy. They literally tried to override a constitutional amendment (birthright citizenship) with an executive order. They have been laughed out of court many times but have won a shocking number of these ridiculous cases. This is just another one. Set the maximal policy that they want and make their opponents challenge it in court. It's legal until someone (with standing) stops them.
Trying to follow the Constitution literally is hard and in practice, it's not done. The political system just interprets the Constitution in whatever way the consensus of the given moment wants to interpret it. The 14th Amendment is clear that all persons born in the US are citizens of the US. However, if you follow the 2nd Amendment just as literally, it means that the Federal government, at least, cannot make any laws restricting us from owning nuclear weapons.
The second amendment is very much intended to protect access to military weapons. It was never intended to address personal defense or sport hunting but national defense by state militias.
Read the law! It’s there in black and white! It’s 8 USC 1101(a)(15) and (a)(15)(H). It’s a “nonimmigrant” visa for people “temporarily” in the U.S. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1101
How is it “delusional” to interpret a law that’s plastered with the words “non immigrant” and “temporary” and say that maybe it shouldn’t be a de facto path to permanent residency?
Because the words temporary amd nonimmigrant don't carry the meaning that you're imbuing into them. Fiance visas operate very similarly to these dual intent H1 visas. You're granted a temporary nonimmigrant status while you pursue a permanent one. The words nonimmigrant and temporary doesn't exclude pursuing a permanent status at all.
In the case of a K-1, it is assumed you will transition from a temporary nonimmigrant status to a permanent status. [1] Requiring folks to move to the U.S., and then go back out of the country to get a green card, only to return again, is absurd. That absurd dance for both K1 and H1 w/dual intents is the reason the laws and guidance provided to agents changed starting in the 50's through the 90's. These changes in guidance to agents are nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to suppress people coming to the U.S. lawfully, which is absurd and deeply anti-American.
The K1 visa is even more temporary! It’s only for 90 days, and under the section 1255(d), the government doesn’t even have the power to convert a K1 visa into permanent residency. It’s like a tourist visa. The visa itself is not a pathway to anything.
People who come here on a K1 get permanent residency once they get married through a different statutory route: 8 USC 1154. But that has nothing to with the K1 itself. That route is available to anyone married to a US citizen, including illegal immigrants under certain conditions, or aliens who get married abroad. The K1 visa isn’t a stepping stone to permanent status. It’s just a convenience that allows people to have the wedding in the U.S. instead of the spouse’s home country.
> It’s like a tourist visa. The visa itself is not a pathway to anything.
> ...
> People who come here on a K1 get permanent residency once they get married through a different statutory route: 8 USC 1154. But that has nothing to with the K1 itself.
The UCIS explicitly links the K-1 (which has the words temporary and non-immigrant visa scattered throughout) to a de facto path to permanent status (see below). The fact that the two are different statutes is moving the goal posts (i.e., a logical fallacy). The government clearly sees them as a linked pathway to permanent status.
> "If you are a U.S. citizen who wants to bring your foreign fiancé(e) to the United States in order to get married"
> The K1 visa isn’t a stepping stone to permanent status. It’s just a convenience that allows people to have the wedding in the U.S. instead of the spouse’s home country.
There's a reason they require a medical exam to be filed with the consulate as a part of the K-1 application, they expect you to be in the U.S. for a long time. K style visas are a lot more than a convenience, they are the law of the land and have been so for nearly 75 years.
As is the K-1 fiance visa. Talk to us of how the purpose of the K-1 fiance visa is a "nonimmigrant" visa that is for people to be allowed "temporarily" into the US to see their spouse, and that it is "delusional" to think that that might be a path to permanent residency with their spouse.
Is the legal precedent they are ignoring only 36 years old? No? I guess that makes us talking about case law older than 36 years then. (As we all know, laws less than 40 years old are option to follow anyways).
Gives them the freedom to interpret it 'case by case' which is to mean punishing businesses and states not aligned with Trump with a million inconveniences, while leaving his base unmolested. The most divisive and punitive president ever.
So this is an example of being careful what you wish for.
Neil Gorsuch's mother had to resign in disgrace as the EPA administrator under Reagan in a case that ultimately became what was called "Chevron deference" [1]. Chevron deference meant that when Congress wrote ambiguous statutes, courts would defer to the interpretation of the agencies responsible for enforcing them. Almost 40 years of laws were written with this standard in mind. Critics claimed Congress should be explicit but they know this is bullshit. Congress simply doesn't have the bandwidth to pass a law every time an agency wants to change a regulation and they know it. This is all about deregulation so companies are free to poison the air and water without fear of prosecution or lawsuits. It would allow, for example, a Federal circuit judge in Amarillo, Texas to issue a nationawide injunction on pretty much anything where before Federal judges had to defer to agencies.
It has been Gorsuch's life mission to avenge his mother's humiliation. Overturning Chevron became a mission of the conservative movement and they finally succeeded in a case called Loper Bright [2]. As an aside, Gorsuch really should've recused himself from the case. A consequence of that was that the Supreme Court accepted an interpretation that executive agencies should be government by the Administrative Procedures Act ("APA") instead. So that's been the law of the land since Loper Bright. That creates a number of problems:
1. To change an agency rule now requires a complicated process unde rthe APA of proposing a rule change, getting public comment and generally following a statutory procedure. This administration that wanted Chevron overturned never does that. So under Chevron they probably could've done that. Now? Any memo like this can be challenged for failing to follow procedure. There have been cases where USCIS has had temporary injunctions imposed on them for this reason: the judges are saying USCIS is likely to lose; and
2. This memo is relying on a Supreme Court case that considered adjustment-of-status ("AoS") an act of "grace". Well, that precedent was set under Chevron. Chevron no longer applies. So which is it? Do you want Chevron deference or don't you? You can't have it both ways;
3. Millions of people have open cases under the previous rules and interpretations. Courts are likely to take a dim view of a retroactive rule change like this. New cases filed after this memo was released may not enjoy the same protections; and
4. There are people who cannot or should not leave the US to consular process. They may have incurred unlawful presence that will then get them a 3 or 10 year bar from returning. This bar may well apply if they have to consular process instead of do an AoS. Some people may not be able to leave (eg asylees). The wait time to get an interview at a local embassy or consulate varies wildly. In some cases it's already more than 12 months. If you add over a million current AoS cases to that, the wait times are going to explode. But the cruelty is the point.
Also, decisions by consular officials have very limited ability to be challenged in court. That's also the point.
This will be challenged in court. I think it will make it up to the Supreme Court as early as the next term and this court more than any probably in history bends over backwards to let the president do whatever he wants.
> Overturning Chevron became a mission of the conservative movement
Chevron’s biggest proponent was Justice Scalia!
> A consequence of that was that the Supreme Court accepted an interpretation that executive agencies should be government by the Administrative Procedures Act ("APA") instead. So that's been the law of the land since Loper Bright.
Executive agencies have always been governed by the APA. That’s why it’s called the “Administrative” Procedures Act.
> To change an agency rule now requires a complicated process unde rthe APA of proposing a rule change, getting public comment and generally following a statutory procedure
That’s been true since 1946. That was the whole point of the APA. Chevron itself arose out of an EPA rule making under the APA.
You’re completely mistaken about what Chevron was about. It was just about whether courts must defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes, or whether they get to decide the interpretation themselves.
> There are people who cannot or should not leave the US to consular process. They may have incurred unlawful presence that will then get them a 3 or 10 year bar from returning. This bar may well apply if they have to consular process instead of do an AoS. Some people may not be able to leave (eg asylees).
This feels like it might be the actual motivation of the Trump admin to do this change. The cruelty is indeed the point.
What's the difference between this and just outright saying that enforcing the law is cruelty? After all, nobody enjoys being punished, even if it's for breaking the law.
I don't want people to be unlawfully present in my country. Enough people desired that same outcome that, through the democratic process, we have laws controlling immigration. There has to be consequences for breaking that law. It absolutely cannot be the case that anyone can break the law and then have it not matter on the grounds that to make it matter would be cruel. What even is the point of the rule of law?
No, the comment is complete misinformation. In particular:
> A consequence of that was that the Supreme Court accepted an interpretation that executive agencies should be government by the Administrative Procedures Act ("APA") instead.
Executive agencies were always governed by the Administrative Procedures Act. The law was created in 1946 for the purpose of governing executive agencies.
OP is completely wrong about what Chevron and Loper Bright were about. Agencies have always had to do rulemakings with notice and comment to promulgate regulations. Those rules obviously have to follow the statutory law.
Chevron was about what happens when an agency action is challenged in court and the statute is ambiguous. Chevron says the agency gets deference from the court in deciding what the law means. The court has to accept ghr agency’s interpretation as long as it’s reasonable.
Loper Bright says the court has to decide what the law means itself, just like it does for any other law.
More broadly, this isn’t even a “conservative” versus “liberal” issue. Scalia was the biggest champion of Chevron and Gorsuch authored Loper Bright. Both were/are Federalist Society guys. This is an internal disagreement among conservatives about whether agencies or courts have the last word on what statutes mean.
So here was the first version of your comment that I saw:
> The comment is misinformation. For example:
>> A consequence of that was that the Supreme Court accepted an interpretation that executive agencies should be government by the Administrative Procedures Act ("APA") instead.
> Executive agencies were always governed by the Administrative Procedures Act. The law was created in 1934 for the purpose of governing executive agencies.
So this seemed like the most ChatGPT comment, particularly because it made factual errors (eg APA was 1946 not 1934) but, hey, at least you corrected it. Maybe it was run through ChatGPT after the fact? I found this [1]:
> The U.S. doesn’t have a real statutory pathway to permanent residency for skilled immigrants. The current H1B to Green Card pipeline is built on a legal fiction papered over a visa program that was the word “non-immigrant intent” written all over the statute.
> Gemini gets this correct: “The H-1B visa is a nonimmigrant classification that allows U.S. employers to temporarily employ foreign nationals in ‘specialty occupations’ that require highly specialized knowledge and at least a bachelor's degree.”
Gemini, huh?
So back to the merits. Let me quote the actual decision [2]:
> Held: The Administrative Procedure Act requires courts to exercise their
independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within
its statutory authority, and courts may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous; Chevron is
overruled
This was what "Chevron deference" actually was: presumptive validity of agency interpretations vs what we have under Loper Bright where the APA is the only way of changing agency interpretations (other than Congress passing laws, of course). So, under Chevron, the USCIS could issue this memo and courts would've had to have largely deferred to the agency interpretation. Now they don't have that defense.
Or, to put it yet another way, it's what I said.
You should probably disclose your politics here. I'll use as an example this George Floyd comment [3].
I made a typo and wrote “1934” instead of “1946,” which I quickly corrected.
Your comment meanwhile is still fundamentally wrong about the most basic facts: “A consequence of that was that the Supreme Court accepted an interpretation that executive agencies should be government by the Administrative Procedures Act (‘APA’) instead.”
The whole point of the APA was to govern executive agencies. So you’re wrong about the most basic premise of your post.
> This was what "Chevron deference" actually was: presumptive validity of agency interpretations vs what we have under Loper Bright where the APA is the only way of changing agency interpretations
Incorrect. The APA allows agencies to proceed in two ways: rulemakings and case by case adjudications. Agency interpretations can arise in either context. You don’t need a rule making to change an interpretation. You only need one to change something that was already a rule.
> Gemini, huH?
Yes, I quoted Gemini as a rhetorical device. “Even Gemini knows” that H1B is a temporary immigrant visa, not a pathway to permanent residency.
It is actually remarkable how much of the bullshit we have to put up with comes down to our giving power to craven or unscrupulous men with a chip on their shoulder.
Bush W. and his father's single term.
Biden and his family's troubles with the federal government.
I received my green card in 2023 and I have mixed emotions.
On one hand, I'm so relieved that I have been able to dodge everything that the administration has been throwing at immigrant (legal and illegal alike), trying to see what sticks, like mass deportations, border wall expansion, visa restrictions, asylum crackdown, H-1B cuts, and chain Migration Ban.
On the other hand, we cannot apply for citizenship for 3 more years, even though me and my wife have been in the US for combined 25+ years, and paid over $100,000 in taxes last year alone, and it's jarring to imagine what the administration will come up with next to make the process less straightforward than it seems.
Most disturbing is the fact that a lot of people I know who climbed the same ladder will go out and cheer what the administration is doing.
I received mine in 2020 and have decided to move back home. The uncertainty in general just keeps me up at night. Feels like the goalposts could move at any moment. I know I'm likely overreacting but it is what it is.
You have ICE officers randomly abducting people off appearance alone and then detaining them for days if not weeks. If you were a citizen the whole time, cool who cares.
No one in America has any rights.
That aside, even as someone who's been in this country for generations, I've been exploring options to leave.
America is behind most of the developed world in terms of standards of living. I was in Asia for a while and I felt a fraction of the fear I constantly do at home.
GC holder of 25 years with citizen parents. I agree with you and I stress about this daily. It's always been a shitty deal though - we are taxed with no representation in government.
>we are taxed with no representation in government.
In which country can you emigrate to and be allowed votes in government representation just because you pay taxes? I'm an EU citizen and living in another EU country and am not allowed to vote in that country's government elections, just local ones. If you want to vote at government level then you need to apply and get citizenship which also comes with the responsibility(or obligation more accurately) of military draft.
Everything about this seems pretty fair to me. I'm not sure why not to you. If you're not a citizen you shouldn't be allowed to vote at gov level since you're not subject to a draft, because in case the shit hits the fan militarily, unlike citizens, you can just pack your bags and go back to your home country and avoid dying in the front lines. So why would any country let people who aren't subject to draft vote? Makes no sense. You don't have the same skin in the game as citizens who are draftable just because you pay some taxes.
Now if you're paying taxes in a foreign country where you can't vote, it means you're there voluntarily because you're getting a much better deal than being in your own country where you can vote. Probably you're in the US because you make orders of magnitude more money than in your own country, but nobody in the US dragged you there against your will to work and pay them taxes, you agreed to this situation voluntarily because it also benefits you personally, and you would just as easily leave if it stopped benefiting you.
> In which country can you emigrate to and be allowed votes in government representation just because you pay taxes?
There are a few, with varying degrees of residency time (and possibly other conditions) required. New Zealand requires being a resident for a year.
The UK is particularly interesting, if you're a citizen of a common wealth nation you can vote in national UK elections if you're a resident.
Personally, I agree with you though. I didn't vote in the UK despite being able too. Let the citizens decide the future of their nation, I have the privilege to leave (and have done so already). Feels wrong for me to influence the nation when I'm not fully invested in the outcome.
As a person, why should you not have a say in how things are governed where you live?
The idea that you should be required to swear some loyalty to a government before you get a say in how the place you live is governed is the position that’s actually absurd.
(Yes, I do think there should be a global republic and that there should be full freedom of movement. It’s way past time for that.)
It make sense, you don't want to give voting rights to someone who might decide not to continue living in your country anymore. If they are serious about it, then they must go through the process of obtaining citizenship. I have same issue with dual citizenships, it is absurd that someone holding foreign passport can have major decision making roles in your government.
Because as a non-citizen, you are technically still a guest?
If you love the place you're living in and want to actively participate in its governance, including implementing any changes, you should obtain citizenship.
And even if you do, your stake would still be less than those who've been living there all their lives, across many generations. Maybe the natives actually don't want the changes that the immigrants want to see implemented.
(not going to argue the finer details of ethics like racism or xenophobia, etc. which I acknowledge can often come up in cases like this).
We did not meet continuous residency requirements for 10-15 years due to travel for my dad's work. Afterwards, it took me nearly 5 years to meet that requirement due to the fact that I lived and graduated abroad for highschool. I tried around COVID, was denied based on truthfully admitting I had smoked some weed in the previous 5 years while I lived in Colorado. That reset my clock for another five years. I constantly wrestle with whether I even want to be associated with this country for the rest of my life. I'm prideful and a high earner, there's only so much I'll accept before moving my family and assets somewhere else.
Hope that provides some color. To all the fans of the current immigration policies - you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
> we are taxed with no representation in government
This is true in most highly-developed democratic nations. If it is so important to you, then you should become a citizen, or return to your home country (so that you may vote). And curiously, does your home country not have the same rule? Do you find that position hypocritical?
The choice is not so binary, as anyone seriously discussing this topic should immediately recognize. There are indeed ways for foreigners to participate in local politics in many countries, here is some data if you're interested in learning - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-citizen_suffrage
My country does in fact provide this right to foreign residents who live a certain amount of time in the country. Even if it didn't, it would not be a hypocritical position to state something is bad. Do you think I wrote the laws? Hardly seems like a good-faith argument or even a sound one!
Or perhaps they mean the same thing as was meant by the slogan when it was first coined, around the time of the American Revolution, and the same thing as was meant by the women's suffragists who used it in the late 19th century.
Maybe in some sense "no taxation without suffrage" would be more accurate, but it would be a worse slogan. In any case, "no taxation without representation" is a well known phrase, it's been around for over 250 years, and I don't think much is achieved by nitpicking its wording.
You do have congressional representatives and senators who represent you and your interests and can take action on your behalf just as they would if you were a citizen. I have had decent luck in getting assistance from them despite not being a citizen.
Yes and colonial Americans had personages they didn't choose representing their interests at court so clearly that was not what they meant by it, let alone as members of the British empire their interests were represented by the king the highest position in the land...
To exist is to be taxed. If you exist at all in the US, you will be taxed. You may even be taxed even if you are not in the US. So saying that taxation somehow implies voting ability would be quite absurd. This doesn't hold true anywhere in the world.
When someone says "No taxation without representation!" they don't mean "As a matter of fact, no one ever gets taxed by a government they don't have the power to vote for or against". (If that were true, there'd be no need to demand it.)
They mean "I would like our government to stop taxing people who don't get to vote for it" or "It is unjust for a government to tax people who don't get to vote for it" or something of that sort.
The fact that things aren't already the way you want them to be doesn't make it absurd to demand that they change to be that way.
(You might argument that governments don't give a damn what anyone demands and for that reason it is absurd to demand change. But I think that in fact governments do take notice of what people want, if they fear what the people might do if they don't get it. Whether that's voting them out of office or putting their heads on pikes or anything in between. And they will take more notice if more people are demanding whatever it is, and a large part of the point of saying things like "No taxation without representation!" is to get other people who aren't in the government to sympathize with your cause and maybe start demanding the same thing. So I think it's manifestly not absurd to make such demands, as such. Some particular demands -- "No taxation without $1M/year universal basic income!" -- would be absurd, but this one seems obviously not to be in that category.)
There is a typical ladder here though of non-immigrant/temp visitor, legal permanent resident, and citizen. The main practical distinction bw the last two is the ability to vote and hold office. What concretely is the demand here? That the last two should effectively merge into one? Or is it that everybody along this ladder should get to vote and that citizenship is a separate axis?
The demand is that there shouldn't be anywhere on that ladder where you are expected to pay taxes and aren't given the right to vote.
Is it a sensible demand? I dunno. Some people have thought so. Some other people have thought not. I'm not trying to settle that question; just trying to bring some clarity as to what the issue is.
America is also run by a cabal of pedophiles and despite that being pretty out in the open at this point, there have been no consequences for them at all. It's not a good looking situation when even CSA and genocide are met with an "eh, what can you do?" shrug by a populace that has been led to accept worse and worse every year.
Don't forget the blatant corruption at a scale we've never seen. Literal crypto scams are being run out of the Whitehouse, and no one seems to care. Complaining about Hunter Biden being on the board of some company seems so quaint at this point.
If this was actually true, there wouldn't be so many people from the developed world trying to immigrate to the US, and upset about the US government making this harder.
That just means the US is better than the place they’re moving from. It doesn’t mean the US is among the best places in the world. Also, public perception of how good things are through US media (Hollywood) is different from reality.
Many, many people immigrate for an imagination of what life in the US will be. Objectively speaking, the US really is far behind most of the developed world in standards of living .
Also, money. Salaries are simply higher in the US (even if life is worse and less fulfilling overall)
I'm an American currently living in the Philippines, and that's utter nonsense and I know it. Developing world countries are so far behind the US in infrastructure, clean water, food quality, pollution, overpopulation, waste disposal, cleanliness, littering, open public spaces, and numerous other vectors that your comment blithely ignores.
The only possible way you could write a comment like that with a straight face is that you've never walked through a barrio in a developing world country with brick block contruction and tin roofs with tires holding the roof on, or favelas in Brazil with crowding, unsanitary conditions and resulting disease, drug crime, and gang warfare.
The standard of living in the US is vastly better than in these third-world shitholes, and it requires a stunning amount of out-of-touch suicidal empathy to project that it doesn't.
The US is not "behind the developed world", it's literally the developed world. The lightbulb. The airplane. The telephone. NASA. Space X. Tesla. And on and on...
When people talk about being behind or ahead the developed world, they are talking about the average person's availability of food, housing, internet, AC, transportation, healthcare, education, culture, day to day life, etc. Not century+ old tech or the handful of Billionaires' pet projects. Or, well, really, most of the time people just mean "The US is not like a subset of European (Likely Nordic) countries".
But that's besides the point, because I'm not the person making the argument. I was just pointing out that the comment was misread and misresponded to.
Not every (slightly) authoritarian government is akin to a regime that was responsible for the industrial scale killing of more than 11 million people.
Perhaps you should wait to make that case, we're starting to see ramifications from USAID cuts as the worse one, but there's also health and nutrition effects from Medicaid/SNAP reductions, and whatever in the world is happening on immigration and detention with insane ICE behaviour, plus second order effects from abortion and public health changes.
Genuinely curious, what does taxes have to do with it? Everyone pays taxes, legal or illegal in some form.
I don’t think paying your dues should make you more likely to get through the pipeline. After all, you paid those taxes because you made good money, which is what people come here for.
> A plurality of Americans don’t pay federal income taxes
What does a plurality even mean here? This is a binary question, so plurality and majority are the same thing. And I don't think it is factually correct that the majority of Americans do not pay income taxes.
I didn't look hard but that's the first thing I found. Famously, Mitt Romney complained that 47% of Americans don't contribute to federal income tax revenue, which is what I was thinking of.
Side note...I hate this stat because it makes it sound like the rich are paying their share of taxes. The reality is that people who make large w2 income pay a large part of federal taxes, and while they would be considered rich they are not the ultra-rich we see in the news every day.
> .I hate this stat because it makes it sound like the rich are paying their share of taxes
Yes! I agree, I don't mean to sound like I support the status quo. In this particular case, I wanted to clarify that green card-holding immigrants carry a disproportionate amount of tax burden (but that is not to support the current state of things).
I didn't mean to imply you did support the status quo. And you're right about GC holders as they tend to make good money and fall into the worst spot tax wise - having a large w2 income.
Yes, technically payroll taxes are not income taxes.
And people who that x number of people do not pay income tax are implying they are paying no federal taxes when that is not true. It is a disingenuous argument.
But then they gave up a tax paying job and thus the net effect is zero.
Looking holistically the person leaving the US (or lets say 100 people to make it easier to see the point) means 1 to 30 less startups and so maybe an entire company or more not being started. That is less revenue for US.
What most people from the "they steal our jobs" mentality (not saying that is you, but this a seperate point) don't get is productive people create jobs by being a customer of many businesses.
>The facts show that just like the amount of labor is not fixed, neither is the size of the economy (fixed pie fallacy) and as more work is done, the economy grows
Your reply is a glib thought-terminating cliche strawman that doesn't address their point at all. Interesting!
Those theories are based mainly on the effect of Cuban immigration in Miami, however they lack a control so you can't really conclude anything.
Besides, yeah, if you hire people who will work for any salary, the amount of jobs will increase, but salaries will decrease, for locals as well. After some time, locals will flee sectors where the migrant workers are brought in, creating further self-inflicted "labor shortages"...requiring more migrants!
The main winners are capital owners, who, thanks to the migrant workers, can now acquire a larger part of the added value generated by workers.
But a jobs worth of GDP was lost due to the lost consumption. Harder to measure for 1 person but imagine 100k people suddenly left a city. That would be felt somewhere. Dry cleaners, cafe, supermarkets etc.
This might be less true if there is resource starvation but we have transport and imports and exports. You can accomodate more people and feed them.
There are not enough qualified people in any particular country for all the possible new technologies that could be deployed. You're not likely to hire your plumber to program a webapp.
That doesn't mean your plumber isn't qualified—just that people looking for webapps want to hire workers who know how to make them.
So many computer science grads can't find work many have left the field. I don't think we will run out of workers.
There is the other side plenty of workers successful at programming language could be trained to fill any gap. That's what happened in the 50s and 60s..
Companies struggle to hire at a rate they want to pay. They don't struggle to hire at a market rate pay or more. Funny how that works.
PS The number of roles that there aren't qualified Americans for could be counted on one hand. This has always been about reducing salaries, not shortages.
I highly doubt a company can find 20k senior Photolithography experts in rural Nebraska if a company wanted. No matter what money they are paying. They'll have to bring them in.
Of course I am exaggerating, but this is not a 1 dimensional problem.
The issue is that if you import all of skilled workers you need, salaries won't rise in the branch, and students or workers in adjacent fields don't have any incentives to learn the skill. If you can hire Syldavian photonics engineers for 50k$/y, no one is incentivized to learn photonics.
This is why in the modern world some sectors are always crying about "worker shortages" while asking always more migrant workers to come in - salaries are compressed as a result, and locals have no incentives to enter the branch.
Hence importing workers may be useful for needs that are limited in time and space (say, install a specialized foreign machinery in a power plant), but systematic importation leads to dequalification of the local workers, who flee the branch that has now low salaries.
it's a companies not wanting to spend any amount of time and money training an employee and wanting 100% utilization the second the employment starts issue.
Those seem like bold assumptions about % of startups created by green card holders?
I feel like the better argument is that the greencard holder was the best candidate and thus will be more productive in the role. It is just efficient resource allocation. That, even without new companies, will drive profit/expansion/more jobs
At a certain point, there aren't enough Americans for these jobs. So the choice is to let other nations absorb these skilled laborers, or simply hire the best people.
It's funny how we forget about meritocracy as soon as the median American is threatened.
> At a certain point, there aren't enough Americans for these jobs
Is that really true? I’m sure in some fields where you need rare experts I believe it. For the average engineer who is just another cog in the wheel of big corp, I highly doubt it.
> Is that really true? I’m sure in some fields where you need rare experts I believe it. For the average engineer who is just another cog in the wheel of big corp, I highly doubt it.
Have you ever hired someone before? Did you decide to take the best person you found or did you pick an American?
> Have you ever hired someone before? Did you decide to take the best person you found or did you pick an American?
Many times. Sometimes we don’t offer sponsorships so we hired who didn’t need one. Other times not. During the interview process where they’re from isn’t the matter at hand. Either way, there’s no shortage of good candidates - solely American / GC or not.
Though let’s be honest - there is a question behind the question, isn’t there? Why don’t you just ask that instead?
That doesn’t directly prove that there aren’t enough Americans who can do the job. Sometimes yeah, the non American is better like in photolithography.
Generally though, the foreign candidate is not so much better that hiring an American would have lowered the bar.
Sometimes it also comes down to leveling - I’ve had to down level people due to budget concerns. Americans can hold out for that better job, but the other cannot so companies take advantage of that.
My point is that it’s not a skill issue, it’s a wage + location issue. Foreigners will find that their wage is better than what they can earn at home, so they can undercut that citizens who’s held out for a better opportunity.
> so they can undercut that citizens who’s held out for a better opportunity.
Just to better understand, genuinely, do you mean that the company would increase their budget in the event that a foreign worker had not been available, and that an American would have taken the job at that time, given the higher wage?
Why wouldn’t they? It’s a supply and demand thing, supply is lower so pay is higher to meet demand.
Other ways to solve is to settle for less if the job isn’t that crucial, or look for someone who lives in a lower cost of living area who can take the wage. But that also depends on the whole RTO fiasco.
To be clear, if you are doing leading edge R&D or some super special project like SpaceX, etc then yeah you need to seek the brightest minds across the globe. But to maintain your CMS or work in some ERP softwares, you can definitely find an American to do it.
The basic point I’m making is a large majority of H1B work can be done just as well (within an acceptable error rate) by someone here. There are reasons why you need some special talent but those aren’t as common.
With AI taking a percentage of jobs there will be enough people to fill those positions and more. Why bring in workers when productivity is taking away positions.
> With AI taking a percentage of jobs there will be enough people to fill those positions and more. Why bring in workers when productivity is taking away positions.
>It's funny how we forget about meritocracy as soon as the median American is threatened.
What meritocracy? This is a myth pushed to justify a kind of "just world" interpretation of our social ills. Nepotism is increasing, social mobility decreasing. To believe in meritocracy in the face of this is to deny reality.
I can already on the ground see the effect of the Trump policies. So many tech jobs that would have been in the US are being lost. And companies are learning how to be effective with overseas teams.
"Immigrants doing a very large portion of tech work can't be just because they get paid less"
It is solely about that. Remember, immigrants didn't really play a role in the US tech industry for half of its existence and didn't play a major role until a decade ago. This is despite the fact that US colleges openly and actively discriminate against US citizens for grad school spots for 2 or 3 decades now.
> This is despite the fact that US colleges openly and actively discriminate against US citizens for grad school spots for 2 or 3 decades now.
Can you provide a citation for this specific claim? I used to do admissions to a grad program in the US, and we ended up admitting mostly foreign students soley because very few US citizens actually applied (probably only 10% of apps). Whether that's because they were not qualified or couldn't afford it I do not know. But it's not because they were openly and actively discriminated against.
Not just that, universities (especially smaller research universities) love having grad students whose research is paid for. China, Saudi Arabia, Brazil (less so now than in the past), Qatar, and others have all had programs for years where they paid the tuition and research costs of students at universities. Why would the university not pick that over a local kid who the university has to pay for out of their own coffers?
> Not just that, universities (especially smaller research universities) love having grad students whose research is paid for.
> Why would the university not pick that over a local kid who the university has to pay for out of their own coffers?
Universities don't pay for research - and departments usually don't pay for research either.
At the margin, a professor will prefer someone who has her own funding, but that person also needs to be competent, so I doubt the national schemes you are citing have made an impact on who gets into graduate school.
I've been involved in .. applied CS for 40 years, and the industry has been filled with people of a wide variety of backgrounds for that entire time. Even during the time I worked for the US DOD many of the people I worked were international.
Importing people from countries with higher fertility rates into a country that gives citizenship based on birth location. What else could be the result?
> So we’re essentially turning away someone who is building up our country.
They're not being turned away. There's a requirement to be in the country for 5 years with a green card before citizenship. It seems to me that they are just upset that they have to follow the rules which aren't hurting them at all.
They are actually in fact being told to return to their country before completing a process that previously - legally! - could be done in the US. That = being turned away
> There's a requirement to be in the country for 5 years with a green card before citizenship.
That is absolutely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Until next week, or whenever the current system is again upended haphazardly.
> It seems to me that they are just upset that they have to follow the rules which aren't hurting them at all.
It seems to me that they were all following the rules. The rules are now being capriciously changed with sly marketing words to confuse everyone.
They are effectively being ruled by a system that they have no say in. That's incompatible with America's democratic values. Of course it's reasonable that we don't allow non-citizens the vote; the problem as I see it is that if someone has worked here for 25 years for all intents and purposes they are a citizen, the government just doesn't formally recognize the reality of their situation.
This is so confusing. What does GC -> citizenship have to do with this? The rules work fine now because they apply for the change of status and keep on working until its accepted and leave if not. This new rule means they have to leave the country they are living and working in for anywhere from 1 month to 2 years, probably losing their job and majorly disrupting their lives for seemingly no reason at all. People who have lived in the US for a decade with a job, mortgage, family and children randomly need to leave to years, and what does that accomplish for anyone? If the govt. wanted to deport them, they could do it at any moment. The govt. can process their change of status paperwork exactly the same whether they're in or out of the country. So what is the point of any of this?
Taxes are supposed to pay for public services. An efficient visa system is a public service. If you pay tons of taxes but don’t get a public service that’s personally very important to you, it’s natural to feel let down
You have to do a lot when you get a green card to prove you won't be a burden on the US tax payer. It's a big part of the system and a big part of the anti-immigrant rhetoric
> Genuinely curious, what does taxes have to do with it?
It's popular trope from the GOP that immigrants are an economic drain on the US. They get free <insert whatever you want>, so the US must throw them out to save money.
Just because someone pays some taxes (it's hard to avoid paying sales tax if you buy a thing in a store, regardless of your citizenship), doesn't mean they're a net economic benefit to the country they live in, depending on exactly what taxes they pay and what taxpayer-funded services they get.
Immigrants come to the US with a variety of financial situations. Some immigrants are blatantly scamming welfare systems designed for poor Americans or are outright committing fraud (this is much of what is going on with the federal investigation and charges of Somalis in Minnesota). Other immigrants are paying taxes comparable to what American citizens would pay (this is probably the case for most people on H1B visas in the tech industry).
> Taxation without Representation was literally the driving force for the creation of America itself
The issue of taxation without representation had far more to do with the founders’ status as Englishmen and British subjects than their status as taxpayers. Paying taxes by itself was not a sufficient qualification for political representation. Felons, minors, and women were also required to pay taxes in the 1770s, despite not being able to vote. Immigrants who believe that the taxes they pay entitle them to this representation have bought into a falsified version of American history that was popularized during the Civil Rights Era.
United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” March 26, 1790:
> Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States.
> I don’t think paying your dues should make you more likely to get through the pipeline. After all, you paid those taxes because you made good money, which is what people come here for.
To show that they're not freeloaders. A lot of right-wingers have a belief that immigrants are implicitly freeloaders, and therefore getting rid of them will make the economy better.
Of course it's just not true. Like most current Republican talking points, it's plainly fabricated; it's an outright lie. But, since a lot of people believe it, it's useful to reminder everyone that its not the case.
A very common xenophobic narrative is that foreigners do two things at the same time (1) steal your jobs and (2) drain your social systems. Another even more vile one one would be anything to do with coming for your daughters and women, but for this you will have to favtor in race. Because a rich white Frenchman coming your daughter doesn't have the same ring to it for bigots.
If the US, a country with a too low birthrate, throws out even the best kind of migrant (namely the kind that generates a lot of value for the country), you're going to be in deeper shit than ever before for decades to come.
Now I agree that paying taxes or not should have nothing to do with it.
It's not just a narrative and has been proven true, at least for (2).[0]
For (1), I think that a good discussion with any business owner in a migrant-dominated field will tell you that hiring foreigners is done to keep costs low and avoid Baumol's law. As a result, locals don't want to work in such fields, reinforcing the need for migrants.
So what you're saying is that people arriving in a country don't earn as much as people with established ties there? Cool. I wonder how that could be? /s
> people arriving in a country don't earn as much as people with established ties there
Not true as Europeans are not concerned.
> how that could be
It doesn't have to be like this; for instance, you could require that migrant workers earn at least 2x the median salary to get a visa. It would avoid the whole exploitation of third-world workers paid a subsistence salary to save on costs.
"Most disturbing is the fact that a lot of people I know who climbed the same ladder will go out and cheer what the administration is doing."
I always joke that all naturalized (citizens) immigrants automatically become republican. I say it in earnest because effectively all naturalized people who I know side with anti-immigration, except agaisnt people they know, but none of them take my "joke" seriously.
I got mine in 2019 and feel the same way. I'm actually in the process of applying for citizenship and my application seems to have stalled - it's been nearly 10 months when the USCIS processing times page says I should expect 7 (it was 5-6 when I applied). There's been some articles that the government is going to force everyone to retake fingerprints again although there's been nothing official about that yet. I really wish I had applied for citizenship as soon as I was eligible.
I was approved 2 weeks ago. The process took 4 years end to end. I've been updating my paperwork (SSN, Global Entry and CA DL). I saw this news and immediately thought that it would've impacted me and I wouldn't've been able to maintain my job until a consular interview.
Also a consular interview has no appeal process. A denial stands unlike AOS.
I am paying taxes in US for over 20 years, don't hold a green card, not interested in ever getting one and not complaining that I don't have the right to vote. How are these things related?
> me and my wife have been in the US for combined 25+ years, and paid over $100,000 in
Sounds like you may be a good candidate for Trump's gold card.
I'm being fecitious of course, but I'm just pointing out that thinking of citizenship worthiness in monetary terms is something the president has already considered.
That was literally the premise of America at its foundation, and it’s a better national identity than this weird, ahistorical attempt at white christian nationhood currently popular on the American right.
That America was founded as an economic zone open to all seems more ahistoric. The phrase "ourselves and our Posterity" appears in the first sentence of the Constitution. And you cannot deny that the founders were in fact white Christians[0].
Look, I'm a visibly nonwhite immigrant. I am proud to be a naturalized American and have renounced all legal ties to the country of my birth. I think dual citizenship is at best weird, and I honestly don't understand how one squares that against the oath of allegiance. I believe the onus is upon the immigrant to assimilate, and that America is a rare place where that is in fact possible. I have no desire to recreate the country of my birth in America, especially not in a segregated ethnic enclave.
I would like to live in a colorblind America and, though it may sound implausible to you, I believe the American right has the better claim to that future than the left. I do not empathize more with potential immigrants from my ethnic background than I do with my fellow Americans, and I quite dislike it when those from the left automatically assume the former, because it means they are treating me as being fundamentally different than any other American. And I think this mindset is table stakes for any immigrant to any nation.
Much of the West has seen levels of immigration over the past few decades beyond the capacity of the native population to absorb in a way that results in assimilation. It has increasingly been from cultures that are substantially different, further hampering that effort. It's disconcerting to see that any efforts to pump the brakes even a little bit immediately results in accusations of racism or fascism.
[0]: I don't want to split hairs over 18th-century Deism. All of that was contained within the Christian cultural framework, anyway.
Hey man, I get it, you’re new here. I don’t know how anyone observing the American right could possibly believe what you believe, and especially not if you’ve been observing them your entire life like I have, but if I was a new citizen of a country, I imagine that I’d also have some pretty naive beliefs too. Best of luck to you.
This news has to be read alongside the immigration visa emission pause for 75 countries by DOS[1].
Since USCIS is blocking Adjustment of Status, and the Department of State is blocking green card emission for citizens of 75 countries, this means that if you are from the following countries you are effectively banned from getting a Green Card:
Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Antigua and Barbuda, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Burma, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Colombia, Cote d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, The Gambia, Georgia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Haiti, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Kuwait, Kyrgyz Republic, Laos, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, North Macedonia, Pakistan, Republic of the Congo, Russia, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Tanzania, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, and Yemen.
I'm from one of the countries on the list. Not only is there no way to legally immigrate to the US anymore, but just visiting US once requires me to give an interest-free loan of up to $15k to the US government. Yeah, no, thank you.
I never considered illegal immigration, nor will I ever - I value predictable outcomes.
But looking at these new rules, I can't help but think that it really punishes people who want to play by the rules and sets the price for ones that don't to approximately $15k.
My country is not in the list (Mexico, not that we need to... Americans hate us), but I just cannot comprehend why people would go through all the pain for the immigration process in the US.
Actually, it kind of make sense why only the most desperate try to get into the US , people who have something to lose are naturally repelled by the bureaucracy.
We love to paint the US in broad brushstrokes of color, but it more of a muddy brown across the entire country. Washington State doesn't have huge expat communities of Mexicans, but what about if I'm Chinese going to school in Spokane? Or Somali in St Paul, MN? or Pakistani in Chicago? Some "average Americans" seem to hate these people in every locale.
EDIT: Wash. is actually a top 8 destination in the US for Mexican immigrants, with an estimated population of 250-300K people, so not huge but definitely sizeable!
I dunno. The southern parts of SW WA can be pretty racist (Lewis County and south). Rural, much more red, but without the extensive farming more pervasive on the east side.
I don't mean to minimize any negative experiences you've had. But as a lifelong American, I've never heard anyone make a negative comment about Mexicans. Even in online spaces like X where there is a lot of racism, it's usually not directed at Mexicans.
If you look at Trump's famous comment about Mexicans in his speech from 2015, he actually points to Mexicans in the audience and refers to them as Mexico's best people. The media cut that part out, of course. (I'm not a Trump supporter.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apjNfkysjbM#t=3m25s
TRUMP: "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best -- they're not sending you [points at unidentified people off-camera] -- they're not sending you -- they're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs; they're bringing crime; they're rapists and some, I assume, are good people."
There is no apparent indication in that video that the people he's pointing at are Mexican.
Among other issues, countries are not generally 'sending people' to immigrate to other countries. Most countries are in general keen to avoid emigration.
>There is no apparent indication in that video that the people he's pointing at are Mexican.
But it seems like the most natural interpretation.
The most obvious, good-faith interpretation of this quote is that Mexico has a mix of good and bad people, like every country, and the ones immigrating illegally tend to be bad. The fact that the media didn't even consider this common-sense interpretation contributed a lot to Trump's popularity.
TRUMP: "They're all crooks. The Somalians are -- what they've done to Minnesota -- the Somalians. They're crooked as hell. Ilhan Omar. Crooked as hell. They're all crooks. And we got 'em."
> But as a lifelong American, I've never heard anyone make a negative comment about Mexicans.
What an absurd statement on its face that comes from a place of extreme privilege. I am a brown-skinned man in America and I lost count of all of the times people that look like me have been denigrated and lambasted in this country.
>What an absurd statement on its face that comes from a place of extreme privilege.
Oh boy, here we go again. I even said "I don't mean to minimize any negative experiences you've had" and I'm still getting the privilege discourse. You are really determined to prevent the Democrats from winning elections, aren't you?
Even assuming I am privileged, then what I'm telling you is that privileged white people like myself aren't shit-talking Mexicans behind their back. Wouldn't that be relevant information? Why would it be an absurd statement?
>brown-skinned
That's not the same as Mexican.
When was the most recent time this happened to you in person? A recent, representative concrete example would be a lot more compelling that performative outrage.
I've always thought I'd end up in the US at some point, but as someone who prefers to make things rather than spend years at some faceless megacorp (writing up cover sheets for TPS reports), it never seemed hugely viable, even starting out from a first-world country.
Now it doesn't seem viable at all. Meanwhile, anyone who shows up illegally is merely "undocumented", and half of US politics consists in coddling them (the other half in enforcing existing immigration laws capriciously). Even for someone who's quite pro-immigration like myself, that's just bizarre. There's no way this is a functional system.
Most of the people in my circles don't want to go to the US anymore. I suppose I'll ride it out and see what comes next (after 2028 at minimum). If I ever make it, I'll have spent many of my productive years outside the US, since I wasn't welcome during those. Weird system.
That's what I just commented as well, I'm not from the US but that seems so obvious, in which country it's a "right" of some sort? It should definitely be hard, maybe even very hard to emigrate there, to show strong commitment and intent and most especially you should have something special to bring to the table knowing you didn't abed by the same rules growing-up (not the same level of education necessarily and so-on) which is a bit unfair for local citizens.
I don't really understand the position of many comments which seems to be somehow "We should be welcoming the world" but like why? Why wouldn't you prioritize your citizens first especially seeing the job loss lately?
Part of it is cultural due to the origins of our country. We are mostly a country of immigrants. On the base of the Statue of Liberty is a poem “The New Colossus” which says:
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
There are reasons beyond the cultural history or being a country of immigrants. Much of the innovation of the US over it’s history is due to immigrants. From modern physics, the telephone, the Internet, mRNA vaccines, etc. 46% of Fortune 500 companies were founded by Immigrants or their children. 44% of billion dollar tech startups are immigrants.
Without immigration, the US would have negative population growth, which is economically probably a disaster. We’d have to achieve impossible levels of productivity to support the larger aging populations. Additionally the job losses you mention are mostly in Technology, Finance and Government… sectors that aren’t exactly dominated by immigrant labor.
Being protectionist doesn’t typically work out from a cost and labor perspective. We already have shortages in farming, construction and health care labor, which are often populated by immigrants. So overall, we’d have more unfilled positions, which would result in higher prices, etc. Native born Americans just don’t seem to want those jobs.
> Without immigration, the US would have negative population growth, which is economically probably a disaster.
Nobody knows what the population growth rate would be without immigration. The two are interlinked; ceteris is not paribus.
> We already have shortages in farming, construction and health care labor, which are often populated by immigrants. So overall, we’d have more unfilled positions, which would result in higher prices, etc.
Letting the price of labor in those industries find natural market equilibrium is fine. For agriculture especially, labor is a pretty small part of a product's final cost, anyway.
> Native born Americans just don’t seem to want those jobs.
The price of labor aside, have you ever worked a job where you're surrounded by an ethnic clique? I don't blame anyone for not wanting that.
>Immigrating to the usa is not a right. It is granted.
It's not about rights, it's about keeping your promises.
"Join the army and get a green card" -- oops did we say that?
But then we have only been fair weather friends (see how we treated pretty much any one who put their lives on the line) so I'm not very surprised at what's happening.
I don't know, some Americans are earning a ton of money in their 30s post-millitary and are retired for life and can even live abroad and keep getting their pension, do you have statistics to back it up?
We carry the seeds of our own destruction they say. So this is a good thing. America should take care of their own citizens first. It is a good thing. Also there is a school of thought that says prosperity of any country is primarily a function of the kind of citizens they have, and how the country is able to leverage the intellect of its citizens. An important thesis of recent discussions of American prosperity is that a lot of it has been built up by the immigration of enterprising people into the US. So it can be argued that American prosperity is at the cost of prosperity of the rest of the world. And most of these things have compounding effects. The more intellect gathers in the US, that country can leap frog into the future at a far more vigorous pace than other could if most of these people were left inside their own countries. But in any case, these current events give us an opportunity into testing the thesis of American prosperity. Either balance will be brought to how global prosperity is distributed, or finally a country will be able to take care of its own citizens first. Either way this is all a great thing.
This is a really horrible policy and I personally know a fair few people and families that are going to have their lives upended by this.
On the other hand I've always wondered if most of America's competitive advantage at driving tech innovation hasn't simply been through capturing the ROI of other more social minded countries investing in public education. It could be a massive long term benefit to Europe and Asia especially if they get to keep the talent they created, and more globally distributed innovation seems like it could have some benefits to global welfare.
Those countries could keep their own talent through economic policy (i.e. fuck you pay me)
That they don’t is entirely their own fault and they deserve to be brain drained. “Talent” are people with agency and not possessions subservient to national interests.
no, there are already runoff places that will brain drain the rest. there will be no "great repatriation". it's not just "The US" and "Home", there is an ease of immigration, quality of life, and success potential gradient.
So much of the US immigration process is built around punishing and exploiting. The primary reason for the strong border is allowing farms and construction companies to find cheap labor which can't complain about mistreatment.
It helps that a decent portion of the population hates and/or is fearful anyone different from themselves. That is what's allowed for these even more draconian and brutal measures.
This is the part that is the wildest to me. The current system seems to generate a collection of second-class citizens: people we openly rely on for labor but that have no recourse if they're exploited and no regulatory protections such as minimum wage (even though I argue against min wage, if we're going to have it, have it!).
My personal preference would be to allow nearly unlimited legal immigration but strip welfare programs for all. In this way we allow anyone and everyone to become an economic participant, voting participant after the naturalization process, and mitigate those immigrating purely for handouts.
But I haven't thought through this policy well. Maybe there is something this seemingly solution is missing.
Are you going to allow ER’s to refuse patients and let people die on the street? What if the Patient is unconscious with no identification but looks Hispanic? Can they be turned away?
Stripping away all wefare because of immigration is a bad bad bad idea.
So in your utopia, what's the process to determine if someone is a gross and terrible homeless druggie that deserves to die on the sidewalk; versus someone like yourself who is very important and deserves all the help right away?
Society makes this judgement every day in a thousand different ways. Resources are limited. It's why we don't give 85-year-old's heart/lung transplants - the 30-year-old recipient can use it better/longer. Does that mean we don't give any health care to 85-year-olds? No, and to argue it is so is a slippery slope fallacy. It's why we don't have lights on all 4-way stops even though it's safer than stop signs.
Given that we make these judgements, the problem with your argument is that you paint the GP as some sort of monster for making the judgement and picking a spot on the scale. It's a valid thing to disagree with where he picks on the scale; it is invalid to argue that there should be no scale.
> it is invalid to argue that there should be no scale.
And to put that into policy gets rid of the scale for everyone. You can see it with abortion restrictions in various states. Instead of the doctor's expertise, the lawyers are the ones to decide.
Then again this is very much on point for the US. There are no experts other than lawyers. /s
> But I haven't thought through this policy well. Maybe there is something this seemingly solution is missing.
What about long term immigrants who end up disabled through no fault of their own? Or who get cancer? Or who end up having a child (who is an American citizen) and that child is special needs and the immigrant can't manage a full time job and care for their child? If they get pregnant and end up on bed rest or with a traumatic birth that takes them out of the workforce for a period of time?
There are ways to end up needing to rely on welfare that aren't due to laziness or a desire for handouts.
If the answer is 'kick them out', I'd be worried about what we're teaching our American kids watching. There are two lessons they could pick up, and neither is good for their moral development or sense of self. The first is that anyone who lacks the ability to work has no value, and that will engender greater alienation and isolation as they place all of their self-worth on their ability to earn money. They'll look upon the elderly, children, and caretakers with disdain (Interestingly, this probably won't help the birth rates either...). The second is that they are protected but those people should be disposed of when they're not useful. This will make them arrogant and introduce the idea of dehumanizing other groups, which will further the cracks of division in our society.
That’s by design. Maybe not initially, but we’ve been having this immigration debate as long as I’ve been politically aware, which is going on 4 decades. It absolutely is the desired outcome today.
Kids. Kids are the piece of this policy you haven’t considered. Poor people have kids too. Then you have starving babies in the street and 5 year olds trying to find work to pay for food. Then you might think, “okay, maybe we take care of kids. Healthcare? Food? Education?” Great. But do you have forced separation from parents in order to provide these services just to the kids? What if the parents eat the kids food because they’re starving. Now you have to feed the parents. And providing care for orphans costs more than healthcare for parents, so probably rational to give them healthcare too. And do you want to create a system where having a kid gets you food and healthcare? Probably don’t want that incentive. So now you’re maybe giving food and healthcare to people without kids.
So, whenever you think about purely capitalistic policies with no social policies, we just have to be okay with having a large number of babies and toddlers starving on the streets in front of us.
When you hear about republicans cutting $900 billion from Medicaid, and millions of families losing coverage, that means children. Almost 50% of Medicaid recipients are children. Most of the other 50% are their parents. So millions of children now do not have healthcare. Your post advocates for millions more to lose coverage. That translates to children dying and having lifelong disabilities from otherwise preventable illnesses.
The other inevitable outcome of policies like this is exploitation of women. It might start with “voluntary” sex work, but it becomes a bigger business that invites true exploitation and rapidly leads to human trafficking. Btw, that “voluntary” is there because it’s usually a choice between sex work and spiraling into homelessness and poverty - so not super voluntary to begin with. And we’re not even counting women more women who stay in abusive relationships because they are fully dependent on their partner for sustenance and shelter.
All that is to say that anytime advocate for a certain set of social policies over another, it’s usually informative to look at how they impact the most vulnerable in our society. Start with kids, then consider disabled and women. And finally ask why we’re generally okay with men starving on the street but not toddlers.
Generally, republicans want lots of illegals for two reasons… first, cheap labor. Second, it’s a drum to bang during election season.
And democrats only halfway want to fix it. If they actually succeed, they also lose a drum. And have to pay more for chicken and oranges.
Making non-immigrant visa or work permits easy to obtain would be trivial (relative to other gov endeavors). But we don’t. I’m left to conclude the political elite on both sides like it this way.
> This is the part that is the wildest to me. The current system seems to generate a collection of second-class citizens
What do you mean seems too. The biggest proponents of immigration routinely ask "who's going to work the fields?" As a call to allow immigration. I don't know how to interpret that as anything but importing an underclass.
> The current system seems to generate a collection of second-class citizens
Poor choice of words. Illegals are not citizens. That's the whole point.
> have no recourse if they're exploited
The recourse is to go back. In the era when you could just immigrate to the US just by getting on a boat (before the Immigration Act of 1924), about 1/3 of immigrants went back to their home country if they did not make it in the US.
See:
> From 1908 to 1932, 12 million individuals migrated to the United States. Over the same period, four million returned to their source country.
There are no leftists in power in the US government outside of maybe a very small handful. We have not had a leftist president or majority ever, unless you just group neo-liberal democrats into that bucket, which would just be wrong...
Even if true (and it's not), what even is your point? Do you not think people that work and pay taxes should get any benefits? Do you think it's ok that people are exploited if they're immigrants?
It's not like undocumented immigrants even get welfare or other social programs, but they do have to pay taxes. Interesting enough, they even commit 50% less crime than citizens.
To think these people can't be exploited and that it's trivial to return to their home countries shows a lack of critical thinking.
For example, many of these people flee countries that have dire situations directly caused by US interventions over the past decades including most of Central and South America.
The list of countries that have had their democratically elected leaders overthrown or were otherwise destabilized by the US and its corporate elite is long and well documented.
>It's not like undocumented immigrants even get welfare or other social programs
False. Medicaid is US state-subsidized health insurance, which undocumented immigrants are eligible for:
"Children (0–18 years old) can get full Medi-Cal coverage, no matter their immigration status.
Adults (19 and older) are currently eligible for full Medi-Cal coverage, regardless of immigration status.
Starting on January 1, 2026, adults who do not have Satisfactory Immigration Status (SIS) will no longer be able to enroll in full Medi-Cal. If you already have coverage, you can keep it; just make sure to renew your coverage during your renewal month."
>For example, many of these people flee countries that have dire situations directly caused by US interventions over the past decades including most of Central and South America.
And when the US intervened in Venezuela recently, Venezuelans were dancing on the streets.
As an isolationist, I'm against American interventions. Our track record is mixed at best. But the idea that every world problem, or every South American problem, can be blamed on the US somehow is a vast oversimplification.
Medi-cal and the Washington state medicaid programs both allow for non-citizens. However, they do not use federal funds to cover non-citizens, they use state funds. They leverage their higher tax revenues to cover.
Federal medicaid funds do not go to illegal immigrants. If a state wants to cover them they have to do that out of state revenue.
Since medicaid is partially state funded and mainly federally funded that's what opens up the door for states to have different rules for eligibility (expanding beyond the federal standard). However, the states have to cover the excess when they decide to do that.
>Medi-cal and the Washington state medicaid programs both allow for non-citizens. However, they do not use federal funds to cover non-citizens, they use state funds. They leverage their higher tax revenues to cover.
That would still mean runtime_terror made a false claim: "It's not like undocumented immigrants even get welfare or other social programs" They didn't specify whether the money for welfare or social programs came at the federal vs state level.
We were talking federal funds, that's what I was referring to. I'm well aware MediCal covers immigrants; and I'd argue they should get coverage as they pay taxes after all!
The person you’re responding to is writing in bad faith and being stupid on purpose. The discourse you are trying to have about immigration with them is exactly why immigration in this country is a disaster.
> The discourse you are trying to have about immigration with them is exactly why immigration in this country is a disaster.
I agree that bad faith presentations on how things work is definitely a problem. But I think the reason immigration is a disaster is because both republicans and democrats have decided to be xenophobic. There's no political party pushing an alternative narrative. But further, the current system works for big corporate donors. The broken immigration system makes it easy for a company to exploit H1B workers or farm laborers/construction workers.
That, IMO, is why the system is so broken. Our politicians used 9/11 as a way to ramrod in draconian border policies "to fight terrorism" but really because they benefit those that own big businesses.
Until either party decides that immigrants are our neighbors and not scary "criminals" the system will remain completely busted.
Even if the money comes out of the California budget rather than the federal budget, runtime_terror's claim "It's not like undocumented immigrants even get welfare or other social programs" was not fully true. California is half a trillion dollars in debt, and is the only state which hasn't paid back its pandemic loan from the federal government. I sure hope the feds won't be responsible if California collapses.
I'm not even sure how I feel about immigration restriction. But I do want to get the facts straight. Be careful about assuming that anyone who mentions facts which are inconvenient for your worldview is "writing in bad faith" or "being stupid on purpose". That's a fast-track to epistemic closure like we see in religious cults.
Brother, we're the 4th largest economy in the world. We hold up an outsized percentage of the US economy.
> But I do want to get the facts straight
Oh do you now? You're the one that believes countries are better off after the US overthrows their democratically elected leaders and that the Venezuelans were celebrating in the streets (most of those were AI videos btw).
You just want to defend US imperialism and to scapegoat hard working immigrants.
You believe Maduro was "democratically elected"? I don't think any serious observer believes he won a free and fair election.
You claimed the dire economics in South America was a result of US intervention. I gave 3 data points indicating that it's not that simple. You haven't given a single data point in support of your position.
>defend US imperialism
As I said, I'm an isolationist. I just get tired of people blaming the US for everything.
Most people in the US are immigrants, including white people. Very few white people have a lineage to the revolution. Most came from Europe following WWII or, perhaps, before. This most likely includes you.
The idea that the US is composed of true Americans that have been here since the beginning is an outright Republican fantasy. A delusion to make white immigrants feel better about themselves. But it's just not true.
This has always been a country composed of immigrants, and it's always something we've been proud of. We have long been the melting pot. To think otherwise is anti-American, and you do not belong here.
> Most people in the US are immigrants, including white people.
If they were born in America they aren’t immigrants.
> To think otherwise is anti-American, and you do not belong here.
United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” March 26, 1790:
> Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States.
There is no "we" on this matter. Americans have been sharply divided about immigrants for a long time going back to the 19th century or even before. There is no such thing as an American consensus on immigration. Certainly you don't get to define what is American and what isn't. Neither do I. You're just one person.
"To think otherwise is anti-American, and you do not belong here." is just a useless emotional thought-terminating phrase.
Americans have not been divided on immigration, this is a conservative revisionist history thing. For the past couple hundred years, everyone has agreed that immigration, as a concept, is a net-benefit for America.
What is different this time is that, for the first time ever, we have people who believe that immigration, as a concept, is not a net-benefit. We can disagree on the amount of immigration, sure.
But never, in our history, has "none" been an acceptable viewpoint. It is fundamentally incompatible with everything this country stands for, going back to our inception. And, before anyone says anything, yes the far-right is trying to stamp out all immigration. They might not say it, but their actions certainly do.
There are vastly fewer "immigrants for handouts" than right wing media would like you to believe. Coming to the US is incredibly challenging. People who do it are mostly young and wish to work, to support families. Handouts don't accomplish that.
It take tremendous effort to immigrate, legally or illegally. Anyone telling you that they are lazy is obviously lying.
As a US native, I have met zero lazy immigrants, but lazy Americans are everywhere I look. Thus I think this sentiment is more a projection of their own behavior: “they must be as lazy as we are”.
I think you hit the nail on the head. It maps directly to much of their coalition’s rhetoric, accusations, policy agenda, and behavior these days, including, but not limited to, their obsession with pedophilia.
> The primary reason for the strong border is allowing farms and construction companies to find cheap labor which can't complain about mistreatment.
That doesn't make any sense. If you want "cheap labor [that] can't complain about mistreatment," you want a weak border, not a strong one, because a weak border creates a larger pool of illegal immigrants to draw from.
A strong border, at a minimum, reduces the supply of illegal immigrants, and may even push the employer into hiring people with legal immigration status who can complain and sue over mistreatment.
> It helps that a decent portion of the population hates and/or is fearful anyone different from themselves. That is what's allowed for these even more draconian and brutal measures.
I'd put it another way: a large part of the population has been put under a lot of stress and pressure, while simultaneously being intensely conditioned to not blame the people actually responsible. That stress has to go somewhere. Don't blame the little guys, even if you find them contemptible because they're not from your culture. Blaming the little guy (for "hat[ing]...anyone different from themselves") is another aspect of the conditioning that protects those actually responsible.
Strong border policies with moderate (weaker) and selective enforcement will give the combination that GP describes: enough supply backed by the threat of strong individual penalties if someone here illegally “gets out of line”.
> because a weak border creates a larger pool of illegal immigrants to draw from.
A larger pool with more rights and less fear of being deported. That means it's easier for them to pick and choose the jobs they do or even to start their own businesses.
They could, for example, form a union without the fear of deportation.
Look, if this were all about stopping illegal immigration, there are very fast paths to doing that. A prime one would be punishing not the immigrant, but the employer of the immigrant. Fine every farm in the US that employs an illegal immigrant and you'd quickly see the number of those jobs being worked drop.
But that's not what ICE is about which is why they and legislators haven't done that really basic enforcement.
Heck, at the start of this admin, Trump had to pull back ICE from raiding farms because the business interests of the farmers collided with the xenophobia of Steven Miller.
Why does the US have to offer jobs to the whole world? People flood US borders like it's a magnet sucking them in and cry when they can't stay. If it's so exploitive why don't people stay in their own country or go somewhere else?
They have "flooded" the US borders because in the first Trump term, Trump instituted a policy of having applicants for all sorts of reasons to have to stay in Mexico before they can be accepted.
That's the primary reason why there are now huge encampments at the border. They weren't there under Obama, Bush, or Clinton.
> why don't people stay in their own country or go somewhere else?
A lot of people are asylum seekers, and a lot of that reason they are seeking asylum is US policy which has destroyed their home nations. The best example of this being the likes Venezuela, Cuba, and Haite. The US putting international trade embargos on governments it doesn't like, plunging them into poverty, creates a bunch of refuges.
Some people are simply seeking a better life. Some have bought into american propaganda about how awesome the US is to live in. Some people are simply trafficked into the US for the explicit purpose of being exploited. (In fact, that's the majority of human trafficking in the US [1]).
> I question the idea that the US has a strong border compared to other countries of a comparable economic and development level.
It's all over the map. A lot of countries are easier to visit. Becoming a citizen, however, is difficult for most countries.
> Also, allowing farms and construction companies to find cheap labor is a reason for a weak border, not a reason for a strong border.
You are mistaken in thinking this is a normal labor market. The reason it reduces prices is because it weakens the ability for labor to negotiate. A strong border with internal enforcement makes it easier for a farmer to tell a day laborer "do this, or I'll call ICE on you". How well do you think a day laborer can negotiate a raise in that circumstance?
Consider, for example, the fact that farmers aren't employing US citizens or documented workers even though they are infinitely more abundant than undocumented workers. Why do you think that is? What mechanism is making the undocumented worker cheap and the documented one expensive?
A fast path to documentation and more rights lets more people in, but it also increases the labor costs because the workers are able to negotiate in the market.
lol "draconian and brutal measures", it is not your right to become a citizen in another country, they are doing YOU a favour. If at any point you think it is unfair, go somewhere else.
Absurd, currently trying to figure out how to sponsor my wife and now this. The wording seems to imply that even those here on valid non-immigrant visas (F1) would need to apply via their home country. It doesn’t help that I130+I485 (AOS) could take over a year to process?
If you have filed I485 and they fail to process it before your current visa expires (D/S ends like F1 OPT). Then what? You just have to leave, abandon AOS and re-apply for CR1?
It’s insane that the simplest immigrant pathway; spousal green card could take 12+ months and may now require temporarily moving and being separated. Guess I actually will be paying $4K for a lawyer (plus the 3-4K just to file the USCIS forms).
I wish they would just have a simple fast lane for the 100% legal, non-complicated case.
By the way, if you move outside the country, you lose Domicile which is required to sponsor the visa. And if you don't spend enough time in their country visiting them, your application can be temporary "denied" (delayed) with a request for evidence (that the relationship is real) they'll spend 3 months deliberating over.
Today's news make this crystal clear: the current admin does not want citizens marrying outside the country, regardless of how quickly the marriage rate among US population is falling.
> simple fast lane for the 100% legal, non-complicated case
Immigration policy in the current administration (which seems to be driven by Stephen Miller) is not based around legalaities, it's based around cutting immigration as much as possible because that's what satisfies Trump's voter base. These people do not care if you 'did it the right way'. They have an atavistic hatred of foreigners.
> Immigration policy in the current administration (which seems to be driven by Stephen Miller) is not based around legalaities, it's based around cutting immigration as much as possible
White immigrants are fine with this administration.
"All but 3 of 6,069 refugees taken in by Trump are White South Africans"
Yeah, the move to take in only white refugees from SA was a clear message to their voter base that it’s about race. They could have chosen not to do that and have some plausible deniability, but they wanted to make that point very publicly.
Not just race, but political orientation. Not all white South Africans qualify for refugee status - only Afrikaners. A group who are generally conservative and likely to vote Republican once they've been fast-tracked to citizenship. (English-speaking, urban white people tend to vote more liberal there.)
Do you think the Biden-admin immigration shenanigans (2M illegal crossings a year, "temporary" protected status, CBP One, etc.) weren't predominantly aimed at a group of people who were deemed to be more likely to vote Democratic?
> Do you think the Biden-admin immigration shenanigans (2M illegal crossings a year, "temporary" protected status, CBP One, etc.) weren't predominantly aimed at a group of people who were deemed to be more likely to vote Democratic?
Most Hispanic families and cultures are overwhelmingly socially conservative leaning.
In addition, non-citizens cannot vote in federal elections.
That "theory" has never held water, and was always a racist dogwhistle.
> Most Hispanic families and cultures are overwhelmingly socially conservative leaning.
The idea that Hispanics and other ethnic minorities would vote Democratic was so popular that people wrote a whole book about it[0], until the idea was finally put to bed with Trump's electoral gain among every nonwhite group between 2016 and 2024.
Until then, the broad demographic makeup of the illegal crossings during Biden's years would absolutely have been assumed to lean Democratic.
> In addition, non-citizens cannot vote in federal elections.
Noncitizens count for Congressional apportionment, and as GP said, there is the implicit understanding that at least some of those noncitizens will become citizens in the future and vote for the party that facilitated their arrival into this country.
> In 2015, in an essay The Emerging Republican Advantage,[4] Judis recanted his views in the book and argued that the long term Democratic majority had given way to an "unstable equilibrium" between the parties. He wrote that the long term Democratic Majority was gone as Hispanics and Asians were considerably less Democratic than he assumed and that white working class voters were abandoning the Democratic party.[5]
It was a stupid premise, of course they were wrong.
It did more to help US conservatives through counter-propaganda than anything else.
I won't defend Biden's weak border, but I don't see any signs that he was specifically letting in people based on their political leaning while excluding others, nor were they given a fast track to citizenship.
As someone who came here on the K-1 (fiance) visa, this would have impacted me as (IIRC) there are two points where I had to adjust status: once, after marriage, to get "Conditional" Permanent Residency, and after two years of marriage, to "remove conditions" on my residency.
I get being out of the country for the initial application (the consular officer in Sydney explained that it typically had to be filed by the sponsor, while the sponsor was in the US and the applicant was overseas, so that there was "no" concerns on coercion, etc.), but this... oof.
> Guess I actually will be paying $4K for a lawyer (plus the 3-4K just to file the USCIS forms).
And then of course the $85 biometrics fee every time you talk to USCIS, which could be multiple times in the process.
> Guess I actually will be paying $4K for a lawyer (plus the 3-4K just to file the USCIS forms). I wish they would just have a simple fast lane for the 100% legal, non-complicated case.
It would have been cheaper, and faster, for me to have come here from Australia on the visa waiver program (which says "no marrying a USC"), married my partner, said to USCIS "oops, my bad, can I stay anyway?" and go through -that- process, than the proper K-1.
I’m pretty sure you can both be out of the country, at least me and my wife were. We were married long enough to get a fast track though, according to the rules at the time.
It sounds like your wife came to the US on an F1 visa, you got married and are now filing or have filed for I130+I485 for her. I assume too that you were a US citizen. These facts may not be correct. IANAL but I absolutely think you should be forking over the money for an immigraiton lawyer and that was true before this memo came out.
I've seen so many people who call their cases "simple" or "straightforward" but 2 minutes of fairly superficial questioning reveals there are actually huge minefields or deep, fundamental flaaws in their case. It's way cheaper to have a lawyer from the start than it is to screw up her case and then get a lawyer involved once she's in removal proceedings, which is a very real possibility.
So here are some base questions to ask:
- How did you get your citizenship? If you were born here or got a green card through an employer or parent, that's fine. If you got it from being sponsored in a previous marriage, that's what USCIS calls a "pivot case" and you will have a high level of scrutiny;
- Did you know your wife prior to her coming to the US? If so, USCIS might take the position that this was a scheme for her to come to the US and adjust status rather than consular processing and the burden of proof that it wasn't is on you;
- It sounds like your wife is on OPT. If so, she completed her studies, which is good. USCIS hates cases where someone comes on an F1, doesn't complete their studies and get married. They can accuse such people of committing immigration fraud;
- How soon after her last entry to the US did you get married? Too quick (generally under 60-90 days) and USCIS may accuse her of misrepresentation, which is a huge problem;
- Did she make any visa applications and misrepresent her status to you?
- Did she make any misrepresentations to CBP about her relationship to you when entering the US?
- Did she ever violate the terms of her F1 visa? For example, working without authorization;
- Has she been married before? If so, were there an I130 filed for her previously?
- Has your wife ever been arrested, charged or convicted of any crime other than traffic ticket citations? This can be a far bigger problem than you realize even if it's something "trivial" where she gets probation;
- Did she apply for an F1 for one school, come to the US then change schools? If so, USCIS might take the position she did a misrepresentation.
Also, anecdotally, USCIS seems to be taking advantage at interviews of people who don't have a lawyer by threatening the citizen to withdraw the case or by getting the citizen or immigrant to agree not facts that aren't in evidence or aren't true and then using those facts to deny or delay the case.
Are you prepared for the interview where the officer may separate you and then compare your answers?
There's more to an immigration attorney than just filling out forms. A good attorney will prepare you for the interview and identify (and hopefully solve) any potential issues before they become issues. People generally make bad witnesses. I'm reminded of the "do you know what time it is?" scene from the west Wing [1].
I would strongly advise for a lawyer, too, but some of your statements are less accurate, as someone who came here on a K-1 visa, in a genuine and sincere relationship, divorced and in the process of the divorce missed some filing deadlines and also hired a lawyer to clear it up.
> Did you know your wife prior to her coming to the US? If so, USCIS might take the position that this was a scheme for her to come to the US and adjust status rather than consular processing and the burden of proof that it wasn't is on you
Depending on status, per my lawyer, the assumption is that the visa is valid based on the initial application process. The burden on my "fixing" things, despite divorce, etc., was on USCIS to show that it wasn't sincere. That means they -did- ask for evidence (bank statements, insurance policies, financial instruments, cosigned leases, etc.) but they had to show that those "didn't sufficiently show an authentic relationship".
> Did she make any visa applications and misrepresent her status to you
This can be a challenge, but not usually a problem. After my visa was granted I started interviewing from Australia for jobs. When I did get a job, my new employer through a HR mixup set wheels in motion for a H-1B for me, which I hurriedly told them to cancel as I didn't need it.
> Are you prepared for the interview where the officer may separate you and then compare your answers?
Definitely will, not may. We faced questions like "what night is garbage night and who takes out the trash usually", "how long have they been working in the field they are currently employed in" (not just how long at current job). "Are both their parents alive, where do they live?" etc.
1. Born in typical midwest American town from American parents also born in the US just as their parents (at least 4 generations)
2. Nope, met after arrival.
3. Studies completed and employed legally.
4. "How soon after her last entry to the US did you get married" - actually maybe an issue, we just happened to travel internationally before deciding to get married sooner. But it would be silly to not return to the country you live and work in just because you took a vacation.
5. CBP doesn't even ask questions when you re-enter with valid visa documentation.
6. No previous marriages of either party.
7. No criminal history, not even a speeding ticket.
8. Nope, went to school, graduated, started working, so on.
We live together and spend >90% of our non-working time together so I can't imagine an interview being a problem.
As you can see, besides maybe the "crime" of taking an international vacation, our case is as simple as it should be.
> Also, anecdotally, USCIS seems to be taking advantage at interviews of people who don't have a lawyer by threatening the citizen to withdraw the case or by getting the citizen or immigrant to agree not facts that aren't in evidence or aren't true and then using those facts to deny or delay the case.
I mean that's really the issue. USCIS appears to be intentionally adversarial.
I'm not from the US, but isn't it like almost every country in the world? Reducing immigration when it's already too much does increase job availability for locals (which should always be priority imo). Immigration to a country is a privilege, not really a right, but again I don't really know about the US, I just know that like Emigrating to Japan permanently or like in Dubai getting citizenship is very difficult and it does sound normal to me, why should it be easy? You want ultra motivated potential citizens, not the ones that just want to come for a few years to improve their CV or just pile up savings and then bail, they don't bring anything to the country as they'll not spend in the long-term within the US and will not really assimilate as well.
I don't think this is "racist", even Europeans are in the same boat to apply as far as I know, those are mostly white, I don't think racist is the right term here. Isn't America already heavily mixed?
Newsflash: Many European countries are, in fact, racist.
The French are virulently racist against Arabs and Muslims. Most of Western Europe is racist against the Romani, as well as against most Eastern European ethnicities (yes, even though they would be considered "white" in the US). It hasn't historically come up quite as much as in the US because most European countries are more homogeneous than the US is, but with the increase in migration—and particularly in asylum-seeking emigration from war-torn areas—it has become much more salient in recent times.
Japan is also racist, varying from moderately to horrifically depending on what the target group is.
These forms of racism don't always look the same as racism does in the US: for instance, the Western European bias against Eastern Europeans, IME, largely shows up as a widespread belief that they're lazy, and the bias against Romani is that they're seen as dirty, smelly thieves.
90% of all anti-immigrant sentiment, anywhere, is rooted in racism of varying types. Plenty of studies have made very clear that immigrants contribute more to the community and the nation, and have lower rates of crime, than people born in the country.
It is true that when a wave of immigrants first arrives in a new country, they take up more government resources for a period of time, because they literally have not had a chance to find jobs. But once that happens, they are likely to be working at lower-status, lower-paying jobs that the locals mostly didn't want in the first place. And once they have jobs, they aren't just somehow "taking up jobs that locals could have": they also create demand in the local economy, which creates more jobs. Because "number of jobs" isn't a fixed quantity.
And finally, in case you have been hiding under a rock for the last decade of American politics, this anti-immigrant sentiment is explicitly aimed at nonwhite immigrants. To the point that ICE routinely targets people based on the color of their skin, wholly disregarding their victims' status (many are legal immigrants or even citizens), and Trump actively seeks out white South Africans who want to come to the US.
> Plenty of studies have made very clear that immigrants contribute more to the community and the nation, and have lower rates of crime, than people born in the country.
You should distinguish between the American model of immigration, which has long been the beneficiary of positive selection effects until recently, against the European model (which seems to be more relevant to the GP), which unfortunately seems to have been designed for the exact opposite.
It's trivially easy to find research from Europe that consistently shows immigrants and descendants of immigrants as having higher rates of criminality than the native population. Even a pro-refugee source has to admit that immigrants in Denmark commit crimes at a level 2-3x higher[0].
And taking a step back, your statement on immigrants contributing more than the native population is absurd on its face. Why are immigrants immigrating to begin with? To seek a better life. Who made a better life possible on the other side of the fence? The native population. The degree to which immigrants, especially to the US, outperform the native population, you're just looking at the aforementioned selection effects; you're comparing the cream of the crop of one group to the median of another.
I'm not entirely sure I agree with the fact that 90% of anti-immigrant sentiment is racist, more of a protective culture thing which has nothing to do with race, actually color is different from race as well, I'm pretty sure people have no problem with Black americans that are completely assimilated, but they would have a problem with someone from Zambia that skipped a high part of its education and suddenly land in the US as an adult without the same set of values or education. That's not about color, that's about compatibility. Not recognizing that there is a drastic difference in behavior and education wouldn't be logical, some nations are seriously lagging behind, this is a fact, not an opinion or belief.
It's known that some EU nations such as France will have majority of Arab & Muslims in a few decades, this is a valid concern as we are talking about a potential replacement of culture, it has nothing to do with racism. Currently it's at 33% as per this source (Citizens coming from immigration):
https://www.frontieresmedia.fr/societe/demographie-33-de-la-...
You wouldn't want to go in Japan and see that it's majority of Muslims, the same as you wouldn't want to fly to Qatar and see that it's a majority of French, it would feel out of the place and somehow disappointing as nations maintain their charm and alignment by actually having an identity, with the globalization of everything nowadays, we are streamlining the world as if we should all behave and believe the same things, at this stage, I don't think the world is ready to be entirely aligned on values. Some countries don't even recognize some fundamental rights that we take for granted, it's not about them being right or wrong, it's just not compatible.
I wouldn't want my daughter (of course she can, she is free to do as she pleases) to marry a Korean, or even a Japanese, or even someone who is Muslim, for reasons that it wouldn't align with our family values, all my friends are from different ethnicity/nationality (I live in SEA so I'm an immigrant, from EU, it took me 12 years to get a residency, and this is normal, I wouldn't want this process to be easier) and this isn't a racist take at all imo, just a recognition of difference of beliefs and even preferences. Actually in Asia we have no problem talking about color, ethnicity and especially difference in behavior depending on nationality and so-on. What I'm stating is exactly the same sentiment across Muslim nations, Indians, Koreans, Japanese..., they want to marry their "own" and give jobs to their own in absolute priority, the rest is secondary, it's not about racism (it can be for religious reasons only, which has nothing to do with racism, it's valid).
Regarding ICE, I'm just familiar about it when I sometimes check US news, but from what I understand it's just an agency that is made to arrest people that remain in the country illegally, to me entering a nation illegally or overstaying your welcome is definitely a crime, I don't really understand why people wants illegals to remain in the country, isn't that unfair for all the ones actually following the local laws & immigration regulations? I don't know, never it would cross my mind to just cross the border to Singapore or Thailand illegally, I would know for sure I'm committing a serious crime doing so. If ICE is arresting US citizens of course the agency needs to be prosecuted for it for sure, that's clearly wrong, but is this a decent percentage? Errors happen all the time in all fields of the law, it's not realistic to think we can enforce something at scale without some unfairness. Where I live, immigration deports all the time overstaying aliens and I really don't see anything wrong with it.
Again, this isn't from a US perspective so I don't really know the mindset of Americans, I however have many American friends that have similar opinions.
Edit: I just checked the statistics regarding ICE deportations [1] and it does seem that the number was higher during 2012 (Obama as per my search) era (record amount of deportations than recently, it doesn't seem to be a last decade issue but more like an always issue, but I just don't really understand what is the problem with deporting people that don't follow laws, that seems just rational.
Also, how do illegal aliens actually work? Doesn't it push employers to also break the law because they don't have a legal status?
So, at this point, you come across like someone "just asking questions" in an attempt to sow dissent and propaganda, because the antipathy of the entire right wing of the US toward all nonwhite people (but especially black people) is very, very clear and very, very well-documented at this point.
But in case you are genuinely just hopelessly ignorant of the situation and somehow unable to use Wikipedia [0], I'll give you just a couple of examples.
For decades, the practice of redlining[1] exacerbated and perpetuated the lower socioeconomic status of minorities, but especially black people, in America.
The Black Lives Matter protests were sparked by the killings of black people by police in the US—not "a couple of black people", but "a long history of killing black people in their custody at hugely disproportionate numbers, with a few very, very prominent instances leading up to the protests."
I'm not hopelessly ignorant, I'm arguing in good faith.
I'm just trying to hear more sides. If I wanted the same recycled talking points I could just open Reddit. You linked a general Wikipedia page on the history of racism in the US and one on redlining. Those are broad historical overviews, not answers to the specific point I made which is more of a "daily life" type of deal. Let's say: Today I'm born black within the US, what can't I do that white persons can? Of course dealing with individual racism is something real, people will just hate you for who you are (if you are white in Africa it's the same thing, they'll call you all sort of nicknames and just attempt to scam you and many are racists individually but that has nothing to do with political view) but that doesn't necessarily change real life opportunities, I also deal with racism on a daily basis where I am, and it doesn't change the fact that I can still open my company, hire people and so-on, having some haters is just part of life.
For Black Lives Matter, the person that was killed (that "became the face of it") was a serious criminal himself (already convicted, and a drug addict) so it's a bit hard to really look into it objectively tbh.
I asked for practical and theoretical examples regarding the claim that Americans have no problem with fully assimilated Black Americans. Can you give me concrete examples of how that plays out (or doesn't) in everyday life, hiring, neighborhoods, relationship, marriage, moving in different state...?
Regarding crime, you can't ignore the fact that the number of murders are statistically committed way more by Black people (it's not a racist take, please let's not go in the rabbit hole, I'm not racist (just restating to avoid personal attacks)) which means that a deeper route issue is probably cultural, structural, family and so-on.
Official FBI statistics on murder offenders (latest available detailed data, 2019–2022 averages):
| Race % of Population % of Known Murder Offenders Rate per 100,000
Black ~13.6% ~52–55% ~27–30
White (non-Hispanic) ~57% ~42–45% ~3–4
|
This suggests the issues are not really about skin color but about culture and family. You can't ignore the fact that there is just more crime being committed, this isn't about people getting more arrested because they are black, it's people directly committing serious crime (solved murders). The main issue imo is cultural, maybe based on initial rage due to the shitty history they endured, but the one born today doesn't have this history felt.
A direct correlation could be that 70% of black fathers abandon their children, while only 25% of white do, most grow up without a father which will of course lead to a life of crime in average. That's one of the strongest predictors of poor outcomes across every race, I believe internationally as well.
From what I'm reading, US indeed do have active racist policies called DEI which favor certain outcome depending on Race, that's the exact definition of racism, those laws/policies should be clearly abolished, no one should be treated differently (in the sense of a policy/law) based on his race, it's actually surprising that policies like this still exist today.
This has nothing really to do with "right wing" or "left wing" (it seems to make no sense anyway nowadays, it's like people are in a basket just because of X belief).
Give me real data as it's available, not history pages, I'd love if you could reply to my other points above as well.
The sitting president of the United States was forced to settle a discrimination lawsuit after it was shown that he instructed his staff to mark applications with a “C” (for colored) so that they could be rejected later.
Jesus Christ, that's a bad situation. It seems extraordinarily risky to leave the country to return. I know a native-born American whose foreign-born wife has been waiting years now to come to the US. By contrast, I received my green card (through marriage) shortly after application. Considering the rapidity by which friends of mine (who were married after and applied after me) received their green cards in mid-2024, I wonder if the Biden administration anticipated losing the election a few months later.
Happens as well in Germany and it's pure insanity. The US at least does not depend on migration as much as Germany, I believe.
Even the current right wing party CDU doesn't seem to want to make migration harder, but when the extremist party AfD gets voted into office, an already highly damaged balance will break.
Sad how people become so detected from reality that they make their society irrelevant and destroying a lot of wealth in the process.
> The US at least does not depend on migration as much as Germany, I believe.
To me it feels like the US pretends they don’t need immigrants when:
1. The overwhelming majority of current US residents were immigrants themselves at some point in the last 150 years (only natives were there, everyone else immigrated from somewhere)
2. The US wouldn’t function without illegal immigrants
3. Every country is short of workers in one domain or another. Encouraging immigration in these domains (see how Canada does it for instance) would be the smart move. But instead… yeah let’s make it even harder across the board
1. Appealing to the attitudes of 150+ years ago leads to all sorts of absurdities. We live in 2026.
2. The US not functioning without illegal immigrants is a bad thing. More often than not, employers like illegal immigrants because they can abuse them in some way or another. If you actually interact with illegal immigrants or the people that employ them, this is clear. “We need modern indentured servitude” is not the country I want to live in. I would rather these industries just be subsidized by the government to whatever extent it takes for US citizens to take the jobs with all of the protections we expect workers to have.
3. Not every country is short of workers. Employers may be short of workers that they can lord over, but refer back to point 2. Pointing to Canada’s policy as an example of a “smart move” is a strange play.
The current administration is certainly not working on the above premises, but I’m floored when I hear supposedly progressive people going on about who is going to work the psychologically scarring meatpacking plants if we don’t take on an undefined number of people who are only here to get shit on for a good paycheck. I have compassion for illegal immigrants, which is exactly why I don’t want them in the US.
My point wasn’t that exploiting illegal immigrants is good.
My point was that with the sorely lacking rules already in place, illegal immigration is a problem and at the same time there is still a supply problem.
So acting even more high and mighty like it’s the greatest place on earth to be and require people who want in to grovel even more certainly isn’t good policy.
I’m also confused why you think Canada isn’t doing it better? You can immigrate but your profile needs to match what the country needs: its win win, because once you’re there you have a fair chance at a good life (integration, job, etc) vs taking anyone in and then having issues with people who can’t find jobs, be happy in the country, and integrate into society.
But the process around the US visa and immigration program is a lot more hostile than it needs to be. I had the displeasure to deal with this grinder and it’s really showing that the attitude is “you’re less than nothing, it’s up to you to prove you’re worthy of us even reading the forms you filled in and paid for, fuck you very much”
As far as I know agriculture works similar in Germany in the sense that it relies on cheap labor. Except, I believe it's mostly legal because they come from inside the EU, making it easier to work here. Also giving them the same rights, in theory at least. In practice it often doesn't work out like that, but that can't be easily changed I guess. Can't imagine they actually get German minimum wage. In that case and in that sense, they actually don't work here legally I guess.
From what I remember, most of them don't migrate though but return to their home country after a season. Back to their families and a country with much less living cost.
Was some time ago that I last read about that topic though.
In the Netherland, as an immigrant - not sure if always, but definitely in tech - 30% of your income are tax free for the first 5 years. I am actually looking for jobs there right now because of that.
Note, indigenous people were less than 1%. New York City had the largest proportion of immigrants at 45%. Your claims of "only natives were there" and "everyone else immigrated from somewhere" are demonstrably false.
Are you being dense on purpose? The US has been a country for 250 years and the Mayflower landed 400 years ago. Most of the people were born in the US.
Are you going to address that your statement does not square with the fact that the majority of the people in the 1870 census were not foreigners (born abroad) and therefore did not immigrate?
No. It doesn’t seem we can understand each other and I’d rather do other, more fulfilling things with my time. I don’t live in the US (thankfully) and don’t want to spend any more time arguing with you.
'*The constitutional population excludes the populations of Native Americans "maintaining their tribal relations and living upon Government reservations" and "the newly acquired district of Alaska."'
Yes. That is how they differentiated "True population" and "Constitutional population". They also have two "Indian population" line items for on and off reservation. That footnote does not mean they were not counted.
> The overwhelming majority of current US residents were immigrants themselves at some point in the last 150 years (only natives were there, everyone else immigrated from somewhere)
Having an ancestor who immigrated to one’s country does not make one an immigrant.
People are repelled by country shopping by 3rd worlders.
EU countries are working on imigration rules that would allow for bringing imigrant labour without ever extending citizen privileges to them. A sort of permanent uderclass. This is what voters want at this time.
In EU, I don't think an underclass is what is wished. What we lack is being able to chose who is allowed to stay or not. Currently it's whoever manages to come illegaly is allowed to stay. It's madness
And then, people who come to work and use the official processes for legal migration suffer from complicated and insane rules and huge inefficiency. I have seen it with people I know, it's unfathomable.
Administration trying to force somebody out of the country to apply for a work visa just after they finished their 3 year training ("Ausbildung") on a training visa.
Before, the mother was not allowed to bring her child (10 years old) even though legally she had the right to do so. Fighting for a year, then paying a lawyer to solve the problem within a few weeks.
All while we are in desperate need of those people. In healthcare and other security as well.
It's madness as well and unfortunately people fail to realize both sides of the story, only seeing one of them.
I personally can't understand anyone wanting to move to the US anymore except for extreme reasons. And, yes, I have actually lived in several other countries so I know how green the grass can be in different places. So with how ugly the US is being right now, what is holding back the remote worker from turning truly remote, at least in tech?
For clarity here, I don't think this is a great direction. A massive strength of America has always been its ability to draw immigrants. People that are willing to leave their families, cultures, etc behind are generally a cut above the average and it shows. The US is being, in a word, stupid and we are already paying the price for it and will for generations to come.
> I personally can't understand anyone wanting to move to the US anymore except for extreme reasons.
I am German and honestly can't wait to move to the US once I get a suitable H-1B offer. I already spent 8 months in Boston for a research stay, and back then the doomer mentality among natives was wild to me. From an outsider's perspective it’s crazy to watch. Life, and especially the ceiling for what you can achieve, is still 10x higher in the US than anywhere else.
I think people in the US severely underestimate how stagnant it feels in Europe and other continents right now. We are basically just stumbling from one crisis to the next, without any strong leadership (the US two-party system definitely has its advantages here, as you're able to charge fullspeed into one direction instead of not moving at all).
If you actually want to build ambitious things, the friction here is exhausting. And instead of being rewarded for high output you get taxed to death to prop up a system favored towards an aging/declining population. It's essentially a massive boomer tax. Younger workers have zero political leverage to change it because our demographic is just too small to matter at the ballot box.
Sure, the US definitely has its ugly sides, but if you want to work hard and actually capture the upside of what you build, it's still the only game in town. Even if that means jumping through all the hoops the current gov throws in your way.
That isn't why though. Germany has a demographic cliff right now. Same post WWII baby boom as anywhere but for whatever reason, no echo boom in the 80-90s like the US. Also US has absolutely been sponging up central and south american immigrants hand over fist especially the last 40 years, meanwhile europe has been quite a bit less permissive in this aspect.
> if you want to work hard and actually capture the upside of what you build, it's still the only game in town
I think that this is only true to some extent. There are many successful engineers and scientists who work in Europe that earn good money and live well. Especially if you're a researcher, Horizon grants provide really good opportunities to collaborate with people from different countries
>So with how ugly the US is being right now, what is holding back the remote worker from turning truly remote, at least in tech?
Because money and taxes, both of which are unchanged due to this policy
And boy wait til you find out how other countries treat immigration and visas. You'll be shocked to learn they're also super racist and don't give everyone citizenship at birth just because of being there!
If you're looking for international precedent, this is an old vs. new world issue. Birthright citizenship is rare in the old world, but it is the default for the Americas. Canada, most of Latin America, and a decent part of the Caribbean have birthright citizenship.
I thought France had it. It turns out France, Italy, Netherlands, UK, and Belgium have a conditional deferred version: you can become a citizen at 18 if you're born and have been living there (plus a few caveats).
If you want to be genuine about investigating this issue you would obviously compare countries of equal wealth and economic power, but we all know that's not your goal. Could actually be a very interesting comparison if your reasoning weren't so motivated.
A number of people, especially in tech sector, legally stay in US while their GC is being processed. They have kids born in the USA. If such people were to leave USA to seek green card:
- the kids must first get visas to their parent's countries
- once reaching the other country, consular offices now have multi year wait lines for getting an appointment with a office to even hear your case.
- parents may stay in that country but what if kids run out of their visa? A number of countries offer citizenship via parents e.g. Indian parents can obtain Indian citizenship for their kids but it also means letting go of the kids' US citizenship. And what if the parent's country does not have such mechanism?
It's completely illogical that a person must first stay in a country for 5 years to become eligible for a green card and then leave for x years to get a green card to come back !! this is just a tactic to get non-immigrant visa holders out of the country.
> e.g. Indian parents can obtain Indian citizenship for their kids but it also means letting go of the kids' US citizenship
This is not true, India has something called “Overseas Citizenship of India” which is technically not a citizenship even though the name says, but its a life time visa available for US citizens of Indian origin. And you don’t have to give up US citizenship
> This is not true, India has something called “Overseas Citizenship of India” which is technically not a citizenship even though the name says, but its a life time visa available for US citizens of Indian origin. And you don’t have to give up US citizenship
The OCI card is better thought of as a green card that you have to reapply for once at the age of 65.
It provides the ability to live and work, with some minor restrictions, but none of the typical benefits of citizenship that wouldn't come with permanent residency in the US.
> the kids must first get visas to their parent's countries
The bigger issue honestly is that the kids may already have grown up in the American culture and fluent in English and it could massively disrupt their education and well-being to throw them into another system somewhere else, depending on how they were raised and whether they are fluent in the language of the country of their parents. In many cases they are not.
Look, I’m an immigrant. You know the risks you take when you come to the US on a non immigrant visa. We all choose to play the game and nothing is guaranteed. I would’ve considered reckless to have a kid in the US knowing that my status is not stable without having an alternative plan. We need to face the facts and stop acting like we immigrants were victims of some bait and switch and must be protected from any fallout of this process. The rules of the game are transparent.
Condoms are often up to the male partner to use correctly.
Personally I have no problem giving people at a minimum permanent status if they decide to add to our declining population. I like to imagine when I'm old and weak someone there to provide my medical care.
This is a completely different discussion. One can be responsible, if you’re not, there are consequences. It’s not just this. Zone out a bit driving and go too fast? Ticket. Left weed in your jacket by accident and went to the airport to fly internationally? Well…
Everything has consequences, all I’m trying to say is that people know what those are and we shouldn’t be “aw but what if they don’t read the rules?” Uncertainty is clear from the start.
Elon Musk was arguably working here on a student visa.
So it's only ok when rich people need special treatment ?
Immigration laws are racist to an absurd degree, the 7% rule unfairly makes it significantly easier for European nationals to get Greencards for example.
Recently it's been cranked up a notch, only White South African refugees are being approved now.
Honestly the problem is going to solve itself. Without being able to brain drain the rest of the world , America will start to fall behind economically.
Less people will want to come here.
Which brings me a certain sadness, my friends growing up were largely immigrants. The future of America without immigration frankly sucks.
The most important immigration reform that the US ought to do is a constitutional amendment eliminating the birthright citizenship clause of the 14th amendment. The children of people who are not citizens or even permanent residents of the US should not be allowed to become US citizens just because they were born on US soil. Foreigners should not be able to reside in the US for so long that they have kids, and then use those kids as a justification for why the US is obliged to let them become citizens too.
I think that if you went back in time to 1868 and told Senator Jacob M. Howard that a century and a half in the future, the primary consequence of the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment would be that foreigners from all over the world would attempt to immigrate to the US, even on temporary work visas or explicitly contrary to federal immigration law, with the intent of bearing or begetting a child on US soil who would be legally counted as a fellow-citizen who, upon coming of age, would go to the polls and vote with all other citizens; and that further the parents of this child and their political sympathizers would use the very presence of that child as a justification for why it was immoral to restrict the federal government's lawful authority to control immigration to the United States - that he would've spent a bit more time considering the exact wording of the text.
The "birthright" citizenship clause of the 14th amendment was intended to clarify the citizenship status of the recently freed black slaves. That intent is clear by contemporary written material.
Now, you could absolutely argue that whatever the intent of the amendment was, it still protects the present-day state of Chinese mothers having zero ties to this country popping over for a few months and giving birth to a fully-fledged American citizen, because the law says what it says. That's a much better argument than saying that the Civil War was fought for the right of transient visitors or illegal immigrants to this country to birth citizens, because that's just absurd.
> This is wrong. There is no minimum time in the country for a green card. You are thinking of citizenship. That is different.
You are incorrect. What you said is technically true in that there is no statute that requires it, but in practice, OP is correct.
It varies depending on the country of origin, but in the case of immigrants who hold citizenship from India, which is the country OP mentioned, you can likely expect to have to wait that period or even much longer before becoming eligible, unless you have a way to otherwise jump the queue.
You absolutely have to wait several years, but the point they were making is, there is no requirement to have ever worked IN the US or held any nonimmigrant visa to get a green card. The way the law was originally written, both the employment and family green card categories are standalone. They require work/research accomplishments, but there is zero requirement that that work was ever done in the US or for a US company.
Because it takes so long, in practice the issue is that for anyone to sponsor you, they want you working for them during that time, and so that's why it often looks like someone gets an H1B and then "graduates" to a green card.
While you are correct, that's a minor issue in an otherwise cogent post by the parent, so addressing those other more substantial points first would have made the debate better.
Because while the green card itself has no minimum requirements on time spent in the US, with the exception of the DV program, all of the visas with green card pathways have one. So yes, there is - it's just attached to the visa pathway that determines green card eligibility, not the green card itself.
No? If you're born in the US you have US citizenship, you're American. You don't just magically get citizenship for your parents home country, at least not for most countries.
It’s not automatic, it requires applying and at times can take years of proving in terms of paperwork, that is by definition not automatic.
I have personal experience with the Greek, German, and Italian systems, prepare your self for 1-2 years to gain it even if you have rights to it.
In some countries it is automatic in others it is not.
Say one of your parents is a citizen of some other country.
If they're Canadian, you're a Canadian citizen. Period. The process is to get your documents that prove it. You don't apply for citizenship, you apply for proof.
In many European countries you are not a citizen. The process is to become one by descent. You apply for citizenship.
Fair question, though it assumes citizenships are simple things you “use,” which you either need or don’t. They’re not. People attach all sorts of baggage, duties, and rights to them. Mine are a mix of ancestry, residence, and ones I helped my spouse with. They’re not things I “need,” they’re just where my family and life have been. European family trees often produce this. The original point still stands: even when you’re entitled to a citizenship, actually obtaining the documents takes real time and money.
Also, in some cases, you may automatically lose your original nationality if you seek an additional one (Spain comes to mind; though in their case you'd need to manually request not to lose your nationality to keep it within a certain time period, IIRC).
> You don't just magically get citizenship for your parents home country, at least not for most countries.
Are there any countries where this is not true? I struggle to think of any, especially amoung highly-developed democratic nations. (There might be a couple of weirdo dictatorships that do not allow it.) It seems this would be necessary to prevent statelessness. For example, if your parents are living in the Netherlands as foreigners, children born there are not entitled to automatic Dutch citizenship. As a result, they will obtain citizenship through their parents (in a foreign nation).
Quite a few countries do not allow dual citizenship. So a person who was born in the US and is therefore US citizen at birth will not be allowed to have that country's citizenship until they revoke the US one.
China and Singapore are some of the more prominent examples.
China considers it a "nationality conflict," the child is issued a Travel Document and treated as a citizen domestically, they can still be registered on hukou and get ID card. Apparently they used to unofficially force you to decide as an adult, but stopped a few years ago and now issue the Travel Document for life.
edit to add -- that assumes the parent is not a unconditional green card holder, which is the scenario here.
Singapore allows dual citizenship until 21. Which is not necessarily a good thing, as if you do not do their national service you will effectively get banned from ever going there even if you renounce it later.
Japan and Korea both allow it forever from birth in practice, but the latter also has some complexities regarding the military (either renounce before a certain age or you have some restrictions returning until past a certain age).
They are not entirely wrong. The person you replied to said "that country's citizenship":
> So a person who was born in the US and is therefore US citizen at birth will not be allowed to have that country's citizenship
Taking example of China, you said "the child is issued a Travel Document and treated as a citizen domestically"
"Treated as a citizen" is not same as "having Citizenship". OCI card holders are India are pretty much treated as citizens, except few rights such as the right of suffrage/ability to engage in agricultural land use etc, but that doesn't make them citizens of India.
There is a huge political difference between OCI and a Chinese travel document. A CTD explicitly lists the bearers nationality as Chinese.
An OCI card, as you said, is effectively like a PR card for former citizens. It is explicitly not citizenship politically and India fully recognizes their foreign citizenship.
If an OCI holder with a US passport gets arrested, India will notify the US consulate as they are a citizen. The same would not apply for a Chinese travel document holder. That is what I meant as “treated as a citizen domestically.”
As to political rights, I assume in practice that one cannot join the Party without first revoking their other citizenship, if at all. But since it is not a democracy, that was never a right/element of citizenship in the first place.
The whole concept of getting citizenship where you're born is mostly an American concept. Though, if you do get born in a place where you get citizenship based on location alone, your parents will probably need to figure out a lot of paperwork to sort things out.
Most of North America and South America operates under Jus sanguinis -- you get citizenship for being born in country, even if your parents are not citizens.
A lot of countries don’t provide citizenship automatically without condition by blood. China for example, a kid only inherits citizenship if one parent is a chinese citizen and not a PR of any other country (so kids born to Chinese parents with green cards don’t count, which doesn’t really matter in this case).
Also the USA used to have weird rules about young mothers not transferring citizenship automatically (which the whole Obama birther myth relied on).
What happens if two Chinese parents are living and working in the Netherlands with permanent residence. If they have a child, what is the nationality? I don't think it will be Dutch because the Netherlands does not have automatic birth right, unless to prevent statelessness.
The child has Chinese citizenship (and presumably some kind of Dutch PR) from birth in that case.
> Any person born in China whose parents are both Chinese nationals or one of whose parents is a Chinese national shall have Chinese nationality.
> Any person born abroad whose parents are both Chinese nationals or one of whose parents is a Chinese national shall have Chinese nationality.
> But a person whose parents are both Chinese nationals and have both settled abroad, or one of whose parents is a Chinese national and has settled abroad, and who has acquired foreign nationality at birth shall not have Chinese nationality.
- "Settled abroad" means having unrestricted, legal permanent residence. Recently, it was clarified that the two-year conditional US green card does not count, for example.
- Due to an "interpretation," as this law was written pre-handover, the "settled abroad" limitation sentence does not apply where (one of) the Chinese parents is a HK/MO resident.
- A parent from HK/MO pre-handover, or Taiwan, is still a Chinese citizen and will transmit citizenship to their children.
If both/the only Chinese parent is a mainland or Taiwan resident, not settled abroad, the child would get a Travel Document to enter mainland China. They cannot get a visa to do so inside the foreign passport. Foreign passport can still be used for HK/MO/TW.
The child cannot get the ordinary red Chinese passport (unless they "resolve the conflict" by abandoning the other citizenship). They can, IIRC, still get a resident ID card if their parents still have hukou and register them?
In your scenario (not overseas citizen at birth), the child does have a regular red Chinese passport. Because they live overseas, they can get a permit from the Chinese embassy inside the passport to visit HK/MO, and they can also get an entry permit from the Taiwan authorities to visit for two weeks at a time, which is a loose leaf paper.
If one Chinese parent is a permanent resident of HK/MO, the child generally gets both Chinese nationality and HK/MO residence. Thus they are issued a full HK/MO passport. These passports still cannot enter the mainland directly, so they can ALSO get a Travel Document OR first visit HK/MO and then apply for the Home Return Permit using the domestic procedures.
Dual nationality for kids in China is a PITA and we were careful to avoid it for our son. I had a coworker who had a mess in figuring it out, with Beijing (where they had residence) demanding documents from Shanghai (where the mom had hukou) that Shanghai didn’t issue anymore.
Sometimes. In many/most countries, it requires at minimum that both parents be citizens of the same country. In a few countries, dual citizenship is banned completely, so if the kid is a US citizen they cannot be the country's citizen.
Yes and one step further: it is attention, ultimately to extract wealth.
Trump is a distractor and can make a whole country forget about <insert recent insanity>. Passing a judge is a minor detail here.
Of course it is stupid to talent-leak your country but he just needs you to forget about $LATEST_SCANDAL. That's the value for him. Trump doesn't care about the future of US.
And distracting does not take skill. It only takes a mind poisoned to the core. He will throw anything in his chaos machine to extract wealth. And US has an endless supply of those juicy valuables and values that you can sacrifice and shed.
This is over a hundred year old rule and common in "the new world". You can guess why it is common if you think about the phrase I put in quotes. All these countries are composed of immigrants...
Here's a short and incomplete list: USA, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Chile.
The logic is that the culture is what makes you part of the country, not the blood in your veins.
The other side of that logic is that you're not guaranteed citizenship to the country of your parents. It certainly isn't automatic.
200-300 years isn't that old. There are plenty of buildings older than that all across Europe. There are businesses older than that. There are businesses and buildings that were older than that before the US even became a country. The *FALL* of the Roman empire was in ~500AD. It was a true empire even before 0AD, spanning across coastal Europe and northern Africa. It's height being ~100AD.
I'm sorry, the new world still has a few hundred years to go before we can even consider it old. It's not even a pre-teen by the standards. I mean we only discussed Europe. But the pyramids were older to the Romans than the Romans are to us.
Let me repeat for you part of the *FIRST SENTENCE* in my comment
>> common in "the new world"
So
> Nonexistent in Europe
Last I checked, Europe was not "the new world".
> the developed world
Considering that the US and Canada are developed countries, you'll need to rephrase. If you want to make jokes about the US not being a developed world then we'll be forced to make jokes about your lack of literacy and inability to use Google.
Please, for the love of god, just read the comments you're replying to. It's like the absolute bare minimum requirement.
This is a bit extreme. On the other end of the spectrum the existing system is heavily abused and hard to defend. For example many if not most PERM applications in tech are a complete sham. Putting tiny job adverts burred deep in a newspaper hoping nobody applies to try and say there are no skilled workers in the US is just one example of current abuse of the system.
Not anymore. My PERM was cancelled for this exact reason. The job advert was put on LinkedIn and the company's website like any other job. They didn't hire the local worker either because they didn't pass the interview but my perm had to be cancelled bc a skilled local worker with "minimum qualifications" existed.
What you are saying used to happen but not anymore.
To successfully process a PERM a company needs to make the argument that they’ve tried and literally can’t find anyone else in the US to do the job. Thats obviously a very high bar, but for many years it was on open secret that companies mostly fudged these claims.
With so many tech layoffs now it would be nearly impossible for most roles to claim there’s nobody else available, and under the current administration the historical games are no longer just flying below the radar. That hasn’t stopped some companies from still trying though.
Isn't the correct response to the sham hirings to regulate that jobs are posted on a gov-run board for some period of time, ~30 days, before you can claim no qualified workers? That seems more reasonable than turning the spigot off entirely.
Perhaps. But given the volume of abuse that appears to be out there the tactic is more turn it all off then selectively back on where appropriate.
Thats obviously extreme but given the abuse in the status quo it’s hard to defend what was going on and whine about this now. Some folks are obviously angry, but that anger is better directed at those that were abusing the system not those trying to fix it.
PERM doesn’t just apply to h1b, having to prove no qualified hires was never required for h1b, it’s green card requirement which also applies to o1 and bunch of others. PERM is the thing that is stupid - they should automatically grant you GC if youve been legally employed for 5 years or something and dont have any criminal records
Only if that job board was an actually useful and common source for genuine hiring. If it becomes “these companies are checking a box, don’t bother applying” or “these companies are considering an H1-B application, flood them with resumes”, neither of those is helpful to qualified workers who actually want to find a job.
Agreed. I don't really know how the current process works, but I would assume there is some level of oversight, meaning that errant (unqualified) applicants shouldn't detract from a qualified h1b under the current system any more than a centralized one. Tying a profile to a human (gov can do this) should at least help with determining whether an applicant is qualified (not that they are an actual fit for the team) which could provide some proxy for fitness of the current pool.
I mean the entire point is that there isn’t oversight, the system is being gamed. And as a practical matter oversight is virtually impossible. The immigration system is in no position to evaluate whether a candidate is qualified or not.
The job board is inevitably going to devolve into one of those scenarios.
Exactly this. The difference in the pitch to voters (labor market test) vs the actual implementation (box checking sham), just shows how dishonest the whole tech industry and immigration lobby is about this. The actual solution is somewhere in the middle, but it will likely never happen because those with political capital and high social status benefit enormously from low wage h1b/opt/l1 workers. The people who are hurt by these immigration programs don't have high social status so nobody cares.
Ironic that liberals turn into libertarian boot likers for mega corps when it comes to immigration.
This is insane. I cannot fathom how I, nor educated and talented people I know, could have possibly stayed in the US back in the day if this requirement had been in place then. Applying for a greencard while working on an H, J or O-class visa is extremely common.
Far from a loophole, applying from inside the US is the only reasonable way to apply for a greencard. Depending on the country of origin, there may not even _be_ a US consulate, and where it exists, the wait can stretch into years, and the odds of approval much lower. You can't reasonably get a job at a US firm while being physically located somewhere else and on the other side of an uncertain and greatly attenuated greencard application process. That's just not how this works.
Whoever thought of this is either intentionally malevolent or inexcusably incomprehending of the immigration process.
Unfortunately, I think this is the point. They want to push the needle so that even legal immigration is restricted or difficult (unless you happen to pay them directly)
Yes and one step further: it is attention, ultimately to extract wealth.
Trump is a distractor and can make a whole country forget about <insert recent insanity>. Passing a judge is a minor detail here.
Of course it is stupid to talent-leak your country but he just needs you to forget about $LATEST_SCANDAL. That's the value for him. Trump doesn't care about the future of US.
And distracting does not take skill. It only takes a mind poisoned to the core. He will throw anything in his chaos machine to extract wealth. And US has an endless supply of those juicy valuables and values that you can sacrifice and shed.
Maybe you should look into where statistics that are "going around" are sourced from. This seems to be something an anti-immigration lobby cooked to in 2014, which was an artifact of their analysis; they considered workers aged 16-65, and the effect disappeared if you considered workers of all ages.
Trump resurrected it in 2024 to claim that all job growth under Biden had gone to immigrants. It wasn't true then either.
> wait, how many workers fall outside the 16-65 range??
A little less than 10% of the workforce.
GP is correct - basically there was a report making that claim about the decline in employment rates of US-born workers over a certain time period. It was almost immediately debunked because it excluded workers older than 65, who are almost exclusively US-born, and excluding them heavily skews the average. Many of these workers also aged out of that bucket during that time period, which makes the comparison misleading, since the actual size of the studied workforce varied, and the workers who were excluded from the studied cohort were strongly correlated with the effect they were trying to demonstrate.
Furthermore, that effect is also exacerbated because of the uneven distribution of baby boomers.
Why don't they just say what they mean, and ban immigration completely? Are they trying to trick most immigrants into leaving voluntarily so they can deny re-entry?
These hypotheticals tend to accidentally reveal a disturbing worldview in the way they treat immigration as a natural phenomenon rather than people with agency of their own. It's dehumanizing.
For example, where does that 99,999,999th person sleep on the night they arrive in this country? What is their immediate plan? How and why did they come here? Your hypothetical has them almost emerging from the ether as an inherent problem rather than a person making an active decision to move to somewhere they think they will have a better life. If we stop providing them a better life, they'll stop coming. But the primary path to doing that is making life worse for everyone already here and none of us should want that.
You know what, I made a mistake in engaging. The way you moved the goal posts from open immigration to the obligation to provide social services to immigrants above and beyond any services provided to citizens and they way you're combining the concepts of immigrants and refugees tells me it isn't worth having this conversation with you.
If you live in a Red State, it is highly like that my Blue State money pays for your health care, highways, narcan, and a myriad of other transfers.
Like, I feel for you and your situation, but I just don't think it's sustainable for Blue States to keep being patsies by letting the Red States control what happens with Blue State money.
Mate, I live in Europe like my comment says. And no need to wave the flag, people can tell you're from a blue state since you couldn't extract that from reading my comment. Minnesota learing center alumni by any chance?
You lost me in the first sentence, with the premise that immigrants are “overburdening” our social services. Most immigrants work. Most immigrants come here specifically to work. They pay taxes. Immigrants who commit social security fraud have taxes deducted from their income that they will never collect in the form of social services. Most of the immigrants receiving public assistance (like, for example, asylum seekers) are doing so because our government doesn’t allow them to work, even if they want to. The solution is to let immigrants work.
> with the premise that immigrants are “overburdening” our social services. Most immigrants work.
I just want to point to a flaw in your reasoning.The point is not that immigrants are some special kind of human beings that require more assistance. It is just that immigration can unlike natural population growth, result in arbitrary population growth in a short amount of time.
From that view point, it makes sense that immigrants can overburden the social services, because the latter does not get a chance to accommodate the increased population properly, causing additional suffering to existing population.
It would have to be an extremely fast influx to cause real problems along those lines. Social services are able to handle a growing case load with growing budget pretty well.
You can't grow doctors on tree just because you now get more funding. It take 6+ years to train a doctor while people can cross a border and grow the population right now.
Are doctors usually underrepresented among legal immigrants? I could see it actually helping out with our self-inflicted doctor supply problems.
Also the "all immigration happens overnight" plan is obviously a bad way to handle things. That lag wouldn't be a big deal if we 'merely' instantly doubled the rate we issue green cards and ramped up from there, just to make up some numbers.
>Are doctors usually underrepresented among legal immigrants?
Definitely.
>I could see it actually helping out with our self-inflicted doctor supply problems.
Only if they are overrepresented which they aren't(in Europe at least). You need to actually work hard to convince doctors to come to your country and not others, but with other migrants you need the opposite. Convince them to stop coming.
Let's say the government can't care for 100M people because of lack of doctors. Now they could train one over 10 years, or you could have one of the smartest doctors in the world come be 100M+1. Would you take that?
Now expand that across socio-economic spectrum (not enough plumbers, teachers, AI experts, researchers etc). That is what legal immigration is meant for.
But if the justification for immigration is prior immigration, is there a stopping point here? Like, after you import a bunch of doctors, is it going to turn out that now you need a bunch of fast food workers, back and forth?
>Let's say the government can't care for 100M people because of lack of doctors. Now they could train one over 10 years, or you could have one of the smartest doctors in the world come be 100M+1. Would you take that?
But that is not what usually happens, right? What usually happens is that some hospital employs a doctor educated from some other country where standard of education is less, instead of someone who is educated from native institutions, because they accept to work for 10x less salary. In this case both the US Society as well as the US educated doctor losses, and the US Hospital and the migrant gains.
Feel free to expand this across socio-economic spectrum..
>Let's say the government can't care for 100M people because of lack of doctors.
Then the government is proven to be severely incompetent and shouldn't be trusted with more migration because it will guaranteed fumble that too. Barring mass migration, populations don't naturally just explode overnight for you to suddenly end up with 100 million people and no doctors.
Governments have all the tools and data at their disposal to see population trends, piramid, emigration, immigration, job statistics, housing, etc. all this data you can use and plot out to determine how many doctors you'll need in the future as the population follows the trajectory and plan training and recruitment of doctors ahead of time so that when population reaches 100 million or 500 million there will be an proportional number of doctors.
So then why didn't the government do this preemptively when they had all the info and levers at their disposal? Could it be because they simply don't give a shit and they only care about winning the next election and not what happens in 20+ years when the population reaches 100 million and there's no doctors? Because they won't be in charge then when the shit hits the fan so they don't care to be preemptive for something that's not a pressing issue now. So then given this, why would you trust these same people with enabling mass migration on your behalf? They clearly don't care about the long term future planning and second order effects of their actions.
> or you could have one of the smartest doctors in the world come be 100M+1. Would you take that?
In which case do 1 million of doctors and only doctors and nothing else but doctors show up at your borders because if that were the case I guarantee you everyone would take them in no questions asked.
That's the classic bait and switch. Merkel also told Germans they're getting "doctors and engineers" in 2015 and the only thing that increases is sexual assaults rates, crime and welfare spending to the point where "doctors and engineers" became a meme phrase for migrant crime in the news.
>That is what legal immigration is meant for.
In theory yes, but just like Germany, in practice the system has always been abused to dupe voters to accept anything other than doctors so that corporations can get cheap labor and landlords more tenants. The overton window has gotten so bad on this topic that if you complain about migrant crime, they'll maliciously ask you back "but what about doctors, you don't want them either?". No, we want doctors, We just want the doors shut to people who aren't doctors, it's really that simple.
Nobody in government wants to listen. They're too afraid of being called "far right" if they give airtime to people wanting less migration so what happens is that that only breeds resentment and a rise of the actual far right, leading to a self fulfilling prophecy that could be avoided if they just enable discourse to things they don't like to hear but are pressing issues of large voter base.
>Seems like your issue isn't immigration, it is abuse.
Because governments don't make the distinction between the two, you give them an inch, they take a mile. If you let them enable any migration over time they will abuse it to flood the market with cheap labor as their corporate lobbyists push them to, like they did with H1B since 1990, which was initially a a scheme to import top soviet scientist after the USSR collapsed(kind of like operation paperclip) and is now used for US companies to import "Microsoft Certified Specialists" from India.
If you want to stop the abuse you have to stop migration completely and then start political negotiations from that point of leverage, on a controlled points based migration system that accounts for actual shortages and domestic public resources.
That’s like saying the free pizza parties are draining the company’s resources and so we need to cut them.
The pizza parties ARE indeed draining the company, but it’s so minor and ultimately spending your big brain on cutting pizza parties is diverting attention from your real problems that led to this point.
I don’t support illegal immigration but it has little to do with our current major problems. It’s just a political tool to distract the voter.
One reason is population growth. Our current system is based on the assumption of an ever growing labor force to fund things like social security, medicare, fund our massive debt, and evrything else we want the government to spend on. In their current form, these systems will break down in the face of population decline. Since existing Americans are having fewer kids and trending downward, immigration is the only way to sustain the model.
This doesn't neccisarily.mean the is the best, or even desireable, way to structure society, but I also think the political system is dysfunctional to the point major change is currently impossible
I didnt down vote you by the way. Just throwing out a counter point to consider
The British who came to this land weren’t “immigrants.” They were settlers. They came to this land, and created a country based on British law, British civic institutions, British political philosophy, and British economics. The Germans and Scandinavians came here for the most part also developed towns and cities that weren’t there before. Immigrants are the people who then moved into those places.
The distinction between settlers and immigrants is extremely salient from a sociological standpoint.
In the U.S., we have a right to a jury trial. To decide whether a jury trial right exists in a particular case, we look to whether that case would have been tried to a jury in 1791 in a particular country. Which country is that? The people from that country were the settlers.
If you look at American legal theory and elide people’s names, you might not realize there was anyone here besides British people. There’s more influence in our legal system from ancient Rome than modern Italy.
I notice isn't quite often that the people complaining about immigration are less than the most shining examples of American ingenuity and hustle. They are, very nearly to the one, small, terrified people who seem to think that their position in the social heirarchy is threatened by the relative concentration of melanin in the area (or they are pretending to hold that opinion to manipulate those people to their own ends)
America needs the vigor and drive that immigration brings. Our countrymen have always been immigrants and we were greatest when we stole the most courageous, the smartest, the hardest working from everywhere in the world. We reject that resource today at our own peril.
Do we want to be the UK? Inward-focused ignorant navel gazing and xenophobia are how we get there
>They are, very nearly to the one, small, terrified people who seem to think that their position in the social heirarchy is threatened by the relative concentration of melanin in the area
Literally nobody brought up skin color in this entire discussion but you and you're using it in bad faith to call other racists. The typical way of liberals and democrat arguments is always rejecting logic and statistics if they make immigration look bad, and focusing on identity politics and skin color to deflect your arguments as racist. Look in the mirror, the racist might be right there if skin color is the first thing you reach for in a discussion.
>Our countrymen have always been immigrants and we were greatest when we stole the most courageous, the smartest, the hardest working from everywhere in the world.
And tell me, what happened to the native American Indians when you "courageous, smartest and hardest working" immigrants(my ancestors) moved to America? Where are the descendant of the native Indians today and how many are they and what's their socio-economic situation at the moment in society relative to the immigrants that displaced them? Or look at what happened to Palestinians after they opened their doors to Jewish refugees from Europe since 1945. How are the descendents of those Palestinians faring today? Not so good, huh, barely trying to survive not being genocided by the guests they welcomed in 80 years ago. Every mass migration event in the world has led to violence and demographic displacement of the local population. If those invading your land in high numbers are "smart and hard working" it makes no difference to you if you're getting demographically displaced.
>We reject that resource today at our own peril.
As we should. Why would I want to happen to me what happened to native american Indians or to Palestinians when they accepted foreign invaders(now called migrants)? Just think about it for 3 seconds, why would anyone voluntarily want to bring in their own demise? Except this time around, I'm pretty sure once you're demographically and democratically displaced, you won't get your own minority rights, reservations and casinos by your invaders, because they'll see your suffering as just retribution for the conquest and past sins your ancestors have done over the natives back then. The overton window has already shifted to the point where democrats call and win election based on racist policies of taxing white people more. It'll be like what's happening to the descendents of European immigrants in South Africa and Zimbabwe today. Not pretty.
>Do we want to be the UK? Inward-focused ignorant navel gazing and xenophobia are how we get there
Except UK has had more migration per capita than the US especially since 2020, and their situation has only gotten worse. If you accept more migration then you're guaranteed to end be like the UK.
Why is it that when Americans travel abroad and say how amazing, clean it was and how safe they felt in X country, that country somehow has very low migration rates and draconical laws on visa entry and is hard on crime? Weird how they can't connect the dots on this one.
I have a habit of upvoting attempts at civilized argument, so I upvote once again.
For the "people who understand supply/demand", why use "want a limit" language? What you actually mean is "want a lower limit, from Y to X".
It's flat-out amazing to me that you blame immigrants for the problems of the American medical system -- which are entirely political in cause and financial in nature.
immigrants don't need to be 'taken care off' because legal immigrants in the US are net social contributors (in fact particularly large ones because the US government didn't subsidize their upbringing and education).
Five minutes on Google would have told you this, that is why "folks I'm just asking questions" gets downvoted, everyone can see through these pseudo gullible provocations
You can't complain immigrants are flooding your boarder while your government is actively working on destabilizing the world. Such arguments are extremely malicious and hence why everyone is downvoting you.
You want a hermitical state, it has to go both ways. You lock yourself in, but also stop fucking around with military and non-military interventions on every contanent on earth.
>while your government is actively working on destabilizing the world
I live in Europe, small landlocked country. My government isn't destabilizing anyone but still has some of the highest illegal migration rates per capita in OECD.
Alternate take: Consider strategically avoiding exporting your anti-immigration views for visibility here in the US. That way an intelligent administration can take hold that doesn't cause further havoc in the Middle East and accelerate the rate of emigration from there. Deal?
Sure, you might think of it as "people with citizenship of another nation."
But I suspect it's more along the lines of "people who don't look like me."
White Afrikaaners are welcome (we'll even invent persecution and call them refugees), but folk from elsewhere (ie actual refugees), um, less welcome.
The trope about "culture assimilation" also comes up. It's OK for Irish and Italian immigrants to keep their culture, adding to the melting pot, but Mexicans and Africans less so
And sure, lots of people are friendly to "the immigrant they know" while at the same time being very against "immigration". One need look no further than the last few elections to see this in action.
When the Black Panthers armed up in the 60s, that was when California, at the time a Republican state with legal open carry, very suddenly grew the most restrictive gun laws in the country.
Thinking that immigration should be slow enough that they can be thoroughly assimilated before they change American culture isn’t “hating immigrants.”
Many of the people doing this are themselves children of immigrants. They recognize that individual immigrants can be fine but the large-scale flow of immigrants can create undesirable changes.[1] Don’t assume people are irrational just because they don’t agree with you.
[1] Trump narrowly won the naturalized citizen vote. Saying “you wouldn’t want America to become more like the place you left” is a compelling message to many immigrants.
> immigration should be slow enough that they can be thoroughly assimilated before they change American culture
I support your idea. Would you agree that all immigrants that arrived in America after, let's say, 1493, have to leave America and apply for citizenship?
If you don't agree, can you propose another immigration year after which you'd have to leave America again? Would you agree on 1783?
Your joke inadvertently shows the error in your logic. “America” (in the sense of the nation) didn’t exist in 1493. Various Indian nations existed in this land. British people didn’t “immigrate” to those Indian societies. They created a new society on the land. They were settler colonizers, as the kids say these days.
You're almost there however. Think one step further: What stops the next "immigrants" from renaming your cute "society" that you currently have there, and declare a proper, civilized society, with a proper culture for once?
Nothing! If a superior civilization comes to America and wipes it out and builds a new society in its place, then those people will also be “settlers” not “immigrants.”
This entire thread is filled with people willfully lying about history like you are right now. It’s incredible to see. I can’t tell if it’s because this is a simple is vs ought distinction and you are having a hard to reconciling your ought with the is.
In his last book “The Dawn of Everything” David Graeber very convincingly argued that the idea of modern democracy came from Indian tribes in Northern America.
And it is also interesting how easily European countries went back to authoritarian or even totalitarian states given the opportunity. Yet US is more resilient and one explanation is subtle influence of Indian culture that still affects US.
As for technological advantage of Europe then 3000 years ago Ancient Egypt was way more advanced than Europe. 1000 years ago Arabic countries were more advance and 500 years ago China was more advanced. And Europe was lucky that China was focused on internal problems and not territorial expansion.
I think you have to be on drugs to think that American democracy came from Indian tribes. I grew up in the Midwest, so this mirror universe explanation for the origins of my country isn’t going to work on me.
>1000 years ago Arabic countries were more advance [sic] and 500 years ago China was more advanced.
Yeah real life isn’t your science fiction fantasy. None of this is true. I am aghast at how ostensibly smart people have, just in the last couple years, adopted a view of history that is completely at odds with the written record.
Eh. I wouldn't say only but it was the biggest advantage. The Europeans brought better tech and bad racism along with the terrible diseases. If they had established trade without disasters we might have seen the natives be very successful too.
> Think one step further: What stops the next "immigrants" from renaming your cute "society" that you currently have there, and declare a proper, civilized society, with a proper culture for once?
Nothing, but it is our right, as Trump does, to call that an invasion and forcibly reject it.
The legally correct term is “Indian.” Obviously they had their own names for themselves. “First Nations” and “Native” are terms that are not rooted either in Indians’ names for themselves nor in the U.S. government’s name for them.
Of course native people didn’t call themselves Indian prior to settlers assigning them that name, with legal consequences. But native people usually refer to their tribe identity, like Diné or Lakota, rather than the generic term Indian.
As an actual Indian from India I do get annoyed that Columbus's misconception has lived on this long, although I understand there's nothing I can do to change that.
There's nothing I would rather be
Than to be an Aborigine
And watch you take my precious land away
For nothing gives me greater joy
Than to watch you fill each girl and boy
With superficial, existential shit
Now you may think I'm cheeky
But I'd be satisfied
To rebuild your convict ships
And sail them on the tide
I like how you think you’re dunking on immigration restrictionists but in your hypothetical you implicitly admit there’s a hierarchy of belonging and claim to a nation, and temporal proximity to its discovery and founding is quite obviously one of the most important.
It slows down the flow, which facilitates assimilation of the smaller pool people who go through the process. You’re much more likely to assimilate if you’re not living in a place with thousands of other people from your origin country.
The things you’re describing are superficial. My wife’s dad is a Japanophile and she grew up eating sushi, etc. That doesn’t make her Japanese.
Assimilation is about how you think and what you value. It’s not just knowing about the American political system, but understanding and embracing the values and worldview that created it.
I’m not. I have a Bangladeshi sense of the flow of time, I have basically traditional beliefs about family structure, raising children, social obligations to elders, etc.
But I appreciate and enjoy Americans the same way I appreciate and enjoy the Japanese.
> I’m not. I have a Bangladeshi sense of the flow of time, I have basically traditional beliefs about family structure, raising children, social obligations to elders, etc.
Why don't you live by your principles and return to Bangladesh? To use your own argument (not mine), your culture is both inferior to the American culture and Americans have voted to not have "your kind" here.
One way or another, you are being disingenuous, either through your words or your actions.
And how much does the Trump administration understand and embrace the values and worldview that created the American political system. How much do they agree with the Founding Fathers? ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.’?
Honestly, not very well. Trump is from an immigrant background. He doesn’t talk like an American (unlike Obama or Bush or Clinton). The American right these days is filled with people from recent immigrant ancestry whose understanding of American values is something of an impersonation of the real thing.
The founder’s America ceased to exist at the national level with the election of FDR.
>>Assimilation is about how you think and what you value. It’s not just knowing about the American political system, but understanding and embracing the values and worldview that created it.
Now you are just bullshitting bc you think you have ran out of substantive things to say, which you never had, to begin with.
Do you think that kids born in America (or anywhere for that matter) don't care about fitting in with the other kids? Did you? When you were a kid were you more concerned about your Bangladeshi heritage or not being an outsider amongst your peers?
And yet I'm sure you didn't lose respect for your family and background, because one can do both things simultaneously. But those other brown people are different and bad and have bad culture that ruins things, right?
> - i started watching football with my american friends
And I'd assume and hope parts of your native culture rubbed off on your American friends.
As someone whose ancestors have been American for quite a while (1850s) I can't make sense of the idea espoused by some on this thread* that "American culture" is something that needs to be strongly protected from changing and that's why we need to virtually lock-down immigration.
The feature that makes "American culture" powerful is exactly that it assimilates to the people who come here, not that they assimilate to it.
* (not you, this is just a convenient jumping off point for me to chime in on)
> But is that true? Massachusetts is one of the most functional states in the country. It is both affluent and prosperous, but also orderly and well governed. What’s a good part of Massachusetts culture that doesn’t come from the original British settlers and their descendants?
I spent the first 22 years of my life living in Massachusetts around the Boston area and a lot of my fondest childhood memories center around celebrating multiculturism: St Patrick's day parades in Southie, Saint Anthony's feasts in the North End, August Moon Festival in Chinatown, etc.
> Wouldn’t New York City be a better city—cleaner, less corrupt, more orderly—if it was in Massachusetts?
I don't think so, I also lived in NYC for a year in 1999 and have visited it many times before and since and found NYC a much more interesting and vibrant place than Massachusetts, though both have their charms.
> I spent the first 22 years of my life living in Massachusetts around the Boston area and a lot of my fondest childhood memories center around celebrating multiculturism: St Patrick's day parades in Southie, Saint Anthony's feasts in the North End, August Moon Festival in Chinatown, etc.
Those are all superficial. Without those cultural influences, Massachusetts would still be basically the same state, just with worse food.
> I don't think so, I also lived in NYC for a year in 1999 and have visited it many times before and since and found NYC a much more interesting and vibrant place than Massachusetts, though both have their charms.
“Vibrant” is a euphemism for “chaotic and dirty.” Nobody ever says Copenhagen is “vibrant.” Massachusetts is objectively better than New York in almost every way. It has great schools while New York has shit schools, but Massachusetts spends 25% less per student. Massachusetts has much lower corruption, greater state capacity to perform public works, etc. Those are the measures of a place—not whether it is “vibrant” or “interesting.”
They don't have the same religion, customs, values, history, etc.
Assimilation takes generations, and the point of integration is that some of their culture is retained. That is how you get pizza snd maffia to New York (to name two random examples), or how languages evolve.
For example, I am from Amsterdam area. The culture there was heavily influenced by Jewish diaspora, and the dialect by Yiddish and Bargoens. The street language nowadays is a mish-mash of English, Jewish, and Arabian culture, as well as that which influenced Dutch language before (mainly English, German, French, Latin, Greek, and I am probably forgetting to mention some). Some parts of our culture are still artifacts from past, we just take them for granted. Last name for example, was introduced by Napoleon. The Austria-Hungarians had influence on the south, and religiously the Catholics are mainly from south (as well as entire Belgium) with the North (above the rivers) being rather Protestants. Language-wise, Belgium's history of three languages is of interest, you could say the same about Switzerland. I wouldn't call USA solely English-speaking either. Heck, just look at the names of places around SV.
Also, would you tip if the food was terrible? I wouldn't. They should be happy I paid (my wife before I knew her once had soup so salty, she send back to kitchen. Chef said was normal. They didn't resolve, yet the soup was on the bill. She and her friends just left).
My recommendation to you? Well, I am not from USA but been in Cali a couple of times. Pivot to people who accept you for who you are. Don't hide where you're coming from, use it to empower you instead.
I feel like we agree on a lot so I don’t get your conclusion.
> They don't have the same religion, customs, values, history, etc.
Correct. But why is it “hatred” for people to not want immigrants to bring foreign customs and values with them? Customs and values are substantive! The customs and values of people around you affect your life, especially in a democracy where those people get to vote on the laws that govern you.
> Assimilation takes generations
Correct! You and Stephen Miller are on the same page about that.
> That is how you get pizza snd maffia to New York (to name two random examples)
Correct again! Why is it “hatred” and “stupidity” if you think the pizza wasn’t worth the mafia?
> For example, I am from Amsterdam area
My hypothesis is that New York City would be cleaner, more polite, better governed, and more orderly if it was still New Amsterdam. But the food would be crap. Do you disagree?
Stop with your logic, please. Obviously they must complete American Nationalism training, readily available in whatever country they come from, which they can learn from Voice of America.
> ...They recognize that individual immigrants can be fine but the large-scale flow of immigrants can create undesirable changes
You should also consider the other side of the equation, which is that immigration is the only thing that's keeping the US workforce and total population growing.
The size of the workforce and overall population has real economic, fiscal and quality of life impacts that every American feels on a daily basis and there's a very strong argument to be made that if your interest is in maintaining US wealth and "strength" globally, you don't want to become Japan, South Korea, Italy or Germany.
This is not to say that immigration policy should be made thoughtlessly or recklessly, but I rarely see the staunchest immigration opponents mentioning the stark demographic reality that faces the country.
56% of college grads are still looking for their first job 2 years later up from 25% for millennials. If you want to “grow the workforce” why not just hire the people already here?
Even if your statistic is true (which I don't believe it is), there are two issues here.
The first is that even if every graduate was hired tomorrow, it still wouldn't be enough to outpace the number of older workers leaving the workforce. The Social Security worker-to-retiree ratio was about 5:1 in 1960 and is about 2.7:1 now, and still dropping.
The second is that most new college grads aren't filling the jobs that need filling. The most acute shortages are in fields like agriculture, construction, home health/elder care, meat processing, and hospitality. Unless new grads are going to start doing farm work or taking care of the elderly, there still aren't enough American-born workers to meet the needs of the labor market.
So basically, immigration solves a different problem than the one you're referring to. Yours is a big one too but it's a separate issue.
Nobody above said people who disagree with them are irrational.
Nobody said immigration should happen faster than anyone can assimilate.
They said preventing people from applying for green cards while on an existing visa will make it much much harder to immigrate legally.
If you think immigrants need more time to assimilate so they don't change your culture but you still think immigration is good then it seems like you'd be against this change. On the other hand if you want to limit immigration to just the wealthy this sounds like exactly the matching policy.
Also, Trump winning the naturalized citizen vote doesn't mean naturalized citizens all think the same way. Even if they all did think the US was perfect and their country of origin was garbage that STILL doesn't mean they think other people from their country are bad, obviously. Being at risk from your government or thinking your government needs to change doesn't imply you think other citizens from your culture are bad.
> you think immigrants need more time to assimilate so they don't change your culture but you still think immigration is good then it seems like you'd be against this change.
It reduces the number of immigrants, which facilitates assimilation and reduces the capacity of immigrants to change american culture.
> Also, Trump winning the naturalized citizen vote doesn't mean naturalized citizens all think the same way.
The point is that it’s not just “immigrant” versus “anti-immigrant,” because immigrants themselves are split in views.
> Being at risk from your government or thinking your government needs to change doesn't imply you think other citizens from your culture are bad.
There’s an assumption baked into your statement: that the government they left is unrelated to the “culture.” That’s hotly debated.
My parents grew up in Bangladesh, and both of them believe that Bangladesh is the way it is because of our culture. Their views on immigration thus are nuanced. They think we should treat immigrants well, obviously. But they are pretty alarmed by Little Bangladesh and the ethnic enclaves that exist now, which didn’t really exist in the 1980s when we came here.
> Saying “you wouldn’t want America to become more like the place you left” is a compelling message to many immigrants.
There is a very very large Indian community that echoes this sentiment (which you can see in very large expat FB groups) and wants to close the doors. They are extremely vocal and supportive of closing immigration, because their children now have to compete with the continuous influx.
Its just humans being human. Everyone wants to look after their own interests and there are lots of special interest groups, each with their own interests.
I cannot understand why people downvote otherwise civilized posts they disagree with, so I'll upvote.
That said, you are impressively wrong. If someone doesn't agree with me because they choose to believe obviously false or made-up data, that is being irrational.
Is it rational to suppress large-scale studies of vaccination? If someone says "I am against vaccination because there are no large-scale studies", is that rational?
As a rather conservative foreigner in the US I find this to be a very presumptive statement. We've made good friends, conservatives and liberals alike - we're people, that's what matters not the policitcal orientation. No conservative I know "hates immigrants." Consider what the policy intends to do rather than blanket-blaming it on hate.
I have a family split along classic ideological lines between the northeast and southeast of the US. If you are unfamiliar with conservative's hatred toward immigration, I suggest you travel more.
I just went around the circumference of the US by RV. Kinda hard to travel more.
What I do notice is a clearly liberal HN bubble that does not represent the country I see and the people I talk to and I'm not selective. You're of course entitled to your views, just don't take others' views as unfounded just because you don't agree. (Collective you). I love the US and the values it stands for but dialogue and the "I'm right, you're wrong" has to improve on both sides.
> Consider what the policy intends to do rather than blanket-blaming it on hate
It looks like the policy intends to prevent immigration in every way possible, and (along with other policies that have come about recently), kick out as many people as possible; even those that are immigrating here legally (or have already done so).
So, other than a hate for immigrants/immigration, I don't see another possible explanation.
When you come as a non-immigrant, you agree to not stay permanently. If you want to stay (because life happens and the US is a great country after all) you go through the proper channels. That may mean exiting for the duration of the process - that's entirely legitimate given the amount of abuse. No reason to invoke "hate" of any kind to justify the need for the policy. I know it's not the popular view here on HN and anti-HN-mainstream views get downvoted really fast. Think about that if you value democracy.
- People that didn't go through the proper channels, but have been here contributing peacefully to our society - hunted down, incarcerated, and/or kicked out, even though they're valuable members of our society
- People that are trying to go through the proper channels -hunted down, incarcerated, and/or kicked out
- People that are currently going through the proper channels - hunted down, incarcerated, and/or kicked out (sometimes literally _at_ the court houses while trying to go through proper channels)
- People that have already gone through the proper channels and have their greencards, hunted down, incarcerated, and/or kicked out
- People that are natural born citizens, hunted down, incarcerated, and/or kicked out
So our willingness to give the benefit of the doubt to the crowd that is claiming "we're just trying to get them to do it the right way to prevent abuse" is... just gone. It's not believable. Are there _some_ people that are honestly trying to do things right? Sure.. but the ones with the actual power, the ones out there taking action? They're not. They're out there causing harm just for the sake of causing harm.
This may not be the intent of some conservative voters, partly because some are plausibly immigration friendly, partly because many movement conservatives have more of a opinion-vibe than a policy position on immigration (among other things).
But conservative voters that don’t want much immigration at all (especially from some places/backgrounds) absolutely exist, and more to the point so does leadership that’s determining policy with that goal in mind.
Perhaps you and your circle reflect the more egalitarian policy-driven view. Commendable if so. But it’s not commendable to deny that conservatism has a xenophobic streak a mile wide right now.
GP seemed to be commenting on the Trump administration, not necessarily individuals of conservative persuasion. The Trump administration diverges materially from traditional conservative doctrine in many ways.
> No conservative I know "hates immigrants." Consider what the policy intends to do rather than blanket-blaming it on hate.
If you look at the rhetoric from the Trump people over the years, they absolutely and clearly do hate immigrants, or are doing their best to seem that way. As an example, consider the following quote^[1] from Trump just a few years ago:
> They let — I think the real number is 15, 16 million people into our country. When they do that, we got a lot of work to do. They’re poisoning the blood of our country [...] That’s what they’ve done. They poison mental institutions and prisons all over the world, not just in South America, not just to three or four countries that we think about, but all over the world. They’re coming into our country from Africa, from Asia, all over the world.
It's trivial to find more like that. Weird white supremacist-adjacent rhetoric. Equating immigrants with animals. Etc.
American conservatives may not hate immigrants, but they sure love a guy who fervently expresses his hatred and disdain for immigrants every chance he gets. They've voted him into our highest office twice, and immigration was a central pillar of his campaign both times. I fully understand that many people who voted for him did so for reasons besides immigration, but at this point if they aren't willing to disavow him after the catastrophic first year-and-change of his second term then I am done giving them the benefit of the doubt, because there must be some reason they still support him, and at this point it sure isn't his performance on inflation, general affordability, etc.
In fact, looking at the Silver Bulletin charts^[2] as of right now, immigration is the only macro issue they track where his approval isn't in free-fall.
That quote you pulled is about illegal immigration. Conflating undocumented immigrants with “anti-immigration” is a false equivalence.
There are no doubt people against immigration entirely but the majority opinion I hear from conservative leaning people is that legal immigration is great and people that skip the system are the problem and the drag on social safety nets.
But the legal immigration system is broken and they did that on purpose. And how is your immigration status relevant to your contribution to taxes?
It is not a false equivalence. Both legal and undocumented immigrants are net positive for our economy, less likely to commit crimes, and part and parcel to the American experiment. This “we only disapprove of the illegal ones” continues to be a disingenuous and ignorant point of view.
It’s still a false equivalence and the concern isn’t paying something to taxes. The bottom 30-40% of all federal tax payers contribute less than they receive back. So even in a tax argument, adding additional low income earners is not a good thing for the system.
But taxes aren’t the point, we have a process for legal immigration that works for millions of people a year. This is just like every other country (with even less stringent requirements than many other countries). Why should undocumented immigrants be granted the privilege of ignoring the law? Do you argue that Japan, China, Singapore, Australia, and/or Norway should do the same?
It’s fine that many conservatives still feel this way, but they are not electing officials implementing fair, mature immigration policies. They’re electing immature people who aren’t willing to systematically think through immigration policy, and instead say whatever hateful blurb gets them the most attention.
It’s frankly despicable, and I don’t respect conservatives who continue voting for politicians who are obvious liars and at a minimum are not campaigning on bringing level-headed reasonable ideas to immigration policy — only on how much they hate immigrants. Which reflects very, very poorly on conservative voters.
There are some that try and they get roasted as “RINOs”. The problem with the two party system is that you either vote for a despicable person that implements your major beliefs or someone pleasant that wants to implement policies you think directly result in murder/famine/societal collapse.
Trump can get far worse before the calculus changes for someone who thinks abortion is murder to start voting for Elizabeth Warren.
Whatever man. Do you remember his comments last year about Ilhan Omar ("garbage") and Somalis?
> I don’t want them in our country. I’ll be honest with you, OK. Somebody will say, ‘Oh, that’s not politically correct.’ I don’t care. I don’t want them in our country. Their country is no good for a reason,
> Their country stinks, and we don’t want them in our country,
> I am recommending a full travel ban on every damn country that’s been flooding our nation with killers, leeches, and entitlement junkies.
> We always take people from Somalia, places that are a disaster, right? [...] Filthy, dirty, disgusting, ridden with crime. The only thing they’re good at is going after ships.
> [Minnesota is] a hellhole right now. The Somalians should be out of here. They’ve destroyed our country. And all they do is complain, complain, complain,
Some other selections I found with zero effort:
> I’ve also announced a permanent pause on Third World migration, including from hellholes like Afghanistan, Haiti, Somalia and many other countries,
> Our country was going to hell. And we had a meeting, and I say, 'Why is it we only take people from shithole countries, right?' Why can’t we have some people from Norway, Sweden, just a few? Let us have a few from Denmark. Do you mind sending us a few people? Do you mind?'
> I think allowing millions and millions of people to come into Europe is very, very sad. I think you are losing your culture. Look around. You go through certain areas that didn't exist ten or 15 years ago.
> And I think [Europe] better watch themselves because you are changing culture. You are changing a lot of things. You’re changing security. You’re changing — look at what’s happening. I mean, you take a look. I mean, look at what’s happening to different countries that never had difficulty, never had problems…. I do not think it’s good for Europe and I don’t think it’s good for our country.
What do you call this rhetoric if not anti-immigrant? None of this is specific to illegal immigration; he commonly targets legal immigrants with his denigratory, hateful rhetoric (see above), and his second term immigration policy has in several high-profile instances targeted legal immigrants for deportation, as well as making it more difficult to obtain residency/citizenship (see: the subject of this post).
I guess he's specifically calling out immigration from "shithole countries" (brown/black people) while he is explicitly (though apparently hypothetically) fine with white people ("people from Norway, Sweden, just a few") coming in. Maybe he's just openly racist? Is that better, easier for "conservative leaning people" to swallow? When they say "legal immigration is great", is "legal" just a wink-wink shorthand for "white"?
---
Edit: I alluded to this in a reply below, but thanks to everybody replying to this comment for demonstrating that the theoretical "conservative I know" and "conservative leaning people" are, apparently, not universally representative of conservatives.
I hope you will not be offended if I don't reply to you individually, but I'm just not interested in having a conversation about whether these attitudes are valid. It's off topic, for one thing—the fact that they exist, that they surface in this context, is the only relevant takeaway here.
In my original comment in this thread, I said this:
> American conservatives may not hate immigrants, but they sure love a guy who fervently expresses his hatred and disdain for immigrants every chance he gets. They've voted him into our highest office twice, and immigration was a central pillar of his campaign both times. I fully understand that many people who voted for him did so for reasons besides immigration, but at this point if they aren't willing to disavow him after the catastrophic first year-and-change of his second term then I am done giving them the benefit of the doubt, because there must be some reason they still support him, and at this point it sure isn't his performance on inflation, general affordability, etc.
Thank you for demonstrating what this looks like, I guess?
By most accounts Somalia is a beautiful country. It’s currently at war, in part because of its colonial legacy. But if that stopped I would love to visit.
Interesting that nobody on the conservative side hates immigrants but continue to vote on politicians with platforms built upon the hatred of immigrants. It’s almost as if they’re lying.
You said the other side has reasons that I hadn't considered. So, besides the "official" reasons in the official press release (which I have already considered), what reasons have I failed to consider?
No matter how many times you repeat your evasions, they are unlikely to persuade anyone that you’re simultaneously entitled to your bailey (disavowing any investment in defending the new policy) and your motte (“maybe they have honest reasons that aren’t anti-immigrant, ever think of that even though I won’t speculate on what those would be”)
What "evasions"? I have repeatedly said that I don't support the policy. I don't support the policy. I think the argument advanced by the administration is wrong. I want you to tell me why you believe that, instead of just screaming "liar!" because you disagree. But you can't do that, to the extent that you'd rather attack me, even though I already agree with you.
Calling your opponent a liar convinces nobody. Making a constructive argument has a chance of doing so. But that's harder than insulting people.
> you’re simultaneously entitled to your bailey (disavowing any investment in defending the new policy) and your motte (“maybe they have honest reasons that aren’t anti-immigrant, ever think of that even though I won’t speculate on what those would be”)
You don't understand what Motte and Bailey means. I am not making an argument in favor of the policy, then backing away from that argument to a different position. I am making an argument against calling people names in lieu of actual debate.
I'm going to engage with you a bit because this situation does read to me like people talking past each other and I personally don't like when I see that happening
I'm going to state some assumptions up front and I appreciate if they seem incredibly simple and or naive but I find it's useful to have a common frame of reference in these situations
Reading what you wrote, I think it's plausible that you don't seem to realise that the disagreement that your getting into with people is one that's deeply emotionally charged and the current zeitgeist of how we engage in disagreement these days being predominantly meta disagreement means the vast majority of people are pattern matching on situation, context and vibes than what's said is the norm
I'm not a fan, but I absolutely can recognise and acknowledge that for a lot of the people who are coming into forums like this looking for civil discussion, this meta argument is very much what they retreat to unless they feel like it's worthwhile engaging with someone else honestly and vulnerably, because the dominant tactics of online disagreement are all about managing and depleting the energy of the person who you disagree with instead of engaging with them, while at times doing so in a way that makes them look unreasonable or foolish to the wider audience or signalling to that wider audience so that they're in on the joke as it were
So given that context, your argument will read to many as engaging in that style, and as a result they really don't want to engage with you on the merits of what your saying
If you want to really get engagement from people now, which I believe you want to on charged topics like this, you usually have to act in a way that falls outside the pattern, which requires some thought and effort
We're really cynical these days and dislike wasting our time and energy, not so much because I think we care about the time or the energy, I've seen a lot of people still just arguing back and forth and can't help thinking to myself that if they were willing to put that energy into arguing so much why didn't they try something else that might have had a higher likelihood of success
But at least in my view, we don't want to be as vulnerable anymore, too many people have put in the time and the energy of disagreeing in good faith sincerely believing that they were speaking with someone and reaching for understanding only to later realise that the other person they were speaking with was just running an algorithm, probably not even a very sophisticated one at that
And I'm not immune to this either, it's not fun, this dominant cynical strategy of our age
It stifles legitimate and interesting discourse and prevents us from working towards better understanding each other in what I don't think anyone will disagree with saying are trying and difficult times
My personal reaction to it is stuff like what I'm doing here, jumping into a discussion when I see people speaking past each other and when I've got the capacity arguing for a pause and a change in approach and then leaving it up to them as to whether they want to do that
I'm directing this at you not because I think you're particularly at fault, just that I think you've got the most capability to shift the conversation by changing how you are responding
I could be wrong, maybe you don't want to, as is your right, or if you do people will still engage with you poorly believing that you aren't speaking in good faith, as is theirs
Thank you for your time if you read this, hopefully it leads to a more productive discourse
> So given that context, your argument will read to many as engaging in that style, and as a result they really don't want to engage with you on the merits of what your saying
On the contrary, everyone is engaging timr within the scope of the exact challenge that he himself designed. Repeatedly, he has refused to answer his own question while insisting that he has. It's pretty wild.
> The only question I have asked is for you to make an affirmative argument.
You asked us to consider the reasons why conservatives vote for politicians with platforms built on the hatred of immigrants, besides hatred of immigrants. Remember?
> You asked us to consider the reasons why conservatives vote for politicians with platforms built on the hatred of immigrants, besides hatred of immigrants. Remember?
No, that is literally not what the comment said. I'm actually sort of amazed that you can get that from what I wrote, and treat is as some kind of "gotcha", when it's the top of this thread, and literally the same message I've been repeating throughout:
> Or maybe, when you say that the platform is “built upon hatred”, that’s just your opinion, and the other side actually has reasons that you haven’t bothered to consider?
> I don’t like this policy, but engaging in exaggerated rhetoric, then calling the other side liars because they disagree with your rhetoric, is everything that is wrong with political debate in the US right now.
To wit: stop calling people liars. Make an argument instead.
The fact that the current US administration lies is indisputable. I'm not calling them liars because they "disagree with [my] rhetoric" but because they have been shown to have repeatedly lied. Saying that Trump is a liar is not "calling names" but reminding of a well-known fact. But ok, I'll indulge your bad-faith argument:
1. The administration has claimed to oppose only illegal immigration in order to encourage legal immigration. [0]
2. The administration has consistently lied about and demonized immigrants who came legally. [1]
3. Recent policies have made legal immigration more difficult. [2]
4. The effect of these policies will be to reduce legal immigration, contradicting the administration's earlier stated goals. [3]
5. The administration has repeatedly expressed white nationalist sentiment. [4]
I didn't ask you to make an argument that the administration has lied. That's trivial. And though you're getting closer with "the administration has lied about immigration issues in the past", again, that's trivial and non-responsive. And telling me that the administration is against immigration is telling me that water is wet. So what if they are? Elections have consequences, and this is not a sudden discovery.
I asked you to rebut the arguments in front of you, instead of just calling people liars. It isn't hard, if you're even a little bit intellectually curious. I'm tired of responding, so I'll just model the behavior for you, and then I'm done.
First, five reasonable arguments against this change, none of which involve calling people liars:
1) It targets the very people who are most likely to contribute positively to US society.
2) It's clearly against the intent of the original status adjustment legislation.
3) If it's actually applied to H1B visas (which is unclear), it's clearly against the intent of the 1990 immigration reform act, which established dual-status visas.
4) It seems intended to eliminate / dramatically reduce green card issuance without legislative intervention. I am against this because it is unconstitutional.
5) It discourages smart people from moving to the USA.
OK, 6:
6) It's especially cruel to families where one family member is already a US citizen or permanent resident.
Now, five arguments in favor of it:
1) It's appropriate to ask people on non-immigrant visas (e.g. tourists, students) to return home at the end of those visas, rather than creating a limbo class of people who are sitting around waiting for status transitions, which is both real (i.e. I personally know people in this situation) and a problem.
2) It distributes the review load around the world. Obviously true.
3) It was never the intent of the 1960 status adjustment legislation to allow non-immigrant visas the ability to transition directly to permanent residence.
4) However blunt the approach, it does eliminate a major incentive problem for gaming the short-term immigration system, if you know that you have to return to wherever you came from, and wait for approval.
5) While I don't think it's appropriate to make this change for pending applications (and to be clear: we don't know if that's what's happening), I think it's completely fair to announce it as a policy change going forward.
Okay, I'm surprised by how much you are missing the point, so let's imagine a dialog taking place in the 1930s in Europe.
A: Hey, I think we should murder all people of <ethnicity> because they are a threat to national security.
B: I think that your argument in favor of genocide is based on animus and not offered in good faith.
A: How dare you call me a liar! Why don't you actually engage with my argument??
Sorry for the crude analogy, but that is what you are saying. You are completely missing what is shocking about this scenario.
Everyone already knows the arguments for and against legal immigration. We've been having that discussion for decades, or centuries, and there are valid and coherent arguments on both sides. There is no need to reiterate them here.
What is unique about the current situation is that the current administration is not engaging with valid arguments against immigration: they are offering transparently nonsense justifications, which we are not used to seeing from our government to this extreme degree -- even the bad-faith arguments for the Iraq war were dressed up in real argument clothes. No matter how you feel about immigration, you should be shocked by the administration's behavior. Not just that the arguments are unreasonable, but transparently so. Pointing that fact out is completely relevant, as it is IMHO more novel to our society and dangerous to democracy than simple immigration policy. Furthermore, treating the administration's arguments as valid just gives them legitimacy, which they do not deserve.
The people in favor of these policies are not making thoughtful decisions for the good of the nation and it does no one a favor to pretend that they do. They will not be persuaded by the well-reasoned arguments you point us towards because reasoning is not part of their decision making process. That's why everyone in this thread is calling you a tool, and why pointing out the bad faith is completely relevant.
I appreciate the thoughtful reply. I don't think I'm "talking past" the people I'm replying to -- I understand exactly what they're saying, I get that these are emotional outbursts, and I'm simply trying to re-iterate the futility of it, in the hopes that someone will get it -- but I do agree that it's likely pointless and probably a waste of time.
> It stifles legitimate and interesting discourse and prevents us from working towards better understanding each other
We definitely agree on this.
> So given that context, your argument will read to many as engaging in that style, and as a result they really don't want to engage with you on the merits of what your saying
If we are at a point where "do not call people names instead of arguing" is considered a tactic or a style, we really are doomed.
> but I do agree that it's likely pointless and probably a waste of time
To briefly clarify, I don't believe it's pointless, that wasn't what I intended to convey, what my position is, is that the current mode of communication demands more of us, so as a result at least I and people like myself engage with it less often, but when we do, we do so wholeheartedly and if it looks like the other party isn't engaging in good faith, try a little, but are willing to wrap up, at least in my case after taking a few stabs at it
I personally find that this strategy both makes me feel more empowered and engaged in these situations as well as gives me hope that if my strategy is more sustainable, then it will slowly be adopted, which is good, I would be delighted to engage with someone who's also following this approach or something like it
> If we are at a point where "do not call people names instead of arguing" is considered a tactic or a style, we really are doomed
I don't think it's quite that negative, from my perspective this has become a very negative value game (in the Von Neumann sense) and being mindful of the fact that it is very much being treated like a game, adopt a strategy that allows for people to engage with it like discourse, deescalate and clearly signal my willingness to engage with the other party, yet however still be a reasonable move in that game are all goals that should be met when I communicate in these sorts of contexts
Given there's likely multiple other ways to hit those objectives, the route I'm taking only being one of them, I'm satisfied to continue tilling the odd windmill here and there
Once again, thanks for engaging, have a great day!
You kicked off this subthread by saying (among other things):
> the other side actually has reasons that you haven’t bothered to consider?
In response, it's entirely reasonable for someone to ask you to speculate what those specific reasons might be whether or not you agree with those reasons. You suggested those reasons exist, asking someone who expresses confidence they exist is a reasonable place to start.
Here's one of the ways that you're evading answering that question:
> I have repeatedly said that I don't support the policy.
No one here required you to publicly marry yourself to the policy. We're all aware of situations where we can speculate on possible reasons for a position without agreeing with it in the end. So saying "I don't support the policy" is a non-sequitur.
If you don't want to answer the question "what reasons have I failed to consider?" one way of resolving the tension left by your assertion that such reasons exist would be to say something like "I don't want to speculate on specifics, I acknowledge that this weakens any assertion that such reasons exist, but I still think we shouldn't just call the reasons given dishonest." Perhaps there are other ways of resolving that tension.
But saying "I don't support the policy" is not in any way adequate. You were not asked whether you support the policy, you were asked to back up your assertion that "the other side actually has reasons that you haven’t bothered to consider."
> I want you to tell me why you believe that
I don't think I've personally staked a position in this discussion regarding the administration's policy, much less whether or not they're lying, so it's not clear why I'd have any obligation to defend a position before we hear what your reasons are for asserting the administration "actually has reasons that you haven’t bothered to consider."
It's also not clear why someone who has staked a position that the administration's reasons are pretextual and dishonest would be obligated tell you why they think that before asking you to back up your assertion that other reasons exist, though of course you are also free to ask people why they believe something (and some people have at least mildly elaborated on specific reasons they believe the administration is not honest).
And I understand perfectly well what Motte and Bailey means. I specified exactly what I identified as your Motte (“maybe they have honest reasons that aren’t anti-immigrant, ever think of that even though I won’t speculate on what those would be”) and your Bailey (disavowing any investment in defending the new policy). Repeating your Bailey does not defend your Motte. Insisting that people are misrepresenting your Motte as a defense of the new policy does not defend your Motte, it is simply repeating your Bailey.
Your original position was "the other side actually has reasons that you haven’t bothered to consider?" and you have retreated to "I don't defend this policy so I have no obligation to defend my assertion that the other side has actual reasons I just want better discussion."
If you want better discussion, an explicitly acknowledged retreat from "the other side actually has reasons that you haven’t bothered to consider" will look more honest and less evasive. You could also speculate on what those reasons might be, and that would also strengthen your asserted position that "the other side actually has reasons" to the extent those reasons look credible.
Some people may also be considering the possibility that your claim that you disagree with the administration's position is not honest (as well as approaching the admin as dishonest actors). That's always discouraging of course -- we certainly want to be perceived as honest when we believe we are, and it's also convenient to be perceived as honest even when we are not. I haven't staked my criticisms of your engagement on whether or not you are dishonest: I allow room for the possibility that you're honestly wrong, and even some for the possibility that you may eventually make a substantial counterargument as yet unconsidered. Still, dishonesty is a real possibility to be reckoned with, and bringing it under consideration is reasonable enough. In that light, reducing reckoning with that possibility to "just screaming 'liar!'" also looks like rhetorical evasion.
> In response, it's entirely reasonable for someone to ask you to speculate what those specific reasons might be whether or not you agree with those reasons. You suggested those reasons exist, asking someone who expresses confidence they exist is a reasonable place to start.
Great. Perhaps you can start with the ones stated in the memo. So instead of saying "I don't believe the people making the policy have legitimate reasons, because those people are liars and their reasons are all lies" (which is ~essentially the comment I was replying to) you can instead rebut them.
> So saying "I don't supporting the policy" is a non-sequitur.
No it isn't. It's not an argument. It's just a statement of fact. I don't support the policy. I didn't write it. My advocacy for a policy I don't agree with is irrelevant to my argument here, which is: "don't just call people liars."
> You were not asked whether you support the policy, you were asked to back up your assertion that "the other side actually has reasons that you haven’t bothered to consider."
You're deflecting. If you think the policy is wrong, make an argument.
> Perhaps you can start with the ones stated in the memo.
You could have done that in response to the person who asked you what reasons they had not considered. That would have been one reasonable way to engage, it would have mildly trespassed the bounding attempt in their statement that they had considered the memo, but it would have introduced substance backing up your claim and let you interrogate their claim that they had in fact evaluated the reasons given in the memo.
You didn't do that, though. For some reason you instead chose "I don't support the policy" which, as stated, is a non-sequitur in response to the question ""what reasons have I failed to consider?"
If you'd like to talk about the reasons in the memo or other reasons not in the memo, no one has been stopping you.
> > So saying "I don't support the policy" is a non-sequitur.
> No it isn't. It's not an argument. It's just a statement of fact.
A non-sequitur can be entirely factual. This means affirming something as a statement of fact is not an adequate defense against the charge of non-sequitur, it is actually a further non-sequitur.
> my argument here which is "don't just call people liars."
This may be the argument you intended to make. But because you also asserted that legitimate reasons for the policy existed and then refused to defend that assertion with a reasonable response to the question "what reasons have I failed to consider?" (including "the reasons in the memo" up until this level of the discussion) and also appear determined to avoid that quality of engagement, you've ended up engaging in a way that works against a general ethos of better discussion and the micro-dynamics which support it.
There's also the fact that it's reductive to assert anyone has "just" called the administration liars. Given that the federal judiciary has retreated from traditional presumption of regularity when fulfilling their judicial responsibility[0] (ie, that the executive is acting in good faith), that's compelling reason to believe the judiciary has found a pattern of admin dishonesty in the social/institutional setting where honesty is most critical. Retreating from the presumption of honesty in lay discussion is a pretty reasonable step. This in addition to my previous argument that dishonesty certainly exists in general and reckoning with that should not simply be reduced to "screaming liar."
I can also see how someone may nevertheless feel that calling the memo transparent pretext is not adequate. The productive response to such a failure where you feel it has occurred would be to bring the official reasons from the memo into the discussion, then ask people what they specifically think is wrong with those reasons.
I didn't engage your comments to defend or attack the policy -- I probably could do that, but it certainly didn't seem to be where you've focused. Instead you've focused on the quality of the discussion, and seem to be confused about why people have been critical and even hostile towards your engagement. It seemed like if you wanted better discourse, explaining how some of your engagement draws that criticism would help. It's strange if you're not interested in that, given that your stated position is about policing the quality of engagement in general, but no one can make you focus on what you don't want to, only point out the contradiction in that as well as the problems of your engagement.
The only thing I've targeted as wrong is how you argue. That's what I hate, and with amply described reasons.
I've spent a lot of words on it under the charitable assumption that you were truthful in your desire for better discussion. At this point, you've persuaded me that was overly charitable.
Instead it appears you're determined to maintain a fictional posture implying bad behavior in others whether or not it exists so you can claim whatever fruits of grievance you're here to harvest.
If the time comes when I care about defending or attacking the memo, I'll do so effectively. I haven't taken a position on the memo. I've only asked you to sustain positions you've taken or honestly retreat from them. And not pretend other people are taking positions that they aren't, which is apparently a big ask.
This is not a debate about immigration policy. This is a debate about government-sanctioned racist scapegoating under the guise of immigration policy. Honest discussion requires calling a spade a spade.
Having a debate about the policy on their terms is exactly what they want. How well did that go when for a week in 2024 everyone was asking "Do Haitians really eat cats and dogs"
It's hard because you continue to love pretending that people are calling you names even when they're not. It's hard because you find it convenient to demand people defend arguments they're not making.
My position is that your arguments are bad. I've made my arguments why. I don't have to argue about the policy, because I haven't staked a position on it.
I haven't called you names, so it's disingenuous to respond as if "Don't call people names" is on topic. For sake of contrast, saying something like "You're a dishonest piece of troll shit" might be calling you names; it's pretty clear most of my discussion has instead been focused on pointing out the problems with your arguments, positions, and rhetoric, which is part of why you're finding things so hard.
Though at this point your dishonesty is manifest to anyone following along.
> If you think the policy is wrong, make an argument why. Don't just call people names.
You are operating under the misapprehension that pointing out bad-faith arguments is "call[ing] people names." No. We should not engage with bad-faith arguments because the other side has already abandoned rational debate. That's what "bad-faith" means. I'm not going to waste my time, or yours, rehashing tired old pro- and anti-immigrant arguments.
I think the policy is wrong, and allegedly so do you, but that's not relevant, because the validity of the policy is not the problem here. The fact that the government has abandoned the pretense of rational policy in favor of feeding raw meat to its rabid audience in favor of openly racist policies is much more problematic. Saying, "Aktshually, immigrants on average contribute to the GDP!" is going to change exactly no one's mind.
Seriously. I wish I could find any positive-constructive [0] results/values to frame Trumpism in terms of. I understood why people voted for him in 2016, or at least I thought I did. But based on his actual results, I've been trying to steelman for ~6 years now. I haven't been able to come up with any positive values, the only things I'm ever able to come up with are destruction, spite, and hate.
Trump supporters should be perfectly capable of articulating some positive values they see Trump as actually championing. There's really no reason to be arguing for them. But rather instead, I just see fewer and fewer flags up as the damage to our country grows and grows. I guess the reality is finally setting in?
[0] eg "deport immigrants" isn't a positive result as it's framed around a negative (immigrants not being here). "Fix the economy for manual labor" or "Restore X/Y/Z cultural values (that immigrants are supposedly disrupting)" would be positive values. But of course Trump hasn't actually made either of those examples better.
> thanks for being the voice of reason, however futile it is in a social media scoring system
Treating an obviously racist and xenophobic immigration agenda as good-faith government policy does not help the country. It only serves to lend undeserved legitimacy to a corrupt policy-making apparatus that does not deserve it.
Well yeah, they are lies. It's quite obvious to everyone who's not caught up in the lies. Those people can't be convinced anyway, so they're not the target audience.
> OK, so once again, you’re dismissing the other side’s arguments as lies.
Because they are lies. Assuming they are lying has served me well. When I did spend time assuming the best, I was disappointed time and time again to find out I'd been lied to. Now, assuming they are lying has proven to be the correct choice far more often than reasonable.
> If you want to convince people of your argument, start by engaging in actual debate instead of simply calling your opponent names.
Why do you think we care at all about convincing people? Why do you think we haven't already tried to do an actual debate?
You can't have reasonable discussions with people who dismiss reality and facts. I'm not talking about opinions, but facts.
For example, who won the 2020 election? Who was the president when 9/11 occurred? Who was the President in 2020? Is Trump a felon? Who pays for a tariff?
None of these are opinion based. And yet, you see government leaders who are unable to answer these BASIC questions. And it filters down.
Sorry, but you can't debate with people who don't believe in basic facts.
Let me show you how that works:
> Also, once again: I am not your opponent. I don’t agree with this change.
Yes, you are. Yes, you do agree with this change. Why do you agree with this change? Why do you support it? Why do you hate America?
We’re so far around the bend now that making a plea to do something other than scream “liar” at your opponent has been characterized as a malevolent political ploy.
For the record, you didn’t even read the first paragraph of the thing you linked to:
> Sealioning is a type of trolling or harassment that consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity
I’m not asking you for evidence. I’m asking you to stop calling people names. If you think the argument is wrong, explain why it is wrong. If you can’t do that, you lose.
Look man there are several different ways people argue and calling someone a liar or saying a policy is cruel despite the official line is entirely reasonable. If you’re taking that so personally that you have to personally respond to everyone about that then I have to wonder if you’re just trying to defend the policy in a motte and then retreat to the bailey of “I don’t support the policy I just don’t like how you’re arguing.” Calling someone cruel or a liar is not a slur, they’re calling out what they view as shameful acts. I think it’s within the bounds of civility to call someone cruel or a liar. I really think you’re just trolling with repeated requests for civility here.
Correct. On its own, calling someone a liar is not an argument. However, if a person is a liar, that fact provides useful context in evaluating statements made by that person. Traditionally, when a person has been shown to lie repeatedly, one should expect them to continue lying, and therefore one should not take their statements at face value. Can you understand how that is relevant in this case?
> I don’t like this policy, but engaging in exaggerated rhetoric
The Trump admin just sent an official death threat to trans people and anti-fascists (lol??). I am so incredibly sick of people acting like this is ok and normal and any calling out is exaggerating. At some point, you're not defending sensible discourse, you're lecturing people for being upset when they have a murderous regime targeting them. It's a shitty thing to do. You're defending actual fascism at this point. And I'm happy to back up that claim without rhetoric by demonstrating the ways in which the US is (and has been) slipping into fascism for decades. Something tells me I'd be wasting my breath though.
I’m tired of people acting so naive past the point of zip-tying entire apartment buildings and building concentration camps. White supremacist manners and politeness are disgusting.
In the nineties usian professor of philosophy Rick Roderick produced a series of lectures for The Teaching Company called The Self Under Siege. Perhaps they might change your view that this is a recent development.
In 2011 the usian professor of political science Corey Robin published a book on conservative thought, which is a pretty succinct and easy read. Here's the second edition:
"Rights" is not the point. You're correct that a country doesn't have to welcome you.
However, the US has been a prosperous country because it welcomes ambitious, hard-working, and skilled people from around the world. They immigrate, build inside the US and for the US, and the US economy grows. This is how the past several decades have worked, and restricting legal immigration would basically destroy this country, its economy, and everything that makes it a great place to live.
I'm a citizen of the US, and I 100% want more smart and hard-working people from around the world to come here and set up shop.
This is not true. It’s a pernicious lie that the United States has always been doors open, and this falsity makes discussing this topic increasingly impossible because it’s like there’s two different realities that aren’t reconcilable. The US became the economic powerhouse and world power it did during the most restrictive period of its immigration history. The amount of immigration over the last 30 years, and especially over the last decade, is completely unusual and unprecedented. I can go to neighborhoods in the city I grew up in where I played baseball as a kid and it is quite literally completely foreign. A lot of people, and you seem to be one of them, think that America’s immigration system is a cosmic vacuum cleaner that scoops up would-be Einsteins from around the planet and plops them in US cities where they churn out unicorns between writing an opera and running a 10k. This isn’t the case.
The percent of the US population that is foreign-born is about the same as it was before 1920.
To use your vocabulary, it is a pernicious lie to pretend that America's success from WWI through the WWII recoveries was due to immigration policies, rather than other major countries having their infrastructure destroyed and being forced to use the US as a key supplier due to rather large wars.
(and that's ignoring that US population had booms in there that meant that even though immigration was persisting, there was just a big increase in domestic births).
Though if we're going to adopt those immigration policies, perhaps we should also adopt the tax strategies, corporate regulation, and worker unions that accompanied that growth.
I'm quite fine with that. I drove through an Armenian neighborhood of LA and stopped for a meal at a restaurant whose name I could not comprehend and it was really, fucking tasty. Zhengyalov Hatz in Glendale, if anyone is wondering.
But yeah, this is the kind of stuff that makes the US awesome. "Would-be Einsteins" are far from the only flavor hard-working people who I absolutely welcome.
Cato is doing their usual thing here where they lie by omission.
>These foreigners, if not properly disposed of, will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its directions, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass.[1]
-Thomas Jefferson
The Founders had a conception of immigration that is completely at odds with the free for all that exists today, and Cato is partially responsible for people incorrectly thinking that the US was “literally built on the idea of immigration”.
Europeans who arrived, seized land, imported enslaved people, broke treaties, then later decided that later arrivals were the real problem? Those Europeans?
Would you prefer the United States didn’t exist or something? What is even the point of this comment. “Bad things happened in history, there was violence and war and conquering, woe is me” this is what you sound like. Profound, truly.
Did you roll a dice and pick one or are you actually familiar with Navajo history or something and that’s why you tried to use this retort as a way to imply you’re not allowed to have opinions on American immigration policy unless you’re from a Native American tribe?
> because it welcomes ambitious, hard-working, and skilled people from around the world
"From around the world" more like the "world tour" definition
They were welcoming mostly Europeans. First from WASP countries, then for more southern/eastern ones. And then from East Asia (I'll save the rant about the word "Asian" for another time)
Every piece of data shows some groups excel while some groups lag behind
(of course I haven't forgotten about other groups of people that came to the US but most of those didn't come willingly)
I didn't say it's a good policy. I just said it's not some moral failing to not allow immigration. The implication of all these criticisms of the Republican administration's policy on immigration is that if they oppose immigration, they're racist. I find this to be a very manipulative form of emotional blackmail that abuses the racism allegation.
The current Republican regime’s only pro-immigration policy is white South Africans. Your knee jerk defense to a point no one made is inconsistent with the facts
I'd have more sympathy for that view if it were straightforward regulations being passed that placed strict and objective limits on the process. However what we have in practice appears to be a campaign to spread fear and uncertainty via underhanded regulations while feigning ignorance.
It is a moral failing when many times the immigrants coming to the US are coming from countries destabilized by our direct or indirect involvement. Reaping the benefits of our colonization while washing our hands of any of the consequences is morally wrong.
I don't know how you would possibly quantify the U.S. impact on the stability of other countries. The historical default has been extreme instability. It's only in the last 200 years or so that nation-states as we know them have existed in most of the world. Before that, a lot of the world was ruled by warlords, petty kings, and empires fighting over territory.
So treating instability in these countries as mainly the result of U.S. involvement seems overly simplistic. Many U.S. interventions have contributed to instability, but many forms of U.S. involvement have also contributed to stability. Not to mention the enormous amounts of economic resources that come from the U.S. and enrich other countries through trade, investment, and remittances.
You can make a humanitarian case for immigration without reducing the causal history to "the U.S. destabilized these countries, so the U.S. owes them entry". The history is much messier than that.
I'm not sure that immigration policy is relevant to libertarianism because a nation in some sense is like private property. So one could argue that the people of a country have a collective right to restrict who enters their borders. Transversing a nation's airspace would be a different story. I think if a nation blocked other nations from using its airspace for transversal it would be a violation of other people's rights, by abusing, essentially, private property exclusivity.
That's just a way to rationalize policies that are obviously anti-liberty. Is the Texas/Mexico border my property? Really? All of it? And isn't abuse of private property anti-liberty anyway? You literally just said it is.
Countries do prevent other countries from using their airspace, by the way.
Preventing people from encroaching on your nation is fundamentally no different than preventing people from trespassing on your property. It's not anti-liberty, since we don't have an inherent right to any land on earth. That right to occupy a piece of land, to the extent that it exists, emerges through homesteading and the principle of First Possession.
As for U.S. territory, yes, you can make a case that it's the collective property of American citizens who then decide how the property will be governed through their elected representatives. How is that anti-liberty?
Through what right do countries exist and have rights and those rights transfer to their citizens? What causes me to have a right to control the Texas/Mexico border?
A political community can make a claim over a territory because it builds institutions that build and defend it. It's not identical to homesteading, but it's similar. Think of private property and national sovereignty as different layers of ownership that emerge through similar principles.
Non-European origin immigrants, presumably? Like are they against Irish people coming over in small numbers? Just wondering if you’re actually blanket saying they hate immigrants, I hadn’t heard about that.
Well not really. If they make an exception it’s much easier to call them racist. Also what the people in the party or whatever support and what the government actions are are rarely exactly aligned.
This is true. I resisted this conclusion for a long time, imagining it was tendentious, but there is really no other way to understand his rhetoric and his actions.
Yup, he's not minced words in all the interviews he's done and he's happy to label US citizens "terrorists" if he thinks they're in his way or 'race traitors'.
All because he was a massive loser in middle/high school, and like most bigots, his hatred is rooted in needing to have someone "beneath" him. So he based his entire personality and life around hating anyone not straight, white, male, and "American" so he could feel better about himself.
It is amazing how many people have been killed from all the policies he's been ramming through, simply because of a huge inferiority complex.
It's also a bit sad how every generation of immigrants turn around and pull the ladder up behind them.
>> It's also a bit sad how every generation of immigrants turn around and pull the ladder up behind them.
This is a real head scratcher. Some of the biggest Trump supporters I interact with at work are people of color, from countries the adminstration has labelled "shitholes" - they would never be allowed to visit - let alone immigrate - today. I guess once you get yours everyone else can go to hell.
I had a Panamanian neighbor who was big on Trump in 2024 primarily because of his stance on immigration. My neighbor felt that since they and their family had come to the US legally, it was only fair to kick out those who had come illegally. There assumption is that this would be a tough-on-crime thing and that the existing law would applied strongly but fairly with respect to the legal status of the people being deported.
Folks from communities of color in the United States I have generally experienced as trending conservative in their values (Oakland notwithstanding). Trump being a 'tough guy' and a 'macho' is often well-received.
Also, for many folks, Trump has long been seen as something to aspire to and someone to emulate. Trump sells a very American and New York image of success, many people believe they want the life he has (notoriety, money, cars, beautiful wife, mistress, good-looking kids, glitz, etc). The Apprentice was a big success for a reason, it sold a version of reality many people wanted to believe in.
So yeah. People don't believe in race. They believe in money and power.
It's a very immigrant thing to be susceptible to the strongman political manipulations of the country they left, to believe that emulation and imitation can bring luck/success. America is very much defined by immigrant dreaming.
Which is why it is nonsense to say banning immigration is anything other than anti-American.
The idea that it would be a crackdown on illegal immigration was an essentially greedy belief that legal immigrants, especially Hispanic, would be elevated in status. Of course nothing could be further from the truth. Their skin color, their language and their community all mark them as targets for harassment.
It will be very hard for the machismo cultures to accept that they were deceived so they'll vote for Trump again.
Unfortunately there is less incentive for talented and qualified people from prosperous democracies to more to the US. There is significant drama in obtaining a work visa (high sponsor administrative burden), you are tied to an employer, it is difficult for your spouse to also get a visa, etc.
So the source of high skill immigrants is countries with dictators and economic dysfunction. That used to include places like Poland, Czech Republic, Italy, etc. The first generation brings new ideas and cultural flavour, the second generation is completely American. As long as you don't have religious schools and ethnic charter schools getting state funds, integration is systematic and inevitable.
This is also why a lot of fellow Eastern European immigrants tend to be incorrigibly racist to black or Hispanic people, but especially black.
The best explanation I've been able to come up with is that insecure and fluid middle classes, unsure and anxious of their social position but certain that it's not too high, need someone to stomp on, to feel that at least there's someone who's even below them.
Some of the biggest Trump supporters I interact with at work are people of color, from countries the adminstration has labelled "shitholes"
They're in the US precisely because they have the same sentiment about where they came from, and don't want the worst of their origins to follow them. I assume they are also fully assimilated into American culture.
When you're in your visa or green card process it's not uncommon to be advised not to travel out of the country...
Yep. You're kind of in jail.
It doesn't mean that you cannot, it just means that it might complicate your already complicated application. So if a family member dies, maybe... But that's it
I've known people who left for a brief period during the GC process on emergency basis and then were put into a literal jail on their return to the USA.
This is true. But you might be conflating two different issues: having to apply for a greencard from outside the country, and being restricted in traveling outside the US during the (potentially very lengthy) pendency of that application.
No, I'm aware of the difference. I just wanted to write this down as 'being told you cannot do something' is not something the typical American likes. Yet, when going through immigration, it's common...
I don't think it applies to folks on H or L visas. Wording from the site:
"Nonimmigrants, like students, temporary workers, or people on tourist visas, come to the U.S. for a short time and for a specific purpose. Our system is designed for them to leave when their visit is over. Their visit should not function as the first step in the Green Card process. "
If you read the actual policy (it’s on the ISCIS website), it specifically says dual-intent visa are appropriate for AOS in the US.
This is a pretty broad swath of immigrants - H visa (worker and family), L1 (corporate transfer and family) and K1/3 (spouses of US citizen or green card holder).
What this limits are the truly temporary visitors - tourists, students, etc
I originally thought that this new regulation would only apply to, say, B-1/B-2 visitors applying to adjust their status (which is how some immigrants bring their parents, for example), but nowhere in the policy it explicitly excludes so called “dual intent” visas (H or L), so given the whole anti-immigration approach of the current administration, I won't be surprised if it turns out that the regular work visa pathway to green card is affected by that too.
Edit: the policy actually indeed mentions dual intent categories:
> USCIS reminds its officers that applying for adjustment of status is not inconsistent with simultaneously maintaining
nonimmigrant status in a category with dual intent.
It does it in a way that will, for sure, cause confusion though.
The adjustment of status process is written into law for all non-immigrant visa categories (except for a couple weird ones, like the visas for crew of ships and aircraft).
If you mean that there is a general law related to change-of-status that was passed in the 70s (or whatever), then yes. But I'm referring to specific wording in the dual-status visa categories (and perhaps some others?) that explicitly prevent the administration from applying this change of interpretation to those categories.
Can you point to the actual statute you're talking about? To my knowledge "dual-intent" only means that the requirement in INA 214(b) that they are presumed to be immigrants until they demonstrate otherwise does not apply. I'm unaware of anything in the adjustment of status process that is different for those on dual-intent visas.
With the caveat that I'm absolutely not an expert in this area and have no clear idea what changes have been made since, it's still highly informative to read this section and the carve-outs that were made at the time.
My current understanding is that the creation of "dual-status" visas (immigration act of 1990) paved the way for using the adjustment-of-status process established 8 USC 1255 for those particular visas (like H1B), and thus makes those visas less vulnerable to a change of interpretation by the executive branch. Contrast to, say, a regular tourist visa.
Yes, I'm asking what carveout for dual-intent visas you're aware of in the Immigration and Nationality Act. The section on adjustment of status, INA 245, doesn't mention dual-intent at all.
Dual intent didn't exist when INA 245 (= 8 USC 1255) was drafted.
My current understanding is that the "carveout", as it were, is the creation of the notion of dual-status itself, in the 1990 immigration act. This made H1b visas both immigrant and non-immigrant visas, and thus eligible for INA 245.
For example, a law firm's opinion:
> However, the USCIS memo suggests the new policy may be less applicable to dual-intent nonimmigrant categories (e.g., H-1B, L-1 and their H-4 and L-2 dependents), where applying for adjustment of status is not inconsistent with maintaining status as a temporary visa holder. Dual intent means that a person can legally intend to reside temporarily in the United States for purposes of their temporary H-1B or L-1 work visa and simultaneously intend to apply for a future permanent residence status. Dual intent is a well-established concept in business immigration law, with many decades of support in federal law and regulation. The USCIS policy memo does caution that maintaining H-1B or L-1 dual-intent status alone is not sufficient, on its own, to warrant a favorable exercise of discretion. The USCIS officer must still weigh whether or not to exercise discretion in approving the adjustment application, but adjustment applications have always been discretionary.
> Adjustment of status is the process that you can use to apply for lawful permanent resident status (also known as applying for a Green Card) when you are present in the United States. This means that you may get a Green Card without having to return to your home country to complete visa processing.
"Non-immigrants" is a legal term that means surprisingly more than you think. People on H visas, for example, are "non-immigrants" and would fall under this.
If you come to the U.S. on a visa that’s explicitly labeled a “nonimmigrant” visa for people who are “coming temporarily to the United States to perform services,” then it’s not “cruel” to actually enforce that. Those words are literally in the law.
The law doesn't describe reality, though. The so-called "non-immigrant" visas are really not that. "Non-immigrant" has a specific legal meaning, and like many legal terms, they don't match up with what you might consider everyday usage of the term.
And even if they were truly non-immigrant, who cares? If someone comes to the US, does good, useful work, and stays out of trouble, I want them to be given the opportunity to stay permanently. You may not, perhaps, but, well... I don't care.
When the reality doesn’t match what the law says, that’s a bad thing!
> The so-called "non-immigrant" visas are really not that. "Non-immigrant" has a specific legal meaning
The legal meaning here is the same as the common usage. For example, H1B is defined as someone “who is coming temporarily to the United States to perform services.” The words here are being used in their ordinary way.
> And even if they were truly non-immigrant, who cares?
You should care that the actual operation of the immigration system reflects the laws Congress actually passed through the democratic process. Congress didn’t have the votes to pass a permanent immigration pathway back then, and it doesn’t have the votes today.
If you want to make your case to change the law, be my guest. There’s zero appetite for it in the GOP, and very little willingness to use political capital on the issue by Democrats. Think about the fuss Democrats have made over deporting illegal immigrants. But they’ve said almost nothing about Trump’s attempts to restrict legal immigration.
1990. The 1990 law was a compromise that kept H visas as a nonimmigrant temporary worker visa. The 1990 law created EB-1 visas, which are explicitly immigrant visas. So there was a clear intent to reserve the guaranteed permanent residency pathway only for people meeting very high standards.
This phrase is one of those viral ear worm kinda things tossed into so many conversations, it doesn't actually mean anything at this point it's so overused.
That's not true. If I'm in Japan on a work visa, for example, I don't need to leave the country to apply for permanent residency. And Japan is not a country famously welcoming of immigration.
These are all non-immigrant visa classes. The understanding is that you are temporarily immigrating to the United States. Why should it be surprising then that it is hard to become a permanent resident/immigrant if you explicitly came on a non-immigrant visa?
All I hear is that there's a subset of people that don't want immigrants at all. And for some godforsaken reason they got hold of the executive, legislative and supreme court
“Do you want Johny Stinking Foreigner coming to this country, stealing your job while collecting welfare and raping your daughters or would you like how America used to be when there were no immigrants?”
The problem at this point (and not just the US, throughout the west), I don’t think a pollster even needs to slant their question. So many people have been taught that lens over 100+ years of politics.
It’s why I am happy to be Irish American: we never forget a slight, so I am a living vessel for the stories of every time one of my great-grandparents was treated poorly for being a dirty, non-white papist piece of jetsam.
The chain goes ever on. My Italian-Canadian aunts and uncles never forgot the Irish-Canadians who threw rocks at them on the way to school and called them wops.
I'd be willing to bet at least 10% of those 55% are married to or in relationships with immigrants and are going to say "Not like that!" when their loved ones are forced to leave the country. FAFO is coming for them.
And then the overwhelming remainder of those 55% very likely love talking about their Italian/Irish/Polish/Cuban/whatever heritage and see no sense of contradiction.
That’s a strawman. There’s wide gulfs between “I want very permissive immigration à la Canada” to “I want the US immigration system as it was under previous administrations” to “I want no immigrants”. For example, I personally want the standards for H1-Bs to be a lot higher, but would willingly grant substantially more immigrant visas to top academics and workers under EB1, EB2 and EB3 visas.
Because coming to the United States on a non-immigrant visa is pretty much the only way that a person can hope to become a US citizen (or green card holder) eventually.
I don’t see a carve out for spousal or family reunification applications.
Those weren’t services for the benefit of the immigrant. Those were a service to the US citizen who sponsored them and had to sign up to be on the hook to take care of their welfare.
The government was very clear to my spouse that she could divorce me the second her application was granted and I was still on the hook for any welfare she may end up needing.
This is just being anti immigrant. The same way they talk about illegal aliens and then you find out they really mean legal asylum seekers because they don’t like the process.
Or when they use the phrase Heritage Americans to discount recent immigrants.
Or when they just straight up say we have too much legal immigration.
The only surprising thing about this change in policy to me is that they are still keeping a veneer of not being racist on it, instead of just being as open as they have in other cases.
This seems like one of the most obtuse or bad faith comments I’ve ever seen.
Practically every country has pathways to permanent residence or citizenship via non immigrant visas, including the US.
Why? Because it makes practical sense. You can be living in the US on a H1 visa for 6 years, and at this point you could have a wife, kids etc, so it makes sense to have a pathway to residency where you don’t have to leave the country at that point.
because the government realize more than 75 years ago that conditions change and "adjustment of status" can be in everyone's best interest. People get married, students graduate and get jobs or start companies, and so on. It was never about rubber-stamping greencards; they're still tough to get. It was about making it more efficient and keeping strong players in the US. If you send 100 students back to their home country after they graduate, more than 50 of them won't come back.
There isn't really such a thing as an immigrant visa. These non-immigrant visas are the only legal route to come here, by and large, excluding a few obvious exceptions like marriage to an American.
Also, it's quite hard to become a permanent resident/immigrant even without the obstacle of this being categorically prohibited. My family, for instance, overcame some very low odds of success to make this happen (highly educated, both PhDs, for what it's worth).
I have learned that most Americans, probably through no fault of their own, have absolutely no understanding of how their own immigration system works. The options for legal immigration were _extremely_ limited and byzantine, and have been for decades, long before Trump.
This is what is broken. The current system is archaic and circuitous. It also performs a legal fiction around non-immigrant visas functionally being a path to permanent immigration.
We should increase the number of immigrant visas and make it straightforward what the process is to get a green card like what one would see in other countries like Canada and Australia.
Meanwhile, non immigrant visas should remain non immigrant and very restricted criteria for changing status (eg. marriage) without reapplying abroad.
That's interesting. European countries do have immigrant visas, and I think Canada does too. (As in, a visa that's issued for the sole purpose of letting you immigrate.)
If it seems too interesting it's because it isn't true. There are five functional categories of immigrant visa in America, each with several subcategories: Immediate Relatives (IR), Family Preference (F), Employment Based (EB), Special (S), and Diversity (D). The last one is basically done by lottery.
In the first quarter of FY 2025 54% of all new permanent residents adjusted, including 70% of those who got green cards through employment (and 84% of the first preference employment category) and 69% of those who got green cards through marriage to US citizen spouses.
The only large category of immigrants that does not come primarily through adjustment are the "family preference" categories for more distant relative such as adult sons and daughters and siblings.
An immigrant visa is basically the same thing as a green card, i.e. permanent legal residency. Once you have an immigrant visa, you can enter the US and receive your green card in the mail a few weeks later with no additional work. After five years, you can apply for citizenship. You have unlimited rights to work and live in the US.
However, ignoring family-sponsored routes, it is extremely difficult to get an immigrant visa in the first place, usually requiring years + $10k+ of fees to work your way up to it. You also need a sponsor to pay the fees (legally, you can't pay it yourself). Therefore, the vast majority of people start on a non-immigrant (temporary, restricted employment) visa and eventually ask their employer to sponsor a green card.
When people say "if you wanted to immigrate, you should just get an immigrant visa", they usually assume any other route is a hack or loophole. But it's actually the most common way to immigrate by far. You can, of course, interview for a job from abroad and ask the employer to directly sponsor an immigrant visa, but they'd have to wait years (best case) until you could actually step foot in their office. Plus they'd be forking over thousands in legal fees for an employee they haven't even seen in person. Nobody would do this, so the commonly accepted way is to bring an employee over as a temporary worker first and then apply for a green card while they're in the country.
By the way, the same checks apply for immigrant visa applications both inside and outside the US. You might think that employers are scamming the government by turning purported temporary immigrants into permanent ones, but the exact same qualifications checks, eligibility requirements, waitlists and quotas apply if you do the process inside vs. outside the US. It's entirely possible, and common, for green card applications to get denied (and the applicant's location doesn't factor in to this).
I know you believe that, and I know that's what the State Dept calls them, but they're not really how most legal immigrants come here and aren't available to most of the people who apply for greencards today.
As a practical matter, all these immigrant visas pretty much entail a greencard soon thereafter. In other words, to get them is about as easy as getting a greencard in the first place, give or take, more or less.
The discussion here is really about legal workers, students and others on temporary visas who convert to permanent status.
>> excluding a few obvious exceptions like marriage to an American.
this is a good example, because let's say someone is here on a student visa or temp work visa, falls in love and gets married. without the ability to adjust their immigration status they now have to leave the country - probably for years - to apply and hopefully get a greencard. Good luck making that marraige work.
> Applying for a greencard while working on an H, J or O-class visa is extremely common.
But it’s not supposed to be extremely common to apply for a green card on an H or J visa. Those visas are explicitly “nonimmigrant” visas for people “temporarily” in the U.S. who have “no intention of abandoning” their foreign residence. Read the statute: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:8%20section:1.... It’s subsections (a)(15), (a)(15)(H)(i)(b) and (a)(15)(J).
The people who thought of this are trying to return the practice to the actual intent of the law. The law was sold to the American public as a temporary worker program. It was not billed as a pathway for permanent residency.
Sure, it’s temporary. But what if you’ve been working in the US for a while, like your job, and want to go permanent? Does it make sense to have to give up your job, move back home where there may not be a US consulate, and then apply from there? Or just apply for permanent residency? Why does your physical location matter if you’re in the country legally already?
If the intention was to limit the number of people becoming permanent residents, then they could have done that explicitly. But by doing it this way, they are just fucking with people. And the talent that built our tech will take all their knowledge and skills back to their home country.
If the intention is to strengthen other countries by stopping their brain drain, then this would be a good move.
Why are you looking at the law from the viewpoint of the foreign worker? Obviously what they want is a quick and easy path to citizenship. But they don’t get a vote.
The question is what was the intention of the H1B program when the law was enacted by duly elected legislators? It was never sold to the public as a path to permanent residency. It certainly wasn’t sold to the public as a system where each H1B granted would lead to citizenship, followed by bringing several family members with them through uncapped family reunification visas.
No, the question really is what is best for the country. Making it easier for bright, hard working people to naturalize as US citizens has been proven for centuries to be great for our country. As others have pointed out, the original intent is not relevant. The current program grew out of a need for more outstanding citizens to grow our economy and help drive innovation. These sorts of slow changes of intent and effect grow out of pragmatic needs. The current administration has suddenly decided decades of precedent and practical needs must be reversed simply to accommodate an odd hatred of anyone who doesn't fit their perverted idea of "American." It is hate born out of a bizarre fear of "foreign," despite the fact that almost all of us came from somewhere else at some point in the past and that has been the key to US strength, leadership, and growth.
Can't answer for others, but I look at this law from the viewpoint of foreign workers, cause I am a foreigner worker. In Canada. Decided to absolutely never immigrate to the US due to the US blatant rise in xenophobia.
And the US has proven me correct over and over again in that assessment. Will watch with great pleasure the brain drain your country will face, and I honestly hope your economy will completely collapse.
> I honestly hope your economy will completely collapse.
The U.S. passed restrictive immigration laws in 1921. The foreign born population dropped to under 5% by 1970 (compared to 15% today). The decade on either side of that was a golden age for Silicon Valley.
For the record, Sergey Brin, Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, Patrick and John Collison, and Jerry Yang are foreign-born. Probably more would not have been here if their parents had not been allowed to immigrate. Now that you mention it, I would trade a few of them away, but I doubt the market would like to erase their work.
I don't have a particular love for any of them, but the point was they generated billions in value for the valley in what some consider a golden age.
Google at least, I think people would say there was a period of near-universally believing it was a good thing, and an immigrant was a co-founder.
It definitely shaped our society. And if you think it's for the worse, might that suggest college-educated Anglo-adapting immigrants are more dangerous to us than the ones right-wingers are telling us to focus on?
Sergey Brin recently said having to pay taxes on his 280 billion to the state took him in and where he built his business was akin to the horrors of boleshivsm that his family fled from.
That is your “good” immigrant. He is the right winger.
The original point was only that a Silicon Valley "golden age" can coexist with immigration. Admittedly it could be a better argument if it holistically made a recommendation, but at least as a starting point it tries to refute that idea.
It can but not under the current system. People are far less likely to support social safety nets in a high immigration society. There just isn’t the social cohesion and trust necessary.
OK, then why has there always been the ability to adjust your immigration status for someone like an H1B since 1952, and and why was it expanded in the 90's to allow categories - like overstayed visits - pay a fee and apply to convert without leaving? It was an acknowledgement that millions of people are already embedded in U.S. families and labor markets, and Congress preferred a penalty-fee legalization path over forcing departure because that was in the best interest of the country. It's that last part that Trump ignores.
The US is a common law system, where the law is a combination of statutes and precedent. The statutes alone are insufficient for interpreting the law.
Your approach would be more correct in a civil law system, but there are no pure civil law systems anywhere in the world. In actual civil law countries, once there is an established interpretation of the law, it usually cannot be changed without legislative action.
People change their minds. Is that illegal? Maybe they had the intention to only be in the US temporarily at first, but now they'd like to get permanent residence. Why shouldn't they be able to apply for it, from the US, while still on the temporary visa?
Then the administration can say yes or no, in the same way that they can say yes or no to someone applying from abroad.
> You can't reasonably get a job at a US firm while being physically located somewhere else and on the other side of an uncertain and greatly attenuated greencard application process. That's just not how this works.
I believe there are tax/nation border issues. Can a Polish citizen work for a US company while in Poland. They need to pay Polish income tax. Does the company need to withhold their taxes. Usually companies will have a Polish subsidiary so the employee is working for a Polish company in Poland.
Not to mention what does the company do for the I-9. The emploee has no authorization to work for a US company.
I agree with mostly everything you’re saying; but it’s not uncommon to be processed via your local consulate, even if you are already living in the US.
This is usually just for the final issuing of the GC, and where USCIS approval has already happened (for instance, on an EB1A).
People frequently do this so they don’t have the travel restriction. Source: I just did it.
> but it’s not uncommon to be processed via your local consulate, even if you are already living in the US.
It's relatively unusual. 84% of EB1s adjusted rather than apply at consulates in the last quarter USCIS released data for. Maybe it made sense for your circumstances.
> Whoever thought of this is either intentionally malevolent or inexcusably incomprehending of the immigration process.
It's always weird to me to see confusion/uncertainty such as this.
It's intentionally malevolent. Obviously. MAGA types hate immigration. They make a lot of noise about illegal immigration, but the fact is that they hate all kinds of immigration (unless you're white-looking and conservative enough). Anything they can do to make it harder for non-citizens to stay in the US is exactly the point for them.
And more the better if they can sow fear and threat of cruelty while doing it. That's their playbook. It's MAGA 101.
I’d encourage you to read the policy before you get too upset.
The policy specifically calls out immigration violations as the problem. It doesn’t seem crazy to me to restrict the benefit of AOS in the US to people who have NOT committed immigration violations.
In addition, the policy specifically calls out that AOS in country is entirely appropriate where immigrants hold dual intent visas. This would include H1-B (skilled workers and family), L1 (corporate transfer) and K1/3 (spouses of citizens).
GC issuances were already way down because DHS has basically stopped working on processing them. Now they're taking the next step and saying the ability to apply for a GC while in the US was a "loophole" which is utter horse shit; "adjustment of status" has been part of immigration since the 50's, and was expanded in the 90's and 2000 with support from all parties to increase efficiency, reduce the backlog and keep strong economic players in the US. You may notice that this adminstration has figured out they could weaponize inefficiency and a huge backlog if you don;t give a shit about the economic health of the country.
This is a long winded way of saying you're right with "intentionally malevolent"; this is the next step in a pretty transparent plan.
I think what this actually means is that you can apply permanent residency in the US, but you can only get the physical green card outside of the US when the case is approved. So, the last step to get the card need to from outside the country.
> Far from a loophole, applying from inside the US is the only reasonable way to apply for a greencard.
So that's kind of the point, to make the system arbitrary and capricious. It's to make the lives of immigrants more difficult.
For example, when one applies for adjustment of status ("AoS", meaning the I485), there are several things you can also apply for, most notably an Employment Authorization Document ("EAD", I765) and/or Advance Parole ("AP", I131) to allow you to travel.
In years gone by, you'd get the temporary documents in 3-4 months typically and your green card in under a year (after filing the I485, not for the entire process, which can be substantially longer).
So this administration has seemingly started a process for marriage cases where you file an I130 and I485 concurrently (the I130 is to prove you're free to marry and you have legally married, the I485 is to adjust status) where USCIS will approve the I130 but then just sit on the I485, not approving or denying the case, and never issue the EAD or AP so you can't work. Lots of people can't afford to not work for 1-2 years while this all plays out.
But that's the point.
Also, there are rumors that Palantir is getting invovled here. Rumor is that USCIS is sitting on I485 approvals while they wait for a new system to come online that will let USCIS look at way more data, likely including social media data, to find reasons to deny cases, so they don't want to approve cases before it's available. This is uncofirmed but there's a lot of anecodtal data for approved I130, no decision on the I485.
For marriage cases, this administraiton clearly wants people to consular process instead because the administration has broad powers that can't be challenged to simply withhold visas to nationals of certain countries and those bans can't be challenged in court, as per Trump v. Hawaii [1].
This is a problem for people who have made asylum claims because they realistically can't use the passport from whcih they've claimed asylum (if they even have it) and they certainly couldn't or shouldn't go back to their home country. A separate rule generally requires people to use the embassy of their country of birth. Again, that's to make life difficult.
It's not clear to me yet how this rule change affects those on H1Bs that want to adjust. Is the Trump admin going to require H1B holders to leave the country to adjust? That's going to create problems if so. The asylum case and the home country embassy rule mentioned above are two big reasons.
Everything anti-immigration under both Trump terms comes directly from the fascist Stephen Miller. From blocking Muslim countries to trying to end birth right citizenship.
Of course he has full support from Trump who usually lies about knowing fascists he's had lunch with or tells to "stand back and stand by."
And endlessly lies to demonize immigrants. "They're not sending their best." "They're eating the cats and dogs."
SPLC has an article on Miller if you want to waste your time.
> Whoever thought of this is either intentionally malevolent or inexcusably incomprehending of the immigration process.
It surprises me a lot. You can be a politician making a career on a hatred of immigrants, but your prosperity is bound to the prosperity of USA, so why to destroy it? It cannot be just malevolent, it is plain sheer stupidity. It seems to me even worse than roman elites fighting their civil wars while Rome itself was crumbling. They were in a situation of a tragedy of commons, stupid but understandable. But USA politicians really going against immigration is just something else. You can always look tough on immigrants while not hurting brain drain from all over the world.
There were dumb rumors that Trump is a Kremlin agent, but now I don't think they are so dumb. It is not enough to be a fool to inflict so much damage to USA.
There are people with billions of dollars that want the population of the US to drop significantly. It's hard to control 300+ million people, and that many people can just remove unpopular governments by marching in the millions. Also, I believe the "Georgia Guidestones" if I'm not mistaken, that have writing about reducing the population of the USA to 500,000. I much more manageable number. Or maybe I'm just reading too much into things.
Yes, you are reading too much into things. The ultrawealthy are supporting the current MAGA nonsense because they wish to permanently lock up the massive wealth transfer they've engineered over the past two decades, and the only way to do that is through a combination of nationalism, populism, and fascism.
Every part of the MAGA platform is a smokescreen of outrage, intended as cover for policies that favor the ultrawealthy.
An aware and motivated population legislates and taxes their way out of the establishment and perpetuation of dynasties; this has been done in the past.
All of my interactions with German immigration have not only happened in Germany, but at an office in the town I was living in at the time: the initial residence permit application, the first renewal, and the renewal where the Beamterin (government employee) helpfully pointed out that as the spouse of a German citizen, I had been resident long enough to go ahead and apply for a Niederlassungserlaubnis (permanent residence; aka, German equivalent of a Green Card).
Six weeks and 255 Euro later, it was in my hand. I have to “renew” it every ten years, but that’s only because the card needs to match my US passport number (and means I don’t have to carry that book around); there’s no interview or document gathering.
In the EU you can apply for a permanent residency card when you're in the country. One of the prerequisites is how long you have been in the country where you're applying. It seems unlikely the other countries have the same policy as the US has now.
The whole system of US of needing to leave the country to even renew visas is absolutely bizarre and does not have analogues in most other countries (at least EU/UK)
I hear "I'm not anti immigrant, I'm anti illegal immigrant" a lot. To which there is an easy solution: increase the number of legal immigrants we allow.
Instead we're doing exactly the opposite, cutting down on legal immigration as well. Making it hard for me to believe that it was ever about illegal immigration at all.
Even worse, with changes like this we are taking large swathes of legal immigrants and transforming them into illegal immigrants. It reads to me that a substantial number of green card applicants will now be subject to ICE detention.
The cynical take is that with US companies expecting productivity increases via AI, they need to protect the US workers from competition via foreign labor. The current administration was voted in with an anti-immigration mandate so this is consistent. The practical reality is that you are not safe on any visa, it can be terminated arbitrarily by the state department and your recourse is likely expensive and timely.
The current admin does not understand that our lead comes from immigrants. Sorry, but most Americans are kind of mediocre academically.
I do not understand why the "American First" MAGA crowd can't get it through their thick skulls that everything nice they have, including our technological lead, is built by immigrants that are just smarter than they are.
This is just an ego problem I suspect. It bruises the ego of MAGA voters to realize that immigrants actually are smarter, they actually do get paid more (and not because they're "taking the jobs" but because they are actually more desirable.)
> The current admin does not understand that our lead comes from immigrants. Sorry, but most Americans are kind of mediocre academically.
> I do not understand why the "American First" MAGA crowd can't get it through their thick skulls that everything nice they have, including our technological lead, is built by immigrants that are just smarter than they are.
Which specific Americans are kind of mediocre academically? Which specific immigrants are smarter than the average American and are therefore responsible for the nice things about America?
Not all American citizens have the same level of intelligence, nor do all people attempting to or actually succeeding in immigrating to the US. To the extent that "everything nice" including technological development is grounded in the average level of intelligence of the people currently inhabiting a country (which I think is a substantial part of but not the entirety of the explanation), this doesn't necessarily imply that immigration which isn't specifically gated on the intelligence of individual immigrants will improve a country along this metric.
And in fact the US has a huge number of legal pathways for immigration (including some like "immigrating illegally, having a natural-born-citizen child on US soil, and having that child sponsor your legal immigration decades later) that have nothing at all to do with how intelligent a given immigrant is.
And of course, immigration itself changes how "mediocre academically" Americans are, by changing who Americans are - an immigrant might eventually become a citizen; or if they don't their children born on US soil will be.
Go to any top STEM PhD program and do a headcount. I don’t know what’s going on now thanks to this wave of xenophobia and funding cut madness, but back when I was in one (Princeton Physics, that was last decade), everywhere I go it was at least 50-50 in terms of international representation. You can also count the massive number of clearly foreign born faculty. It could not be more obvious.
Edit: And before you mention O-1 and friends for highly accomplished individuals (maybe that's not affected for now? Honestly have no idea), this kind of policy has wide ranging second order effects even if it doesn't affect top talent directly. Like I said I was U.S. educated myself, once I would encourage bright minds from elsewhere to pursue a higher education in the U.S., now I heavily advise them from even setting foot in the U.S.
> Go to any top STEM PhD program and do a headcount
Having done a STEM PhD, No. STEM PhDs are merely easily exploited labor by STEM departments. The PhDs and postdocs from foreign countries are typically a notch lower than the US PhDs and postdocs (especially the postdocs, because in many foreign countries you can do a 3 year PhD). It's just that most americans won't accept 100 hour workweeks in exchange for a $50k paycheck, and won't falsify the science to stay in pursuit of the next rung on the academic ladder.
But foreign PhD students and postdocs who are being paid partially in the legal right to reside in the US might well be willing to accept those conditions. Just as an H1B visa tech employee is willing to accept lower wages and less freedom to challenge their employer, or an illegal immigrant farm laborer is willing to accept those working conditions in return for not being in whatever country they illegally immigrated from.
Any justification at all for the US government to give a visa to someone - including student visas, including visas for postdocs doing ostensible research - will be gamed by people whose primary concern is access to the US. Demand for access to the US among the myriad peoples of the world is that strong.
Sounds like the bitter words of someone who got pushed out. I know the type, I’m no longer an academic myself. Sorry it didn’t work out for you, not sorry to claim that the overwhelming majority of the most important advancements are still made by people with PhDs, however many unsuccessful ones there are.
I did fine for myself. You're crazy or brainwashed if you don't think there's something wrong going on in the academe. I have long conversations with my friend (who is a professor at ASU) about it, I don't think he's blowing smoke up my ass.
I think there’s something very wrong with every single walk of society, and academia’s problems are far from the most grave. If I’m given the choice again, I take a rotten academia over fucking ad machines and quants that do no good / actively do harm in this world (both industries try to hire me and the likes of me) every time, even when I know I’m gonna leave at the end.
Ad machines and quants are bad. But fraudulent science is worth NEGATIVE, because good scientists burn out or don't get promoted because they spin their wheels trying to reproduce bad science (losing time on the ladder) and bad scientists who either make shit results themselves or don't speak up about bad science and "build" on top of it, they get promoted, and the rot rises to the top instead of the cream.
At least everyone knows that there's something icky about ads and quants, and good people like you reject the lucrative opportunities. Most people generally think that science can do no bad at any scale, and that just throwing money at the problem/good intentions are all you need. The enterprise of science has a truthseeking model that it needs to uphold in order to succeed at its advertised ends, and it's desperately becoming the exact opposite of what it should be, and nobody has reasonable remedies to fix it within the current system. If you have a suggestion on how to fix what we've gotten ourselves into, please , I'd love to hear it.
Most of these anti immigrant takes are ultimately sour grapes from people who were often rightfully left behind or economically downlifted by their lack of willingness to adapt to the changing world we are in.
Most of these who think that wasp Americans are harmed by high skilled immigrants are admitting that they can’t beat them. Pathetic slave morality which is life denying and ontologically damnable.
Why would an American smart enough to become a stem phd toil away for a decade in poverty under an abusive university system instead of becoming rich in tech?
If you mean “intelligent” Americans who work on fucking blood sucking ad tech or garbage financial engineering rather than pushing the boundaries of science and technology, sure.
The flow of students between China and the USA is effectively unidirectional and always has been. What insight do you have to suggest that this will change in the near future?
> Which specific Americans are kind of mediocre academically?
Most of them. We have normalized getting Bs and Cs in our schools. Our school curricula are mediocre, and our culture around education is as well. It is distinctly uncool to care about education here.
> Which specific immigrants are smarter than the average American and are therefore responsible for the nice things about America?
Most of our best doctors, scientists, and engineers are all immigrants. Look at the ethnic breakdown of top AI researchers at the top labs.
> which isn't specifically gated on the intelligence of individual immigrants will improve a country along this metric.
It's not just intelligence. Immigrants overall have more grit, more entrepreneurial spirit, and more ambition and willingness to succeed than median Americans. It takes a lot to uproot your life and attempt to make it elsewhere. The vast majority of immigrants I've met embody the American spirit far better than most born-and-raised Americans I've met.
> And in fact the US has a huge number of legal pathways for immigration
That we are making harder and needlessly painful, which will in turn reduce the amount of highly intelligent and capable immigrants we get as well.
> Most of them. We have normalized getting Bs and Cs in our schools. Our school curricula are mediocre, and our culture around education is as well. It is distinctly uncool to care about education here.
Would you agree that caring about school performance constitutes acting white? Would you agree that acting white is uncool? Less flippantly, how much of American culture around education is specifically driven by a desire to eliminate or avoid noticing conspicuous racial discrepancies in measured educational attainment?
> Most of our best doctors, scientists, and engineers are all immigrants. Look at the ethnic breakdown of top AI researchers at the top labs.
What is the specific ethnic breakdown of the set of people you consider to be top AI researchers at the top labs? How does this compare to 1) the current ethnic breakdown of the totality of the United States of America, and 2) what the ethnic breakdown of the United States of America would be under your preferred immigration policy.
> It's not just intelligence. Immigrants overall have more grit, more entrepreneurial spirit, and more ambition and willingness to succeed than median Americans. It takes a lot to uproot your life and attempt to make it elsewhere. The vast majority of immigrants I've met embody the American spirit far better than most born-and-raised Americans I've met.
What kinds of immigrants have you met, and not met? How many of them can you talk with in the language they are fluent in, in order to get an accurate sense of the degree to which they embody the American spirit?
> That we are making harder and needlessly painful, which will in turn reduce the amount of highly intelligent and capable immigrants we get as well.
That might be worth it, if those highly intelligent and capable immigrants would, once they are settled in the US, turn their capacity and intelligence towards making US immigration policy more open to less intelligent and capable immigrants (e.g. their less capable and intelligent family members, or just liberalizing immigration policy in general).
> Would you agree that caring about school performance constitutes acting white?
No, the opposite. In my experience immigrants care far more about getting good grades, whereas most multigenerational American students were happy with Bs or even Cs.
> What is the specific ethnic breakdown of the set of people you consider to be top AI researchers at the top labs? How does this compare to 1) the current ethnic breakdown of the totality of the United States of America, and 2) what the ethnic breakdown of the United States of America would be under your preferred immigration policy.
A lot more Asians. Very few Asians. A lot more Asians.
> What kinds of immigrants have you met, and not met? How many of them can you talk with in the language they are fluent in, in order to get an accurate sense of the degree to which they embody the American spirit?
Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Russian, Nigerian, Mexican, etc. So many.
The only ones not fluent in English were the Hispanic immigrants, but despite this they better embody the American spirit than most Americans. I don't need to be fluent in Spanish to see that (though mine is passable).
The skilled first and second generation American immigrants do extraordinarily well. Most of my second generation Asian peers are clearing mid 6 to low 7 figures in their 30s, many working on their own ventures or at bold startups. And my Hispanic landscaper that came here with nothing, now owns a business enough to pay him and his four employees.
Now compare this to the median multigenerational American - working a dead-end job, comparatively far less grit, ambition, and risk-taking, too comfortable so there is not as much a drive to be exceptional or prove themselves.
Which group do you think the Founding Fathers would say better reflects the American spirit? To me immigrants are clearly the better reflection of the best aspects of American culture.
> Which group do you think the Founding Fathers would say better reflects the American spirit? To me immigrants are clearly the better reflection of the best aspects of American culture.
United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” March 26, 1790:
> Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States.
Note: “free white person […] of good character”
US Constitution Preamble:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Private correspondence corroborates how the founders felt about these issues. They would not have seen things your way. You’re appealing to them as a disingenuous rhetorical technique to validate your own ill-conceived arguments, not because you actually know anything about who they were or what they thought.
It's a simple matter of math. The USA has less than 5% of the world's population. It's statistically impossible for that 5% to be the smartest 5% in the world. Therefore, if we want the smartest people in the world, we have to allow immigrants.
So your original comment was somewhat of a tangent. the point jedberg made is that it is in the interest of a country with a strong economic and academic base to welcome the smartest people from across the world, since it is unlikely that all the smartest people in the world are in the US.
Yes, but Jedberg makes it sound as though -- given that only a small fraction of the world's population lives in the USA -- the country has little chance of succeeding if it is to go without immigrants. I disagree, and an extreme example I could offer as a counterpoint is Japan: tiny population (relatively), yet outsized performance.
No? Not sure how you reached that conclusion. I'm just stating that the USA needs immigrants if we want to increase our median intelligence because we can't possibly have the smartest people in the world born here.
Why should immigration be kafkaesque? It is in the US interest to have a pipeline of smart, hard-working, innovative people come to this country. The US is/was in many ways a great country for them to come, but we are not the only international destination for such talent. Why would we want to put up such artificial barriers to entry, if we agree on the premises I laid out?
The purpose of this is to discourage legal immigration.
Someone immigrating is almost certainly less incompetent and lazy than the median American. Immigration requires uprooting your entire life, and it requires entrepreneurial spirit and grit. That's why many immigrant groups dramatically out-earn American-born citizens.
TBH most immigrants I've met better embody the American spirit than most Americans.
Do you consider it humanitarian to further weaken a nation where the average gdp per capita is less than $3000 and who are in no way a threat to us? In what way do the immigrants arriving from there improve America? Can you give a coherent argument? I can easily argue the opposite from statistics:
From Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS) and Annual Social and Economic Supplement of the Current Population Survey (ASEC CPS):
Of Haitian immigrants ages 25 to 64, 17.1 percent have not graduated from high school, 30.3 percent have only a high school degree, 30 percent have some college, and 22.6 percent have at least a college degree. This compares to 6.6 percent, 25.4 percent, 30.4 percent, and 37.6 percent for U.S.-born Americans. (2022 ACS)
Of households headed by Haitian immigrants, 52.7 percent use at least one major welfare program. For households headed by native-born Americans it is 28.4 percent.5 (2023 ASEC CPS)
So it’s clear that the previous immigration regime that allowed this was optimizing for something other than improving America or intentionally weakening rival countries.
Enough. Any more of this and we're banning the account. We don't care what your opinions are, but personal abuse is not allowed here, and just in the past three days your comments have included these phrases:
> Which nation state propaganda mill are you being paid from?
> You immigrant hating America First losers are going to weaken the country
> Not much more going on in that empty dome. Honestly the void your brain represents is kind of relaxing
> Fuck have you never even heard of the Jungle?
> You would be bitching and moaning just as much if Congress directly made these rules and regulations.
> You first, cultist
You've been here long enough and participated here enough that you know this is unacceptable. I don't want to ban you, but if you keep this up we have to assume that you want to be banned.
Asking basic questions about finances and job searches/security, perhaps? Do you have any original ideas or assertions to make, or do you only ask sealioning questions?
Obviously those smart people are going to go where they feel welcome, rather than climbing through obstacles designed purely for humiliation and malevolence.
The current American immigration process is not figure-out-able. As any immigration lawyer will tell you, there's strategies with higher or lower chances of success, but there's nothing at all like a roadmap which will definitely lead to permanent residency if you follow it well.
It’s a numbers game. Taking the best from the world talent pool is going to provide better results than from the much smaller American talent pool. Unless your country has more than a billion people, you need to look at world talent.
The US has to especially encourage immigration since we have gone out of our way to make the education system systemically broken. Our funnel is broken on purpose. Look at countries with strong showings in things like chess or running. Why is that? They encourage large populations of kids to participate, the larger the pool the more top performers.
> including our technological lead, is built by immigrants
That's my point to get the Constitution changed (Amendment #28) to allow an immigrant to run for POTUS. We love US more than natural-born citizens. Our interests are far more aligned with the betterment of the country than anyone else's.
Musk was (mostly) great until 2020; Something happened to him during the COVID timeframe.
I'd not want Musk, Thiel, or Palantir guy to run for POTUS. Probably, there should be a clause that if your net worth exceeds the threshold, you shouldn't be eligible to run until you donate all of it to the government, with no option to get it back ever. Some more clauses can be added as well.
Edit 1: I think another clause, maybe most important, a minimum one term public office service experience required only as a Senator, Rep, Governor, or a Mayor.
Oops, my bad, somehow I thought his parents naturalized before he was born.
Thanks for pointing this out; this helps the point I'm trying to make.
>I'd not want Musk, Thiel, or Palantir guy to run for POTUS. Probably, there should be a clause that if your net worth exceeds the threshold, you shouldn't be eligible to run until you donate all of it to the government, with no option to get it back ever. Some more clauses can be added as well.
Edit 1: I think another clause, maybe most important, a minimum one term public office service experience required only as a Senator, Rep, Governor, or a Mayor.
Can I vote for you and your proposals somewhere?
At this point, this reads like "I have a dream". But it's one worthy of trying to make a reality.
>Musk was (mostly) great until 2020;
Aside from running the Thai cave diver's life (and slandering him as a "pedo") for daring to rescue the children instead of letting them die waiting for Musk's non-existent submarine to rescue them.
That, and being generally known for working his employees to the bone.
And the whole "I need to spread my superior seed" conveyor belt approach to having children.
And the "420 funding secured" nonsense.
Oh, and the Hyperloop hype, which he did with the sole intent to kill high speed rail in California (which he succeeded in).
And the Boring Company scam.
And... nevermind, he was a known, not OK", great asshole before* he went full Nazi, but I can agree that he was "great" in comparison to what he's become.
>Something happened to him during the COVID timeframe.
Why would I want an immigrant smarter than me? If I have a 120 iq and he has a 130 iq then he is going to take my job. You really aren’t convincing me here.
You reasonably might not. We would though. Who prevails, the small-but-concentrated interest, or the vast-but-diffuse one? It's the central question of all public policy.
No they don’t. They want to work 40 hours a week, go on vacation twice a year, drive a couple of cars, have their wife stay home and raise the kids. All things possible 70 years ago but no longer possible.
Accountants and software developers do not in fact share a fate. I know it doesn't feel that way when you're commenting on HN, but there are whole lucrative professions that do not care at all what happens in ours.
The same decent at math, moderately ambitious people do well at both. Not 100% overlap but pretty large. If one side collapses the other side will get flooded.
Because without having the smartest people, the reigning superpower is totally, utterly, unequivocally fucked.
Power is a function of technological superiority. The moment you it stops attracting the smartest people, a country will fall behind on military and economic power.
I find it a bit hard to believe you actually think such a line of reasoning would be convincing. I think many MAGA voters in fact are aware that many of the immigrants are smarter than them, and hence they do the rational thing of trying to reduce competition. I don't understand why you wrote "taking the jobs" in quotes. That's exactly what's happening- superior immigrant applicants are taking jobs that would have been theirs.
This is a very racist comment, or atleast smells of xenophilia. "Americans are kind of mediocre academically". You can't use the term Americans are [all], followed by a blanket statement.
If that was about any other class of people it'd be downvoted to oblivion, but for some reason Americans and white can always be talked shit on.
This is the kind of shit US AMERICANS are talking about, this xenophilia bullshit that is infecting our nation.
I'm born and raised in the US. I don't think it's racist at all, it's just true.
Go to any high school and see how little American schoolchildren care about academics vs immigrant schoolchildren. Academic excellence being uncool is baked into American culture. You're a "nerd" if you do well and care. Getting a B is "good enough." And "C's get degrees." This mentality is plainly unacceptable in most immigrant cultures.
I took almost two dozen AP classes in my day. In each one, the concentration of immigrant groups was far higher than the rest of the school at large.
Expand this out to college. Look at the admissions for top colleges without affirmative action. How do their demographics compare to the rest of the country? - MIT, 47% Asian. Berkeley, 41% Asian. UCLA and Stanford, 27% Asian.
6% of the US population is Asian, and 75% is white, and these schools don't have affirmative action. If all groups were equally competitive, admissions would reflect demographics.
(Ethnicity here is a crude approximation for immigration recency. I am not saying one ethnic group is better than another - simply that children of immigrants excel.)
The same goes for top PhD programs, the highest paying STEM jobs, even C-suite positions at big tech.
I am American and when I say that we have a problem where most Americans do not give a fuck about education, I am not being racist, I am just pointing out the truth. Over decades, our culture has bred an anti-intellectual attitude, one that prioritizes being cool and sociable over getting shit done. This is the antithesis of progress and ambition. It is great for sitting around and demanding handouts.
Immigrants more closely approximate the culture the founding fathers intended for the US. They uproot their lives to build something great. They get off their asses, do exceptionally well, and are carrying the nation on their backs. The rest of our culture could learn from them, instead of blaming our problems on them and turning them away.
You didn't actually read the comment, you're just angry because you saw some stats. The ethnicity is a simple proxy for immigration, something you'd have seen if you actually read the comment. Also: Why do Trump supporters always devolve into one-line quips instead of engaging with the argument?
Our lead does not come from immigrants. The American people, who are a distinct people, have shown time and again a potential for great things.
Even if it were true, there are wider effects of immigration that you must consider. The purpose of life isn't to increase GDP. It reflects poorly on you that you must cast your opponents as being stupid and spiteful. Could it be that MAGA voters are humans with real motivations and rationales?
Because Literally everyone else in the US is an immigrant. Or are you referring to the Spanish that settled the west? The French in the far south? The Italians and Jews that populated New York? The British and Africans?
I’m painting in broad strokes, but to say “the American People” as if it’s somehow distinct from immigrants is just ladder pulling.
> Because Literally everyone else in the US is an immigrant
I'm not American, but this conversation happens a lot in Canada where I'm from too
I was born in Canada, in a Canadian hospital. I've never had any other home than this country.
I'm descended from immigrants, but I am not an immigrant. I'm not considered indigenous either, that's a whole other type of person.
What a strange thing, to be from a place but have many people say "it's not your place, it's stolen" as if I had a say in that. If I went anywhere else, I would be an immigrant there.
The point is your parents, or their parents, were immigrants. But those very same people we are now trying to restrict from coming here.
Meaning, if we time travel and apply these restrictions, you yourself would have never been a citizen. In fact, you probably wouldn't even exist. Do you see the problem?
That, my friend, is ladder pulling. When you destroy the very conditions that allow you to thrive.
The entire world has been settled and resettled. You can't let past conquests stop you from having a country, laws and borders or all countrys would be illegitimate.
>The point is your parents, or their parents, were immigrants.
Or my parents, parents, parents, parents, parents, parents were... And if they came here for a better life, obviously there was some mind virus that was going on in their home country that forced them to leave in search of a better life. Don't try and bring that mind virus here if you had to immigrate here to escape it.
The US in particular has always been made up of immigrants. I don't know how it works for canada. But for the US, that's always been the case. We're a country by immigrants, for immigrants. An American identity is not one of skin color or race. To suggest otherwise is not just a ahistorical, it's anti-American.
There is no mind virus. People wish to rewrite history to fuel their own delusions. They don't require enforcement around immigration, they require medication and perhaps a history lesson or two.
Measured as a percentage of population, we have more immigration now than we did in the 1890's peak. Given our drastically larger population, this is a problem.
Suicidal empathy mixed with this 'idea that america is illegitimate' cause we are a 'nation of immigrants', and we 'took land from the natives' is quite frankly retarded. And i can use the word retarded because i mean it in the literal since, "a verb meaning to slow down, delay, or impede a process."
Holy shit, we've gone form 4.5% of the pop and 10M to 14.5% to 50M?(!)in 40 years since 1970? Isn't that alarming? we are at the same level of immigration as the potato famine?
Also, check the definition of that chart... We have far more "illegal immigration" today than we did back in 1890. So.... egg zack ly. Don't you think that's a big problem considering our current size? I'm all for 'some' immigration, but the level we are at today is totally unsustainable when we have an absolute homeless epidemic in all of our cities?
Holy shit, we've gone form 4.5% of the pop and 10M to 14.5% to 50M?(!)in 40 years since 1970?
You (the UsofA) have returned to 1860-1920 levels, yes.
Isn't that alarming?
No.
We have far more "illegal immigration" today than we did back in 1890.
But the same level of immigration ... the problem lies with classification and stalled paperwork pipelines.
Don't you think that's a big problem considering our current size?
The US has increased in size with the addition of Alaska and Hawaii in 1959, but still appears to have room for people.
I'm all for 'some' immigration, but the level we are at today is totally unsustainable when we have an absolute homeless epidemic in all of our cities?
Is that a statement of fact, an opinion, or a question?
Are you certain that all US cities have "an absolute homeless epidemic"?
Au contraire, the actual suicide is blowing up our economy just to stick it to some brown people. Make no mistake, dumping tens of billions of dollars into ICE and supporting a man with the fiscal responsibility of a rock will not help the American economy.
It is truly astounding to me what lengths Republicans will go to to "win". Well, you've won. When are things going to get better? I'm waiting.
The point is that people who immigrate to USA and Canada will have descendants who will be just like you. Only difference will be their skin color (maybe).
Is Kash Patel any different from Americans who have lived here for generations? Is Rishi Sunak any different from the people who lived in Britain from generations?
It sure is odd! This is something that the educated descendants of colonizers just have to grapple with. I imagine it's still less difficult than being born as someone lacking the systemic privileges.
Certainly if 8,000[1] years ago a tribe walked across and settled, and then 7,000 years ago another group walked across and set up camp next to the descendants of that first tribe who had been there a thousand years, the second group were actually immigrants, right?
And how do we sort it out now, millennia after those various groups arrived, after all that DNA has been mixed together?
My point is just that it's silly to label any race or group "immigrant" or "native" based on what movements we guess from their skin color that their ancestors may have made millennia or centuries ago, or even what their parents did. Yes, I'm very in favor of birthright citizenship, even if people have "anchor babies" in bad faith the baby didn't have any say in it. And no one else of any color had any say in being born in America either.
[1] please substitute correct numbers -- they don't matter
I don't know. I do know that, as far as America is concerned, "native" doesn't include the colonizers who showed up 200 years ago when the land was already settled.
Land can only be nonviolently settled exactly once. The arrangement of who had what land 400 years ago when many European-Americans' ancestors started to arrive was merely the then-current state shaped by centuries of violent bloodshed (or "colonization") between one Native tribe and another Native tribe.
I'm saying that pre-colonial-age America was not a place where each tribe came in, found their own piece of virgin land, and lived in peace and harmony. They were not any different than the homo sapiens on other continents, which is to say, smart, determined, and willing to kill outsiders to improve their own tribe's chances of survival.
The only reason of course that they are viewed so sympathetically today is the tragedy of their near-complete destruction, which can be explained very thoroughly by their incredibly bad luck of having almost no domesticable native animals, and their not having gotten Iron Age technology. But in the end their destruction was mostly due to disease, traceable to early Spanish contact, which had absolutely decimated North American societies before almost any human Europeans had set foot on the mainland.[1] Europeans indeed did lots of bad things to those peoples, but I argue this is less proof that "Europeans are uniquely mean" and more proof that humans are brutal when they come into conflict over scarce resources and will press whatever advantages they have, whether it's large numbers of braves with obsidian arrowheads or muskets.
> "According to Keeley, among the indigenous peoples of the Americas, only 13% did not engage in wars with their neighbors at least once per year. The natives' pre-Columbian ancient practice of using human scalps as trophies is well documented. Iroquois routinely slowly tortured to death captured enemy warriors (see Captives in American Indian Wars for details)."
You can excuse or justify the genocide of native people by European colonizers any way you want, although it baffles me why so many people want to. But it doesn't matter, they still don't get to call themselves native.
I think it's pretty clear these are shorthand terms for the issues with systemic bias in our modern society.
Pre-colonial North America was certainly not some idyllic pacifist utopia as people like to fetishize. However, any previous ethno-political disputes between those nations is irrelevant compared to the very recent history of the last 200 years.
The genocide of Native Americans in the 19th century happened under the unbroken chain of authority of our current government.
Go on thinking that, but it really won't help the Democrats win if they persist in this attitude. Voters are just looking at what's on offer from both parties, and one party's platform has been judged to be both hostile to their interests and also actively scorns them as people. The other is mostly hostile to their interests and is super corrupt, but it cuts taxes[1] and doesn't belittle them.
The Democrats squeaked out one miraculous win buoyed by the incompetence of Trump's band of corrupt idiots in the early COVID days. But now merely pointing out how incompetent and corrupt Trump is stopped working, as we saw in 2024. Do Democrats have anything left in the playbook besides derision and scorn toward those outside their tent? We will soon see, I guess.
[1] I know the talking points say that the tax cuts "only benefit the rich" but I'm far from a 1%er and can tell you that I'm paying way more taxes in a blue state than I would be in a red state, and also the OBBB improved things for me. Voters in those blue states can see their tax bills and the one thing Democrats can't say is that they don't put a huge tax burden on those who work.
I can only speak to 1 scenario but state tax was higher in CA than in TX, but property tax was higher in TX. TX had wild utility bills (top minds in CA are working on this though).
> The current administration was voted in with an anti-immigration mandate
Given that they’re underwater for approval rating on immigration it seems both you and they have misread the room. Most people’s objections have to do with immigrants who are violent criminals that are going around neighborhoods hunting for cats and dogs to eat. This is what their campaign was highlighting as a problem. They have not been cracking down specifically on those immigrants. For this, they have no mandate.
>Most people’s objections have to do with immigrants who are violent criminals that are going around neighborhoods hunting for cats and dogs to eat. This is what their campaign was highlighting as a problem. They have not been cracking down specifically on those immigrants.
There never were "violent criminals that are going around neighborhoods hunting for cats and dogs to eat." That was a baseless, racist caricature and it's unfortunate that anyone took it seriously.
And we all still remember "the wall," and Trump complaining about immigration from "shithole countries" like Haiti (versus Norway and Sweden, gee I wonder what the qualifying factor is there) and how Mexico was sending drug dealers and rapists across the border. The immigration policy of this administration has always been that immigrants (specifically any non-white immigrants) are an existential danger to American culture and safety. You don't try to wall off your entire southern border because you think the problem is a minority of bad actors. The DHS doesn't deploy white nationalist anti-immigrant propaganda[0,1] because it's just concerned about a criminal element.
And they didn't misread the room. Trumpism is first and foremost a white nationalist nativist movement. People wanted the wall. They wanted immigration stopped. "The immigrants were taking our jobs." "Muslims can't assimilate into civilized society." "Europe is basically a war zone because of all of the Muslims and low-IQ sub-Saharan Africans." These are all things Trump supporters have been saying for years and that the American right has been saying since at least 9/11. "Borders, Language Culture" as Michael Savage used to say. It's all been out in the open.
White Christian conservatives still support Trump's immigration policies by a wide margin. He speaks to the people he intends to speak to. I don't know why so many Black people and Latinos signed up for the "Leopards eating your face" party thinking the leopards wouldn't eat their face, but that's on them. But pretending Trump doesn't have a mandate to purge the country of immigrants is just naive - that is the only mandate he actually has.
> "You don't try to wall off your entire southern border because you think the problem is a minority of bad actors."
I would challenge this. If you do believe that there are violent criminals coming through the porous border, whether it's 1% of the illegal immigrants or 100% of them, trying to seal the border off is not irrational. I'm not endorsing the physical wall itself, as I know a ton of illegal migrants are just overstaying visas, and I've heard of ladders and tunnels.
I think what's really compelling, and what the Left can't seem to relate to, is this: Everyone serious does believe the true fact that illegal immigrants have a lower rate of committing crimes than the overall population. But people who are victimized by those crimes have a valid point that those crimes are still incremental crimes - meaning that if we already had 1000 people in $BORDER_STATE who are going to commit violent crimes, letting in 1000 more people, even if only 10 of them (1%) are violent criminals, gives us 1,010 violent criminals. That's more crime than we had before. It's not like we get to trade in 10 of our own criminals for 10 immigrant ones.
Making no effort to control who comes here is irresponsible, because of course if there's a country that doesn't even try to vet you, and would feel guilty making you leave, of course criminals would be excited to go there.
In absolute terms yes, but you're forgetting that you are also increasing the victim population, so the per-capita rate is still going to drop!
Assuming criminals more-or-less randomly choose their victims, the number of immigrant criminals hitting native victims is more than offset by native criminals now hitting immigrant victims instead of native ones.
>If you do believe that there are violent criminals coming through the porous border, whether it's 1% of the illegal immigrants or 100% of them, trying to seal the border off is not irrational.
Yes it is. Building a 1900 mile long wall with moats and barbed wire and armed guards ordered to shoot on sight across an entire continent because a fraction of illegal immigrants might be violent criminals is the definition of irrational.
Particularly when the same could be said of the border with Canada but no one is concerned about that at all.
> I'm not endorsing the physical wall itself, as I know a ton of illegal migrants are just overstaying visas, and I've heard of ladders and tunnels.
But Trump was talking about a physical wall. And a physical wall is what Trump supporters voted for.
>Making no effort to control who comes here is irresponsible, because of course if there's a country that doesn't even try to vet you, and would feel guilty making you leave, of course criminals would be excited to go there.
No one is talking about making no effort to control who comes here, that's another right-wing conspiracy point not based in reality. There is a vast degree of possibility between "doing nothing" and "building a wall and sending ICE to kidnap people and shoot them in the streets." There is a degree of vetting which is reasonable and responsible and this is not it. This is paranoia and fear born of racism.
Strangely, his current approval ratings on immigration policy is only about 37%. There appears to be a wide gap between what people thought they were voting for a year and a half ago, and what they are seeing now.
I think there's a wide gap between the consequences they expected and the consequences they got. I also think Trump acting like a buffoon and the Epstein thing affect the way people interpret his policies. If he and his administration weren't so overtly racist about it, they could get away with a lot of what they're doing and maintain broad popular support.
"The Epstein thing" is an interesting way to refer to an overt pedophile protection racket. And "buffoon" feels a bit short of "malignant narcissist with dementia taking bribes and starting catastrophic wars", yeah?
Trump has -20% to -25% net approval depending on the poll, and his approval rating on immigration is -10 to -15%. Clearly people do not like any of this in practice even though they might have liked it in theory.
I mean, the issue is that a large number H1B folks have vital skills for the US economy and that even just 20% of those leaving would mean every single big tech company would be in immense trouble
> even just 20% of those leaving would mean every single big tech company would be in immense trouble
I'm not so sure.
I think it would play out like this:
1. 20% H1Bs leave; 2. Those migrants are now in countries of origin, looking for work; 3. Many of the big US tech companies will already have offices in those countries, and those that don't can make new offices if they wanted to; 4. many, but likely not all, of those employees are now working for the same employer (or close enough), just in a different jurisdiction; 5. as none of these employees are physically in US hotspots, all the other stuff that happened in those hotspots because of big tech pay, suffers, conversely all the stuff which was suppressed because of those wages may (possibly) return; 6. two of the things that go down are the number of people transitioning from temporary visa to citizenship, and the available talent pool for the local-to-those-places startup and VC scenes.
If you just got massively screwed over by them (having upended your entire life in hope of getting a better future, then having that rugpulled), why would you get another job at that company with significantly worse contract terms?
Considering the rest of the world is reacting to the US setting itself on fire by finally stimulating local tech, why not just join one of the local alternatives instead?
Perhaps. But I think the blame would go to Washington DC rather than the employers.
For this in particular:
> why would you get another job at that company with significantly worse contract terms?
Even if it is worse on paper (and it won't even be worse if the big tech companies do struggle to retain talent), it is likely to still be better than local companies offer.
Those same tech companies are laying off a lot of people right now. Maybe the skills of the H1B folks they employ aren't actually all that vital to the American economy.
Certainly a lot of them do. It's also true that having a large portion of them leave will just mean that the company will have to replace them with someone who will require a higher wage, and won't have any issue leaving if the workplace culture degrades.
"an easy solution: increase the number of legal immigrants we allow."
Not really.
The answer is: have a fair, transparent and function system.
Then - yes - you can totally 'increase' (or decrease) as needed.
'Increase a bit' likely the right thing to do - but it's a completely separate question.
But throwing Green Card holders out is completely insane, grabbing people out of church and schools and putting them into detention without oversight is cruel and inhumane.
The national debate is insane.
Just basic, normal, reasonable policy and process.
That's it.
Like DMV level stuff.
Then you can adjust the numbers one way or another.
There are already far too many US college grads who can’t get jobs. I have friends who had 1500+ SAT scores with stem degrees who never found meaningful work. Give these people jobs before you give it to the Chinese.
+ "Give these people jobs before you give it to the Chinese." is just slightly racist, I'm not saying it's entirely objectionable, but you could just say 'non-citizen'.
+ It's way harder to hire someone on H1B than a local. There is a reason they are being hired. 1500+ SAT is nice but it's not magic entry point for a job.
There are definitely some kinds of jobs - 'Plain IT' where Tata and some Indian companies are just 'India First'. That's H1B abuse.
But by and large, that's not the case.
It's better to consider 'tightening up the program' if you think it should be, as opposed to making very broad considerations.
'Broad Brushstroke' stopping of these programs will definitely hurt the US.
> There are already far too many US college grads who can’t get jobs.
Recent college grads have had a harder time, but is slowly improving again [1]. All college grads are around 3% which is usually considered full employment. It was so easy for so long, any reversion to normal is met with the sky is falling. We haven't really seen that yet. The job market is also much much larger than big tech.
In my own experience trying to hire people, it's hard to filter real resumes from fakes/garbage. I have to think this issue is making it slower to hire recent grads.
1) The US has a much greater 'Elite Over Production' problem than does China. China produces a lot of people with decent education that can' find work but that's not 'Elite Overproduction'.
Frankly EO is just a sign of a developed nation.
2) "Anyone, from anywhere, with a STEM degree and a job offer from a US company, should be in this country"
Since when did citizenship become about 'Economic Production'?
The vast majority of the people of the world don't agree with this - and this is kind of one of the roots of disagreement over migration.
Yes - surely 'educated migrants' are good and helpful, but that's only part of the equation.
3) "If we don't do this, China and other up-and-coming nations will increasingly start to displace us"?
Displace you how exactly?
All of this hints of 'Nationalist Industrial Capitalism' with hints of fear mongering. "But China's Gonna Get Us!" ... listen I get it - but this card is played a bit too hard, too often.
Also absent is the fact that there's a need to help refugees etc.
The US surprisingly takes surprisingly few refugees in from conflicts zones, even those it calamities it participates in.
Consider that a 'Nation' is a 'Community' - not a 'Business Centre' and that education and economic competitiveness are just parts of that consideration.
Ultimately, it's a choice, and those points are not invalid, but probably should be contextualized in the grander scheme of how most people define their communities.
America is the leader of the knowledge workforce world and that aint gonna change. We aren't getting displaced anytime soon. One look at the pay differential makes it clear where incentives lie
"We aren't getting displaced anytime soon. One look at the pay differential makes it clear where incentives lie"
This is a bit myopic, partly because it diminishes Chinese capabilities - they're definitely ahead in a few areas, notably battery tech, advanced manufacturing, and in some product categories like robotics, (arguably EVs) and they have demonstrated leadership in industrial capacity for many others, like Solar Panels, other things. They're less than 1 year behind on AI (admittedly, they 'distill' and do a lot of copying but there's legit Engineering going on).
When you put that altogether, and the pace of progress, it's formidable.
China does it with 'domestic talent' whereas US R&D and 'Tech Exceptionalism' would literally not exist without outsiders, who make up up to 1/2 of the primary innovations, companies etc.. Tesla, Nvidia, OpenAI, Google - so many critical people from Europe, Asia etc. None of the 'Godfathers of AI' are American (which I find odd actually). Europe in particular makes a ton of primary contributions which are leveraged by others.
It's not a reason to say 'anyone from tech can be a citizen' but immigration has to be recognized as a critical ingredient, maybe the most critical.
I know this is going to. be contentious, but US mainstream discourse seems to have completely eliminated the distinction between illegal and legal immigration, in the last 10 years. Everyone seems to be a "migrant".
US policy has also nearly completely eliminated the distinction, by making legal immigration close to impossible and ~arresting~ kidnapping people at courthouses who are there for their immigration hearings, then shipping them off to foreign torture camps.
It is so nearly impossible, that somewhere between a half million and a million people have done it every year for the past few decades (including last year).
I don't think that is true at all. For example, it was considered a big deal when ICE was rounding up US citizens. It caused a big drop in public trust for ICE.
Nearly half of the workforce of crop farmworkers in the US is made up of "illegal" immigrants. The US food-supply relying on those people has meant that, in practice, immigration law enforcement is deliberately selective and self-serving.
So, the idea of illegal immigration as a vice worth cracking down on and punishing has not been consistently applied by the people publicly condemning it (like this current administration), meaning there is a very real sense in which the distinction between illegal and legal immigration is not real.
"The people"? Are you sure you're not committing the common sin of conflating vocal people with most people? For example, I publicly condemn illegal immigration, regardless of which industry said immigrants are propping up, while at the same time recognizing that such industries need to be carefully extricated from reliance on illegal immigrants and also that the management of immigration and the definition of illegal immigration needs to be fixed.
I'm right there with you, and it's why I go to great pains to articulate the entirety of my position on immigration when I get into these sorts of debates. The simpler someone's position on immigration is, the less they understand it at length or the more extremist their viewpoints tend to be.
Threads like these make me realize how wrong people can be. I understand the complexity and can see how misinformed people are. Makes me wonder what happens in other threads where I know little and just take whatever at face value. Eesh.
It's not that complicated, my immigration policy is "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
Mine comes to the same conclusion via a different route. I don't want my government telling me where I can or cannot travel to or decide to live, and I want all other governments to do the same.
I mean, I think that's a noble position to take; I share it, to a significant degree. The problem is when you start getting into the nuance of the modern world, where everywhere has a record of who you are, what you've done, where you've been, etcetera. The existence of that data means the masses will want to judge immigrants by said data before permitting entry, which means bad actors will leverage said data to persecute those they hate.
In principle, I am 100% with you. Pragmatically however, it's significantly more complex.
That "19th century ethnic activist" was born in the US after her family emigrated here more than a century prior fleeing the Inquisition. Her activism was aiding refugees entering New York as they fled the pogroms of Eastern Europe. My ancestors entered this country in the 19th century though that "golden door" as "poor huddled masses" fleeing those same pogroms. I admire that "ethnic activist" not locking the door behind her just because her ancestors happened to make the journey in a prior generation and therefore I echo that mindset. For me, being anti-immigration would be like spitting on all their graves.
This country was built on the backs of immigrants and slaves which instills in me the belief that even more central than freedom, there is no ideal more core to the United States as a nation than immigration.
It's not helpful to tell citizens to "know their place" and leave their country and claim that people of a given race are boring and call people who love America "anti-American".
You crossed into personal attack here, as well as repeatedly perpetuating the flamewar in this thread. Both of those things are against the site guidelines, regardless of how badly other commenters may be behaving. Please don't.
Please, please don't do this. Don't fall into this horrific hatefulness on HN - telling people they don't love their country, that they don't belong in it. Experiment with it elsewhere, and return when you have reflected on what it does to you.
I'm not, I'm honestly asking you with no political feelings. HN is the only place left on the internet I will interact with. I'm desperate for it not to fall like the rest.
my position has been steady since the start of my political consciousness (maybe ~12 years?)
all laws, including immigration laws, should be enforced consistently and universally, and without bias. and the laws should be changed to make it much simpler and easier to immigrate especially if you are able to already secure employment, housing, and health insurance.
In my experience, the phrase is just used to mean, "I don't hate immigrants, but..." (which, like the phrase "I'm not racist, but...", you are free to doubt case-by-case). I.e. it is not inherently inconsistent to apply the same disclaimer regarding a belief that legal immigration is too loose, too high, mismanaged, whatever; since that doesn't necessitate a belief that immigration as a concept is bad.
Somewhat ironically many of those most vocal about supporting all this are immigrants.
Those that jumped through all the hoops above bar, paid their dues in a messed up system where they bit their upper lip and got through it, and have been extremely frustrated at others trying to game the system.
I was one of them, and supported the idea of going after illegal immigrants. But now they're coming after me too, a faculty with a PhD, researching AI.
When I heard the crowd roar every time Trump said “we’re going to kick them out” I knew exactly what the crowd was cheering. Trump never used those moments to say “but America is a nation of immigrants and we celebrate their contributions”. He wanted to rile up a crowd while maintaining a fig-leaf of “oh it’s only illegals who are evil”
You don’t have to have a PhD to understand the appeal and consequences of nativist populism — just the slightest understanding of history.
There are plenty of voices explicitly saying that there are too many legal immigrants coming to the US under existing US immigration law, whose presence is not good for the majority of existing Americans despite not being illegal.
> And by the way, I want to make – I want to be very clear. I’m not just talking about illegal immigration, we have way too many legal immigrants coming into this country, too. 1.5 to 1.6 million legal people coming – Ilhan Omar came in legally and she hates the country. She’s a sleeper cell infiltrator of the United States representing Congress. She hates the country. She hates the west. She should be deported back to where she came from, Somalia. Go run for City Council in Mogadishu. The country is not enriched by people like Ilhan Omar.
It wasn’t ever about illegal immigration. It’s a way to make the position sound logical and tolerable. Now the goal post is moving to make only certain people legal.
Trump equivocated when it came time to condemn people shouting “The Jews will not replace us” and the Proud Boys. Anyone who thinks it’s just about illegal immigrants is delusional.
The "anti illegal immigrant" crowd ignores, or more likely supports, the systemic racism built into the current immigration system put in place by racist lawmakers throughout the country.
This new policy is no different and is a trap to kick out and never accept back more non-white immigrants.
Even so, you're "having trouble" acknowledging a singular fact that calls a claim into question? Is two facts the magic number? Three? Why is one insufficient?
Demanding proof of systemic racism every time it's brought up is kind of gauche and just tiring. You don't have to believe that it exists, but it very much does. I know you're going to clap back at me and say "so you have no argument, got it" and yes I'm not going to present you with one. I'm just telling you the way you're arguing this is kind of lame and incurious.
Well, I'm apparently not in the imagined conversation you're having. Seems insecure to pre-bake an out for a hypothetical.
Never rejected systemic racism exists, but calling everything racist without substance (and accusing people of ignoring system racism without support) erodes meaning.
I suggest reviewing the HN guidelines for comments. If you disagree with them, this forum may not be for you.
The aim is not to fix the problem. These populists would be out of power the moment the problem is fixed. They want to prolong it - even make it worse - because that's what keeps people angry.
It took us 12-15 years to get a GC (depends on how you count).
People who fraudulently or illegally come in have had it easier. And I was in the top 1% earner, built things that everyone here on HN has used. I’ve contributed a lot and struggled to get recognized. People don’t know how much of a mess this is. They claim they want smart people to come to the US. The system isn’t setup for it.
It's the Stephen Miller types that instituted a policy that throttled GCs by country of birth, independent of that country's population, as a way to achieve racial bias without explicitly talking about race.
Miller's ilk is ascendant in this administration and their Court has blessed their approach to discrimination.
It’s a smokescreen people use to claim it’s not racist. It reminds me of that south park episode with the cable company representatives with velcro pockets. “Oh you want to migrate here legally? Oh it will take 3 years and it requires an active employment offer at application time and on arrival? Oh no… tell me more”
Many people hold one or more of the following positions:
1. Illegal immigration is bad, and we should do more to reduce it.
2. Immigration (any kind) is too numerous. Eg someone could say "Nashua, New Hampshire is now 17.2% foreign born and I think that is too high." Within 2. there are multiple separate reasons to have the position. One could think that its bad for assimilation, or one could be upset that the Nashua school system's budget increases are almost completely due to having to hire more ELL staff to accommodate the rapid rise in non-English speakers in a school system that used to be almost entirely English speakers. I'm sure there are more complicated examples but I hope that one is easy to understand.
3. Immigration (any kind) is used to lower wages of the working and middle class via labor and program abuses. At the low end, this used to be a leftist talking point (the kind Bernie Sanders once talked about). At the high end, it is grousing about H1B abuses. Despite many agreeing that th program has large abuses, H1Bs are legal immigrants.
Your idea of an "easy solution" doesn't remotely correspond to a solution for people who think #2 or #3. Even for #1, someone who dislikes illegal immigration does not necessarily want more legal immigration, though that used to be a very common view (eg, Bill Clinton in the 1990s, I think George Bush too). If a person believes #3, increasing the number of legal immigrants may simply increase the corresponding abuses.
n.b. the text above is descriptive, not normative.
I hear it a lot too. It makes no sense. Obviously, if only the illegality was the problem, we could just declare all immigration legal and that would "solve" it. But it wouldn't, obviously, because that's not what people are concerned about at all
What are people concerned about? If I walk into your house uninvited, that’s trespassing. Is that “solved” by declaring all entry into residences legal?
The problem with these analogies is that your nation is not only your nation, but also the nation of all the people who are very happy with all the migrants, for whatever reason.
> If I walk into your house uninvited, that’s trespassing.
Sure.
What happens if your kid invites round a friend of theirs you don't like?
What happens if you are a kid and your sibling does?
What happens if you rent out a room to a lodger, and the lodger invites someone over?
What happens if you're a tenant in a rental, and the landlord sends in an emergency plumber?
Remember, every single migrant working illegally in your country is someone that another person in your country wanted to employ; if you're in the US, most of those employers will be selling you your food and your houses, which most of you seem to like, while some were South Koreans making data centres which you personally may hate but your pension funds love.
The U.S. is an aggressively capitalist system. A person’s value is usually measured in dollars exchanged for labor. Legal immigration status is not a certification of capability, so it has little practical utility. In a capitalist exchange, it literally doesn’t matter.
What the lower classes are concerned about is the value of their labor relative to others’, while the upper classes are concerned with getting a good deal by avoiding increases to the labor-cost floor. Bribes/subsidies and offered scams, have worked so far.
If the federal government, as an institution, were genuinely concerned about illegal immigration, it would have a different set of tactics. Start by punishing the sources of capital (fewer people), then property owners (more people), and only afterward the laborers themselves (many people).
What I see is a combination of class warfare and political theater, not a sincere effort to enforce the law. The law is incidental, made obvious by the exceptions the administration has had to carve out for certain industries.
It's collective narcissism. Narcissists only ever express one emotion - aggressive contempt. So the destruction, incoherence, murder, and abuse are all predictable outcomes of a malignantly narcissistic regime.
Out groups are always the initial targets for these movements, but as time goes on any form of dissent will cause narcissistic wounding and will be treated accordingly.
They only want a certain type of immigrants. I know some that go through the process easy breezy and others that absolutely suffer. It is largely dictated by country of origin, outside of the normal checkboxes.
Everybody across the world only wants a certain type of immigrant. The salient difference is whether the definition of "certain type" is petty or not (e.g. based on skin color vs based on qualifications).
Over and over and over, the greatest mistake of both sides of all political debates is to obsessively portray the other side as represented by their pettiest voices.
First, a lot of the immigrants that people complain about now are only immigrants because the US fucked up their country. Venezuela is the poster child for this. There are consqeuences to destabilizing other countries for American corporate interests.
Second, companies like illegal immigration. It allows them to pay people sub-minimum wage in horrible working conditions and if the workers every complain, you just call in ICE to deport them. You pay a small fine for employing undocumented migrants and the next day hire a new batch. You probably even have avoided paying wages to the deported workers.
Third, a lot of attention is paid to people who sneak into the country. This is the minority. Also, "entering without inspection" (that's the legal term) is a civil infraction (unless you've previously been deported; then it's a crime), much like a traffic ticket. You technically aren't a criminal if you do this.
But the majority of undocumented migrants are visa overstayers. They get a legal visa to come to the US, often a visit visa, a student visa or a temporary work permit (eg J1, H2A, H2b) and just don't leave.
And to answer your implied question, it's not about illegal immigration. It's about white supremacy and the exploitation of labor under capitalism.
> But the majority of undocumented migrants are visa overstayers. They get a legal visa to come to the US, often a visit visa, a student visa or a temporary work permit (eg J1, H2A, H2b) and just don't leave.
Yes, and that's a big part of the motivation for this policy of forcing people on temporary visas to physically leave the US in order to apply for permanent residency. It prevents people who get a temporary visa and plan to overstay that visa and nonetheless apply for some kind of pathway to permanent residency in the US from being able to do that.
Its not about immigration at all. It is about creating a "us vs them" tribal narrative. That's why people defend even US citizens being harassed under this administration. And the justification is because they might hold a different PoV.
The irony is that if anyone thinks they are going to solve this problem - I have a bridge to sell. If GoP solves this then they are going to lose of the biggest talking points in next elections. I can see this being challenged and drama played out for long time saying "other side" is not letting them move forward with it.
All the while the "extraordinary" Green Card will actually be "ordinary" - done by greasing POTUS palms. Because POTUS and his supporters are hell bent on turning America into a third world low trust country.
Do you believe mass immigration has any negative side effects, at all?
Let's say hypothetically the UK increased its population by around 3 million since 2020, including one particular influx designed and implemented by Boris Johnson to suppress wage inflation, which had a direct effect on the lower end of the job market for the native population. You could also easily argue it led to a direct surge in popularity of the far right party Reform.
I agree. I think there are ways to do that that could get more support than the way we're currently doing things.
Imagine if we began processing immigration applications at a rate ten- or a hundredfold of what we currently do. Imagine if just about anyone could get in, barring things like people with actual serious criminal records, etc. Imagine if when you got in via that system, you got some kind of long-term resident visa, which required you to pay an additional tax for, say, the next 10 years. Also imagine that this long-term resident visa gave you a path to citizenship, on condition of permanently renouncing all other citizenships you might hold. In other words, imagine that becoming a legal immigrant was far less onerous in process, but slightly more onerous in official requirements.
Such a plan could be framed as encouraging immigrants who want to "put down roots", and that kind of immigration is much more plausibly spun as beneficial, because people who move to a place to live permanently do not want it to be sucky. By making the process simpler but applying clear costs (e.g., extra tax), it also gives people an easy to way to demonstrate that they want to do things the right way.
Also, making the process more straightforward makes it much more politically palatable to deport people who violate it (which will still happen). A large part of the "bleeding-heart" leftist perspective towards immigrants stems from a sense that many people who immigrate illegally do so because "they had no other choice". If the bar to legal immigration is lowered so that it becomes a live option, this argument is harder to make.
This pattern plays out across so many things conservatives say. It was never about free speech. It was never about being civil after someone was killed. It was never about balancing the budget. Their anti-dei stance was never about fairness. And no it was never about illegal immigration. It’s almost like they lie constantly about their beliefs. To themselves as much as everyone else.
They were always just against immigrants, legal or not. It was obvious back then, it should be super obvious now. And most of them didn’t really hate all immigrants, just those with a particular skin color. The MAGA movement was always racist at its core, no one should be surprised by the turns it has taken.
Most of them saying they are anti illegal immigrant are lying if you dive into their numbers. It conveniently lines up with the legal asylum seekers.
Usually when I find out someone’s making that deceptive claim and call them out on it they quickly admit that they don’t think asylum is/should be legal
It's not. Trump has always wanted to revert back to a predominantly white America if he could achieve it. The government is racist and hides their racism behind shitty interpretations of our founding articles.
Democrats actively encouraged more than 10 million illegals to pour into the country during the previous administration. They lied about it and downplayed it for three years, and then (when election season rolled around) they talked tough about their plan to "seal the border"... which was another lie, as the bill they proposed would have allowed illegal immigration to continue at up to ~6X the historical average rate without requiring any action whatsoever to "seal the border". When the American people vote for mass deportations, those were called "fascism" and the basic enforcement of immigration law is actively, even physically opposed.
But an inconvenient process change has you clutching your pearls and crying "bad faith"? Yikes.
I'll keep repeating it: stop assuming that fascists use their words to accurately express what they think and feel. They don't. They use words solely as a tool to increase their power. Hypocrisy does not register for them, in fact they're tickled that their enemies shackle themselves by feeling the urge to be logically consistent. You cannot engage in debate with fascists, you're playing chess while they're playing shoot-my-opponent-in-the-head-while-he-thinks-we're-playing-chess.
"Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past."
This is a quite interesting paragraph, because you can rewrite it to today's extremist (both far left & far right):
"Never believe that far-left woke extremists are completely unaware of the absurdity of their assertions. They know that their ideological mandates are fragile, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their moderate or conservative adversary who is obliged to use language responsibly, since he still believes in universal standards of logic. The ideological zealots have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by enforcing shifting definitions and linguistic traps, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by objective evidence but to intimidate, socially ostracize, and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent or weaponize moral outrage, loftily indicating by some accusation of bigotry or systemic harm that the time for argument is past"
People coming to live in your area, not your personal home, to work hard for opportunities, are in no material way like pick pockets. Your analogy is so extreme I am tempted to assume you argue in bad faith. The economic success of the United States, its simultaneous growth and flexibility and prosperity is directly caused by our heightened skills to welcome immigrants and make use of their talents and desire for success (compared to other countries with similar demographics). We are awesome at welcoming people into a modern society that values smarts, individual diversity, getting along with neighbors of differing backgrounds, hard work, risk taking, striking out on your own, the NBA, good home cooked food, fast food, and Taylor Swift, and getting them to enjoy these things also.
I didn't say they were pickpockets. I was trying to point out the absurdity of correcting illegal activity by simply eliminating laws.
I love immigration. We should have lots of immigration! But it should occur within consistently, fairly enforced laws passed by our legislative system. I get that our immigration system is arguably broken and that it's very difficult to pass meaningful legislation, but that doesn't mean we should just allow whoever is president to dictate immigration policy.
So the thing to analogize is that DHS is acting like a junior high school gang, enforcing ever shifting rules and norms capriciously for the fun of bullying to score points with the onlookers. The bullied folks are not analogous to pick pockets. We have laws, laws under which TPS is legal for ever, under which we don’t round up and export people without criminal records, laws under which people pay taxes and raise their families here; all of this suffering being caused by Miller is not for the effects of the policies but for the demonstration of cruelty, contempt for differences, and a distraction from the roll back of a middle class centric economy where hard work and education were a pathway to a good family life.
> I was trying to point out the absurdity of correcting illegal activity by simply eliminating laws.
Isn’t this straw man? Who said anything about eliminating laws or being inconsistent about legal immigration? The top comment was only pointing out that slowing the flow of legal immigration does not fix illegal immigration and probably makes it worse. Some people don’t love immigration or feel we should have lots, despite the benefits, and sometimes those people say contradictory things.
This comparison is flawed because there is not legal pickpocketing, but there is legal immigration.
If there was a legal pickpocketing, and someone claimed to only be opposed to illegal pickpocketing, then it would be reasonable to point out that unless they're lying about their intent a solution to preventing illegal pickpocketing would be to make it all legal.
The analogy falls apart because nobody argues that they are "only" opposed to illegal pickpicketing.
If people are opposed to any form of immigration, then they should just admit that, rather than pretend they're only opposed to illegal immigration.
a. Opposed to someone taking my money against my will and the law just because they want to, “for a better life”.
b. Not opposed to someone taking my money in exchange for goods or services I want.
a. Opposed to someone moving into my country against my will and the law just because they want to, “for a better life”.
b. Not opposed to someone moving into my country because I married them and want them here.
There’s a whole spectrum between a and b, but I think most people are against a.
Legal pickpocketing is taxes you’re opposed to, or wages being garnished.
In theory people who say they’re only against illegal immigration are saying they completely agree with all policies regarding legal immigration, now and maybe into the future. Likely not what these people actually believe because while possible it would be a silly position. They’re probably just saying it to try to find some common ground with very pro immigration people. Likely a fools errand.
You've invented a whole new set of categories of pickpocketing that most people would disagree has anything to do with pickpocketing to justify a flawed argument.
To your last paragraph, no, they are not. There is no automatic implication that people will not change their minds depending on the situation. The argument is not that they can never change their minds, but that it is deceitful to pretend to only oppose illegal immigration in current circumstances and then go on to demonstrate they are also opposed to the currently legal immigration.
Breaking and entering is to immigrating as pickpocketing is to taking my stuff.
Sometimes immigration is legal. Sometimes taking my stuff is legal.
There’s often overlap between legality and what people support or oppose, but not always.
“I oppose something that’s already against the rules” is a simpler/easier argument, rather than saying “I oppose the against the rules thing, and some of the stuff that isn’t against the rules currently”. I think that's why people make this argument of "only against illegal immigration". I agree it could be deceitful, taking the easier argument. It’s also not a tactic that works long term though if it just results in the immigration they were against being made legal. A stronger anti immigration stance, legal or illegal, would be a better starting point.
To be fair there may also be some people who a couple years ago really did only oppose illegal immigration but were then exposed to new information, and changed their mind to oppose some or all legal immigration as well.
It’s sad that pragmatically adjusting quotas is never the loudest argument in the room. I’m in favor of greatly increasing legal immigration, providing paths for safe work and citizenship (when that’s the goal). I’ll admit that my idea of an ideal system is probably not palatable for many. But if we could start from anywhere near a sane baseline, I’d understand wanting to gradually find sustainable quotas that take all factors into account. I’m done with purity tests and letting perfect be the enemy of good.
I suppose by “all factors” I mean all factors aside from exploitation and xenophobia, but I hope we could at least move the Overton window back that far.
Okay. Let's choose a small random country as a basis for your immigration ideas. Ie., Rwanda (pop 14.8m) or Israel (pop 10.24m). What is the quantity of immigration flow that you want, who and from where and on what basis of admission over what time period. What are your intended demographic, social, and political shifts that you say are going to be "not palatable" for the people living there now? In fact, please expand on exactly how "not palatable" you expect your plans to be for them.
This strikes me as an unreasonable demand on the author of the comment. Part of the point of the current system was (at least at some point) to have knowledgeable people, armed with the available facts, figures and theories make some attempt at balancing the safety of the incoming people against (at the very least) their economic impact on the country. From there some rudimentary guard rails (quotas, visa type, etc.) would be set. I suspect few of us in this forum feel comfortable making these decisions from behind a phone, tablet or laptop.
My understanding is that many of us, perhaps including the author of the comment to which you are responding, would like to see at lease some small, inching movement towards such a system.
On the contrary, asking for well-thought out political thought is the most reasonable demand in the world. If you have an idea about health care, national defense, or trade policy, I expect thought and numbers, not vague platitudes.
For example, you want small inching movement. From what starting point? Inching movement from the near-zero flows of the mid-20th century? Inching movement from the mass flows of the 21st century? Both ideas would have major consequences, and if you are going to advocate for mass social change, you should think it out and advocate with care and thoughtfulness.
I’d take rapid movement, honestly, I simply think it unlikely. In terms of what kind of change, I was speaking of movement toward a rational system with clear goals, with decisions made by knowledgeable people. With that in mind any movement, I think, should be estimated from the present. We can’t change the past!
Agreed, care and thoughtfulness should be the rule, not the exception. Presently we are getting neither. I’m a software developer, I don’t work in policy; but I believe our immigration position should be aligned with policy goals and I’m not sure we have any of those, either.
In any case, re-categorizing so many legal immigrants in order to imprison them strikes me as pointless and fundamentally wrong.
> For example, you want small inching movement. From what starting point?
The obvious assumption is that they mean from where we are right now. We're not going to suddenly be at the mid-20th century again. This comes off as argumentative more than curious (as do your other comments in this thread, for what it's worth).
Advocating for small inching change to a rate is different from advocating from small inching change. Easy example: if you are in a car with an accelerator pedal depressed.
> Advocating for small inching change to a rate is different from advocating from small inching change.
No, it isn't. It is a change; whether it's acceleration or velocity is an implementation detail. Whether it should be changed suddenly or gradually is the spec.
Why do we need to quantify an exact quota to qualify as well thought out political thought? Some people think about this issue from the basis of fundamental freedoms. Innocent, productive people deserve the opportunity to move where they obtain the most prosperity.
If I advocated abolition in the 19th century, it would be missing the point to turn around and say "oh yeah? And how many slaves would you like to free per year, and what effects do you expect that to have? Include examples of past slave rebellions"
The US's strength is/was in part because of immigration. The best and brightest want to come to the US to go to school and then they often stay for the enormous opportunities only available in the US. I want any immigrant that wants to come to the US given a reasonable path to make that happen.
You are right that the Native Americans were completely misplaced by immigrants, but immigration made the US what it is today and I see no reason it won't continue to make the US a uniquely strong country.
You may be interested to learn that American immigration flows were higher or lower at various times (nearly zero for long periods). As you allude to with Native Americans, the effects of the different flows were not uniform on all people, and instead caused various negative and positive effects. The period of Americans great post-WWII economic and military rise came during its longest period of immigration moratorium, during which its population was fairly homogeneous. In recent decades, America has begun to decline economically and militarily relative to China, a country not subject to these "strengthening flows". Odd case.
The citizenry would probably fare no worse than with the arrival of the Irish, the Italians, or the Germans. What are you expecting, for the Indians or Chinese to sack DC aux Visigoths?
“Open borders” was pretty much standard across the world prior to World War 1. These tightly controlled immigration policies are, historically speaking, incredibly new.
I think it’s self evident that the U.S. benefited greatly from its mass immigration inflows in the 19th and 20th centuries.
Your statement has no basis whatsoever in reality. The US, for example, had a four-decade moratorium on immigration beginning in 1924. Mass immigration flows appeared at various times and places in the past (often accompanied by bloodshed and suffering), but it's highly incorrect to imagine that 21st-century 1st world demographic shifts are some sort of historical norm.
In this case the people brought up in the United States are sacrificing the well fare of their own children to preserve their own fears. I think that is wrong.
I want to keep the US a destination for hard work and smarts and striking out on your own. Don’t shelter your lazy kid, show them the beauty of complexity and mastery. Have them master some difficult skills, whether that’s a second language or botany or math or public speaking or building things. We are all responsible to each other for excellence. Respond to the opportunities for excellence, of what we can build together, dont’t yield to sloth and resentment being satisfied with turning your back on your own potential. The future is awesome and we welcome all who want to contribute! We welcome competition - better to be second best to the best than turning your back and cutting yourself off from the course of history.
Lots of things are wrong with giving people the power to make choices that affect the whole world, while excluding others who are equally or more affected, based on where they happened to be born.
If the logic is that people who are born somewhere else shouldn't have any agency over immigration laws, well, why does someone who lives in some town in my country with a negligible immigrant population get a say in who I and my colleagues can invite to work with us, and who I and my neighbors can invite to live with us?
> I hear "I'm not anti immigrant, I'm anti illegal immigrant" a lot. To which there is an easy solution: increase the number of legal immigrants we allow.
Being "anti illegal immigrant" doesn't have to imply you let in whoever wants as long as they follow some process. You are taking away the agency of the people to select its immigrants.
If someone says they're not anti immigrant and then turns around to say immigration should be more difficult, there's an obvious logical disconnect in their worldview. It doesn't matter about illegal vs. legal: they want to make immigration more difficult, after claiming they are not against immigration. The comment does not claim there's anything wrong with the policy choice, just that the following policy preference betrays the initial statement as false.
It doesn’t seem inherently contradictory for someone to think “I’m not anti-immigrant” and “my ideal target for legal immigration is at 80% of its current rate”.
I think I see where you're coming from. To use an example, Switzerland has tight immigration controls due to the policies which grant citizens and permanent residents certain welfare benefits, since they don't want those to be leeched by people who do not contribute as much back. That is against immigration while not being anti-immigrant; the point is that the immigration itself does not motivate the policy which limits immigration, instead being motivated by the existence and meaning of other policies (a kind of protectionism).
Tying this back to OP's comment, it's hard to see these policy changes as any sort of legitimate protectionism and it's just as hard to divorce them from the justifications given by people who start with "I'm not anti-immigrant".
there are quite a number of issues with the situation as it was evolved. lots of people are intersted as a matter of policy in admitting that the US is largely functional because of immigrant labor, but relying in illegal immigration to fill those roles hasn't been great for the structure of the country or the laborers themselves. and to be clear this is not just harvesting the crops, and raisin the children, and building the houses, its also doctors and engineers and all sort of other professions.
so there a huge need to have a difficult policy discussion about what to do without cratering the economy.
but when you start removing civil liberties and running around in gangs grabbing random brown people off the streets and sending them to indefinate detention in the middle of nowhere, dumping people in Somalia, claiming you have the right kill anyone you want, you shouldn't be surprised when people start waving around the f word.
>but when you start removing civil liberties and running around in gangs grabbing random brown people off the streets and sending them to indefinate detention in the middle of nowhere, dumping people in Somalia, claiming you have the right kill anyone you want, you shouldn't be surprised when people start waving around the f word.
You've been propagandized to believe that is happening. Remember when we were grabbing random brown people, including Black Olympian school superintendents right off the streets and sending them to concentration camps?
Months later the truth comes out: illegal alien with guns in his possession, which is a federal crime. Deportation order issued under Biden's administration.
The post-truth era has made the f word effectively meaningless.
A piece of paper signed by your boss isn't the same as a real warrant signed by a judge.
No real lawyer will ever tell you that an "administrative warrant" is a real thing that lets jackbooted thugs enter your home and detain you. It's absurd and disgusting, and you should feel dirty for defending it.
Sending masked goons to pull people off the streets is unconditionally fascist, and the people who participated are criminals who all belong in prison. If some of the goons were particularly conscientious and never arrested someone without good cause, that's great, and perhaps if they prove that we can shorten their sentences.
1) Someone can be against illegal immigration and for legal immigration.
2) That same person's idea about who should immigrate to the country may exclude most or all of the people who are currently immigrating illegally.
It's not like you can only be against illegal immigration because they forgot to fill out some form. Legal immigration has a component of deciding who gets in.
Point of order: that is blatantly untrue. Anti illegal immigrant has everything to do with ensuring the people in the country are known and allowed. It is completely uncoupled from legal immigration. To say an easy solution is increasing legal immigration is just saying lets leave all the security holes wide open and just make it so only the real bad guys use them because others have an easier time going legal.
Thats the other way to say what i just said. Its not as good a way to say it for this specific issue because it doesn't hilight the differences that matter to this particular discussion
Devil's advocate: My wife thankfully just got her green card three months ago. She first came on a J-1 and then an F-1. She knows many, many people who come with the intent of staying either without status or via questionable marriage licenses. The vast majority of her acquaintances in the J-1 visa program were young (<25 year old) au pairs with no intention of learning English (they had 'mandatory' English language cultural lessons per J-1). My wife is an extreme outlier in that she learned English in 5 years and just got accepted to veterinary school in USA.
The bottom-line is that she thinks the J-1 / au pair program should be discontinued.
That is completely orthogonal. Whether any non-immigrant visa program should or should not be continued is immaterial. The topic at hand is about adjusting status to permanent residency, for which you need to independently satisfy the criteria for permanent residency. The admin is proposing asking people to go out of the US for their interviews as opposed to an interview in the US. The admin can just as easily deny AOS in the US, but people have more rights in the US and can seek legal recourse. They cannot outside the US.
No I haven’t. I’m specifically talking about a voter base that has huge representation of newly naturalized citizens. If Latino legal immigrants want maga, than they can eat “speak English” mandates, and other generally “anti Latino” policy. Reap what you sow since you want to act white and assimilate and bring the racism/colorism from your homeland so bad.
Refusing future applications to adjust status would be one thing (still wrong, in my opinion). The fact that they are canceling pending applications is simply evil. There will be so much unnecessary anguish and expense. I really feel for anybody who is now learning they will have to leave and wait years to come live in the US with their spouse, due to overstayed visas which were supposed to be forgiven under the status quo.
This administration is doing things that are illegal. They're getting sued and they're losing. Constantly. But that's expensive and time-consuming for immigrants, which I guess is the point.
USCIS doesn't have the authority to just unlawfully deny a case. It can be challenged in court. They can make your life really difficult. For example, they can put you in removal proceedings if you're an overstayer with a petition that they unlawfully deny and then you're out of status. So now you have to go to immigration court, where the odds are stacked against you, and either get your case approved there or get removal proceedings cancelled. And the administration is holding certain people in removal without bond even if they've been here for decades. And some people, like those on ESTA, have waived their right to see an immigration judge at all.
They prefer what's called "consular processing" (applying outside of the country vs "adjustment of status" in country) is that it takes way longer and the administration has way more power to arbitrarily deny your case, as is the case with certain current banned countries. The Supreme Court ruled the president's power to limit visas to certain countries can't be challenged. The case was from the first Trump term. It's called Trump v. Hawaii [1].
But one thing they are also doing, which is evil, is taking advantage of people come to a USCIS interview without an immigration attorney. They separate the couple and threaten the US citizen that they're committing fraud and to withdraw the case or they get the immigrant to admit things that are false or they just outright deny the case on faulty grounds because people aren't knowledgeable enough to fight back without a professional. It is evil.
This means nothing if there are no real consequences in terms of change in behaviour. Every country has their own priorities, and looks like the US decided to move on from pax-Americana.
What’s different is in this case is applicants have years of status “runway” and can just sue or wait it out so to speak. I’m betting they will have to walk some of it back
> The fact that they are canceling pending applications is simply evil.
Where have you seen this documented? I haven't, and the only government statement I've seen about this was fairly clear that the change is for new applications.
I am genuinely asking. I have friends who are going through the process.
"Forcing green card applicants to leave will render many green card applicants’ ineligible because, when they leave the United States, they will trigger the 3- or 10-year bars on receiving an immigrant visa based on accrual of unlawful presence."
Yeah, that's a wild leap to conclusions. The "accrual of unlawful presence" is when you overstay a visa, or otherwise stay in the USA illegally. Here's the definition:
> Asylees and asylum applicants: Generally, time while a bona fide asylum application is pending is not counted as unlawful presence.
So unless there's currently a huge backlog of people staying here illegally who are somehow eligible for green cards in spite of this fact, the government changing it's policies to require new applicants do so from overseas is not itself causing these applicants to violate immigration law.
The note is not “grossly wrong”. It’s from the USCIS website. It’s consistent with many other independent legal sources that you can find with a trivial web search.
> ICE was/is putting them in jail while they appear for immigration hearing at courts.
You’re talking about a completely different set of events.
This policy change was just announced, and it has nothing to do with things that happened months ago.
Is consular processing prioritizing adjustment of status applications? Here in India, as of now, a consular appointment for a B1/B2 non-immigrant visa application is about eight months away. The COVID pandemic was mostly over about three years ago and there’s still not enough processing capacity.
The US isn’t what it used to be. It’s definitely not the best place in the world to live for quality of life, on basically any metric.
The requirement of being permanently obligated to pay us taxes on global income, if you have any kind of global mobility, is not worth it when you look at the situation objectively. The US is the only country that requires this, and signing up is voluntarily.
So while US immigration continues to act as though people will jump through any hoop they put up in order to be granted the extreme privilege of being able to live in the country indefinitely, it’s worth realising it’s not the 70s anymore and thats a goal many people are no longer optimizing for. In fact the opposite - the most talented people I know are all planning their lives to not settle long term in the US.
There's a term called "US Person". Many European banks will refuse to open your bank account if you're a "US Person" and require upfront declaration that I'm not a "US Person."
Reason? Because banks don't want to deal with the mandatory annual reporting of the "US Persons" to US government on regular basis.
Their solution? Don't have a "US Person" as your client.
I’m an American living abroad. I know a bit about this. Here’s my experience:
- The USA passed a law called the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA), which mandates that any bank doing business with Americans overseas must report certain information to the USA: https://www.irs.gov/businesses/corporations/foreign-account-...
- When anyone anywhere in the world opens a bank account, the bank asks if you have ever been a “US Person,” and if you have been, then you need to provide documentation about whether you currently are or aren’t (typically showing a USA passport or proof of having renounced USA citizenship)
- For banks that will work with Americans, they have to report basic information back to the USA every year, which includes highlights like your contact information, tax ID, account numbers, end-of-year balance, etc.
- Americans also must self-report this kind of information via the FBAR (Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts, technically FinCEN Form 114), which isn’t too horrible to fill out other than the fact that you file it through FinCEN’s clunky BSA E-Filing system, which still wants you to install Adobe Acrobat Reader like it’s 2010.
- FATCA is primarily annoying to banks because they already have to comply with CRS, the Common Reporting Standard, which is basically an international standard developed by the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) where participating countries automatically report each other’s residents’ financial information. The kicker is that the USA never actually joined CRS, so banks have to run a whole separate FATCA process just for a relatively small number of Americans living abroad, which is a big duplication of effort.
This appears to have been downvoted but everything is completely factual in what the parent poster said. I have literally been told by many banks they can't help me due to this.
People said the same when the $100K fee for H1b was introduced, and said that the US won't be able to fill the 85,000 spots. But there were 211,600 applications in the last cycle.
Also, your other 'facts' are incorrect. The US for example has the highest amount of disposable income per family, has a lower tax burden (despite your complaint about it) then almost all developed countries, and there is one more (small) country with global taxation.
Correct - it has significantly shifted the makeup:
1. Master degree holders increased from 57.0% to 71.5%
2. Average wage increased by ~30% (estimated from the massive drop in the number of applications from the lowest category.
3. The balance has shifted from foreign workers to students in the US (F-1 visa), because they are exempt from the $100K fee.
I actually wish HN covered this, as many people were complaining about H1b being abused by abusive software companies bringing in cheap labor. About how hard it is for students studying in America to stay in America, etc.
But now we can't actually discuss a topic without attributing it to a person, so if it's attributed to Trump, all discussions become a shitshow.
The extreme privilege of being forced to pay a major portion of all income you make, regardless of where you earn it, to the us gov indefinitely. And they make it hard for you to apply to do this. Crazy.
> being forced to pay a major portion of all income you make, regardless of where you earn it
If you're a US citizen living abroad you get a Foreign Earned Income Exclusion of $130,000 for 2025 taxes. So if your income was $130k you'd pay zero in US taxes. You potentially also get to deduct housing costs and get a credit for foreign taxes you already paid among other things.
If you're paying a "major portion of your income" as a US citizen living overseas you're probably pretty dang wealthy. Go wipe your tears with your bands of $100 bills.
The FEIE and foreign tax credits are just there to limit the scope of double taxation, and often they can't even do that much. Then you have to consider the cost of compliance, requiring specialist tax advice encompassing two countries; the difficulty of obtaining financial services because of FATCA; the frequent impossibility of saving for retirement because of the way the U.S. treats foreign investment funds (PFIC).
There's a reason no other country on earth tries to do this.
Boo hoo double taxation. Normal people get double, triple, quadruple taxed all the time. I get (at least) double taxed every gallon of gas I pump. I get quadruple taxed just having a roof over my head. My labor gets FICA taxes (a collection of multiple taxes), payroll taxes, federal income taxes, and potentially state income taxes. Your million dollar stock trade hit a few different tax jurisdictions, boo hoo. Miss me with crying about "double taxation" nonsense, it's a phrase rich people use to make poor people feel sorry for them.
> consider the cost of compliance
Oh so sad wealthy people have so many bags of money they can't keep track of them all themselves. Sounds terrible. Maybe they should sell all those assets and give the money away and rid themselves of such hardships. Send me a message, I'll take those struggles off your hand and relieve you of such burdens.
> the frequent impossibility of saving for retirement
You're already clearing more income free and clear from a US tax basis than most US households do. If you find it impossible to save for retirement after making probably far more than $130k (remember, the standard was "a major portion" of your income) then you should really think about how fucked the vast majority of your fellow citizens are.
It's pretty tone deaf complaining about how heavy all these bars of gold are.
> The requirement of being permanently obligated to pay us taxes on global income
Many countries have higher rates than the US and have reciprocal treaties to avoid double taxation. In practice it means many people end up paying zero taxes to the US. Of course it will depend on the country you want to reside in, but then what's the point of seeking out a US passport?
I would say some of the indicators are a little odd.
Some of them are questionable in terms of capturing the spirit of the idea ("violent crime" being the same in the UK and the US is a surprising one to me for example. It's capturing serious assault per 100k, but is then not considering murder as violent crime. You have murder later, but maybe combine / group them?).
Some are confusing because they are not clear politically: everyone wants less violent crime, but I don't know your politics and so have no idea which direction you have weighted net migration and asylum/capita.
To be perfectly clear. The US has a much higher standard of living than the vast majority of countries in the world and people from those countries hope to improve their lives by moving there.
The US has a lower standard of living than basically all OECD countries.
To use a sports analogy, the US is last place on the pro league ladder, while also being first place on the “everyone else” ladder.
I don’t think this captures the full story. The US has a bimodal standard of living reflected as a lower mean relative to other advanced nations.
It can be simultaneously true that immigrants to the U.S. from both advanced and developing nations both experience a higher standard of living than their countries of origin.
Immigrating to the U.S. with an advanced degree in an in-demand field: you likely will experience a higher standard of living.
Immigrating to the U.S. from a developing country without a particularly in-demand career: you likely will experience a higher standard of living.
> Immigrating to the U.S. with an advanced degree in an in-demand field: you likely will experience a higher standard of living.
And yet everyone here in SF has been mugged. Everyone has to deal with the poor air quality, crime, traffic, and a million other factors that impact daily life even when you are rich. Little paid time off, very short maternity leave.
I went back to Australia for the first time in 10 years, and even the guy stacking shelves at a liquor store had 8 weeks of paid leave, owned his own home, had a project car (a big V8), kids going to university, excellent healthcare even if he quits, etc etc.
Ordinary guy, better quality of life than many rich Americans.
> I went back to Australia for the first time in 10 years, and even the guy stacking shelves at a liquor store ... owned his own home
Australia is having the exact same situation with housing as most of the cities in the US right now and Australia lacks the rural population where things are affordable so this seems incredibly unbelievable to me.
Absolutely Australia has a huge housing crunch. No getting around that.
But everyone has healthcare. Everyone has university. Minimum wage is way, way higher than the US. Employee protections are huge (at will employment is criminal). Even the worst jobs have great paid time off and maternity leave.
Overtime is paid, by law. Working 60 hours a week is unheard of.
The US is the best place you _can_ immigrate to (at least until a few days ago) from a lot of different perspectives.
Poor people from the countries you mentioned won't be let into the countries with strong safety nets so, you can compare what it's like to be a poor Swede and a poor American but a poor Venezuelan has a 0% chance of becoming Swedish.
A well off Swede would likely make significantly more money in the US and doesn't really benefit much from the social safety net anyway, aside from healthcare, which, despite the price, is also better in the US.
Anyone in the world who is looking to leave their home country for more opportunity probably has the US high up on the list of places they'd consider going to that they'd actually be able to go to..
Literally how could he possibly know that? He's just saying racist things because he's obviously a racist. Haitian immigrants aren't eating cats or dogs either, we need to stop listening to him as an authority on anything. If Donald Trump is saying something, you should automatically assume it's a lie. Any other course of action isn't reasonable.
The U.S. doesn’t have a real statutory pathway to permanent residency for skilled immigrants. The current H1B to Green Card pipeline is built on a legal fiction papered over a visa program that was the word “non-immigrant intent” written all over the statute.
Gemini gets this correct: “The H-1B visa is a nonimmigrant classification that allows U.S. employers to temporarily employ foreign nationals in ‘specialty occupations’ that require highly specialized knowledge and at least a bachelor's degree.”
Intent (are you planning to switch immigrant visa later) and status (immigrant/non-immigrant) are two different things. Visas like B1 are non-immigrant and require that you are not intending to abandon your foreign residence. In practice that means that when you enter US you cannot be planning to apply for immigrant visa. H1B is also non-immigrant visa, but it is dual intent visa meaning it doesn't have that requirement and thus it's fine to enter even if you intent to apply for GC. You can even exit and re-enter after submitting your application.
> In practice that means that when you enter US you cannot be planning to apply for immigrant visa.
You are correct about this.
> H1B is also non-immigrant visa, but it is dual intent visa meaning it doesn't have that requirement
You're incorrect about this. The concept of "dual intent" doesn't exist in the Immigration and Naturalization Act. It was created by executive fiat. H1Bs, like other non-immigrant visas, still requires non-immigrant intent. It's different only that it has two carve-outs:
Subsection (b) excludes H1Bs from the "presumption" of immigrant intent that applies to other categories of aliens. Subsection (h) provides that applying for permanent residency "shall not constitute evidence of an intention to abandon a foreign residence" for H1Bs.
So H1Bs must still have non-immigrant intent. It's just that they are carved out of certain presumptions that would automatically establish immigrant intent, which would lead to denial of their visa. It gives the executive flexibility to essentially look the other way when an H1B applies for a green card. But it doesn't confer any legal rights* onto the H1B. The administration can at any time decide that you actually have immigrant intent and yank your visa.
You're not actually wrong, but your phrasing makes it sound like that somehow excuses this travesty of justice.
I can only assume that's accidental. You're the 17th most active person on HN, so I'm certain you've seen an overwhelming amount of evidence of how skilled immigrants are immensely beneficial to the US economy.
The H-1B is not the only path to a green card. There are many ways, every case is different, and pretty much all of the paths suck, even if you do everything right.
This decision only makes all of those paths worse.
> evidence of how skilled immigrants are immensely beneficial to the US economy.
That's irrelevant. "Justice" means following the rules. Congress gets to decide the immigration laws. Congress has never created a real system for skilled permanent immigrants. The term "H1B" actually comes from 8 USC 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(B).
Subsection (a)(15) literally defines the term "immigrant" to exclude people in the subsequent subsections, including (H)(i)(b). Subsection (a)(15)(H)(i)(b) then reiterates that the category is for someone "who is coming temporarily to the United States to perform services." Congress didn't hide the ball.
Everyone who has applied for an "adjustment of status" is following the rules. It's literally a procedure you submit to USCIS.
People who have done everything by "following the rules" are now seeing the US backpedal on what was promised to them via an administrative memo published by USCIS at the behest of the president—not through new legislation enacted by Congress.
I don't know where you're getting your information from, but it's factually incorrect.
And as someone else said, "justice" does not mean following the law. That's the definition of "legal".
It's important to anchor these topics at a certain level of understanding of Law and Economics to discuss optimal policy, otherwise we'll just talk past each other with uninformed political views.
Your information is factually incorrect. You're confusing the USCIS procedures for the actual law. The current H1B to green card pipeline was never much more than "an administrative memo" to begin with.
Read 8 USC 1101, specifically subsections (a)(15) & (a)(15)(H)(i)(B). The statute classifies H1Bs among the "nonimmigrant aliens," and states that the category is for someone "who is coming temporarily to the United States to perform services." Does that sound to you like it was mean to be a pathway to permanent residency?
There was never a "promise" in the law. Instead, there were a set of USCIS practices and procedures that amounted to nothing more than writing down what USCIS was currently doing. But USCIS never had authority to turn what Congress created as a temporary worker program into a permanent path to citizenship.
I'm sympathetic to people who put their eggs in the H1B basket. As an immigrant, how are you supposed to understand constitutional law and limits on executive power? But the fact is that the modern H1B regime was created almost entirely by executive fiat and it can be undone by executive fiat as well. (All the 1990 Act did was undo some presumptions but left the executive free to decide at any time that an H1B has immigrant intent, which is a basis for visa revocation.)
My information is perfectly correct. I think you, as a layman, seem to be understanding the Law as being identical to the US Code, somehow ignoring the fact that rules and regulations, as well as case law, are also primary sources of Law in the United States. Here's from the first hit on Google for "Sources of US Law"
> The four sources of federal and state law are (1) constitutions, (2) statutes and ordinances, (3) rules and regulations, and (4) case law.
This amounts to much more than "writing down what USCIS was currently doing". This is a specific source of law. These regulations are legally binding as Congress has authorized the agency to issue them.
There's also plenty of case law from USCIS-related adjudicative reviews, meaning specific precedents set by judges who hear cases related to immigration.
After reflecting on your comment, I hope you're not trying to force an argument that any person who's requested an adjustment of status is somehow illegally present in the country, because that would be woefully incorrect.
I also don't appreciate the patronizing remark that I somehow fail to grasp the facts because I'm an immigrant.
I'm not sure why you think people who were born outside of the borders of the United States of America do not understand how liberal democracies work.
Do you actually think immigrants have no concept of constitutional law and limits on executive power? Do you think that knowledge is somehow protected by a magic seal that prevents me from ever obtaining it? Or do you think other countries do not have constitutions or a system of checks and balances? Do you know how many years I've spent studying nations in general and the US specifically? Do you know how many comparative studies I've written? Do you even know what my specific qualifications and degrees are? And I can do this in 5 different languages.
You're way out of your depth and your bias is showing.
Not an expert but I'm pretty sure that constitution > statutes and ordinances > rules and regulations. Meaning that USCIS must follow the intent of the law when publishing regulations. In the case of H1B the law is clear that it gives a specific status of temporary worker distinct to the immigrant status. USCIS itself acknowledges it:
The hierarchy of the law does not preclude USCIS from providing a path to adjust status while in the US. Nothing in the constitution or any statute or ordinance prohibits that.
The H-1B is not "the first step" in a Green Card process. That's why there's an adjustment of status!
You go from non-immigrant to immigrant status and it's not a foregone conclusion. The requirements for the Green Card are entirely different from the H-1B. It's a separate process, with its own rules, fees, timelines.
The "adjustment of status" is simply a way for workers and their families to remain in the US legally while the green card process runs its course, instead of requiring them to uproot their existence (which at that point is often in the 7-10+ year range, if they studied here before the H-1B). Why would we want people to leave and quit their jobs and _then_ give them a green card? They will be in a worse position to contribute to the economy then.
These people pay thousands or millions in taxes and take nothing back. Making their transition to permanent resident smooth is in the interest of every American.
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
This sounds quite non-sensical. The statutory pathway is employment based immigrant visas (EB 1 through 5). I don't get why you bring up H-1B into the discussion. If you are looking for congressional intent for this H-1B->EB AOS path, Congress passed AC21 precisely to address this path.
Typing this from behind a VPN proxy, just in case but...
Does anyone know if this mean that I as a US citizen, who has a spouse who has already applied/submitted their application (but has been waiting while the government drags its feet on it for over half a year), will now need to say goodbye? Things were already getting blurry when we moved quickly to get things in when we saw the winds in 24....
IANAL. Seek legal advice. I hope you have an immigration attorney. I honestly think that in this administration, no case should be submitted without an attorney. DIY filing is incredibly risky.
What matters here is how your spouse entered the country, what visa they are on, how soon you got married after they entered the country, their entire immigration history and whether or not they've accured any unlawful presence.
It seems like people who are on so-called "immigrant intent" visas (eg L1, H1b) might still be able to ordinarily adjust in the US. What this will affect (if it isn't struck down) is people who entered on a visitor's visa or a student visa (both of which are not dual-intent) and then got married and filed for adjustment. Those people might be forced to consular process if this stands. People who have already filed when this memo was released might still be able to adjust. We really don't know until this gets tested in court.
But interestingly there are work visas that aren't dual-intent (eg TN, E3). Those people may not be able to adjust with consular processing if this stands. That's a big change. It may force them to adjust to an H1B first.
There does appear to be a limited walk back for dual intent visa holders (H1B and L1)
“A spokesperson for US Citizenship and Immigration Services, however, told Semafor that H1-B visa holders and high-skilled workers might not be affected in the near term.”
It basically means a huge percentage of these people might never come back. Once you go back to your home country, life moves on. Your plans change. Your path changes. And that could be terrible for the economy.
Hundreds of thousands of people either wouldn’t enter the local economy, or they’d be delayed for a very long time. I really don’t see companies being okay with that. Think about all the students who are ready to enter the job market. Instead, they’d have to go back home, wait for a visa, and only then come back. That kills the speed of the economy and makes hiring way more unpredictable.Or at the very least, it would seriously slow things down.
I had 10 years of work experience and had been married to my wife for two years, together for five, when I applied for my spousal visa. We had already gone through the UK visa process to bring her there, but decided we wanted to try the USA.
Despite being able to show 10 years of consistent working history with income far exceeding the minimum, because I didn’t have a job lined up in the US (who would, or could, in that scenario?) we had to ask my wife's elderly parents to sign affidavits of support to prove I wouldn’t become a "public charge".
There were several times where we felt so insulted by the process, the length, the cost, the targeting from scammy law firms, that we almost gave up. People who have never been through the legal immigration process don't quite understand the amount of work it requires and stress it causes. I feel for the thousands of people who now have little certainty over their futures, and it feels necessary to say: people who come here to contribute their skills and experience don't all come along on an H1-B/L1, nor do they only come from white or european countries.
A green card is NOT a visa my friend. Getting a green card is a very involved process.
So why would you need to leave the country, if you couldn't figure out why you don't want to issue one in the year+ it takes to jump through the hoops
Just a fun fact, getting a green card means signing up for ten YEARS of tax liabilities in the US. And those 10 years start, AFTER you relinquished it...
"Green card" literally refers to US permanent residency cards; it's called that because the physical cards issued by the US are/were green. "Other contexts" are riffing on actual green cards as a metaphor, and if speakers in other contexts want to talk about legal specificities, they should use an accurate term...
OK so apparently when you file for an IR-1 visa, the IR-1 is the sticker they put in your passport that gets you into the country. But once you get the card, it replaces the visa. So the card is not the visa.
Today I learned. Before this thread, I was under the same impression as bluesea.
Correct and it's a typical process for many countries. You get a visa so you can stay past the tourist time (often 90 days and with an intent to apply for residency), and then while in country you apply for residency (the green card). One of the issues in the US is the process can take so long you end up overstaying your visa. Logically you should be able to extend the visa or the gov. shouldn't care since it's their fault it's taking so long. But, it's better for one side to simply declare these people illegal.
The equivalent of greencard in most countries (permanent residency) usually requires that you're in the country, not outside, and the process is heavily reliant on you being present in country and able to show history of legal (temporary) residence.
The majority of people granted greencards are family/relative sponsored who apply outside the US. Only in the past 15 years have employee sponsored greencards surged, most of whom have temporary visas.
I think it's more like: the US is the most generous country in the world regarding immigration, funding global health, funding global defence, funding global aid, but Europeans and others (including a lot of the young American left) talk about it as though it's the worst country in the world. So why bother, when you can just spend your money on your own citizens the way most countries do and fund loads of internal benefits?
Because I think we've been generous because we recognize the benefits that come to us for being so generous. Proper generosity recognizes that the other's well-being relates to our well-being.
For example, giving funding to USAID to try to stop the spread of Ebola helps people in DRC, Uganda, and other countries directly affected, but can also help the US not have Ebola spread here.
Helping Mexico improve their economy can help people in Mexico not immigrate to the US.
I believe our generosity also benefits us much more than we can see when our perspective collapses and we see life from fewer and fewer dimensions. And I think we can collapse into the "us vs them" mindset that so many others have collapsed into or we can go the other direction and realize it's "us with them" and then we look at generosity differently.
It's unfortunate, by and large the republican voters seem to have looked at the wreckage of the USSR and the continual looting and decline in quality of life that countries like Russia are enjoying under a kleptocratic regime, and they took their fingers out of their collective noses for just long enough to say "yeah I want that for here!".
Not really, voters didn't want this, and they hate it when they are told what's happening. The media silently accepted Trump's lie at face value when he said he knew nothing about Project 2025, despite anybody with half a brain realizing it was a lie. Reporters acted like they had less than half a brain, so that they wouldn't get bopped on their nose by their editors, who in turn were already bowing down to Trump.
The "faction" lied about their intentions in order to be elected. That in itself isn't uncommon, but what is uncommon is the degree to which it lied. Most Republican voters, when told about the actual policies being implemented by elected Republicans, don't believe the reports, and assume that nobody would be enacting such stupid policy. Yet the voters keep voting for them.
"1. SEAL THE BORDER, AND STOP THE MIGRANT INVASION"
"2. CARRY OUT THE LARGEST DEPORTATION OPERATION IN AMERICAN HISTORY"
You're acting like Trump's immigration policy was buried in some "Project 2025" whitepaper nobody has ever read.
Also, his immigration policy remains popular. According to Harvard-Harris, "Deporting all immigrants who are here illegally" remains above water at 55% support (including 33% of Democrats), 45% oppose: https://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/HHP... (p. 26)
The implication for Trump and his constituency is that this only applies to brown people. White people are, naturally, not immigrants, even when they are. That's why 100% of the examples Trump would use would be of brown people.
Yes they did. Of course they didn't want to be targeted themselves, but the rhetoric was very explicit about what would happen, and they already had a preview of it in 2016 and voted even more favorably for this regime this time around.
> The media silently accepted Trump's lie at face value when he said he knew nothing about Project 2025
Not true. The media was very vocal about it, and it was obvious that he was on board with it.
> Most Republican voters, when told about the actual policies being implemented by elected Republicans, don't believe the reports, and assume that nobody would be enacting such stupid policy.
This isn't true. The recent ouster of Thomas Massie is a clear example of this. However, even if that were true, Republican voters still overwhelmingly prefer this to the alternative (Democrats), and polls show this today.
> Yet the voters keep voting for them.
Indeed. Not sure how you can acknowledge this but somehow believe it's not what the voters want.
There is no contradiction between the points made so far. His base loves it and the majority of americans do not. He won by a marginal victory just like in 2016. The current system favors the Rs and the Rs have worked to gerrymander every state they've controlled since 2010, and they've used everything in their power since the obama years to make sure they control the courts. Poll after poll shows americans don't like Trump (or Biden for that matter or the Democrats) but because of the moment in 2024, Trump took a marginal victory and consolidated power, which Democrats never could do and never wanted to do.
The simple statement that none of this is what voters want if we're talking about a majority of them is just true. To say otherwise is to be ignorant of history since the 90s and the Rs under Newt Gingrich to this day, and how effectively as a party they've consolidated power in America. I'm not really saying it's evil or smart or anything (I do think it was smart and bold). But, polls do consistently show a majority of Americans have never been so pessimistic about the country and their leadership in both parties.
I don’t agree that even engaged republicans actually know what’s going on. In my experience some of them are the most hoodwinked - they literally believe that all the immigrants being detained are criminals, that everyone sent to CECOT was a terrorist, that DACA recipients have all been allowed to get green cards and just not bothered to, etc.
First, you're making a big logical error by replacing "voters" with "Republican voters" or the even more narrow, extreme, and unrepresentative group of "Republican primary voters".
If people knew they were voting for Project 2025, why would Trump disavow any connection to it during the campaign? It doesn't make any sense.
> Republican voters still overwhelmingly prefer this to the alternative (Democrats), and polls show this today.
Republican voters care less about policy than about the team. Take key Democratic policies, and present them in polls without the Democratic label, and Republicans support them. Add in the label and they don't support them.
It's not hard to understand that politics is mostly treated as sports-team affiliation these days.
Republicans don't vote for Republicans because of policies, they vote for Republicans because they identify as Republicans.
And, claiming that the Massie vote, of just the extreme primary voters, represents the public's will? That's ridiculous. Massie still got something like 45% of the vote, among that extreme and unrepresentative bloc of voters, after Trump going hard after Massie for trying to release the Epstein files.
The Massie vote is about extremist Republican's subservience to Trump, not about whether anybody actually likes policies. People despise Trump's Epstein coverup.
Because the industrialization of America is over, and has been for decades. USA doesn't need low-wage, immigrant workers anymore. The railroads have already been built, the fields have been plowed, and now that's all done by big automated machines. Everything that cheap workers used to do that was valuable is now automated.
Who does the farming? Who does the cleaning? Who builds the buildings? Who are the line cooks? That should be obvious.
But it should be just as obvious that there are plenty of immigrants who are also necessary because they bring new ideas, their education, their incredible work ethic, to fill in the gaps that the US clearly has.
There is one thing that unites all of us (and I do mean us, as I am one of them). We all dream of a society where our hard work can become prosperity for ourselves and for everyone else, a plot of fertile soil that is worth sowing. We all come here with a dream.
And I personally don't mind so much that I'm uplifting people that don't agree with my existence. I just wish that they could stay out of our way so we could all benefit.
I think there are many jobs Americans have decided the just don’t want to do - at a large scale. That said many do.
There is a completely different dynamic with job shops like wipro and others sponsoring “high skilled visas” which are only used to undercut certain labor markets.
I'm not against tightening up the constraints to prevent what becomes indentured servitude dressed up in red, white, and blue. That doesn't help the American people or those who carry within them the American dream. But fixing that is not everyone's actual intent, and that does really bother me.
And your point? The US has an issue where at a certain price point labor has no interest. Reality is that is multiplied if it actually requires real work in a field, rudimentary construction, etc.
This is not a visa issue, but one we solve with illegal labor and visas.
The real solution is visas and making those that done want to work and sponge off social services, actually work.
My kiddo graduates soon, her baby daddy owes $75k in back child support - say 7 years. He’s talented enough to make $150+ wood working. Refuses to do anything because the man/etc. Branch not far from tree.
I’d love to turn a POS like him in such that someone equally talented and wants to contribute can, take a percentage. The person gets a visa, the dead beat gets servitude. No take on the servitude just taxes maybe going off to pay the debt.
The US is a land of opportunity, but also a land of a bunch of idiots that are entitled.
I don't know anything about that situation, but it sounds difficult and I'm sorry that it's happening to your loved ones. I'm not sure you can make someone work if they don't care to, though. Like, take the common example of debtors having their driver's licenses suspended for their debt. Is that really helping anyone? They certainly won't be any closer to paying it off.
I can't disagree with your final assertion there, but there's really very little you can do besides offer greater incentives that get people to genuinely want to work. And I know there's not a market for that and that the rich are keeping the purse strings tight. So it goes.
Whoa there. What's wrong with "undercutting labor markets"? Last I heard, when a profession (e.g. doctors) decides to limit the number of practicioners in order to charge a higher price to the public, that's a bad thing. It benefits the people currently employed in that profession now, but it hurts others who wants to join, and it hurts the public who wants to get the service (e.g. healthcare). The sum of hurt is greater than the sum of help. Cartels are harmful; they don't stop being harmful just because there are borders involved.
I mean, it's one thing if you think immigrants commit more crimes or use more taxpayer money. These are both false, but at least the argument could hypothetically work. But if you say that even perfectly law-abiding, non-welfare-using, good-work-performing hypothetical immigrants shouldn't be allowed in because they would "undercut labor markets", that's plain nonsense. Such nice hypothetical immigrants should be invited in large numbers and everyone would win from it.
If someone has no specials skills beyond what a current citizen college grad has, why is there a need for that individual to have an H1 or related visa? Many visas get issued to people that take the equivalent of a University of Phoenix degree.
Without immigration an imminent depopulation crisis is on its way to America.
We are actually blessed to be in demand as an immigration destination as well as a culture and infrastructure uniquely set up for it.
Squandering that advantage to satisfy xenophobic ideology is yet another demonstration of the Republican Party’s lack of fiscal responsibility. See also: completely random war in Iran, ICE budget increases spent on kicking out taxpayers/customers, tax cuts for billionaires, the current record high budget deficit, $1.8 billion fund for Trump brownshirts, etc.
To be honest, the depopulation crisis is not something we are likely to be able to stop in the long term. But curtailing immigration certainly won't help, and the US would be uniquely positioned as an immigration destination to weather the storm of rapid depopulation better than other countries if it continued its status as an immigration center.
Recommended reading:
After the Spike: Population, Progress, and the Case for People
Or really any other book on the subject, I'm not married to that one, it's not a perfect book it's just one that's easy to find because of the distinctive cover.
I don't care to get into talking about Israel. It's a country with the population of Ohio, so if it's an anomaly, it's an anomaly. The only discussion I can get into that country is going to get distasteful.
You're putting the cart in front of the horse. If the US economy didn't need low-wage immigrant workers, we wouldn't be complaining about them in the first place, because they would've gone somewhere else where the jobs are.
The fact they're coming the US literally means its economy needs them.
Of course we could all wax philosophical and say "Nobody needs a Frappuccino every other day, we just want it," but then nobody needs to live in a prosperous economy anyway.
There's always work available if someone is asking for a low enough wage, that should be self-evident. How does this prove that the population at large benefits from more people being willing to work for low wages?
Classical economics would argue that higher population tends to increase productivity (economies of scale and specialization) while lowering wages, increasing land value, and improving returns on capital. Free trade has a very similar effect. You can find this analysis in all standard texts (Smith, Riccardo, etc) and even progressive works such as Progress and Poverty by Henry George.
Different groups are free to have different opinions of this tradeoff. Big landowners benefit immensely while working class renters only suffer.
> The fact they're coming the US literally means its economy needs them.
Not necessarily. As just one example, it could mean one of their family immigrated for a well paying job, and now they want their parents, or other family, to join them and they don’t have skills in a high paying industry.
The presence of low income wage earners does not, by force of nature nor economics, require them.
Having said that, I tend to against minimum wage policy.
I wish i could ill find the video, the farms in CA certainly do need labor. In the 90s when there was another - people south of the border are taking jobs bs - an interview er asked people waiting for for support at a welfare office in Salinas (lots of farms) offering jobs in the fields. Unanimous nope.
They are needed and often do more than those that are citizens.
Remove, or at least tighten the requirements, for welfare.
Your argument seems to be the equivalent of: if the (illegal? surely some of them) immigrants could get welfare they also wouldn’t do those jobs.
As welfare increases to the point where it starts to competes with jobs, it seems sensible to expect welfare will compete with jobs. Especially when you take in to consideration the expenses welfare recipients don’t incur as a result of not having to attend the workplace nor dress for such.
Low quality bait comment, cherry picking a few kids of well educated well-off immigrants who turned out to be rockstars growing up under the exceptional US economic conditions. It's called the exception, not the rule. If those kids were to grow up in some underdeveloped country, none of them would have achieved anything noteworthy which proves the US itself and the conditions it offers is the secret sauce, not immigrants alone by themselves.
Also, some people on your list are absolute red flags I would rather not have in my country, which is proving my point that good border controls and strict visas are essential.
It’s amazing how close and how far you are at understanding my point simultaneously.
Without committing to some wildly contradictory logic, the xenophobic political party in charge of this country cannot be simultaneously in favor of mass deportations, denaturalization, and generally closing the borders while being against denaturalizing and deporting Melania Trump and Elon Musk for obvious visa violations. There is also contradiction in the way the right wing has gotten cozy with big tech companies run by immigrants who entered the country on the H1B visa they demonize so fervently.
Just imagine the outcry if Obama was from South Africa and was standing behind the president's desk talking about how he's running a new illegal government agency.
Nah, there was just more economic activity to draw people in. By every other measure it’s been more hostile than average.
But you are right that it is ending, just wrong about what: it’s the high economic activity that attracted people which is disappearing thanks to the same people that hate migrants.
> By every other measure it’s been more hostile than average.
I'm not sure there's a "just" here: compared to peer countries, the US is either middle-of-the-pack[1] or significantly more accepting of immigrants[2] depending on which number you pick.
(This isn't to somehow imply that the US isn't hostile to its immigrants, because it is. But the question is whether it's more hostile.)
The parent post says it’s the high economic activity that attracted people even though the US has been more hostile than average by every other measure.
So it's as if the US was a honeypot with a flyswatter.
By the way, your [2] is useless to prove your point: you can't compare absolute numbers (for instance Iceland vs the US).
I don’t think I agree that it’s hostile by every other measure. The US’s immigration system is cruel and capricious, but assimilating into the US seems to be a lot easier than, for example, France or Germany. The US is unusual among its peer countries in not requiring immigrants to speak the “official” language fluently, in accepting public displays of ethnic or religious background that aren’t ambiently European Christian, etc.
(Again, I must emphasize that this does not make the US good. Only that the bar is perhaps lower than people who are assimilated into any particular country may realize.)
I would suggest that the proper metric is not the number of immigrants, which after all the parent commentator implied would be the case because of higher economics drawing them in, but a combination of the following
1. the amount of violence directed against immigrants legally allowed in by governmental forces.
2. the chance of legally allowed in immigrants will have immigration status changed without due process.
3. what percentage of Immigrants fear that 1 or 2 will happen to them.
I believe these two conditions seem to exist in the United States currently, although not sure how many immigrants it affects.
I am unsure if there are other countries that have a similar situation, I would expect if there are they must be relatively few in number.
The closest type of situation would be, I suppose, racial oppression focused on particular groups that have become undesirable according to a country's government.
Sorry but this is just patently untrue. Are you American? Because in my experience, most Americans just don't realize how arbitrary and capricious the US immigration system is.
Pick any other developed country and the process is generally fairly simple. With some you can just apply for a temporary work visa (possibly without a job) or just apply to immigrate. If you stay in many places long enough on a temporary visa you pretty much get residency and ultimately citizenship.
Beyond what's possible, the time frames for doing anything with US immigration is ridiculously long. Like if you, as a US citizen marry someone overseas it can take upwards of 4 years to get a green card for your spouse and they won't be able to visit the US at all in that time. Why? Because filing a marriage petition means you've shown "immigrant intent" so you'll never get a visit visa (B1/B2) again. Also, the president may well just ban your country from getting any visa. 75 countries are currently on that list.
It's also incredibly easy to make a mistake at some point in the process and that may end up getting an approvable case denied or, worse, you end up with an improvidently granted benefit that cannot be repaired, even if it was an honest mistake.
That is for a different scenario. It means that if you already have a residence permit, you have to wait 8 years before you can apply for citizenship. OP is talking about marriage green card. For 75% of cases in Sweden it is less than 15 months to get a residence permit.
Funnily, I had a German friend complain about this change and then I came across this Reddit thread.
Many European countries actually adopt a similar policy. Off the top of my head, the Netherlands requires those who want to become a resident to obtain an MVV visa from a consulate abroad, even if you are already in the Netherlands legally, except for a small list of allied countries.
Germany also has similar rules, forbidding short stay individuals from becoming a long-term resident without interviewing abroad. It also ensures that any individuals who are denied are already abroad, without the need to enforce their departure.
That’s not true. Germany explicitly allows you to stay in the country to transition from a temporary visa to long term.
> However, the law provides several exceptions where you can apply for the new residence title while staying in Germany with your current permit. These exceptions allow a switch from a temporary purpose (like studies) to a more permanent one
These timelines are wildly optimistic. Boundless is selling a service and I'd recommend nobody actually uses it because you're really paying for nothing. Things like "you are responsible for the information you provide". Part of the reason you get an immigration attorney is to identify likely issues, go with you for your interview, know when (or even if) to apply for an immigration benefit and to put their name as the preparer (ie putting their reputation and career on the line for their advice).
Boundless seems like knowing a guy in the neighbourhood who helps you fill out immigration forms, typically called "notarios". Some will call themselves "paralegals" without working for an actual lawyer. It's a scammy business.
So here's the general process.
1. Petitioner (US citizen or LPR) files an I130 and I130A for their overseas spouse. That requires a lot of documentation to prove your status, that it's a bona fide marriage, biographic information for your spouse, proof that you're both free to marry (ie evidence of previous marriages and that you're divorced/single);
2. USCIS spends 12-15 months processing this. It then gets sent to the National Visa Center ("NVC") who spend another 3+ months looking at the documents, after which you're "documentarily qualified" ("DQ");
3. At this point, your foreign spouse can now make an appointment with an embassy or consulate for an immigrant visa interview. Depending on their country this may be realtively quick (within 1-2 months) or really long (12+ months);
4. The foreign spouse will need to get a medical exam done to check for vaccines, communicable diseases (eg TB), etc. This has to be done within a certain period of the interview;
5. The interview happens and the officer asks whatever they want to ask. If it's approved, your pay the fee and your passport is stamped. You're given a packet to hand over to CBP when you enter the US. It can be denied. The officer may ask for more information, which can add months of delay. Or it can go into a limbo called "admin processing";
6. The spouse travels to the US and is now a permanent resident, assuming CBP lets them in (they have discretion not to btw). You may then have to wait for months for your green card and you're waiting for that to get your SSN so you can work, get a bank account, get on a lease, etc.
It's more realistic to say this will take 2-2.5 years and maybe take 4+. In that entire time the foreign spouse won't get any kind of visa to visit the US so if you want to be with your spouse, you need to live in another country or visit often for a very long time.
So how can go wrong? Lots of ways. Here's a non-exhaustive list:
1. The foreign spouse's entire immigration history is under scrutiny. If they visited their then partner(before getting married) and didn't tell the embassy or CBP about that, it can raise misrep[resentation] issues. and may just cause delays;
2. If they've ever applied for a visa and been denied, this too will be scrutinized;
3. Ideally you only need a police report for the country you live in (to prove no criminal history) and that's relatively easy to get. It might not be. Or you may need it for a bunch of countries if you've lived in multiple over the previous 5 years;
4. USCIS gets to decide where your interview is going to be. Prior to this administration, that could be where you were living. For example, if you were from Mali but living and working in the UK, then you could schedule it in the UK. Now the administration has decided you must be interviewed in your country of birth. If that country has no US embassy (eg Afghanistan) then maybe your country of residence can be used or it might be a country neighbouring your country of birth;
5. What if you applied for asylum from that country? Let's say you are from belarus but claimed (and received) asylum in the UK. You might spend a year trying to tell USCIS that you can't travel to Belarus for your interview;
6. How did the US citizen (or LPR) get their green card? Was it through marriage? This is what USCIS calls a "pivot case" and they view it harshly, particularly if, for example, a Ghana man was married in Ghana, travelled to the US, got divorced in the US, married a US citizen, got citizenship themselves, got divorced and then married somebody else from Ghana. USCIS is increasingly taking the position that this may well be immigration fraud, arguing the man had multiple wives, the divorce was a sham and the second spouse was their spouse all along. It's up to you to prove that's not the case. In this administration that can lead to revocation of their green card or even denaturalization;
7. Was the foreign spouse ever in a cultural or religious marriage? This gets real tricky because what counts as "married" and "divorced" varies by country and, depending on the country, can be hard to prove. Also, some countries have a lot of falsified divorce decrees (eg Nigeria). This can add months as you have to prove they were free to marry;
8. The president may come along and decide to ban visa issuance to your foreign spouse's country. USCIS seemingly takes the broadest definition of this. So if you were born in one of those countries OR have ever had citizen, you're covered by the ban. There's no judicial recourse for this, thanks to Trump v. Hawaii. If so, you're just in limbo probably until Trump leaves office;
9. The black hole after the interview can be "administrative processing". This can mean anything. It can mean something as simple as "we don't like this case". IIRC I heard that 85% of cases in admin processing ultimately get approved but the case may sit in limbo for years and may take a court challenge to resolve it;
10. If you end up taking too long after your interview, your medical exam may expire and you have to do it again. Hopefully the embassy officer asks you for an updated copy but they don't have to be that nice;
11. Between the interview and coming to the US things can happen that USCIS or CBP argue are of material interest. Maybe you get charged with something, even if it's just a traffic offense. You might not fill out the forms correctly. You might not even be aware of it. It might not stop USCIS or CBP making a big deal out of it; and
12. CBP can arbitrarily decide to deny you entry at a port-of-entry even with a valid immigrant visa stamp in your passport for pretty much any reason.
I dare you to find any marriage immigration benefit that's as capricious, arbitrary, time-consuming, restrictive and Byzantine as the US system.
Sweden is a white hegemony, the US is not and has never been. It's not a fair comparison when the US has literally always been composed of immigrants.
If you want a white hegemony, move to goddamn Sweden and leave us alone. That's not the US and to suggest otherwise is anti-American and ahistorical. If you clearly hate what this country stands for, then please do yourself and everyone else a favor and leave. Jesus Christ.
As I recall, we had to drive to the US border and turn around to "enter Canada" to process our landed immigrant letters. That was a while ago, so it's possible that there is more involved now... Was curious as they asked about our stuff and car(s), and we pointed out "at home, in Canada" which got a smile.
Canada requires you to (re)enter under your newly granted status in some circumstances, but that is entirely different from requiring you to leave the country before you can apply for a change of status, and to remain outside of the country while the application is processed. I was free to come and go from Canada as a temporary visitor while I waited to get my PR, and I had the option of applying from within the country as a non resident as well, with some caveats.
Indeed, but there are counterexamples as well. In the UAE you enter as a tourist and get a resident visa while you're there. They take away your passport for at least a couple of weeks so you can't leave either.
Simila in Ireland: you are not allowed to seek work while in Ireland on a holiday visa, you can only apply for work permissions/visas from outside the country, and depending on the type of visa you get (general work vs critical skills), your spouse might have to wait a year before they can join you.
Sure, but AFAIK a green card is more like indefinate leave to remain: it's not a visa as such, but a thing you can apply for after you have already lived in the country for some amount of time (on a visa of some other form, generally one which allows you to legally stay for the required time in the country) which gives the right to stay permanently. So it doesn't make a lot of sense to require leaving the country to apply first.
I see, that is different indeed, and rather silly to force you to apply from abroad!
Seems like it's a ploy to get all the undesirables out of the country, then it's "oops your application was denied, or it takes years to be approved, you can't come back. Sorry not sorry!"
Green card is completely independent of whether you're in the US. You can get one without ever having set foot in the US, and you can live in the country for 15+ years and still not be able to get one.
Note - I immigrated to Ireland from the US and went through the visa process (including huddling in the cold in January at 4 AM at burgh quay, and years later, writing a scraper for their insanely bad appointment system that managed to actually be worse than huddling in the cold)
It's pretty normal not to be able to look for work on a tourist visa in most countries - are you suggesting this is unusual? As far as spouses, they used to have an incredibly asinine system where they told you your spouse _could_ work, without sponsorship, if they got a special form, but getting this form was de facto impossible. It was a very Irish approach, in retrospect. The campaign to fix this was, eventually, successful. (https://reformstamp3.wixsite.com/home)
Fwiw I’ve seen confused or misleading posters reply to this change with statements along the lines of ‘this only means that they don’t allow tourist to apply for greencards in the country’.
Which is nonsense, it applies to all non immigrant visas such as work visas. But it’s a line you’ll see various people try to claim as if this isn’t devastating to every spouse of a us citizen who now can’t get a greencard without leaving their us based job and family.
How is this the same? You can't apply for a green card on a holiday/tourist/non-working visa. You have to be already in the country for many years before you can do that.
> Despite being able to show 10 years of consistent working history with income far exceeding the minimum, because I didn’t have a job lined up in the US (who would, or could, in that scenario?) we had to ask my wife's elderly parents to sign affidavits of support to prove I wouldn’t become a "public charge".
This seems entirely reasonable. You had as much time as you could have liked to apply for jobs after deciding to try the USA. Fortunately you were able to take advantage of an alternative that didn’t require that.
I’m not really sure what you were going for writing that. You think 10 years working in country A should entitle you to a work permit from country B?
> nor do they only come from white or european countries.
Why should that matter? If country B decides to only allow white and / or Europeans to apply to live and work in country B, that is entirely fair. It’s not people-from-outside-country-B’s privilege to decide what country B does or doesn’t do.
> people who come here to contribute their skills and experience don't all come along on an H1-B/L1, nor do they only come from white or european countries.
But out of the pool of people who come from poor countries, who don't have jobs lined up in the U.S, and aren't here on a skilled worker visa, a large fraction of them will end up relying on welfare benefits.
Family-based visas are a huge loophole in U.S. If you look at most of the immigrant ghettos in the country, they're fueled by family reunification. In my own extended family we have several people, who came here based on my dad's sponsorship, who are a drain on the government. (The sponsorship commitment is basically never enforced.)
The uncertainty is one of the main reasons why I didn't bother to go the F1->H1B route and ended up leaving the US again.... but that was a decade ago.
Given the opportunity, at the time, I would have happily taken steps to prove my presence would be of benefit. Instead, I had to spend my time asking family to give me their pension statements.
Later, I was recognized for that potential benefit. Last December, I became a citizen.
1. Citizens have a right to enter at ports of entry, can refuse to hand over social media accounts, etc. Greencard holders are still at the discretion of border officials.
2. Citizens can wander the world and live abroad for however long they fancy and always be allowed to return to their country of citizenship when things go awry. Greencard holders can't do that.
3. Citizens get consular protection, greencard holders don't.
I lived in central Europe for two years. Had to wait in line for 20 hours halfway through my time there to renew my visa, otherwise it wasn't much of an issue.
Actually, if you do something bad enough, your citizenship can be removed. This is true in the US, UK, India, and maybe others. The exact procedures and criteria vary.
If you leave the country for more than 6 months, you need to seek prior approval, and you definitely can lose it. I was on Green Card and when I crossed the border, I was questioned by the customs officer as to why I didn't get my citizenship yet because it was 15 years I was on GC and the point of the GC wasn't to be literally permanent. I quickly got my citizenship after that just in case the same thing happened again.
If you get arrested for a major crime, you can lose your GC but you can only lose your citizenship if you lied or committed fraud at the time of your application, or if you committed treason against the government.
>If you leave the country for more than 6 months, you need to seek prior approval, and you definitely can lose it.
Doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
>If you get arrested for a major crime, you can lose your GC but you can only lose your citizenship if you lied or committed fraud at the time of your application, or if you committed treason against the government.
California and New York are the most famous examples but asking perplexity I got:
As of the current 2026 rules, the states that do not require ID at the polls are: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin, plus Delaware has a special affidavit process if you do not have ID
In some of those locations non-citizens can vote in local elections, like Maryland and San Francisco. Also in some of those locations you get registered by the DMV, like California, and non citizens mistakenly have voted in Federal elections (which is a crime).
Note I am not endorsing the latter as it can come up in future citizenship applications.
There’s the answer I was actually expecting. Yes, in some LOCALITIES, (which “Maryland” is not) non-citizens can vote in things such as school board elections. Voting in any statewide or federal election as a non citizen in any state is still a crime.
Wish granted: You are no longer a citizen because you never "proved you were beneficial". Please remit $100,000 to the Citizenship Payment Service immediately to avoid being downgraded to serfdom. /s
Framing it that way is backwards and anti-democratic. Democratic citizenship is something the government "owes" you because it is imposing control on your life. It is not some kind of magnanimous gift of club membership, you already deserved to have a say in what's being done to you.
That's why most Americans (and their children) have never once been required to "prove" that they are "beneficial", and it's why people the government is controlling in jails are still citizens rather than objects.
I looked it up, and we were required to complete form I-864 "Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the INA". My wife, her grandmother, and her grandfather all needed to complete one, and when considered together, prove that they earned 125% of the HHS poverty guidelines. As my wife didn't have provable income (we were moving together), we needed to dig into their social security income and complete the forms. I remember feeling sad that I needed to ask for such personal information from them.
My salary in the UK was many multiples of this guideline, but _earning potential_ is not considered. Pragmatism is not really a service offered by USCIS, it's too political. To be on-topic: this move will disincentivize smart but not-yet-wealthy people from immigrating to the "land of opportunity". It was already harder than it had to be.
It has always existed, but how strictly it’s interpreted (i.e., just cash welfare, or also Medicaid, SNAP, and other means-tested benefits) has shifted between administrations. If you applied during Biden’s administration, I could believe the public charge rule was applied very laxly, particularly because it’s rare to get direct cash welfare in the US these days, and even less for an extended period.
Whoah. I never had that bit LOL. You got special treatment :) They did an eye test and made me get some vaccination records from when I was a kid.
The craziest bit I found was the GC interview where they test your spousal relationship. Expected questions like "What side of the bed do you sleep on?", "Who takes out the garbage?" -- instead they spent 30 minutes interrogating my wife about the military base she was born on and spent the first 6 months of her life at ("Who was the commanding officer at the time?"). It was like something out of a KGB script.
This is complete nonsense. All other countries, including the UK, Australia and most of Europe has immigration systems that are just as stringent if not more so.
Notably, and very relevant, the UK recently made it substantially harder for UK citizens to bring over spouses to the point that even teachers don't meet the income thresholds necessary to qualify.
Australia is more expensive AND takes longer than the United States for the equivalent spousal visa.
Sorry, which part of my personal experiences was nonsense? Immigration is hard, and yes, I'm aware of challenges in the UK as I moved my spouse over there in 2014. Do you have an experience with immigration that you can speak to?
I think you're responding to a comparison I didn't make. My point wasn't that the US is uniquely difficult compared with the UK or Australia. My point was that legal immigration is difficult, stressful and often misunderstood, including for people who are clearly trying to contribute and follow the rules. I'm aware the UK system has become much harder since I used it, and I'm not disputing that. But "other countries are harder" doesn’t make my experience nonsense.
Your experience wasn't nonsense. Your expectations are nonsense. If you think immigrating to another country should be straightforward and easy, then it's your expectations that are wrong. I also immigrated to the US and it was just as tough, even though I came well before Trump and from Canada.
It should be straightforward and easy to make the application. That doesn't mean that it has to be especially likely that it is approved. There is no reason for it to be so byzantine in any country.
Is the goal here to be the same as others or to be better than others? The US immigration system is far from great at the best of times, but it's becoming worse over time.
It's not an ideal outcome it's a very non-enviable multi-decade process working menial jobs and being at risk of something benign like a traffic stop escalating to imprisonment at any time. This fantasy that illegals are living in luxury is how they boiled the frog on people who "did it the right way." They want to get rid of everyone.
To support your position the official DHS Twitter account tweeted a picture of an island paradise with the caption America after 100 million deportations. There are only an estimated 12M undocumented immigrants a 37M legal immigrants including 23M naturized citizens.
There's too much demand for their labor. You'd have to go after the businesses that hire them in a way that would hurt certain constituents. TPTB have given themselves the Sisyphean task of rounding up enough of them to appease a nativist base that's been riled up with conspiracies about people invading them, but not so many that it would make economic number go down.
Or you can simply move to a country that actually apreciates you and doesnt treat you like unwanted subhuman garbage. We have few in Europe, with QoL and happiness higher than US average, sometimes much higher. Just dont make the mistake of comparing salaries directly, US is massively more expensive if you plan to stay long term (ie healthcare) and/or have kids.
You would also have enough time to actually enjoy life, not just work till death/health issues come in some empty prestige rat race.
> Where else would people get opportunities that could match the United States? I can't think of any country that would even come close.
Isn’t that comparative?
If you are in the EU then the US seems like a holy grail because pay is higher. If you have dual citizenship you can probably avail of the EU safety nets if you had to go back.
If you’re in South East Asia, any EU choice is a huge improvement. Lately there has been strong immigration to Germany for example instead of coming to the US.
After naturalization and giving up my original citizenship, I am a little envious of people with dual citizenship of US + any EU country. It really doesn’t get better than that.
> If you are in the EU then the US seems like a holy grail because pay is higher. If you have dual citizenship you can probably avail of the EU safety nets if you had to go back.
One of the reasons pay in the US is higher is because the EU taxes ordinary people fairly heavily to pay for those social services. But also because of systematic cultural differences between the US and EU that lead to the US having a more dynamic economy that generally pays people more.
> If you’re in South East Asia, any EU choice is a huge improvement. Lately there has been strong immigration to Germany for example instead of coming to the US.
Lately Alternative für Deutschland has been getting a lot of votes in Germany; what kinds of rules (on top of the existing ones) do they think should be in place for people in southeast asia trying to immigrate to Germany?
> Lately Alternative für Deutschland has been getting a lot of votes in Germany; what kinds of rules (on top of the existing ones) do they think should be in place for people in southeast asia trying to immigrate to Germany?
The AfD is in no position to put legislation regarding immigration in place, that is federal law. Nevertheless, southeast asian immigrants are not particularly in the eyes of the public.
> After naturalization and giving up my original citizenship, I am a little envious of people with dual citizenship of US + any EU country. It really doesn’t get better than that.
Depends on whether you actually want to enter the US. If you don't, its citizenship is a burden like no other citizenship: Banks want nothing to do with you and you pay extra taxes that no other nation requires from you. Oh, and should you decide on giving it up - that's cumbersome and costs a bunch of dollars, from what I've heard.
So from someone that at a max would want to visit the US only as a tourist: Having only european citizenship is better than dual european/US citizenship to me.
What is it about the US you enjoy so? As someone who migrated to Europe from another country (and has never had the privilege of visiting the states) I can certainly think of ways I’d imagine America is better, and vice versa, but comfy is a surprising description. Genuinely curious
Well, while it does seem to be changing now, I will tell you the parts I learned to appreciate:
- Great food -- especially if you live anywhere near one of the major metropolitan areas, but holes in the wall are aplenty ( I still remember that one ridiculous medley in SD )
- It is huge -- it is hard to explain to people how big US is, which has its own benefits and drawbacks. The obvious benefit is that if you really don't like somewhere, you pick up your toys and move somewhere else. As an immigrant myself, I appreciate that. Doing route 66 properly will take you more than 2 weeks.
- Shit is designed for the lazy -- there is an obvious diclaimer that goes along with that. The design relies on the lazy to extract as much money as possible, but it is effectively designed to be convenient. I used to hate how wasteful dishwasher is until 1) I used it 2) read up on data supporting the approach
- Access -- Most of everything I possibly want ( though - without going into details - thanks to Trump that has changed somewhat ) as long as I can ship it here
- Vibe -- This may be the hardest to actually ingest unless you spent some time here. It is hard to explain the ability to be excessive should you so desire. I think the closest I can get to explain it is the 'merica meme, which is not so far from reality once you get to a certain point ( as in, if you are really into something, you can absolutely get into some crazy level stuff, which may include and I am just listing random encounters with people here: own a tank, have a pet alligator, ride a doom buggy to work, build an indoor range in your house ). I know it is changing in EU, but I think most excess/hobbies there are kinda.. not limited exactly, but they don't often seem to reach the same level of crazy.
All small things and there is plenty to complain about, but I stand by my comfy. I do not think I would be able to do half the stuff there I did here.
Great food is very relative, we are exposed a lot to French and Italian cuisine and US one... not up to the task to be polite. Quality of ingredients, taste, also portion size.
Its bigger but then there are bigger places. It takes cca 4 days to travel from one side to another, but thats rather meaningless quality. I can hop in a car and be in 30 minutes in France, in 1.5h in Italy (living in Switzerland). I can be in top notch ski resort like Verbier in 1.5h. Thats a positive to me anyhow I look at it. Massive exposition to properly different cultures rather than US mono culture.
I wouldn't call excess a positive, being lazy positive, being deep in comfy/comfort zone an achievement in life, in contrary. But that's up to everybody how they setup their lives.
Everything has a weakness. Everything can be a drawback depending on circumstances. If everything is close means you can never really "get away" from everything; it means everything is condensed and you are effectively forced in a mode of life most Americans instinctively avoid. Is it possible you convinced yourself it is a desired state?
<< Massive exposition to properly different cultures rather than US mono culture.
I personally see this as a severe misunderstanding of US or not having traveled here. Even moving between states, there are massive differences across multiple facets of social reality ( though admittedly, often shaped by local geographical reality ). Utah and New Jersey come to mind -- the is almost nothing about both that aligns beyond maybe existence of tollways there. About the only thing that I can kinda find to support your claim is McDonalds, which is a lone oasis of stability across the continental United States.
edit: FWIW, I wouldn't want to live in France or Italy these days. Maybe Spain. In other words, I think my preferences are showing.
> Or you can simply move to a country that actually apreciates you and doesnt treat you like unwanted subhuman garbage. We have few in Europe, with QoL and happiness higher than US average.
Please don't. Europe has enough ethnic tensions. At least the US is built to be an ethnic melting pot. It's much better to go there.
Ehhhhhh I like Europe, a lot, but when you're in you're 20's or 30's and looking at $300k in SF or €80k in Paris (and better access to investment products and lower taxes in the US to boot), suddenly clocking off at 16:00 on Fridays doesn't seem as nice as being able to retire in your 40's.
300k in SF or NYC is FAR from early retirement unless you live 'frugally' - Manhattan average rents are 5K for 1 bed. You pay city, state and federal tax. Food and alcohol are 30-50 percent higher than Paris. And no one talks about property taxes.
In the US, local and federal taxes plus property taxes are easily 50-60 percent of your income.
Inflation runs higher in NYC than the rest of the country, as well.
> 300k in SF or NYC is FAR from early retirement unless you live 'frugally' - Manhattan average rents are 5K for 1 bed
You don’t have to retire in the US. As others have pointed out, nobody comes here for the lifestyle.
Immigrants like us are literally the holy grail of immigration. Come in during our most productive years, work hard for 10 to 20 years, go back home before you need any of the social and health care stuff you paid into.
Yeah, assuming you don't marry in the US, and don't have kids. But surely, you can think about it in your home country after working 20 of the best years of your life.
You can marry in the US and have kids and still move somewhere else 20 years later. Don’t Americans move to Florida or whatever to retire? If you’re moving that far you can just as well leave the country lol
Of course, but 80k is also on the high-end for Paris jobs as well and buying an apartment in or around Paris is not cheap at all. And most companies in France, even in tech, except maybe the few high-end international ones like FANGS or Mistral and Datadog, explicitly request French language for their workers, whereas English is enough for most US jobs.
I'm EU citizen and looked towards working in France even for the lower wages, but the French language mandates for most jobs are really off putting, even in European companies like Airbus.
Like I'm willing to learn the language, but I'd need at least 2-3 years to get remotely fluent, and it's just not worth the added effort, just for the opportunity to get the average Europoor wages that I can anyway get with just English and my mother tongue anywhere else in EU without any additional effort.
Even in my small Eastern European home town I hear more and more french speakers in the city center every year, and when I talk to them I understand they're all here to study medicine or get junior tech jobs, which is insane to me and speaks volumes on how bad the French jobs market must be for the youth when Eastern Europe is now an immigration hotspot for the french when 20 years ago it was the opposite.
So no, Paris/France is no European SV equivalent, not by a long shot, even by the low European standards. Amsterdam is probably the closest thing to SV the EU has, after London left, but housing and CoL there is insane and even that has significantly fewer VC funding than SV and even London, which highlight just how poor the EU is by comparison to the US at tech funding.
Like I want to get the EU to the top an catch up to the US, but I don't see how that's possible with such limited tech funding and glass ceilings based on having the right nationality and language requirements. EU will never beat the US, at least not in my lifetime.
> Even in my small Eastern European home town I hear more and more french speakers in the city center every year, and when I talk to them I understand they're all here to study medicine or get junior tech jobs, which is insane to me and speaks volumes on how bad the French jobs market must be for the youth when Eastern Europe is now an immigration hotspot for the french when 20 years ago it was the opposite.
It's often mere fiscal arbitrage. Look at the Belgians in Sofia for example. Euro zone, simpler and more stable administration, much cheaper, better climate, good food. Ridiculously lower taxes. Work remotely for Belgian customers. Pay 10% tax instead of 53.5% + 25+% employer social security contributions + 13.07% employee side. Even in a junior position, working for a Belgian client, you are so much cheaper to them while your net income is so much higher.
From personal experience, in Paris 80k would be a very good salary for a senior engineer at a startup with solid funding. AI startups/big tech would pay around 50% more, but those roles are very rare.
Most people would make way less, at big French companies you won't make 80k until late in your career as an IC (they don't have a staff+ track).
So 80k sounds like a decent guess for the top 10-15%.
>And I assume the top 10-15% in Paris is substantially more than 80k?
I don't think that's a good assumption. 80k is rather high for Paris. That's a Google salary at their small office there (or it was when I checked a few years ago). I think the OP's comparison was pretty reasonable.
It's definitely on the high end. Besides the fact that most startup equity ends up being worthless, you can't wait on a four year cliff to pay your rent.
The reality is many people come on temporary visas, as tourists, as students, etc., and overstay. This policy is some attempt to address flows of quasi-legal immigration.
It's unfortunate there's friction to the process, but it's by design. 15% of American citizens and permanent residents are foreign born, the highest it's been in 50+ years, so people are successfully making it through the process. Ideally we'd have better levers to (1) modulate the rate of immigration, (2) simplify the process of legal immigration, and (3) still somehow limiting illegal immigration, quasi-legal immigration, overstays, etc. This is not the ideal solution.
> it feels necessary to say: people who come here to contribute their skills and experience don't all come along on an H1-B/L1
Do people migrate to "contribute their skills" to a foreign country, or to improve their lives? Maybe I'm a cynic, but I suspect the vast majority of people throughout history have migrated to improve their lives, not to altruistically benefit a foreign country. And that's fine, that's normal. It's what motivates people, and the U.S. has a long history of being shaped by ambitious people, especially immigrants, who wanted to improve their lot in life.
> nor do they only come from white or european countries.
I don't know if that's necessary to be said, because who thinks that? In recent decades, 85%-90% of immigrants to the U.S. are not white. >90% if you include undocumented immigrants. The trajectory of America from a white majority to white minority country is fueling at least some of the immigration backlash today. But I think for most people, it's a feeling (right or wrong) that jobs becoming harder to find, houses are becoming harder to afford, and more and more people are competing for fewer resources.
> Do people migrate to "contribute their skills" to a foreign country, or to improve their lives?
I think the two are often linked.
> I don't know if that's necessary to be said, because who thinks that?
Effective January 21, 2026, the Department of State paused all visa issuance to immigrant visa applicants who are nationals of seventy-five countries. The overwhelming majority of the affected countries are not predominantly white and are not European.
Apparently there is no white genocide going on in SA [0], and in farm attacks the victims are quite often black.
Perhaps you can enlighten me on the Zimbabwe situation?
That said, I think the centuries of colonialism and slavery--of which whites in the US greatly benefited--makes this exclusion of immigrants from predominantly brown nations disgusting. Pulling up the ladder, even from some of those who built it for you.
Correct, and it is overall a positive impact. There is marginal increased competition for a limited number of professions, and a meaningful boost to local economies
I used to have a more naive libertarian view, but after the last decade, observing both my countries (US and Sweden), I agree that you need to keep the immigration at a level where they have to adapt to your existing culture, not the opposite.
That said, importing smart engineers and entrepreneurs from the world is so absurdly beneficial for the US that... I can't find words right now.
> have migrated to improve their lives, not to altruistically benefit a foreign country
These are not mutually exclusive. I want a better life, and I also have career ambition and skills that I'm willing to deploy in a place that will give me a better life in return.
Well…your motivation is not altruistic to the host country in that case, it’s selfish.
You want a better life, the country providing it is arbitrary as long as it accepts the currency that you can provide for that better life by your skill set.
If it was altruistic you would emigrate because you believe in the country you are emigrating to even if it meant your life was worse.
> your motivation is not altruistic to the host country in that case, it’s selfish
There is nothing wrong with that. I'm selfish, you're selfish, the government is selfish, everyone in the host country is selfish. It's human nature. We all want good lives. That's the reason a transactional economy exists. It's good for the country's GDP and overall economy to welcome outside talent, and that outside talent enjoys being rewarded for their contributions, and over time, their new place of residence becomes a part of their cultural identity. That's how things usually work.
Not everyone is a saint.
> If it was altruistic you would emigrate because you believe in the country you are emigrating to even if it meant your life was worse.
Reality check: 99% of people would take a better life over a worse life. And there's nothing wrong with that. The entire world is built with this as a base assumption.
Also, reality check: Life in the US kinda sucks unless you have a well-paying skilled job or a lot of money. In either case you'll be contributing to the economy.
I made no claim that selfishness is wrong or altruism is right. Nor did i make any claims as to what life is like in the US—so I don't need any “reality checks” about what your personal beliefs are about life in the US at specific income levels, it’s not relative here. Being poor in the US probably sucks compared to being rich in the US. I am also sure that you can say that about literally every country on this planet.
My comment was about why this was not a “it’s both” type of situation. So just own your motivation for what it is—you emigrate so you can get a better life in a new country than you can get in your old country. That’s honorable enough.
This policy is a further extension of this administration’s public, explicit and frequently repeated goal of ethnic cleansing. Acting like this is a rational policy response to any real problem is ridiculous.
Both the far right and far left throw around accusations of "ethnic cleansing." Both are ridiculous, but considering the U.S. population shifted from 85% white to 55% white in the last few decades, and even today most immigrants come from Mexico, India, China, etc., there really doesn't seem to be much evidence that we're actively trying to limit the flow of non-white people into America. Besides that, there are valid reasons why people want to limit or increase immigration that don't justify hysterical accusations of ethnic cleansing.
Ethic cleansing is something much worse when that race you are "cleansing" is already living there (Israel removing Palestinian from Gaza)
The accusations is just racism. The fact that Trump gave extra fast visas to white South Afrikaans makes you think that there were some racial reasoning there.
In the last decades the whole world is more global.
> The accusations is just racism. The fact that Trump gave extra fast visas to white South Afrikaans makes you think that there were some racial reasoning there.
What is wrong if white people want to help other white people escape persecution?
But if you only help based on the colour of the skin... That's a little bit racist.
Also, as far as I know there is not persecution in South Africa. Trump used photos from the wrong conflict. And there are really bad things happening in Africa... but not to white people
One issue (apparently a feature) that may arise is that, if application is rejected in consular proceeding, the applicant is locked out from usa. AFAIK, if someone applies for an immigration visa in usa, they will not be able to obtain non-immigration visas in the future. A refused green card application might be the end of being ever in usa. The person may have to truely exit USA since there may be no way back (close bank account, sell property and assets, etc).
If the person adjusts status in usa, there are more possibilities for appeal etc.
The end result is the same though. If your application is rejected in the US, you could stay while you appeal, but if you're ultimately rejected then you have no choice but to re-apply through consular processing anyway once your status runs out. Good if you have a job in the US, but you're kicking the can down the road.
> A refused green card application might be the end of being ever in usa.
Do you have evidence for your other claim? The main thing you need to prove for a non immigrant visa or VWP is that you won't overstay or have intent to immigrate at the time of application and upon entry. Otherwise it's up to the consular officer like usual. You would need to declare the refusal/denial of course.
What will get you denied is "inadmissibility" if you don't submit a waiver. If you're inadmissible that usually means some serious violation and you've got other problems.
As far as I know, people have been successful in re-applying for EB green cards after being rejected when they've assembled a better packet.
If you apply for immigration status and are rejected, sure you can apply for immigration again if you gain much better qualifications. I haven’t seen many successful examples though.
People are deemed to have immigration intent for small things like they don’t have enough ties to their country of residence. An application for immigration is definite proof you had intent to immigrate. You can wait like ten years, but time doesn’t work in your favor (immigration gets harder every year, people get older and handcuffed elsewhere…).
I mean this in the kindest possible way while still being critical: I really wish people would stop making definitive statements about things that, I'm sorry to say, they don't understand. This is just wrong. The end result is absolutely not the same, for multiple reasons:
1. Decisions by consular officials largely can't be challenged (with some exceptions). Decisions by USCIS can be challenged in immigration court and/or federal court, depending on your case;
2. Thanks to Trump v. Hawaii, the president has the broad power to ban the granting of visas to people overseas. There's currently a ban on 39 countries. That cannot be challenged. It can be challenged in the US;
3. When you apply for an immigration benefit in the US, the USCIS field office that deals with it is determined by where you live. It used to be the case that if you were outside the US, you could get an embassy appointment in the country you were residing in. This administration changed that such that you can only use the embassy in your country of birth/citizenship. So, if you're a Kenyan citizen living and working in France, you have to go back to Kenya for your consular interview. That might take wait times for getting an interview from 1-2 months to 1-2 years, depending on the embassy. It's also a huge hassle and expensive, possibly;
4. The GP is correct here. When you apply for any immigrant visa, meaning you or a spouse, sibling, parent, child or employer files an I130/I140 for you, you've demonstrated what's called "immigrant intent". That means that for people from many countries they are unlikely to ever get a nonimmigrant visa ever again. USCIS thinks you're tryign to sneak into the US to adjust status rather than consular processing. They also think if you enter the US, you won't leave. Obviously citizens of Norway are treated differently to citizens of Nigeria. I'll let you ponder why;
5. If you accrue unlawful presence in the US (for which the rules are complicated), you may get a 3 or 10 year bar on returning to the US. In addition, because you have overstayed a visa (or have entered without inspection), you may simply not ever get another visa again anyway. It's unclear from this memo if the 3/10 year bars will apply here. We won't know until we see how it's implemented;
6. Certain people may be in limbo because they don't have the option to leave to consular process. I'm mainly thinking of people who have made an asylum claim. There are people who have filed for asylum in 2015 who don't have a ruling on that case yet. 11 years is a long time. They might meet someone and get married and then seek to adjust. This is a complicated process that comes with its own perils but generally they adjust status and then withdraw their asylum case or, in some cases, seek cancellation of removal from immigration court. Do they have to leave? They may not have travel documents. They can't really go back to their home country. This may create a situation where they can't adjust and they can't leave so they're in limbo. Also, if the asylum office decides your asylum case was "frivolous", you may have a permanent bar on ever receiving an immigration benefit. That's much more difficult if not impossible to challenge overseas;
7. What makes you inadmissibile isn't necessarily serious. It can be a simple mistake. For example, if you marry a US citizen then working without authorization is forgiven (mostly; it's complicated) but you have to be really careful how you answer questions on the forms and to officers. So you might answer "no" the I485 question about working without authorization even though you did a few Ubers 7 years ago, which is forgiven, but you've now made a false claim and that may make you inadmissible needing a waiver. A good lawyer will argue that it wasn't "material" but this USCIS much more than any previouis is having a stricter interpretation of any of this;
8. As another example, "crimes", particularly "aggravated" crimes or crimes of "moral terpitude" can make you inadmissible. But what are those? There are guidelines but there's some grey areas where USCIS has discretion. For example, being convicted of a crime with a potential sentence of more than 365 days will make you inadmissible. But sentencing guidelines can be whack such that if you speed as a 16 year old, you might get charged with something and, not knowing any better, get offered a deal for probation on a crime of reckless driving that can technically be up to 2 years of jail time by the sentencing guidelines. Well, guess what? You're now guilty of an aggravated crime and can not only have your green card denied, you can be denaturalized and deported. No, this isn't a made up example.
IANAL but I know what I know and, more importantly, I know what I don't know, which is a lot. But what's particularly frustrating to me is the people who have no idea what they don't know. The above just scratches the surface.
Yes, this is a feature. I don't think non-immigration visas actually exist, or can in principle actually exist until there are massive legal and constitutional changes in the US up to and including ganking the birthright citizenship clause of the 14th amendment. Anyone who sets foot on US soil for any reason - even illegal immigrants, let alone people on a legal, ostensibly non-immigrant visa - can try to adjust their status, and has lots of "possibilities for appeal".
The US government should not give permission to anyone at all to set foot on US soil, unless the mass of existing citizens of the US are comfortable with that person eventually voting as a citizen on what the composition of the government should actually be. And as a US citizen, I am not comfortable with letting the vast majority of people in the world - many of whom are scrambling for any legal opportunity at all that will let them legally reside in the US - vote for the government that passes laws that affect me.
I should have been more precise, yes. But the majority of non-immigrant visas are single intent. H1B requires 100K and if you can’t first enter to see people and attend interviews, chances seem slim in these circumstances, if H1B program is not altogether scrapped.
I love the US; I’ve lived there and held an H-1B visa. Moving there permanently was a teenage dream of mine.
Unfortunately the country in that dream no longer exists. I now avoid jobs that require travel to the US. As a non-American it makes a lot more sense to focus on building up the tech centres closer to home.
It was once an open, free country that fought fascism and respected the rule of law?
Arguably it was never perfect and the ugly bits where there, so a lot of that is about an image it projected to the outside world.
You know it is the land of the free when you have to give them access to all your social media accounts at the border. I have heard stories of fellow countrymen being held for weeks without hearing any cause. So yeah, no thanks.
Maybe if you restore the rule of law and have the current, president, supreme court justices and representatives removed in 20 years or so.
Bigotry and xenophobia has brought the downfall of the US empire, for real. It was always more about who believed in it than it was for real. The US had an ugly history that it tried to ignore for the passt hundred years and at some point unsurprisingly it comes back to haunt you.
I don't understand your question. Are you asking or saying that it was once an open, free country that fought fascism and respected the rule of law? When?
I said is was seen as such. The US has derived great value of being seen as a country that fought fascism and respected the rule of law (in their own weird way at least) by many countries around the world.
When is a good question but can't be answered without an additional "Where".
A lot of the good is still there -- e.g. the nature, the unusually high level of drive/determination/spirit/openness. At least compared to northern Europe where I'm from.
Unfortunately tilting towards fascism outweighs those.
White supremacists on the rise in the US.
Never forget, there were people already in the US when they first arrived.
White supremacists stole their lands.
White supremacy never left. There are a whole bunch of people in the US that never got over the abolition of chattel slavery and arguably we're in this mess because not enough slaveowners were strung up after the Civil War. And by "not enough" I really mean "anything less than all of them".
That may sound harsh, even hyperbolic, but we teach a really whitewashed version of slavery in schools, like these were just laborers who worked the fields but just happened to be owned by people. That couldn't be further from the truth. Conditions were normally horrible. The conditions captured people were kept in in Africa, the Middle Passage, the slave auctions, the living conditions, the physical violence, the loss of language and culture, the destruction of family units and, last but certainly not least, the industrial-scale, systematic rape of enslaved people for centuries, easily numbering in the tens of millions of victims.
But I have to object to the implication that the EU is somehow free of any of this. Like the UK, France and Germany (in particular) don't have far-right to neo-Nazi movements threatening to take over government.
Also, ask any average European about Romany, Syrians, Turks, North Africans, Arabs, Muslims in general, Polish people or Russians and there's a decent chance you won't get American-style racism, you'll get almost "scientific racism". I'd posit that a decent number of Europeans are only 1-2 steps away from taking phrenology seriously.
You will hear arguments like "they don't assimilate" or "it's cultural not racism", just as you would in the US.
I was in high school in the 90s in the deep south and was taught about the horrors of slavery. Has that changed? Not disagreeing about reconstruction. It established a pattern of letting conservatives get away with their malfeasance and “let’s just get along” politically instead of extracting a real price for crime and destructive behavior.
I don't think the US or the EU has specific problems with "white nationalism" more than any other country.
You can't migrate to Arab countries easily if you come from sub-Saharan Africa. Is that "Arab nationalism"? No, it's just countries enforcing their borders and immigration policy. Effectively what pretty much every country does. You can't immigrate easily to most countries, it's the norm, not the exception.
For those not very familiar with the US immigration system: it can be very confusing and the naming of things is rarely related to their function due to a very thick layer of legal fiction in how it works.
The system sorely lacks reform to align the legal fiction with reality, which is precisely why this news release may sound entirely sensible for the uninitiated.
What's new is that we have the deeds captured under multiple angles in full HD, and still around 30% of the country believes the victims were actually the aggressors and deserved to die. They're so indoctrinated that they're able to rationalize away their own eyes' evidence. And they feel comfortable enough in the current environment to try and gaslight you about it.
It very obviously was not self defense. People will always lie in these situations and claim self defense. But, driving near an ICE officer and saying mean things is not life threatening.
Maybe ICE are more cowardly than we should expect, and maybe that's something you're okay with. That still doesn't make it self defense, though. No reasonable person would kill in those circumstances.
The opinion polls cited here show people thought the force was unjustified/inappropriate at about 2x the rate of those who thought it was justified/appropriate.
If you are referring to Renee Nicole Good, then the video evidence contradicts that entirely. I am not going to discuss that further, I am just pointing out that your assertion is not a known fact and much of ICE's narrative on that killing has been shown to be untrue or incomplete.
Curious to know how this will affect immigrants who arrived on a student visa, receive OPT to stay while working, and then subsequently get married. I know many top performers at my company who are in that boat, especially from India, who have built lives here during their OPT + STEM. It would be a shame to lose them if they have to go back to India and wait years (if not decades) for a green card or H-1B.
No. This is the last stage of the Green Card process. When you do Consular processing you make an appointment at the US embassy or consulate in your country, go do the interview and then you are granted the GC on the spot. Then you fly back. You don't need to fly back for years, it's only for the purpose of the interview at the consulate.
IANAL. If you adjust status in the US you can also apply for AP/EAD if your original visa/legal status expires. You can't do that if you opt for consular processing.
Nothing new there, but under the new rules the former is no longer an option and you'd need to leave immediately. On the plus side consular processing tends to be cheaper and often faster (AOS and all the approvals vs the consular processing fee and a plane ticket).
What is the typical wait time for appointments when going to consular processing route? My brief searches say anywhere from 2-9 months. 60-90 day NVC review phase, 60-120 day interview scheduling, and then 1-2 weeks once you have the interview. Are you saying that the 120-210 day wait time can happen while you're still in the US?
A crazy number of people adjusting status, most notably DACA recipients, are adjusting in the USA (despite the much longer wait) because leaving the country may trigger a very long re-entry ban. This can be avoided through advance parole, but turns out, there are a limited number of things for which that's granted like employment and education and US consular visits don't appear to be on the list. So "just leaving the country" is a guarantee of your own banishment. In fact that's probably part of the reason why they picked this policy in the first place.
My H1B coworker has paid $180k more in taxes than I have. We are the same age. He has fewer years working in USA than I have as a citizen. We calculated this by the data exposed by the mySocialSecurity website.
My colleague organizes workshops for gifted teenagers interested in tech/science in Europe. He often asks them if they want to go study abroad. A few years back, most of them would say they want to go to the US. Now none of them do. This is not hyperbole - he said literally 0 wanted to go to the US.
Maybe that country still has some prestige somewhere else and people still want to apply but definitely not here. We've been watching the country sabotage itself and take a nosedive for a while now. The latest president is just the cherry on top.
I hope the rest of the world learns from this but I doubt it actually will.
One thing with this policy, its not all green card seekers, its those deemed to be under temporary visas (student, tourist, etc). Apparently these comprise the majority of applicants, but not nesc. the majority of those granted green cards (family, longer term workers, etc).
I'm not defending the policy, but I think that's one nuance being lost.
This is probably for the best in the long term. They've added enough friction, insanity and disdain for foreigners that no sane person will immigrate and we can start to build stronger industries and trade relationships outside the US.
From what I could understand from the 6-page memorandum, (my paraphrase) "the law allows us to be nice and convenient, but doesn't require us to be nice and convenient, so we decided to make things hard and cruel going forward"
The current administration is sending a pretty clear message to immigrants.
It will help would-be immigrants understand that the US does not want them and that it would be a mistake to invest time and energy trying to build a future in a country that hates them and can nuke their lives at the drop of a hat. It will help other countries that are not the US retain their talent and build up their own industries. A greater diversity in distribution of talent and industry across the world is a more resilient system.
It’s not a more resilient system. It creates geographic isolation and friction. It dilutes the talent pool instead of concentrating it which limits cross pollination. It also reduces specialization that drives efficiency and lets each country focus on what it does best and then trade with others.
Specialization is for insects. And on the contrary of what you say the real world show plenty of reasons to diversify: For example, the success of China with renewables and EVs shows exactly that:
Every single EV company in the US wanted to be like Tesla, it was like an idée fixe, most of them failed miserably compared to BYD.
There are decades of economic research based on hundreds of years of economic activity that contradicts your analysis.
EV and solar investments in the United States were on par with and exceeding china, they were gutted after republicans attacked the solindra investment for political reasons.
China is itself moving up the value chain and specializing.
That being said, I do think we have learned the hard way that outsourcing manufacturing destroys the ecosystem and supply chain that drives innovation. Simply put, invention happens where the work is being done
I think that’s a bit dramatic saying the US hates them, but yes to your other point. The US is taking the position that it has more to gain from having strong and prosperous trading partners than it does from exploiting those nations and draining them of talent.
If you read "US as a whole", then sure. I've met many a lot of very friendly people in the US, some of whome I'd love to visit again.
If you read "the current US administration and their voter base" it sure feels like hate.
I used to visit the US a lot. I haven't been for a long time and as long as the current regime remains in place I'll spend my time and money in places where I can be sure not to be mistreated.
That's not because I fear I would be hated in the places I would actually visit, but because I have no interest in being at the mercy of US immigration. It doesn't matter that the risk isn't great - it is high enough and the potential consequences severe enough that it's put the US in the same category as high crime third world countries for me in terms of risk.
Already 20 years ago it was more stressful to go through immigration in the US, even as a white man from a rich country, than in dictatorships like China. As it stands now, I wouldn't hesitate to visit China, but I would hesitate to even transit the US.
Except the US isn't trying to make strong trading partners, its a side effect of the xenophobia and racism. If anything they are alienating anyone who would ever trade because every trade deal for something benign like, steel or whatever will include some random unrelated bull shit like "also if you want to trade you have to round up your trans people."
Yeah look at like any one of the 10,000 things this administration, Trump, Miller, republicans have said about immigrants. Look at ICE detention centres, how many hundreds or thousands of people have literally died, denied basic medical care or humane conditions, ICE agents who executed US citizens facing 0 consequences. ICE agents on camera ramming a car, radioing in to say that the car rammed them, and then shooting the driver. Cold-blooded execution. I could go on forever. Tell me again how stating that they hate immigrants is being dramatic.
It’s just facts but they’ve been boiling the frog and doing so many idiotic and horrific things at once that people have completely checked out.
It could be good for anyone country that's not the US (despite our hubris, we're not actually the center of the universe). But for the US, a country built on immigrants ands immigration, probably not so much. We fucked around, we found out.
Well, we're continuing to find out. We haven't exactly scraped rocked bottom yet.
They mean good for everyone NOT the US. Because now say, Germany or France, or where ever, come off as a better place to immigrate, so other countries can build stronger more competitice businesses.
This move, like everything the MAGA administration does, will only weaken the US.
Even better for other countries, anyone the US produces who isn't a raging idiot, also are more likely to want to immigrate from the US.
Isn’t it better for the smart people in India to stay there and make India richer, instead of coming to the U.S. to make billionaires here richer? These countries absolutely suffer from the brain drain.
In many cases a talented/smart person will bring little to zero value to a country with ossified institutions, but huge value to one with the right systems in place to build value.
That's not really how it works. Immigrants also benefit from coming to the US.
Skilled labor immigration is great for everyone involved, and bad only for the countries that suffer the brain drain.
But it's not zero-sum. The damage to those countries from losing talent is smaller than the benefits to the immigrant, their new country, and ultimately all of humanity.
>bad only for the countries that suffer the brain drain
Except those countries continue to decline and eventually become a global issue. India is on the cusp of a water crisis which is going to turn into a massive refugee crisis - how different would the situation and institutions be if the top 10% of the population hadn't been siphoned off?
It likely wouldn't be meaningfully different, and we don't set immigration policy in the US to help countries abroad.
Or would you rather condemn me to life in a corrupt, dangerous country even though I have everything it takes to build great things and make the lives of other humans better?
That moral argument against immigration, especially coming from an American, is DOA.
And from the perspective of the home countries, you're basically telling whoever happened to be born in a shithole that their only choice is to fix it themselves.
> and bad only for the countries that suffer the brain drain.
That's a pretty big qualifier!
> The damage to those countries from losing talent is smaller than the benefits to the immigrant, their new country, and ultimately all of humanity
Isn't it the opposite? Creating wealth and technology in India helps a billion quite poor people. Creating wealth in the U.S. helps 300 million already rich people.
Except you can't create Google in India. Google isn't minted by divine inspiration hitting a couple of smart guys in a garage.
It's created by an entire ecosystem that allows a project like that to be conceived and executed in such a way that has benefited the entire world, including the poor in India.
It's a big qualifier, but like I said, it's not zero-sum.
No economist will argue that limiting skilled labor immigration (or any immigration, really!) is an optimal policy for improving the lives of the poor elsewhere. It just doesn't work that way.
That's why I said long term. This logic might as well argue it would be better for China to have had huge immigration to the US 50 years ago and contribute to the manufacturing or automobile industries there. But they didn't, and now they've built up their own ecosystems instead that are more efficient and ahead of the US' ecosystems. You can create Google in India or BYD in China, it just takes time for the ecosystem to build. It has helped China at least, and maybe the world more than if they had immigrated en masse.
The other line of argument is again the fault-tolerance I mentioned above, maybe see Taleb or distributed systems. Maximizing efficiency has trade-offs in resiliency. Yes it might be less efficient for there to be 3 ecosystems in 3 countries instead of 1, but its more resilient to shocks. We saw the risks of highly efficient but single point of failure supply chains materialize just a few years ago during the pandemic.
It's also pretty obvious that the tech companies being in the US benefits the US more than other countries. The big salaries are in the bay area, the tax revenue goes to the US, all the ex-Googlers founding new companies found them in the US etc.. So of course Google being founded in country X would benefit country X more than it being founded in the US.
> So of course Google being founded in country X would benefit country X more than it being founded in the US.
Exactly. Obviously it’s better for China that BYD and Huawei were founded in China rather than the US. It’s better for Korea that Samsung and LG were founded there instead of the U.S.
China created those ecosystems because of Western companies who offshored their manufacturing, with the ultimate goal of having cheaper goods and services.
It wouldn't have been able to do it without US companies, and it's not particularly a model that can be replicated that easily, though in general, economic policy that focus on exporting goods indeed tend to be the most successful.
Still doesn't mean the US should be preventing Chinese from immigrating here, so it's just utterly besides the point.
Because context matters, obviously. Global supply chains did not exist yet when the US industrialized.
The United States was a British colony where demand for raw supplies led to an organic development of railroads, coupled with technological transfer from businessmen in the UK hoping to capitalize on this nascent market.
Textile manufacturing was still a thing and we were in the very early innings of the global Industrial Revolution. The two world wars that destroyed Europe were also immensely helpful to the insulated US.
Why are you asking me questions for which there are easily available answers? Honestly, you might as well have asked an LLM.
Stop looking for evidence that only confirms your biases and start trying to disprove your hypothesis. Only when there's nothing left to disprove can you claim your hypothesis _may_ be right, though you can't ever know for sure.
By the way, immigrant labor was a massive force behind US industrialization so you're just totally lost at this point. Industrialization has always depended on interaction with rich economies. From capital flows to technology transfer, export markets, immigration, empire, or trade networks. No major industrial power developed in total isolation.
I doubt its better for India to have Indians making Google richer than to have them staying in India to make something even a fraction of the size of Google in India. How is India going to create that ecosystem if all the smart people leave?
It's better to not frame this in terms of a specific country, lest it come across as if we're picking on India specifically.
Developing countries have structural reasons for why they are underdeveloped. This is a very complicated topic, and one for which there is no shortage of academic interest. I suggest starting from William Easterly's "The Elusive Quest for Growth".
I quote here from the book review MIT Press:
> What is necessary for growth is that government incentives induce investment in collective goods like education, health, and the rule of law
> This is a very complicated topic, and one for which there is no shortage of academic interest. I suggest starting from William Easterly's "The Elusive Quest for Growth
What's Easterly's qualifications? Has he ever successfully improved the economy of a developing country? I'd rather learn what LKY or Park Chung Hee or heck even Deng Xiaoping or Pinochet had to say.
> you think we should model economic policy after Pinochet.
Pinochet is one of several autocratic rulers who put in place frameworks that resulted in economic miracles in their countries.
Especially in Asia and Latin America, I don’t think there’s a single country that tried democracy before economic development that didn’t end up a failure. I’d rather be a Chinese living under effective authoritarian capitalism than an Indian living under dysfunctional social democracy.
You've got a lot of hot takes, but this is an astounding statement that underscores you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about when it comes to economic development.
The innovations immigrants created in the UK during the Industrial Revolution made everyone wealthier. The innovations made by
Immigrants in in Silicon Valley have made the world more wealthy. And it was in part due to the concentrated talent pool that made it possible.
Often when a comment is made in response to your comment, the intended audience won't be you. For example, I am much more interested in whether the example of the industrial revolution in the UK is an evidence for the value of immigration or evidence against the value of immigration than in anything you wrote, so even though you did not commit to a position on it, it remained
my main goal when writing my second comment to continue arguing my position on it -- to anyone that might be reading.
The words beginning, "The French-born engineer Marc Isambard Brunel," in my previous (second) comment I already had waiting on my hard drive when I posted my first comment (the challenge). It would have made my first comment longer and harder to follow if I had included the fact that already knew about MI Brunel.
It was more important for me to write in such a way that people would have the patience to keep on reading than to avoid any situation in which I might come out looking like I don't know everything. Really! It is OK with me that you came out of this exchange looking like you knew something I did not.
The way it works is that the origin country is worse off when people leave, but in general immigrants are much better off for moving, and it's not even close.
A big argument for letting people emigrate is that they owe no real debt to the county where they are born, or the city, or anything like that. They aren't selfs owned by a nobleman. If moving increases their personal lot, why should we stop them?
The problem with this thinking is assuming that countries are equivalent in terms of opportunity and life.
India does not have the same opportunities that America does to have a good and successful life. This isn’t just due to the country being relatively poor but due to structural issues along with corruption. Then there are other issues too. Environmental issues. Too many issues to list.
It’s disingenuous to suggest that a families or individuals should stay behind to change this. Also isnt it a loss for everyone? If smart people come to America and take advantage of opportunities and accomplish things that help many people what good is it to say no to this. That they must stay in the home country and inevitably not accomplish as much due to all these issues. Even if Elon Musk and Jensen Huang had stayed in their home countries they certainly could not have accomplished the same amount they did in America. Both South Africa and Taiwan in that period lacked the opportunities.
Also what is the rationale behind an American saying to people not to come to America and improve it but to stay back? Individual Indians aren’t any different from individual Americans beyond their accent. The children of these immigrants are indistinguishable from Americans who have been here for generations (aside from skin color). I really don’t understand why Americans wouldn’t want the brain gain from having smart people come here. Also if a surgeon is operating on you would you care what skin color or accent they had? Doesn’t make sense to me.
No, it’s a win for the people who remain in India. Imagine if the Samsung founder had moved to the U.S. instead of founding Samsung in Korea.
> Individual Indians aren’t any different from individual Americans beyond their accent. The children of these immigrants are indistinguishable from Americans who have been here for generations
Maybe some, but on average no. My family is Bangladeshi and my wife’s family is pre-Revolutionary War American and the cultural gap is vast. Basic attitudes towards justice, freedom, order, civic responsibilities, time, family relations, money, government, food, etc., are completely different.
Concrete example: Bangladeshis places tremendous emphasis on formal education and credentials. Americans have a tradition of skepticism of those things. This difference persists even among American born Desis.
I don’t know how this will play out for employment based categories. You need to be have a job and be on a valid visa to even apply for a green card. How do you then go outside the country, apply for a green card, all the while maintaining your job and a visa while you wait for the application to be processed? As far as I know not being in the US for extended periods of time, voids your work visa in the first place.
IANAL. My understanding is that you can do consular processing even if you are in the US, it's just that you need to leave to do the interview (and things like biometrics) and get the actual visa.
Now I'm not sure if you are allowed to re-enter after your interview before your case is decided/you get the visa but I would imagine so (if have valid visa), you would just need to exit again to get the visa later.
I believe the issue with what you're describing is that if you're on a temporary visa, like a student visa, applying for a green card shows intent of immigration so you cannot return to the US on a student visa.
If you have an H-1B already you may be able to do what you're describing. If you're a recent grad in the US this basically locks you out of trying to get a green card until you've already secured an H-1B.
If that’s true, things may be slightly better, but I’m also reading this move will take away substantial funding from uscis since it is funded purely based on fees collected with immigration applications. Processing times are already pretty large in a lot of countries. So even with the flexibility, you carry a substantial risk.
> don’t know how this will play out for employment based categories
I am only talking about employment based categories if you refer to my original comment. I’d be curious to know what visa categories allow you to file for an employment based greencard without a job?
As a non-American who has to live in a world that's deeply affected by the schizophrenic convulsions of your current government, I hope you stay in the USA and work on fixing your mess.
That is an absolutely fascinating worldview. I don't know what country you're from and what pain and suffering you've been through that was caused by the US govt., but you've managed to get me to stop caring. Sparkling incompetence. While we're exchanging unenforceable opinions about what random people on the internet should do, you should go help your own country -- by leaving it.
The US is an extreme outlier in accepting migrants.
The current situation is effectively what the vast majority of countries already do.
Some go beyond that, and gun down people with machine guns at their border.
The idea that the US is not a country that belongs to its citizens, but some sort of abstract global entity that everyone in the world is entitled to is farcical, and it's coming to an end. The US owes absolutely nothing to non-US people.
If people don't like it that can go anywhere else (keeping in mind that other Western countries are starting to do the same) or, you know, stay in their own country? (Crazy, I know)
I’d be fine with America not wanting the world to feel “entitled to” it, if at the same time they’d stop feeling entitled to the rest of the world themselves.
Vietnam. Middle America. Afghanistan. Iraq. Greenland. Venezuela. Iran. Now Cuba.
Other countries paying $10,000's to educate people who then want to apply this knowledge in the US. US reaction: "Nah." Besides, we are talking about legal immigration here.
As a US citizen I am confused. H1-B and similar are supposed to be non-immigrant visas for temporary workers. Why was it allowed to permanently immigrate under those visas to begin with? We have immigrant visas like the E-1 for routes to permanent immigration.
As an American, I just want to say that I'm very dismayed by the discourse around this topic over the past 24 hours in particular. The polarization of politics has become so intense, that the bipartisan mainstream position of just a couple of decades ago – that immigrants are a net positive to this country – feels like a distant dream.
We've gone from perpetually punting the football on comprehensive immigration reform, to people saying, "Good, go back home, we don't want you here."
The same people who want to paint the Statue of Liberty gold seem to have no clue what it represents.
Immigrants are the low hanging fruit to attack, and the best to blame all your suffering on, meanwhile, the real issue is wealth distribution. Since covid, the very few people got mega wealthier while the majority suffered, do you just leave it as is for people to find out? No, you push other distractions like immigrants, race rage baits, and other nonsense to keep people busy fighting each other.
This ^
If it is secularism and religion in some countries, it is language and ethinicity in some other, and immigration and racism in America. Depends on the timing, and the need for it, politicians use it to their advantage.
The evidence for the need of immigration reform was always weak and, frankly, basically non-existent.
What happened was white people saw brown people coming in and got uncomfortable. That's it. The rest was just "fill in the blank" reasoning. Something something medicare, something something housing... eh yeah that's good enough we need immigration reform!
But that's been happening in the US for many generations now. That's just how the US works; we get a lot of immigrants and they become US citizens. If not them, then their kids. Yeah, welcome to America.
> The same people who want to paint the Statue of Liberty gold seem to have no clue what it represents.
Well, yes. The current administration and the republican party as a whole are composed of fascists and thieves who steal from hardworking citizens like you and I to fund vanity projects like a ballroom and "Arc de Triomphe but bigger and gold".
They're shitting on the history of our country and all the people who have sacrificed to make this place what it is today, and they're doing it just to enrich themselves.
Frankly they are traitors and I hope that in time the wheel of history will deal with them as traitors deserve.
This is assigning intent without evidence, as is common in tribal politics. A non-charged assessment might use the phrase "abrupt cancelling."
We cannot create a better republic without constructive discourse, and we cannot have constructive discourse when we default to characterizing the views, concerns, and actions of those we disagree with as rooted in moral failure. Even if it is true from time to time.
This chiding from you would be better received if there was a shred of evidence that the other tribe is even slightly receptive to this kind of discourse.
Unfortunately, the norms of discourse are pretty much gone. This is terrifying in the long-term.
If you were to try to convince me a 2:1 immigrant to local birth ratio here in Australia is a net good for the country, you’re first going to have to convince me your a reasonable person to have a conversation with.
If you jump straight in with claims against me that I’m -ist and -ic that’s going to be more difficult.
Here you are again [0], unable to represent comments in good faith.
Nobody said "non-white" and it isn't even implied because a significant proportion -- 35-40% of Australian Permanent Residents (US green card equivalent) -- come from EU/"White" countries.
The suggestions above are consistent with my request for you to review the HN comment guidelines.
Complaining about 2:1 immigrant to local birth rate has absolutely nothing to do with long-time permanent residents (who are locals). It's clearly a fear that white culture is being overrun by brown/chinese people.
Your comments degrade the discourse at least as much as you think mine do.
> This is assigning intent without evidence, as is common in tribal politics
You are calling for constructive discourse and yet your response is an accusation of dishonesty. A non-charged assessment might use the phrase "without presenting evidence".
It's shocking, actually. Horrifying, and again I say: They do all of the things one would expect them to do if their stated goal was the absolute destruction of the United States of America. They are traitors, no more, no less.
Got this email (!) from an immigration attorney friend that basically says green card applicants need to leave the country in order to file.
From: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services uscis@messages.dhs.gov Sent: Friday, May 22, 2026 6:59 AM Subject: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Will Grant ‘Adjustment of Status’ Only in Extraordinary Circumstances
WASHINGTON—U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services today announced a new policy memo reiterating the fact that, consistent with long-standing immigration law and immigration court decisions, aliens seeking adjustment of status must do so through consular processing via the Department of State outside of the country. Officers are directed to consider all relevant factors and information on a case-by-case basis when determining whether an alien warrants this extraordinary form of relief.
“We’re returning to the original intent of the law to ensure aliens navigate our nation’s immigration system properly. From now on, an alien who is in the U.S. temporarily and wants a Green Card must return to their home country to apply, except in extraordinary circumstances. This policy allows our immigration system to function as the law intended instead of incentivizing loopholes. When aliens apply from their home country, it reduces the need to find and remove those who decide to slip into the shadows and remain in the U.S. illegally after being denied residency,” said USCIS Spokesman Zach Kahler.
“Nonimmigrants, like students, temporary workers, or people on tourist visas, come to the U.S. for a short time and for a specific purpose. Our system is designed for them to leave when their visit is over. Their visit should not function as the first step in the Green Card process. Following the law allows the majority of these cases to be handled by the State Department at U.S. consular offices abroad and frees up limited USCIS resources to focus on processing other cases that fall under its purview, including visas for victims of violent crime and human trafficking, naturalization applications, and other priorities. The law was written this way for a reason, and despite the fact that it has been ignored for years, following it will help make our system fairer and more efficient.”
That’s really unfair, sorry this is happening to you.
> Nonimmigrants, like students, temporary workers, or people on tourist visas, come to the U.S. for a short time and for a specific purpose. Our system is designed for them to leave when their visit is over. Their visit should not function as the first step in the Green Card process.
Do they consider H1B workers to be “temporary” for this purpose? It seems broken and cruel to force them to go back to apply when they’re here legally and could easily just apply here (assuming their visa is still valid).
Yes, it looks like H1B workers will have to do this as well. It sounds like it applies to "dreamers" as well even if they have never visited their "home" country before.
The whole immigration argument basically boils down to two schools of thought.
1) Those who believe that every human born on this planet has a basic right to move to and live in, any country that they want.
2) Those who believe that the people who are currently citizens of countries around the world, have the right to set strict restrictions on who is allowed to move there.
These two schools are fundamentally at odds with each other. Some members of both camps will go to the extreme to enforce their position and demonize anyone in the other camp.
That's a huge oversimplification though. Group 1 would mostly consist of some of the most ardent social progressives and some hippies, and the Group 2 is most everyone else and basically the policy in every country currently in existence.
In reality most people are somewhere in the spectrum of group 2:
* There are those who believe everyone economically net positive should be allowed.
* There are those who believe everyone who are a good cultural fit (for their personal criteria and biases) should be allowed.
* There are those who believe only exceptional people with rare talents should be allowed.
* There are those who believe people should only be allowed if they meet some definition of greater good.
* There are those who believe partner visas should be allowed/disallowed.
* There are those who believe only the wealthy people who'll spend or invest their wealth in the country should be allowed. (=various kinds of golden visas)
* There are those who believe no one except for certain race(s), nationality(es) or religion(s) should be allowed.
* There are those who believe no one should be allowed.
I don't see why someone should have say what happens on others land. If I want to allow someone in my land or kick someone out of my land it should be, within some restrictions completely my own decision. Do you have legal ownership deeds over all the land in your entire country? I just think it's very strange.
Everybody who has a different moral opinion than yours holds that opinion for the sole reason that they believe it will make them look better to their peers.
It’s not about morality. It’s about human nature and economy. It’s like saying everybody should have the same amount of money. The result of such thinking would destroy the coin, and alternate forms of money would be created by the people.
Having all countries open the borders to anyone (ignoring security risks for the sake of the argument) would mean all poor people would emigrate to rich countries and strain the economy, while their home country would collapse from lack of workforce.
Regardless if you find all bad luck immoral it just isn’t practical for every country to support every person. It’s immoral to have borders in the same way it’s immoral everyone doesn’t have a private driver, a personal chef, and a mansion.
>You can know we have the right to set strict regulations, and also object to driving smart hardworking people away from your country for no reason.
But the crux of the problem is this - many of the immigrants we've been sold on as being "smart hardworking people" have not been that and often been the opposite. Your side seems incapable of grappling with the fact that it has fundamentally lost the trust of the electorate on this issue and seems entirely uninterested in doing anything to regain this trust by overhauling the way we filter prospective immigrants.
the reality is that there a very wide spectrum of opinions about what immigration policy should like, and really not so many people in the (1) category
There are apparently 20+ million of them who entered the U.S. illegally, along with millions more who think it is a crime to deport them (even the criminals).
I've written several replies and deleted them all. I really can't speculate. its never really occurred to me that that would be a good idea, and everything I wrote was just the kind of unsubstantiated bullshit that I hate reading here.
People have a right to join and quit any company they want. I don't see why it should be so much different for countries. Especially so when it's karens making decisions on behalf of land they don't own. Do you own the entire land in your country? You definitely don't.
Thanks, i appreciate your message. When I look at the US or EU were internal migration is allowed, I am hopeful. I just don't know if this is generalizable.
if we look at governments as the local administrative function, then certainly, it shouldn't really matter to the government who its citizens are as long as they contribute to public kitty for the mutual benefit of the residents. and from that perspective we can see migration as enabling a kind of healthy competition between governments. one that's very empowering to the citizens. its a nice picture.
but governments apparently have roles which are not directly related to collecting taxes to lay sewers, and I think we should maybe be questioning those. and of course there are economic consequences to the population varying, and things start to unravel at both extremes of density.
from this perspective the US was a very good competitor in the attraction of talented citizens. sadly we won't really have a good accounting of what was lost.
Accepting your dichotomy for the sake of argument, I'm in camp 1, but camp 2 could still be humane and comprehensible. Many countries have strict immigration rules, and while I disagree with that philosophy, it's not necessarily objectionable in the same way.
The Trump administration is not in camp 2.
The Trump administration, as this rule clearly illustrates, is in camp 3: Those who believe that the people who are not currently citizens of your country should never be able to become so, and should be punished for even trying.
The problem is not that the system is "strict" in the sense of holding an incredibly high bar. The problem is that the system is arbitrary - there is no process you can follow that will give you a high degree of confidence that you'll be allowed to enter, or even that a decision _will be made at all_ in a fair manner, no matter who you are (unless you're a personal friend of the administration) - as opposed to you being randomly arrested by ICE halfway through waiting for a decision. And even if there were such a process, you would have no confidence that it wouldn't change retroactively in another week.
It is laughably naive to believe that they are doing this in good faith out of any sense of strictly filtering immigrants. There's exactly one explanation that isn't transparently pretextual, and you and I both know what it is.
> Those who believe that the people who are not currently citizens of your country should never be able to become so.
This is basically the longtime practice of countries like UAE, and historically it is categorized under camp 2; no need to create a third camp here. It’s not as if no foreigners ever in such countries become citizens – while most immigrants are meant to be guestworkers who eventually return to their own countries, there are still laws to confer citizenship on exemplary foreigners.
Non-western immigrants in the UAE are essentially enslaved. It is clearly in a camp which is separate from mere "strict immigration laws."
The UAE and the US (as of the last year and a half) don't (just) have strict immigration laws. Instead, they have corrupt and abusive immigration systems which operate outside of national and international laws.
I don’t see why you single out non-western immigrants in the UAE and try to depict this as an outcome of corruption or abuse. Most non-western immigrants are subject to the kafala system, but even if they weren’t, their eligibility for citizenship (or not) would remain the same. After all, citizenship is off the table for even the highly privileged Western expat population that is not subject to the kafala system.
Again, the local laws allow for conferring citizenship on exemplary foreigners, which does happen, and so such countries fit easily into camp 2 by which a country has the right to choose who and who not it wishes to make citizens.
That makes sense to me. If you come on a non-immigrant visa, you can’t become a permanent resident easily. it’s a privilege, not a right. Other countries like the UAE also take a lot of foreign workers but do not want them become PRs or citizens and there are tons of people moving there for opportunities. The labor is needed but they don’t want these people permanently. You made your money, now leave
That doesn't make any sense. The US enjoys its position of economic power because it has the reputation and wealth to attract skilled people and keep them here.
This is my thought too. The intent of the law is for it to be temporary, and creating the citizenship loophole has caused a lot of issues. I think the expectation H1B may lead to citizenship causes a lot of disress and forces people into roles that take advantage of them, and closing the loophole seems strictly good.
Looks like this means if a US Citizen marries someone who visited on a non-immigrant visa without the intention of getting married, the US government will now force the family apart for an unknown amount of time, potentially forever, instead of allowing the spouse to stay while the I-485 is processed.
I wonder how this would work with a K-1 "Fiancé" Visa. Typically a K-1 holder can enter the country as long as they get married within 90 days, and then the family stays together while the I-485 is processed. Now what? Come to the USA, marry the US Citizen, and then you're banished back to your home country?
There's also the K-3 which lets the foreign spouse enter as a non-immigrant to keep the family together while the I-485 is processed. Are they getting rid of that entirely?
This is all totally bonkers, likely not well thought out, and pretty cruel to families, which is completely on-point for this Administration.
The reason why you allow married people to adjust status is because it's absurd to actually expect a spouse not to just break the law and harbor their illegal immigrant spouse. They are going to choose to break the law rather than kick their spouse out and have them apply from overseas. Maybe they deserve to be punished when inevitably that happens en masse, but one has to consider the societal effects of creating a bunch of criminals over what amounts to an administrative fuck-fuck game over a spouse who was already determined to be admissible to the US.
This government is run on mafioso leadership principles.
Thats why they’re appointed a whole bunch of unqualified people at high positions. This is what happens in the mafia. Those people know that the only reason they’re there is because of the dear leader and not because of their competence, so purely out of self preservation, they will put loyalty to dear leader above every other principle.
Similarly gangs will get even low level people to commit completely unnecessary crimes. Because once you’ve committed a crime, they own you. You’re at their mercy, since you can’t run to the police anymore, without risking jail time yourself.
So you make a whole bunch of your residents criminals, so they’re unable to exercise their rights effectively without threat of being punished for a completely different reason that the government now holds against them.
They’ve started with immigrants because making them criminals is as easy as writing administrative memos, but the same incentives will lead them to start making criminals out of American citizens too. You can already see some of it with the way they’ve criminalized protest against Israel. The next step will be to redefine whatever acts they can as terrorism since Congress granted the executive tremendous power when it comes to terrorism. But they won’t stop there.
>who was already determined to be admissible to the US
If that was true why even go through a whole process. To me it sounds like there is still an approval required meaning the person is not determined to be admissible yet.
The process as it relates to a K1 Visa is a multi-step series of approval gates designed to state that someone is “admissible” based on certain conditions, which change as you move through the process.
The general logic has been that it’s really easy for people to say they want to marry a U.S. citizen, get approved to emigrate, and then change their mind after (the common term for this is visa fraud). So the government grants a series of visas for increasing lengths as you move through that process and prove that it is a bona-fide relationship.
A K1 visa is the last step before getting married, and stipulates that you get married within a short time after entering the country, after which you have to remain married for several years, prove you’re doing things normal married couples do (like live together), and then you can get your permanent residency.
So, in short, it’s not as clear cut as a one-time yes/no decision. You very much live within a prescribed framework for several years until the government is satisfied that your relationship is real.
If they were here on a non-immigrant visa then they were already found admissible to the US. Some of them were just straight up illegals (like dreamers). I've met dreamers from time to time and all of them regularized their status after marrying (I assume the ones that didn't though weren't eager to tell me about their status so I simply never found out).
One interesting note here is the case of DACA recipients. If they leave the country to adjust status it should triggers a re-entry ban unless they're granted parole (DACA are quasi-illegal but granted a form of amnesty as long as they remain in US). AFAIK parole isn't granted for US consular visits, so it's effectively banishment as punishment for trying to adjust their status to reflect their marriage.
I responded similarly in another article. This policy punishes American citizens who pursue relationships with people they met in USA who were foreign born. At a time when marriage rates are rapidly declining.
FWIW K1s were never a great visa category. Doing an engagement party with a white dress and posting it on instagram could lead to a "go apply for CR1 instead" rejection.
I think if you enter on a B1/B2 tourist visa, you should not be allowed to adjust status to a green card except in extraordinary circumstances. I’m not so sure about other non-immigrant visas.
K1 will obviously be an exception as substantial steps are generally taken at a home consulate.
I’m also pretty sure you cannot apply for an AOS from a B1/B2 to a green card.
I think you can apply for an AOS to a different dual intent visa which could then allow you to apply for a green card if you meet the requirements for that visa.
Maybe something like if you get married while visiting, but even then I believe you need to apply for an adjustment of status to a marriage visa and then apply for a green card.
No. Before you could enter on a tourist visa and there was an automatic presumption of fraud if you got married, etc within the first 90 days, but you could get married after 90 days, but before 6 months of maximum tourist stay and they may investigate a little bit, but it was generally not difficult.
The IR-1/CR-1 that you describe is how a spouse would apply from outside the country.
The government has completely abandoned any pretense of following the rule of law. Don't be shocked when they start revoking green cards. Don't be shocked when they start revoking natural citizenship. "But they can't do that!", you say. But who's going to stop them?
It's not that bad because once the court ultimately makes a general ruling, not merely in favor of an individual, but against a federal policy, the ruling can apply to everyone, not just to that one individual. Granted, the government could still ignore the court's order.
This government and its supporters would say - Due process isn't applicable to everyone in the US especially who they perceive as being "illegal immigrant".
The strategy for many folks will likely be to wait it out until the next administration when hopefully some amount of sanity returns.
The question buried in much of the detail: there is an indication this doesn't apply for H1B's and similar who work in the national interest or provide economic benefit (presumably substantial). Perhaps this allows an opening for at least some people.
Perhaps the people initiating this -- that is to say, almost universally either immigrants or the descendants of immigrants to the US -- would prefer something like the following version:
With silent lips. "Keep your poor, your tired, your teeming masses, too!
Almost every single European country requires you to leave the country in order to apply for a new visa status, which is what is happening here in the USA.
In SE Asia there's a whole cottage travel industry taking business and tourist visa holders on a quick trip out of the border in order to return to renew their visa (of course you can also pay for this service under the table).
> Almost every single European country requires you to leave the country in order to apply for a new visa status.
This is not the case for transitioning from a temporary residence permit to a permanent residence permit, which is the best analogue to the USA’s Green Card. In most European countries, one does that within the country (and often within the same province one lives, at a regional office).
Your second paragraph is about visa runs, which are a totally different beast. These don't involve any changes of status, it's simply resetting your tourist stay.
Sure seems like we as a country are heading further down the isolationist, nationalist road. I expect we won't be the last western country to batten down the hatches as it were, for better or worse it seems like most countries are preparing for something much larger.
So throw the baby out with the boat. I'd say no matter how you do the numbers nowadays the number of people unknown to the government applying for a green card legally would be in the minority. So is this really a matter of national security that this needs to be done this way who knows. Given that most people have been here forever paid taxes paid Medicaid social security are being treated like fugitives. I am certain at some point the world will reject the choice of coming to the USA over other choices they have.
This government has a really bad reputation for taking one or two cases and making an example of them and then telling the other 98% they deserve it. I hope at some point this stops and someone rationalizes whatever is going on in my country
The base of the issue is weaponizing fear and anger in the citizenry to better control them. Immigration has been an evergreen topic for that for the entire history of the US.
In recent years, they've combined yet another favorite, racism, to get that tasty peanut butter chocolatey goodness to get the base angry enough to go to the polls to vote based on that.
I hold on to hope that somehow, someday, we can overcome this nonsense. I have nothing to support this so I get in this sense it makes me a man of faith.
1. They desperately want to end all immigration.
2. They are too stupid to enact reasonable policies to achieve that end.
3. Therefore they resort to the blunt force tool of cruelty.
Either that or they're racist sadists, one of the two.
> From now on, an alien who is in the US temporarily and wants a Green Card must return to their home country to apply, except in extraordinary circumstances
Whats the equivalent policy for other countries? Can you stay like you could prior to this?
In other countries (Germany, France, Canada etc) - there are spelled out paths for getting the permanent residency. I would be a permanent residency by now or maybe even a citizen if I had decided to go to any other developed country. But here, after 10 years, with a clean record, I worry I will be picked up by ICE someday.
In European Union countries, transitioning from a temporary residence permit to a permanent residence permit is typically done inside the country: once one meets the eligibility based on length of stay or whatever, one files an application with the local immigration office. No need to leave and apply from outside.
Many other countries including UK enforce a similar rule. It's very inconvenient in those countries, but there's a significant difference: in most other countries that have this kind of policy, visas can typically be processed in a timely fashion (and are actually processed at all). It's insanely expensive and very arduous administratively to get a visa for the UK as the spouse of a British citizen, but the process will typically only take a month or so.
Isn't the Uk the opposite? There are many visas in which you have to be in the UK to apply. This is why we have people coming on boats, and why they are not illegal immigrants. They technically have to travel here to apply for aslyum, and since they do not have a visa cannot take conventional transport, but it is entirely legal for them to come here on a small boat as long as they present themselves to the authorities to claim aslyum upon arrival.
Graduate visa's are the same for example, where you cannot apply abroad, so you must be careful not to leave the country between graduating and getting that visa.
The asylum system and immigration system are surprisingly disconnected from each other in the UK.
Pretty much all forms of permission to stay in the UK other than asylum can only be granted from within the country if you hold an existing long term status. So if you're visiting as a tourist you can't then decide to apply for a spouse visa or even a working holiday or student visa without leaving the country first. If you're already on a student visa or a work visa or similar you can change categories without having to leave.
The graduate visa is essentially an extension to the student visa with slightly different permissions - it makes sense that you can only apply to extend if you're in country and you view it from that lens.
The historic reason behind all this is that there used to be a substantial difference between being granted "leave to enter" and "leave to remain" (out of country vs in country applications). Leave to enter used to be granted by embassies etc and the foreign office, but leave to remain was granted by the home office. Now the home office handles everything in the UK centrally so the distinction is not significant.
From initial application to permanent residency it costs around £6k in visa fees and around £5k in health surcharges over the course of 5 years. Citizenship is another ~£2k all in.
You make three applications with those fees divided slightly differently each time.
That’s without any legal fees if you need someone to help you prepare your application which will be ~£2k per application.
If you have non-British children or stepchildren (which is generally quite rare) it’s approx those fees per kid as well.
For most other European countries including Ireland the fee is <€500.
I first entered Canada with my spouse as a visitor, then got a work permit as a NAFTA intra-company transfer, then became a permanent resident – all without having to return stateside for immigration reasons.
Is America an economic zone for people (who might be highly educated) to just come and make money, or is it a place for them to call home and be American?
I'll be honest as a naturalized citizen, I am shocked at how many people treat America as just a economic zone. They don't really consider this country to be their roots and don't assimilate into the broader culture. And I'm not talking about H1b, I'm talking about the O1s and L1s. They are so entitled and they are usually super well off in whatever country they come from.
It doesn't matter if they're a PhD or whatever, they might contribute via their employer or their own startup on a monetary basis, but I have also dealt with enough people who try to maintain one foot here and another foot wherever they're from.
We moved to the USA because the system of governance here and all the things it stood for were what motivated us to become Americans. It is our home and we have only our American passport.
Most of the so-called "highly educated" immigrant workers I meet have a spouse who won't become a US citizen so they can double dip in their origin country's low cost of living. It is kind of gross.
Just food for thought. I don't really like people who only seek to extract, if that makes sense. Doesn't matter if your TC is 1.2M or you raised 40M.
This is to close the common loophole where people would fly into the US on an ESTA, B-2 or another temporary visa "without immigration intent" (fraud) and then marry a US Citizen and adjust status.
On visa forums this method is commonly discussed. By entering on an ESTA/B-2 with the intent to marry a US Citizen, they're committing immigration fraud, inherently. You would be denied entry at the border if you admitted to your plans.
The correct way to do this is to file a K-1 visa outside the United States, or marry outside then file a IR-1/CR-1.
The article you linked is patently incorrect. It claims "Now, every legal immigrant must leave the country—that is, self-deport—even if they are qualified for a green card and even if leaving would disqualify them.". This is false according to USCIS' memo.
It very specifically lays out common exceptions to this, including for legal immigrants on dual intent visas and those whose only pathway to permanent residency is via adjustment of status.
It also wildly misinterprets the news to claim that the K-1 visa has been effectively ended, even though the memo specifically excludes it.
> However, maintaining lawful status in a dual intent nonimmigrant category is not sufficient, on its own, to warrant
a favorable exercise of discretion.
Which basically means that, applying AOS while being in dual-intent category is not favorable and you will have to prove extraordinary circumstance for a simple i-485 AOS on H1B. Lacking the extraordinary circumstance, your application may be denied.
What this basically means for millions of people on H1B (especially from countries like India is), they have to go for consular processing. And given the lack of appointments in India and delays they are facing - you could be stuck for months to years and no company is going to wait for you while you go through the process. So leaving would definitely disqualify them.
Why should H1Bs be exempt from consular processing when nobody else is? K and IR/CR categories MUST do consular processing, which takes 3 years in some cases.
H1Bs should jump the queue why? You're arguing that the family of US Citizens should be considered behind temporary immigrant workers with no family ties to the United States, and you should be exempt from the requirements they face.
You are moving the goal posts. You said this memo does not apply to dual intent visa holders and I proved it does. I am not saying if an exception should be made ffor H1B visa holders or not.
I am just pointing out this affects all employment visa types.for countries with long delays in counselor processing this effectively kills any chance of getting Green card because no employer will wait that long.
Only if they do not maintain lawful status, which is what the law says anyway. In fact, it specifically mentions this: "USCIS acknowledges exceptions including nonimmigrant categories with dual intent and immigrant categories where only adjustment of status provides a pathway to permanent resident status"
Footnote 20: However, maintaining lawful status in a dual intent nonimmigrant category is not sufficient, on its own, to warrant a favorable exercise of discretion
Where in the memo does it say "only if they do not maintain lawful status"? there are plenty of people adjusting under employment based petitions who have non-immigrant visas (eg O-1) which are not dual intent.
"The noncitizen may legitimately come to the United States for a temporary period as an O-1 or O-3 dependent nonimmigrant and depart voluntarily at the end of their authorized stay and, at the same time, lawfully seek to become an LPR of the United States."
"USCIS acknowledges exceptions including nonimmigrant categories with dual intent and immigrant categories where only adjustment of status provides a pathway to permanent resident status"
> While aliens who were inspected and admitted or paroled may request adjustment of
status, as a general matter the discretionary approval of such a request is extraordinary given
Congress’s intent that aliens should depart once the purpose for which they sought parole or
nonimmigrant admission from DHS has been accomplished.
Slight correction here. It is fraud if you intend to stay after getting married. Nobody cares if you get married on a tourist visa and leave the country after.
Whenever stuff like this happens, the chuds, both inside and outside the WH, start searching for ancient texts that would support their positions. Invariably, there will be the "actually, the INA says ..." crowd in the comments. To these people, I would like to point out laws that have been passed in this century that speak precisely to this issue. The law is appropriately called "American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000", for which USCIS maintains this page https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-7-part-e-chapter-....
One of my hardest working coworkers at the big box retail store was here on a perpetually extended U visa (reserved for witnesses to crimes of federal interest) after being sold to a sex trafficker at a young age back in the 90's.
Under Trump 1 she was fired because they wouldn't renew it and she lost work authorization. Her kids are citizens and she speaks better English than Spanish, she was educated here and is effectively fully integrated. But she's slightly brown, and Stephen Miller says we can't have that.
That's right. Many people obtain visas with the clear intention of changing their status, which is illegal, and so far, authorities have turned a blind eye to it. The typical progression is: people come on a J-1 visa, join a language cours to get an F1 visa, then drag it for as long as possible, graduate, which gives them the opportunity to work on campus for a short period of time, meanwhile, try to get married, or pay somebody to marry them fictitiously, or try to get an H-1B, which is almost impossible, or, in most cases, stay illegally, but now they have an SSN, and a driver's license, which nobody checks if they are authorized to work, so, there millions of people with SSNs and DLs, whose stay is completely illegal, and it's not too hard to identify them, but so far this illegal situation has been silently tolerated. Okay, if you knowingly allow violation of the law, then change the law so that people don't live with the sense of being unlawful residents! Oh, I forgot that illegal residents can have legal children and later on get green cards as parents of U.S. Citizens. All these scenarios are well known, including the abuse of L-1 visas by outsourcing companies, but, as I said, it's been tolerated.
I do not endorse this change in anyway, as it means breaking promises and assumptions which drove thousands to the shores of USA in the recent past.
Having said that, most commentators here, including me, might not have the full picture of the situation - the scale of influx of current immigration, quality, tactics and loopholes used, and goals (universities as visa machines) etc. USCIS might have a different picture they are looking at, than most of us here. They also might have better visibility of the future needs of the businesses here.
This swill split entire families, more likely forcing those in the US to follow those who need to leave. Of course this has nothing to do with immigration. They're indeed feeding their racist voters some candy, but the goal is rather to reduce population among the poor to counter the inevitable unrest that is happening soon, when tens millions of families will be left with nothing to put on the table because of recent technological advancements that happened too fast before society could adapt.
This is going to worsen healthcare in the United States.
Many critical roles are filled with doctors who are here on visas because there simply aren’t American graduates who want those jobs. I’m talking about jobs being doctors in hospitals and towns and cities that are not the most desirable.
Many of those doctors filling these positions today are immigrants who are on visas. They want to get green cards and stay here. They end up living long term in those communities caring for patients in them over the years.
If this policy goes into effect it will hurt all of that. And actually many of these hospitals and less desirable areas are placed with lots of Trump voters too.
In general if someone has spent years working hard with a visa and is law abiding and contributes to the community I don’t understand the purpose of making immigration harder. And I especially don’t understand why you would make it harder for doctors and engineers and other educated people who are here on visas to get a green card.
the number of doctors on j1 extensions the us is going to lose over this is going to seriously impact us healthcare. it's also not uncommon for doctors to practice on an o1 and they'll be impacted also
> because there simply aren’t American graduates who want those jobs.
Facts are just invented in these debates. Here is an actual fact: in the 2026 residency match cycle, about 6.5% of U.S. MD seniors went unmatched, resulting in approximately 1,300 to 1,400 U.S. MD students failing to secure a position initially.
No need to say “ Facts are just invented in these debates.” Especially when what you are talking about is different from what I’m talking about.
I’m not talking about residency. I’m talking about jobs post residency. There are hospitalist jobs in areas that are in desperate need of doctors. And these jobs are staffed with doctors who are on visas. Outpatient jobs too. These jobs are in locations or hospital systems that are important and that American graduates do not want to go to.
This is an absurd change that will have catastrophic consequences in both academia and the private sector. Even if you're a US citizen who is "America First", you will feel the impact, and it will be net negative.
I doubt it. We've seen time and time again that what the USCIS considers "extraordinary" are actually very, very ordinary circumstances. Anybody with proof of employment will qualify.
You don't know what you're talking about. This is the very last stage of the GC process. Before everyone had the choice to do AOS or CP. I personally chose CP. Now there's only the choice of CP. But nothing else has changed. It means you need to fly back to your home country for a few days for the interview and then you get your GC on the spot.
This is only true in the cases for folks on longer visas. If you meet the love of your life and marry them on a tourist visa, you'll be forced to leave your spouse and head back to your country of origin for probably about a year while you wait for USCIS to process I-130.
>If you meet the love of your life and marry them on a tourist visa
As others have said, someone entering the US on a tourist or other nonimmigrant visa, then marrying a US citizen, is inherently committing fraud because the marriage demonstrates intent to stay. In the past, the US was nice about it and let people apply to adjust their status without leaving. This loophole is now closed.
You can enter the US on a tourist visa, without any intent to date or meet someone, commiting no fraud, but then encounter someone in the USA, get to know them, and decide to marry that person, and then marry that person. That can happen in 6 months, the length of a tourist visa.
Are you saying that in such cases, the US rules here are and should be that the married couple should live apart for years due to the bylaws of the USCIS?
>and then marry that person. That can happen in 6 months, the length of a tourist visa
As I said, this is inherently a violation of the commitment the visitor made when entering the US on a non-immigrant visa, as much as (say) exceeding the limit on the hours per week an international student can work.
>Are you saying that in such cases, the US rules here are and should be that the married couple should live apart for years due to the bylaws of the USCIS?
First, this is what the law has always said; there is a reason why non-immigrant, immigrant, and dual-intent visa types exist. The USCIS memo reiterates this, while clarifying that the agency will no longer grant the contrary-to-the-law leeway it has heretofore done regarding non-immigrant, non dual-intent visas.
Second, the alternatives of 1) K-1 (fiancee) visa or 2) CR-1 (spousal) visa exist, and have always been the intended means for the person you mentioned in your situation.
The leeway meant that pretty much anyone, including illegal aliens, could obtain a green card (and be exempt from removal during the application process) by marrying a US citizen.
A US citizen is free to marry anyone, regardless of citizenship. There is no automatic guarantee, however, that the couple can both live in the US.
> As I said, this is inherently a violation of the commitment the visitor made when entering the US on a non-immigrant visa, as much as (say) exceeding the limit on the hours per week an international student can work.
Your concept of "commitment" doesn't match the legal structure here. A visa is not a contract with the government. What is relevant legally is whether the information presented was truthful at the time of entry and of visa application.
So, love and families, none of that counts for shit beneath the boots of bureaucracy? Send the kids away from their mother, she didn't navigate the Kafkaesque trap correctly so now we must ruin their lives. Nothing about that seems... Wrong? Because up until yesterday, the policy of the United States was that such a thing WAS wrong.
> A US citizen is free to marry anyone, regardless of citizenship. There is no automatic guarantee, however, that the couple can both live in the US.
While you, like USCIS, may be correct that technically the de-jure rules state that there is no automatic guarantee that spouses cannot both live together in the US, the de-facto reality up until yesterday, for all of living memory is that YES, spouses are guaranteed to be able to live together.
I can assure you I am intimately familiar with the entire process.
>> It means you need to fly back to your home country for a few days for the interview and then you get your GC on the spot.
Not necessarily. That's the best and most optimistic scenario. I know of people who have waited weeks, even months. It depends on a lot of factors. And now there will be a lot more people booking interviews at every consulate so expect wait times to skyrocket.
It is just ironic - there are other countries who want talent that goes to US but does not have industry to support them. I guess this is how monopoly looks like.
That’s crazy. If someone is already living and working here, and is legally here (like on a work visa), why shouldn’t they be allowed to apply here? Why require them to lose time and money by traveling somewhere else?
It is to disincentive those on a temporary visa to apply for permanent residency, without eliminating the visa path entirely. What your mental model is optimizing for (easy, efficient) is different than what they are optimizing for (hard, inefficient).
> The policy change could impact hundreds of thousands of people a year and potentially reduce legal immigration further amid a sweeping government crackdown, according to immigration-law experts. President Donald Trump’s administration has introduced a series of restrictions affecting everyone from asylum seekers to students and highly skilled workers.
> The new rules generally apply to any foreigner who came to the US on a temporary non-immigrant visa, including students, employees on H-1B or L visas and visitors. The US awards about 1 million green cards a year, though roughly half of those are for foreign relatives being sponsored by an American citizen. Those applications are generally already processed outside of the US.
(POSIWID [The Purpose of a System Is What It Does])
I'm dumb, can someone give me an objective take as to why leaving the country is a good thing for applying a green card? In Australia usually you apply when you already have an existing visa, and if that's going to expire you usually apply for what is known as a bridging visa while your PR application is being processed.
It's not. The US green card process takes years, and being forced to be outside the country while the process is ongoing makes it very hard to continue working for a US employer, which is how most people are actually sponsored for a GC in the first place.
If you're looking for some objective rationale for this change, you're not going to find one. This is simply designed to make GCs much, much harder to get and dissuade prospective immigrants. That's the only goal.
I think others are saying you just need to apply outside the country but you can return while the process is ongoing. So it seems to be some kind of clerical thing.
This is the will of people who voted the current administration into power. Its a democratic country, politicians have to respect what the people want, a recent video which reflects the thoughts of majority:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3FcCTXRiKo
They don't want legal immigration except in cases where it is in the national interest i.e a Deepseek AI researcher wanting to move to the US - bet your bottom that person ain't waiting for a green card.
I have never regretted abandoning my Green card and giving up US PR. Honestly every day I feel I lucked out by not being stuck there. Especially now in the NewUSA
This is such an insanely unpopular move even among some of trump’s supporters.
I really think this will be this version of the republican party’s suicide note.
> it's somehow not that unpopular among the less bright.
politics aside, do you realistically believe that you can view twitter and actually mentally carve out the opinion of a group of people in real life?
that's exactly the issue with twitter.
for one : you're polling twitter users (a TINY subsect of humanity), two : you're extracting opinion from those that seek to broadcast it (an outlier) , and three: twitter never self-exposes the world to a user, it selectively curates and amplifies, and fourth : it's one of the most gamed communications arenas in existence.
you're viewing the world through an itty-bitty twitter-colored monocle and making sweeping accusations across large cohorts, it's not an accurate portrayal of actual human opinion.
I don't think it's a perfectly representative sample of people in real life, so I always view it as an anthropological experiment, as if I'm visiting wild tribes... but still am finding the proportion of people in favor of this decision to be surprisingly high.
Why insanely stupid? No, I don't mean you might not be right but it's nice to hear arguments rather than a pointless slight against people you assume fit your category.
Because immigration is a net positive for economies, as any economist will explain to you. Especially high-skilled immigration, but it's not even limited to that. An increasing population is already a net positive.
Or we could build more houses, and schools and hospitals. When did we become a country of scarcity instead of builders? Half of downtown down San Francisco is built on the abandoned boats from migrants that were building too fast to bother moving the boats that brought them to the gold rush so they just built a city on top.
We could create special economic zones like china, allow 200 million immigrants into the country with a goal of a billion people to match the population of china and India. Make it a condition of citizenship that they help build ten homes or similar infrastructure. Immigrants could be the solution to all the problems you cite and they certainly aren’t the reason those problems exist.
It’s sad you don’t realize who you’re getting in bed with. H1Bs and their families are only 0.4% of the population and yet they’re being blamed for -all of americas problems. Must be your first rodeo around the american political system if you actually think they will no longer blame you even if that number shrinks to 0.1%. The economic considerations have always been a pretense. Some of them hate you because you’re brown but not the kind of exploitable cheap labour brown that serves them food and cleans their houses. Politicians see an easy scapegoat to blame for their mismanagement of the country and lean on the narrative. Indians keep leaning republican and learning this lesson over and over again.
Or evidence that they are confident their takeover and transition to single party rule was successful a they are not subject to further accountability.
If something seems irrational it’s usually a sign that you don’t understand the underlying logic. This behavior is totally logical if they aren’t worried about losing power.
>>
admitted into the United States as nonimmigrants to depart rather than
pursue adjustment of status. Such aliens are generally expected to pursue an immigrant visa and
admission from outside the United States if they wish to reside permanently in this country.
H1-B was already a dual intent visa. Are they trying to create a new visa category?
Whatever they are trying to get to this is a big concern for all H1B employees.
I see lots of comments about the legal minutiae around this -- but as a non-US person I'd like to understand the motivation.
Straight-up nativist discrimination? This kind of technical measure would seem to be hard to sell to the MAGA base, compared to something more blatant? Or is this somehow a favour for their corporate clients?
Legal immigration was already hard. Just went through that green card process with my wife from China, glad we already got it done. But, even before Trump admin 2nd term, it's been difficult. Further, even my wife has the green card, my Chinese mother-in-law has been rejected twice for a simple visitors visa, and I'm an American that has been with my wife for 16 years. She was rejected before Trumps latest term while Democrats were in power. She owns like 3 houses in China and has plenty of assets and would not move here permanently even if there were zero friction. We just want her to be able to visit us a few months per year instead of me being forced to fly my entire family of four back to China each year just to visit my wife's mother. These stupid barriers are totally ridiculous. I promise, Grandma from China isn't taking anyone's job and she has plenty of money to spend while she's here to help the economy and then she wants to return home.
All that said, as a data point, when I got my working permit and working visa to legally work in China, I first had to fly back to America and get a "landing" visa issued, then fly back to China, where they then finally issued me the China working visa and China resident permit. So, I think globally, this is pretty common for process.
I don't believe that's correct. H1-B is formally a temporary, nonimmigrant work visa/status which permits "dual-intent" (meaning a holder can be openly seeking permanent residence when applying for [or when on] such a visa without that dual intent being immigration fraud).
The way I read the new policy is that it will be applied to people who have violated immigration law in some way.
An alien’s failure to comply with the conditions of their nonimmigrant admission or parole and an alien’s failure to depart as expected are highly relevant to this analysis
And those on dual-intent visa are fine…
USCIS reminds its officers that applying for adjustment of status is not inconsistent with simultaneously maintaining nonimmigrant status in a category with dual intent.
It’s basically adhering to the laws on the books. If you’ve violated immigration law a high hurdle will be in place to use this special pathway.
However, if you’re in the US on a dual-intent visa (e.g. H1-B) then you can continue to use the AOS pathway. This includes temporary works on L or H visas. And includes those sponsoring their spouses on K visas.
The most insane thing to me is that legal (non-asylum) immigration is somehow framed as a “moral” thing that nations do out of charity.
Its not: you get to directly address a shortage in your country without the burden of raising and training the person. Arguably, if you don’t mind morality, the immigrants are also easier to exploit. And all that + you get a free tax payer!
My reading is that Americans (but also other parts of the world) are 1) uneducated on this topic 2) racist and or xenophobic to the point of self sabotage.
Quite literally if county building was a video game where the xenophobia of the masses could be ignored, I would brain drain the shit out of every country, leaving myself stronger and the rest weaker.
Switzerland does this well. In Switzerland, immigrants are mostly permanent residents. Achieving Swiss citizenship is very difficult. They have a bunch of immigrants in their country, yet immigration is much less divisive than in other countries, since they have such a well-designed system.
The US has a naturalization-driven model of immigration, which is being tested by fast jet travel. It worked OK in the days when you had to pay a bunch to cross the Atlantic and you couldn't easily communicate with your relatives back home. But things are different now.
The citizenship model or naturalization model creates policy implications for accepting immigrants. New voters, new policies. Of course the people on the losing end of this policy shift become upset: https://arctotherium.substack.com/p/increasing-skilled-immig...
I am under the impression this does not apply to for example o-1 visas. Possibly not for h1-b. Is everyone clear about what they are commenting on here? Is the news coverage clear?
So if someone is here in the US on an H1B and they want to become a permanent Resident/ Green Card holder, they will have to go back to their country of origin to apply? Otherwise they just stay on their H1B VISA and work.
This must be rolled back this is so hella disruptive. But it’s very much in line with this administration. One part stupid another part callous and 3 parts bad for the economy.
What about a spouse visa? It's insane. I just got married to my girlfriend, and she needs to go back to her home country and wait for years before getting a green card? It's crazy.
Yes, and if you move there, you lose “domicile” and no longer qualify to sponsor her but if you don’t visit her regularly, she’ll get RFE’d for “bonafide relationship proof” (since your name appears Indian just be aware they’re very quick to RFE at Mumbai immigrant dept)
They obviously know how unpopular this is, or else they wouldn't be releasing on a Friday night. This is so unimaginably disruptive, I wonder who inside the administration is suggesting this.
The fact that they get to make this announcement is probably the biggest upside. Their base loves it. It makes people think they are doing something. There is an asymmetry in that if they quietly roll this back or it's blocked in court, it will generate only a tiny fraction of the publicity.
Probably not too controversial here to say that the economy wants these immigrants so good bet they'll keep getting hired.
It's a cruel strategy, but I think it's fair to say that it's far from certain it'll be a consistent one.
Its the same model china has? Was one of the reasons the enclaves flourished (like hong kong).
And i dont get it, no actually i get cognitive dissonance whiplashfrom all that contradicting messaging. Millions of jobs will go due to AI, but millions of those unemployed must stay in addition?
In a country thats constantly portrayed as the worst on earth but constantly attracts the wretched of the earth. Who want the opportunities but not the melting pot. The recipe that produced the economy that allowed such luxuries must go, but those who detest that system must stay. If a set of opinions has no intersect why does it make a sound ?
Let's saying you're dating somebody on a work visa, if you wanted to marry and sponsor their residency, would they now need to return to their home country to wait for the embassy?
The embassies reviewing applications put a LOT of weight on time spent in person, BUT they also require the US applicant to have domicile. So effectively, the only way to proceed is a long-distance marriage that could take years to process a visa for (remember: move abroad, and you could lose the domicile required to sponsor the green card).
So with our shrinking birthrates, our regularly documented & growing "will never marry" population, immigration effectively cut off, what does the future of this country even look like anymore?
yea, i’d say this is rather ridiculous. it places an undue financial burden on someone to uproot their life after they’ve already made community connections just to stay permanently. this seems very much obviously designed to discourage and halt immigration by making it more painful
I've read through many comments. Like true HN-ers, they are trying to understand this change in terms of logic, reasoning, cost / benefit, and so on.
This is missing the point. The arbitrariness, cruelty, racism, xenophobia, etc. is A DESIGN FEATURE, NOT A BUG.
I hope this may help youngsters in this terrible situation understand what is happening. Since at least the 1980's, if not earlier, one American political party has been using racism as a part of their platform. They used to do this in coded "dog whistles" before. The earlier targets were mostly Black Americans (they still are, if you look at what the Supreme Court just did with their voting rights).
Now it is all out in the open. The racist beast needs to be fed continually with fresh targets. Gay Americans were another target group. More recently it is undocumented South Americans. The most recent target is .. foreigners (especially non-white non- Christian).
Don't look for logic and reasoning in all this, in the abominations. Take a deep breath, and a long walk. Evaluate if it is worth dedicating your life and career contributing to the beast, and living in constant uncertainty of your legal status, unable to travel, and so on. You are worth way way more than that.
My Eastern European wife and I recently faced the decision of how to go about getting her a green card. At the time we lived outside the US.
One option was to enter the US on her B1 visa pretending to have no “immigration intent” and then “change our mind” a respectable number of days later and apply for AOS. The process for this was 1.5 to 2 years. I didn’t want to do it for that reason and because I wasn’t comfortable with what amounts to visa fraud, but our attorney presented it as a pretty standard option.
The other option was consular processing. This wasn’t automatic. Our attorney contacted a few consulates in the region where we lived to see if any would accept our case (due to war the consulate in her home country wasn’t handling routine cases). We got approved for consular processing in Budapest.
I had to go once as the US citizen spouse to submit our application packet and do a pro forma interview. Then a few months later it was my wife’s turn to go to the interview.
The process, like any immigration process, was paperwork heavy and nerve wracking. The final interview was very simple and felt like a formality.
In that case once approved she received a visa that would be stamped upon entry to the US and this would count as a temporary green card pending receipt of the physical card.
All of this happened during the second Trump administration so I was expecting a hostile or at least adversarial process. But it was quite the opposite. Total elapsed time was about six months from initial attorney consult to entry into the US as an LPR. It would have been faster if our attorney was more on the ball getting our final interview appointment.
If I were to find myself in need of a green card for a foreign spouse again I would opt for consular processing if given the choice. Now that it’s required I imagine there will be a longer backlog.
Obviously if you need to do this at one of the consulates that no longer offers consular processing that’s a different story. I was fortunate that the Budapest consulate agreed to take our case.
The tech industry and general business lobby is extremely pro H1b/immigration. They're probably the only thing holding back a total ban on h1b immigration right now.
In some ways that industry is losing a tool. Sponsoring a green card used to be the prize they dangle in front of the h1b to keep their nose to the grindstone.
Not from the US, but is a green card actually necessary to work there after studying? afaik student visa is different from green card right?
Most countries, you get a visa of some kind but you have no way to permanent residency at all unless you marry but you can keep staying there somewhat permanently.
You can apply for GC from within the US. The only time you need to leave for Consular Processing is for the interview, after which you immediately receive your GC. Everyone is saying that the entire GC process needs to be done outside the US but that's wrong. You can have an H1B and apply for GC from within the US without leaving and you only need to leave for the CP interview which is a couple of days max.
All this means is that I485 is no longer allowed and everyone needs to do Consular processing. It doesn't mean that Green Cards are no longer being processed.
I did consular processing when I got my Green Card. It's the FINAL step fo the GC process. You don't need to be outside the US for all the other stages, in fact I think if you leave during some parts, it would be considered abandoning your application. It just means that while you're in the US, you need to schedule an appointment at the US embassy/consulate in your home country, and fly back. Then you go through the appointment and there on the spot you're approved or rejected. It's a big nerve wracking but unless you lied you will be fine. Then you fly back to the US.
For me CP was much much faster, on the order of months.
I think in specific visa circumstances, an i485 will still be required such as K1 visa which is granted outside the country and then by nature of a K1 visa, adjustment to green card must happen within the United States.
This is a good thing. Adjustment of status for those within the USA is backlogged- by years for people from certain countries. Going to the home consulate for the final stamp will save years for many people.
F1 and h1 are non-immigrant visa.
American law only allows a person to reside in the country with one Visa type.
The green card is an immigrant visa - and the new visa is issued through an adjustment of status for those inside the USA (backlogged) or by consulates (nearly immediately).
So this is a good thing. It’s easy to get alarmed.
Because America only has a few processing centers in within the US where is that literally hundreds and hundreds of consulates that can now take on this activity they have always been doing this activity but the vast majority of the backlog is caused by the slow processing of the US processing centers.
Each country can only get 8500 gc’s per year. My numbers are probably incorrect, but some countries have literally hundreds and thousands of people in the pipeline while some other countries only have perhaps thousand. The ones with long waiting periods will clearly benefit.
Edit. Via OpenAI
2025, the cap was about 26,323 per country because the total visa pool was larger.
Important details:
1. The cap applies to:
* Employment-based green cards
* Family preference green cards
2. The cap does NOT apply to:
* Immediate relatives of U.S. citizens
* spouses
* parents
* unmarried children under 21
Those categories are uncapped.
3. The cap is based on:
* Country of birth (“chargeability”)
* Not citizenship.
4. In practice, countries like:
* India
* China
* Mexico
* Philippines
hit the cap constantly, causing very large backlogs.
Simple example:
If 500,000 Indians qualify for employment-based green cards, but only ~25k–30k can be allocated annually under the cap system, the remainder wait in line. That is why Indian EB-2 and EB-3 wait times can stretch into decades.
From what I've gathered, the consular route is nowhere near immediate, especially if they are from one of the countries typically backlogged (e.g. India). You're saying that someone who gets married while on F1 + OPT/STEM should leave with their partner, potentially for months if not years, while pursuing the consular route.
No. All it leans that you go to the consulate on your appt and get your immigrant visa stamped - you get an appointment date and that’s it’s. It was a 3 hour process for me. I flew into Frankfurt and flew out the same evening.
The performative cruelty is the intent, I guess. At this point, seems like the only practical thing to do is to wait the lunatic out.
However, the big question this will leave for future immigrants is 'What if this current administration is the prototype for future Republican administrations?'
My wife already has her green card through our marriage - but it expired under the Biden admin and we were given a 4 year “non-renewal extension” because USCIS was unable to process its renewal in time due to the post-COVID backlog. We’ve got about a year left on that extension and are absolutely terrified we are going to be forced to uproot our entire life by this evil administration and its pointlessly cruel policies.
It's shocking to me that the gov is allowed to claim "backlog" to defer one of the functions the gov is actually supposed to do. They print the money. They can hire enough to fulfill their obligation with almost zero effort.
The DHS has made many communications that were openly white supremacist. It's not just an unfair situation with legal technicalities. Their views and plans are more extreme and dangerous than our society is able to accept as reality, so many are in denial. There are obvious historical parallels.
There need to be thorough weekly video walkthroughs of all of the detention centers. Otherwise you can expect actual starvation at some point.
If the perpetrators are not dragged in chains in front of a nationally televised tribunal at some point in the future, we will have failed as a country.
I support this. The United States is too crowded. I don't want to compete with all these new people for housing. American citizens really need to begin advocating for themselves. For their material interests.
As a European, I also support this. Natives should not have to compete with all these new people for housing. Real Americans really need to begin advocating for themselves. For their material interests.
I don't want every square inch of my country to be city; and if you look on google maps, most of the land in the US is already either used for farming, cities, or not suitable for either.
That's a reasonable opinion for one to have, but it can coexist with humane timeframes for changing laws over time. Not grandfathering people already here for a change in policy of this magnitude -- this is inhumane.
Also consider that these "new people" are assets to our economy. They're tax payers, many are highly educated, and their presence over the last hundred years is the exact reason you have the privilege of being in a wealthy country. Seriously, how do people think the US became what it is?
Will sending these people away improve our economy? Because I doubt it. I mean, we've been doing mass deportations right?
Well... has the economy improved for you? Has your life gotten better after we dumped a few tens of billions into ICE? Because I'm still waiting.
When will that chicken come home to roost, do you think? I'd like to know so I can make a note of it and inevitably tell you "I told you so" when that day rolls around.
Maybe it'll be around the same time we get those tax refund checks from all the money DOGE saved.
"They're tax payers, many are highly educated," yes they have more purchasing power the day they arrive than I do after 4 generations.
That's not right and toxic for social cohesion. Your immigrant class should not be wealthier or have superior earning power to the native population. That's like a sociological time bomb.
When I renewed my H1B visa (I think after three years), I had to leave the US to do it. I couldn't renew it from inside. The permission to work got renewed just fine - I could just keep on working for another three years - but if I left after the first visa expired, and wanted to come back, I would need a new _visa_ (thing stuck into my passport) to come back, and I could only apply for that while outside the country.
I read that it used to not be like this, that it used to be possible to renew the _visa_ itself from inside the US, but that got changed before my time. I can only imagine that the reason for that was that non-citizens inside the US are entitled to due process, but non-citizens outside the US are not. And denying a visa to somebody outside the US is therefore a lot easier than denying it to somebody inside the US, and essentially cannot be appealed.
When I applied for AOS form H1B to Green Card, I didn't have to leave the US. With this change, I would have had to. The only reason I can think for this change is that denials of AOS would now become unappealable. I hate this.
> I read that it used to not be like this, that it used to be possible to renew the _visa_ itself from inside the US, but that got changed before my time. I can only imagine that the reason for that was that non-citizens inside the US are entitled to due process, but non-citizens outside the US are not. And denying a visa to somebody outside the US is therefore a lot easier than denying it to somebody inside the US, and essentially cannot be appealed
No, after 9/11 they passed a rule to always collect biometrics before issuing visas and validating them at border entry. The DoS facilities in the US did not have fingerprinting facilities but the consulates and embassies did, so they forced the change. Recently there was a pilot to allow it in the US itself.
This is just Trump trying to torture immigrants likely due to the psychopath Steven Miller.
In general the law applies equally to everyone associated with the US in any respect so you get due process (in theory) regardless. Specific laws may apply to different classes of people though (see 'enemy combatants').
Easier to get a temporary talent visa? Maybe, for some profiles. Easier to get permanent residence? Almost certainly not. The U.S. green card system is backlogged and maddening, but it is still a mass immigration system. China’s green card is closer to an exceptional-status program (it's 100x harder to get a green card in China than a green card in USA).
Also if you really want to immigrate to a country you eventually probably want to become a citizen of said country right? USA has pathways for this (albeit getting harder with this new admin). However in China it's nearly impossible.
This thread has a lot of comments that seem to associate labor regulations and concern for the poor underclass, and immigrants themselves, with racism. Effective, but not in the intended way.
This is them working their way up through "purges" of undesireables. Remember it first started with illegal immigrants. Now it's expanding the classes of who counts as illegal. First forcing green card holders to become illegal. Next they'll make it illegal to speak out against the government, be a union organizer, trans person, non-Christian, anyone who gets or helps someone get an abortion (actually that's already illegal), socialists/social democrats, anyone who supports Palestine.
By 2029 the gloves will come off. The internment camps of today will be dwarfed by what comes next. If you think I'm crazy, look at what they've already said in the past. They are not kidding anymore.
This administration has made it clear in no uncertain words or actions. They don’t want immigrants. And if you think this is bad policy, please stop voting for them. Please vote for the alternative candidates. This is the easiest way to fix this nonsense.
I have participated in democracy exactly once. It was the only time in my life I was eligible to vote. My vote made no difference and the course the United States took is now irreversible.
Prior to being able to vote, I watched one unsatisfactory candidate after another get elected to the US Presidency despite the obvious presence of a much preferable and more qualified candidate.
Still, even if I had voted and my preferred candidates had won, it's not clear to me that this would have changed anything. Our world is not run in public.
We live on a prison planet. The borders are the cell walls. Some of us have more privileges and freedom to travel, but we're all restricted. This doesn't help anyone other than the few parasitic slave masters.
No, it is not. And if you fall in love and want to get married to someone on a student visa, your fiancée should not need to leave the country for a year or two to wait for paperwork to process. Which is one of the real world impacts of this change.
The green card process can take 9 to 20 months and applying for a green card demonstrates an intent to immigrate so it's highly likely attempts to return on other temporary visas like a student visa will be denied.
So they likely have to wait out the green card process abroad unless they secure a dual-intent visa like an H-1B.
There's also 75 countries that the US has shut down consular processing for so those people may be locked out getting a green card entirely.
Absolutely not. My wife could apply for German permanent residency as well as now German citizenship from within Germany. She has been living in Germany for 10 years now and at no point in the process did she have to go through a German consulate (she is a US citizen).
For many immigration statuses in Sweden, you must leave and apply outside of the country (outside of Schengen for non EU-citizens) to change status. This was even the case before the current right wing government was elected.
Except for the part about requiring you to leave to process your application.
Wait times to process applications depend on your country of origin and visa type. If you are an H1B from India that was already decades approaching never. Same for Brazil and elsewhere.
And that was before Trump. All that was practically halted.
Objectively terrible policy for ethics, public safety, and, selfishly, the American economy. Immigrants contribute to economic growth and are less likely to commit crimes are well established facts. It’s the 21st century, we have the internet and education is accessible, but instead of recognizing and championing the vital role of immigrants in America’s rise to power, here the nation moves to hurt itself for some misguided anti immigrant ideology.
The number of people commenting who are grossly misinformed yet feel very confident is very very high.
Many comments are calling legitimate facts as “wrong”.
People don’t event know the difference between a visa and a permanent resident status and yet feel compelled to talk about foreign born people coming to America, “non- western” or “non-European” immigrants.
Do better HN audience. This is very disappointing.
Another case of this administration just doing what it wants and ignoring legislation - ignoring the will of Congress. And Congress abdicating its responsibility to even make its will clear.
I am no longer surprised, but still don’t understand why almost all members of Congress are wiling to just let their power slip away like this.
It's just sparkling xenophobia. Forcing a return to one's home country to apply for a Green Card can frequently remove the very qualifiers one has to getting said Green Card.
Just take a look at the categories of Green Cards available on USCIS' website[0], and think about how many of them will be unavailable if you're back in your home country.
* Green Card via Family? 18 months, minimum, for approval.
* Green Card via Employment? Well, self-deporting likely means the loss of said job opportunity, thus your ability to convert to LPR status
* via Special Worker? Here's hoping you're not an Iraq of Afghani national that might be persecuted back in said home country for cooperating with the US Government.
* via Refugee or Asylee Status, or as Victims of Abuse? Are we fucking kidding, here? Forcing refugees/asylum seekers/abuse victims back to their home countries is deliberately cruel, and I'm going to be looking for statistics on changes in approvals pre- and post- this policy change to make sure "special circumstances" are actually recognized as such
It's just a despicably cruel policy change that's so overtly xenophobic, it actually reveals the alignment of those reporting on it when it's not called out as such. It's the antithesis to legal immigration in that it all but destroys the process entirely, promoting more illicit behavior (dangerous and clandestine border crossings, exploitation of migrant workers, human trafficking, etc) in the process.
My buddy married someone he met in grad school abroad, then got a job in the US when he graduated. She had to move in with her parents in Japan while waiting for the green card. It took at least a year.
I'd disagree on nuance. Xenophobia is anti-foreigner. This targets people of color. They target people of color who are US citizens, too.
It is gutter racism.
edit: I wish I could be surprised by the downvotes, but it's gutter racism and I'm proud to point this out! I would be never be quiet about a matter of ethics and conscience just because of startup accelerator social media popularity points. This directly influences many of our friends and colleagues in this field. It is vile, evil racism and directly topical for software startups.
edit 2: the list of immigrants and children of immigrants who have founded software companies that are the absolute backbone of US information infrastructure is embarrassing to write down. Anyone can search for the information, but it's harder to list companies not founded by immigrants or children of immigrants.
Trump is still trying to distract from the magnitude of the Epstein network.
Not long ago, new accusations came about, involving more superrich - see here https://wsvn.com/news/us-world/former-miami-beach-mayor-accu... and elsewhere, really just a few hours ago; and from the last few days. So here I am wondering ... how can there be an investigation in the USA, but even many weeks afterwards, they keep on finding more and more people that MAY have been involved here? Of course it is guilty-unless-proven-otherwise-in-court, but the key question here is why the investigation "reveals" more and more victims? Should this not already be revealed? Or is the investigation deliberately crippled?
Something no longer works in the USA here. The "we are against immigration" is just the carrot on the stick before the donkey. Or the "let's bomb Iran ... oh wait, inflation now goes up". This is literally an administration that worships chaos and executes pillaging while implementing chaos.
So what does this do to the K-1 fiancée visa? Your partner gets the visa, they come over, you get married, and then they have to leave and submit an application to get status changed from their origin country? Seriously? WTF is this crap?
K-1 visa is immigrant intent, you are basically applying for temporary 90 day pass to get married and one of two things will happen: Get married and adjust your status or leave.
What this screws over is there was plenty of people from US visa waiver countries who decided K-1 was too hard and just flew over to US and got married. They would then apply for Adjustment of Status. That is big door being shut close because B-1 is non immigrant intent visa.
My room mate from college did this with UK foreign exchange student 20 years ago. She came over on visitor visa, got married and they got a lawyer to fix it all up.
What about for people who do want follow the K-1 process "by the book"? It sounds like they would they now need to come over, get married, go back to their origin country to apply for status adjustment, and then come back over again? Or am I misreading this?
You are misreading this. K-1 can come and stay since it’s considered an immigrant visa.
This screws over anyone who enters the country on visitor/temp work or student visa since those visas are not immigrant visa. You would be expected to leave the country and apply for GC overseas if you got married on one of those.
There really is no rhyme or reason to this insanity. Even someone who wants less immigration shouldn't be able to see this as anything other than insanity. The current administration is pathetic beyond belief.
I think it is hard for citizens to understand how precarious it feels to be an immigrant in the present political climate in the US and Europe. I'm a permanent resident in France, I'm white, I have a EU passport, I have a job, I'm OK. But, my naturalization request has already been denied twice, because I couldn't provide some arbitrary document the government demands, and they keep changing the rules, just for the fun of it or so it seems, it's quite insulting.
I really feel for immigrants that are less fortunate than me. we all just want to have dignity, find a job (anyway the low-paying jobs are done by immigrants) and provide for our kids. What's wrong with that? How is this taking advantage of our host country?
Frankly, the present discourse around African/Arab immigration seems to me to resemble a lot the kind of rhetoric around the millions of Jewish Russian immigrants who fled pogroms to Poland and western Europe a 120 years ago. I find the similarities quite striking. The blatant racism, the conspiracy theories, the fascist propaganda, all in order to whitewash (pun intended) a corrupt regime of thieves and sycophants. Absolutely disgusting!
the wildly corrupt double-standard is breathtaking
There is well documented historical evidence Elon Musk not only illegally overstayed a student visa, he also illegally worked while on that visa AND did illegal drugs publicly while on that visa
Destroyed USAID murdering millions, highlights the President is in the Epstein Files extensively, then six months later is flying on Air Force One, it's all a cruel joke against humanity
Right - this is the natural extension of the dichotomy "There are those the law protects but does not bind and those the law binds but does not protect". The law doesn't bind Musk - those visa infractions are enforced on peasants, not Epstein Class Nobles like him.
Basic empathy would be OK with letting the White refugees entry to the US. But because of the anti-White/Europhobic racism from the left, they lack empathy.
There's no hatred against white people, not widespread enough to be notable at least - the book White Fragility talks about this imagined persecution though, I recommend it. I know you need to have the last word, and as I don't wish to engage further with people that have your ultimately hateful views, please go ahead so we can be done. At some point, I hope you get cured of your fear of imagined threats ultimately, at least in part, driving your hate. Take care.
There's no hatred against Jewish people, not widespread enough to be notable at least - the book Mein Kampf talks about this imagined persecution though, I recommend it. I know you need to have the last word, and as I don't wish to engage further with people that have your ultimately hateful views, please go ahead so we can be done. At some point, I hope you get cured of your fear of imagined threats ultimately, at least in part, driving your hate.
"Let me quote this washed up anti-White neo-segregationist that was caught using antisemitic tropes as proof that I don't hate White people" is such a hilarious take only a leftist could make it. Imagine taking lines and tactics from know racists and segregationist and delusionally believing you have the high ground. Take care.
Not to speak on the anguish that this would undoubtedly cause but economically? This is like shooting yourself in the kneecap. America doesn’t nearly have the social security net of European countries and ours is already overburdened. Without younger, immigrant workers paying into our social security net the US govt will either need to print money (double digit inflation) or start raiding the evil tech bros RSUs for Medicare money.
Being a natvist is an expensive proposition. Expect your retirement to decrease in real value and struggle to find acceptable healthcare as you age (healthcare in the US is increasingly staffed by immigrants, especially nursing).
This is confusing. If someone is already here on a valid visa, it's stupid that they should have to go anywhere else.
If they simply showed up or overstayed a visa illegally, then it's actually totally reasonable that before they can be given permanent resident status, they should be demonstrating compliance with immigration laws by not being here illegally.
Yet again with Trump's bizarre mixture of a nugget of a reasonable (and popular) idea with a barrel of nonsense and chaos. It's the same as with tariffs. Tariff things produced by adversaries, that we are well-positioned to make here ourselves and stimulate a good domestic industry with good-paying jobs? Yeah, but also let's tariff a ton of things we need that we don't even freaking make or grow here, and against our geopolitical allies to boot.
So the racists in the Trump administration - my guess is Stephen Miller types - are literally making it so that LEGAL immigrants have to spend thousands of dollars and time to go submit a form in another country, when they can do it here? Or online? Why?
The cruelty is the point. They want the economic benefit of immigrants but also want them to live in uncertainty and without any easy path to settling down. Complete and utterly stupid.
I will say, there are a non-zero number of people who were rooting for Trump and the American right wing in general who are now surprised the fascists are turning on them. I don't know, it's hard to have sympathy for some of you.
Did you really think the whites saw you as one of them? Were you so naive? Because you were "educated"? Because you worked in Silicon Valley or SF (you know California, the same places that Trump ranted against for years because they never voted for him)?
We've banned this account. Stop registering accounts to post inflammatory comments about race. It's all clearly against the guidelines and a waste of everyone's time.
There's no THE greatest country; every country can be great.
US&A has been the escape hatch for oppressive regime in China/Russia/... for many years, young people from there seek freedom in US, instead of fight for freedom in their own.
Individual freedom is great but collectively they made people who can't migrate have less and less freedom. Some expected US&A compensate that with trade, military and twitter, which all turned out to be disasters.
I'm sorry for anyone stuck in those processes, but for long term US&A giving up on Green card / dual citizenship is not necessarily a bad thing for the world.
> Individual freedom is great but collectively they made people who can't migrate have less and less freedom
Damned if we don’t allow people in and, apparently, damned also if we do allow some in
Your strange argument would actually support this policy: stop letting these people into the USA so that they stay in their own repressive countries and are forced to reform them.
Hundreds of millions of people from abroad shared that belief up until 2 decades ago or so. I don't think they believe it anymore. It's been like watching your awesome high school friend throw away their lives over time.
It will destroy the United States as a leading economy and superpower.
Think about it: China draws mainly on the talents of the best of its billion+ population. But America has had its pick of the best of the world's 8 billion people. Until now.
The US is best understood as a land of opportunity: a country with a strong economy and a population that is diverse in race, culture, and background. Wouldn't those people be better off moving back to the country of their immigrant ancestors?
Yep, skimming the cream of the world is the engine of US dominance. We generally got some of the most highly motivated people, because it takes a lot of work and determination to uproot your life.
There used to be a bipartisan agreement that a US advanced degree should come with a green card stapled to it. Even Trump: “You graduate from a college, I think you should get, automatically as part of your diploma, a green card to be able to stay in this country."
> China draws mainly on the talents of the best of its billion+ population.
And China is notoriously xenophobic when it comes to immigration policy - they have a clear “best race” as far as the CCP is concerned and are doubling down on it. If you want to hold China up as a model I don’t think it’s the winning argument that you think it is relative to a pro-immigration argument. White nationalists would agree with you and say to only allow whites in and be more homogenous like China is.
Separately you’re also arguing in favor of only high-skilled immigration which seems kind of suspect don’t you think? No more refugees from Haiti or Syria, for example. Otherwise the US can’t be drawing on the pick of the world’s best.
> But America has had its pick of the best of the world's 8 billion people.
You also aren’t accounting for the concept of brain drain which has historically been difficult for origin countries to deal with. It’s a little amusing to see folks positively arguing in favor of what would otherwise be considered a colonialist tactic of resource extraction.
I’m critiquing these two points however and not necessarily suggesting a policy, but I think it would be wise to think a little more deeply about these two points.
I’d also add, we are totally fine and the rhetoric around the US no longer being a leading economy and superpower is false. The strength of the country isn’t solely because of immigration. In fact, that may not even be a major factor. Geography for example plays a much greater role, our system of government and laws, our markets and culture of enterprise are far more important. I’d argue tablet kids and the introduction of technology into classrooms is, for example, a much greater problem for American talent than lower rates of skilled immigration.
Immigration is just another policy choice we make, like our system of laws or others. It doesn’t need this moral component to it. Increase the rate of people immigrating in some years, decrease it in others. No big deal. If you want to suggest it’s worthy of a moral crusade then you are barking up the wrong tree because the United States has and is certainly more friendly toward immigrants both now and historically than probably any other country on the planet. You should aim your outrage at countries such as China which severely restrict this moral good.
In itself, no, of course not. But it's part of a much larger pattern which together blow apart that whole "great American melting pot" thing that seemed fundamental to the country's prosperity.
It's not a dumb thing to say. The US is built on immigration. Making immigration harder will lead to the next big industries not having a focal point in the US. It's also not as simple as letting college grads get green cards. It's often second or third generation immigrants creating more economic prosperity. Attacking higher education and now immigration is basically destroying the US a decade to a generation from now.
Wow. As someone who just went through this process myself (leaving the US to get a green card via consular processing), I can only hope they hire more people to handle the increased case load. You need a medical exam and there were only 2 people available in my country to do that, which added 2 months to my application time (where I could not return to the US)
The internal memo on this is interesting: https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/memos/PM-...
Essentially they're trying to change the rules by aggressive re-interpretation of the existing legal framework, and not actually changing any laws or regulations.
I don't follow all of it, but it seems to be arguing that the "ordinary consular process", leaving the country and applying for a visa from abroad, is the long-established default, and that "adjustment of status", where your immigration/green card status changes while you're already in the US, is merely an extraordinary exception and "a matter of discretion and administrative grace." Even though applying for a green card while in-country (an "adjustment") seems like the only sane and reasonable process.
It feels goofy watching them marshal decades of prior case law to try to frame this as just a "reminder" rather than admitting this is a real change. (Since changing laws is harder I assume)
Adjustment of Status has been on the books since the start in the 1950's, and was greatly expanded leading into what might turn out to be the high point of the country in the late 90's and early 2000's.
What “the books” say is that H1B is a “nonimmigrant” visa for people “temporarily” in the U.S. It’s right there in 8 USC 1101(a)(15)(H).
“Adjustment of status” is an option at the discretion of the administration (8 USC 1255(a)):
> The status of an alien who was inspected and admitted or paroled into the United States … may be adjusted by the Attorney General, in his discretion and under such regulations as he may prescribe, to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence
Note the “may” and the “in his discretion.” Basically, if the government really likes you, it can change your status. But that doesn’t change the primary purpose of the H1 visa from a temporary worker program into a permanent residency program.
> Note the “may” and the “in his discretion.” Basically, if the government really likes you, it can change your status. But that doesn’t change the primary purpose of the H1 visa from a temporary worker program into a permanent residency program.
Where this falls apart is that the K-1 Fiance visa is also a non-immigrant visa, that through Adjustment of Statuses (based on your demonstration of a genuine and sincere relationship) becomes a green card pathway. All "may", "at their discretion", on a non-immigrant visa.
But then what is the purpose of the K-1 visa? To allow you a US citizen then perhaps, maybe, one day, be allowed to stay in the same country as your spouse? At the government's discretion, of course?
The K visa actually proves my point, because someone on a K visa (by itself) isn’t eligible for adjustment of status at all! The K visa only allows admission for purposes of getting married within 90 days.
Under 8 USC 1255(d), the AG can’t adjust the status of someone here on a K visa: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim.... If you don’t get married, you have to leave.
What entitles alien spouses to petition for permanent residency is not the K1 visa, but section 1154: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim.... So, for example, the citizen could marry their fiancé in the fiance’s home country.[1] And they’d use 1154 to petition for permanent residency. The K1 visa just allows the marriage to happen in the U.S. but is unrelated to the ultimate basis for permanent residency.
[1] Our family friend did this. We set him up with the daughter of our next-door neighbor in Bangladesh. They had a wedding over the phone with him in the U.S. and her in Bangladesh. Then she came over on an 1154 petition.
Right, I met my wife in the US when she was here on a non-immigrant student visa. We actually married in the US before the end of her CPT/OPT quota. After that, I became an expat when we both relocated back to her original country.
After about 4 years there, I relocated back to start a new job, arrange housing, etc. We started the USCIS petition in her country during one of my visits. She eventually finished the whole process and got her immigrant visa to come back and join me.
It worked out smoothly for us, but mostly because we understood the general process timeline and pipelined it to coincide with other professional and personal life factors that drove things. We were going to be separated for a bit anyway, because I wanted to chase the new job back in the US while she still had obligations to wrap up overseas.
> So, for example, the citizen could marry their fiancé in the fiance’s home country.[1] And they’d use 1154 to petition for permanent residency. The K1 visa just allows the marriage to happen in the U.S. but is unrelated to the ultimate basis for permanent residency.
Per my immigration attorney, the K-1 entirely bypasses 8 USC 1154 at the petition stage. 1154 governs immigrant visa petitions (I-130, I-140, I-360, etc.). The I-129F is technically a nonimmigrant petition even though it's understood by everyone as a pre-immigration vehicle.
K-1 AOS does not require a separate I-130. The approved I-129F plus the marriage to the petitioner supplies the petition basis. This is one of the cleaner cases where 8 USC 1154 is genuinely sidestepped, not merely deferred.
For K-1s, the path to residency is firstly via 8 USC 1186a, and is automatic and statutory, granting the conditional LPR.
Then at 2 years of marriage, 8 USC 1186a again handles the removal of conditions.
However, many attorneys will file I-130s, according to her, and such, simultaneously, though not required if you follow the process to the letter. And that does go via 1154.
USCIS forms aren't the law. The statute is the law. And however USCIS has chosen to structure its forms, the legal basis for a K1 visa holder's eligibility for permanent residency isn't the K1 visa itself, but instead other provisions of the law that confer eligibility for permanent residency on immediate family members of citizens.
This CRS report examples: https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/20151215_R44310_34af119...
"Once in the United States, the K-1 nonimmigrant is required to marry the U.S. citizen petitioner within 90 days. K-1 visa holders are permitted to work in the United States during this time if they file for employment authorization. The foreign national is eligible for lawful permanent residence as an immediate relative if the marriage takes place within 90 days and the fiancé(e) is otherwise admissible."
It's the status as an immediate relative of a citizen that confers eligibility, not the visa itself.
I've seen it decades ago. It wasn't "really likes you", but whether they believed you were seeking an adjustment of status because of a change in circumstances since your original entry.
40 years ago--we had no knowledge of each other's existence when she entered the US. Life put us in proximity, our hearts decided they wanted more proximity. Adjustment of status was granted. She's 20 feet from me as I write this.
This interpretation makes the entire immigration system extremely arbitrary and capricious. It's almost as if Trump supporters just want to give non-citizens a hard time for no reason. The cruelty is the point.
No the point is to create disincentives for people to immigrate so fewer people will do it.
> No the point is to create disincentives for people to immigrate (...)
Yeah, and the disincentives consist of giving non-citizens a hard time for no reason.
> so fewer people will do it.
You're not disagreeing with OP. You're just trying to whitewash all the xenophobia behind the motivation.
[flagged]
> It's the moral right of people in a democracy to control the flow of people to limit cultural change.
Tell me what is changing about American culture. I am curious to know.
Many things, but for example the taboo against showing off your money has diminished. I know someone whose dad probably worth half a billion dollars. I knew her for several years and had no idea. That’s very different from my culture (south asian) where social hierarchy is very important and heavy emphasis is placed on signaling your wealth to establish your place in the hierarchy.
When I grew up in northern VA in the 1990s, that taboo was still strongly in place. There were lots of rich people (my dad once ran into Dick Cheney at the CVS). But people drove old Volvos. I only ever saw one Porsche growing up, and it was an old one owned by my neighbor who was an engineer who could do his own work on it. Since then there’s been a huge immigration from south asia and the middle east. And the houses got way more opulent, luxury stores started opening in the malls, people started driving Maseratis, etc.
And how can you attribute that to immigration and not something else?
Many things culturally comes and goes in waves. How can you tell them apart?
Culture evolves, but slowly and on a trajectory.[1] Immigration changes the trajectory in a very visible way. You can compare places in the U.S. that experienced more versus less immigration. For example, the taboos against showing off your wealth are still strong in Oregon where my wife is from.
[1] The French refer to "les payes Anglo-Saxon," the Anglo-Saxon countries: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24517581. The term describes the deep cultural and political commonalities between the UK, Australia, Canada, the U.S. and New Zealand. Before the mass immigration of the 2000s, Toronto and Sydney were more similar to each other than I think residents of either city would want to admit.
Would also this means that all sorts of interference with other countries is also bad and should not happen? I can think of a couple of countries right now with a massive problem of illegal immigrants on ships but they use uniforms
The US has become less of a high-trust society than it was.
In the Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey (SCCBS), 40 US communities were studied, some high in ethnic diversity, some low. In the communities high in diversity, people trusted neighbors less, had fewer close confidants, volunteered less, and withdrew from community life more generally.
One of the principals (namely, Robert Putnam) behind this study described this behavioral pattern with the phrase “hunker down.” In diverse neighborhoods, according to his analysis, residents of all ethnic groups became more socially isolated, including from members of their own ethnic group.
> Wanting to control immigration flows so immigrants don't change American culture isn't "xenophobia.“
Such desires can be and have been xenophobic. You’re welcome to prove that they’ve never been. I would like to see you revise the Federalists’ own history for once, instead of someone else’s.
> It's the moral right of people in a democracy to control the flow of people to limit cultural change.
You’ve elided a premise along the lines of “moral rights cannot be exercised in a xenophobic manner,” which is incorrect.
Immigration changes society. People who like their society the way it is, and don’t want it to become more like the places the immigrants come from, are entitled to vote against that. They don’t owe you any explanation.
[flagged]
This account you are all arguing against is a totally political account here. Check the profile
The point is that decisions can remain arbitrary
what do you mean by "makes" . It has always been arbitrary ppl get denied at airports arbitarily. my brother and i have the same background and education. i was given an f1 visa and he wasnt.
The point is exceptions are not the rule.
A misrepresentation. 'Adjustment of status' is not 'if the government really likes you', it's a process that's available by rule. And the federal rulemaking process, as you are fully aware, involves publication in the federal register, solicitation and and collation of public comment, and republication of teh final rule, again, in the federal register.
Incidentally, we don't have an attorney general at present, only an acting one (Trump's former personal lawyer), and I question the standing of an unconfirmed federal officer to alter existing rules, never mind to bypass the federal rulemaking process entirely.
> misrepresentation. 'Adjustment of status' is not 'if the government really likes you', it's a process that's available by rule
I’m using a colloquialism to convey how much latitude the administration has under the wording of statue. It says that the “status of an alien who was inspected and admitted or paroled into the United States … may be adjusted by the Attorney General, in his discretion and under such regulations as he may prescribe…”
When the statute says an officer “may … in his discretion” do something, that’s Congress giving very broad latitude to the executive to make case by case determinations.
The word “discretion” has a special meaning under the APA. The APA says that courts can’t review agency actions that are “committed to agency discretion by law.” The Supreme Court has read that carve out narrowly (because otherwise I think you have serious due process problems). But Congress using the word “discretion” here at the very least conveys how much latitude Congress intended to give the administration with respect to adjustment of status.
That's a lot of words because you no counter to the point I made about rulemaking. This blanket change seems to me to violate the APA, and as I mentioned above it's questionable whether Blanche has authority to set policy at all given his lack of confirmation. I anticipate this being set aside as arbitrary and capricious.
It depends on what kind of change in practice is at issue. Was it a practice that was dictated by rules? If so you need a new rule making. But I don’t believe that’s the case here. The memo here says that, to the extent decisions are within the discretion of immigration officers, remember that you don’t have to let anyone adjust their status.
You don’t need a rulemaking to release guidance on the exercise of discretion, even if that new guidance changes prior agency discretionary practice. Agencies do that all the time.
One of two things happened here:
1. You just quoted 8 USC 1255(a) because it's at the top of the USCIS memo without understanding it; or
2. This is just the most ChatGPT comment.
I say this because you clearly don't understand this stuff. From reading your comment history, you're a Trump supporter [1] and you seem to have done the most MGA Thing of being told what your position is and then looking for a justification.
8 USC 1255(a) is a carve-out that basically gives the AG authority to let people adjust. It doesn't go the other way and say the AG can withhold permission to adjust. The entire section details the requirements to adjust, detailing admissibility requirements.
So how did we get from the AG can allow someone to adjust to the AG can override the entire section that details adjustment requirements?
Also, you don't understand what "nonimmigrant" means in relation to your H1B comment. Yes, H1B is a nonimmigrant visa. That just means they're not a lawful permanent resident ("LPR"). It doesn't mean they can't adjust status.
It's a bit like taking the description fo a woman as "non-pregnant" and taking that to mean they're not capable and/or not allowed to get pregnant.
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48188084
> 8 USC 1255(a) is a carve-out that basically gives the AG authority to let people adjust. It doesn't go the other way and say the AG can withhold permission to adjust.
That’s exactly what “may” means. The AG “may” do it, but he doesn’t have to.
To make that clearer, the statute also says “at his discretion.” That means the AG can adjust or not at his choice. That’s what the word “discretion” means in a legal context: https://dictionary.justia.com/discretionary
> The entire section details the requirements to adjust, detailing admissibility requirements.
You need to read more carefully. The rest of the section describes conditions where the AG cannot adjust the status. They don’t require the AG to grant the status adjustment to anyone who meets the requirements.
For example, subsection (d) says: “The Attorney General may not adjust, under subsection (a), the status of an alien lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence on a conditional basis under section 1186a of this title.”
So subsection (a) gives discretion to the AG to adjust status at the AG’s choice. Then other provisions say that he can’t adjust status under certain circumstances.
> Also, you don't understand what "nonimmigrant" means in relation to your H1B comment. Yes, H1B is a nonimmigrant visa. That just means they're not a lawful permanent resident ("LPR").
No, because there are also “immigrant” visas. Those visa holders also aren’t LPRs. So what’s the distinction between immigrant and non-immigrant visas in your reading? The difference is that immigrant visas are intended to be a pathway to a green card, while nonimmigrant visas are intended to be for temporary workers who will typically go home.
Note that subsection (H) also includes H2 visas for unskilled temporary workers. Those visa holders can request an adjustment of status too. But the expectation is that generally that will not be granted.
For anyone wanting to loose the time on this discussion ok. But this account is weird AF. Look all the interactions and comments this user appears. Probably the bots or the comment army got to hacker news.
A way to silence people is to cause commotion so people get dizzy by the noise.
There is no menace. There was no evil plan. There was nothing like that. Accusing others of what you want to do is a classical trick.
Deregulation and union busting greatly expanded in the 80s leading to the high point of the country in the 90s as well.
And my theory is that the US only looked good because there were no competitors: Break up of the Soviet Union left the constituents without economies of scale. Similarly European markets were still desperately fragmented. China was growing, but from a low base.
So capital flooded to the US.
So we all have our own theories.
The real question remains "What's best for America right now ?"
Soviet Union was never the place where large scale immigration happened.
Actually the opposite. There were severe restrictions to emigration. They didn’t want people leaving the Soviet Union (or the satellite states) and going to the West. The Berlin Wall for example. Things weren’t so rosy behind the Iron Curtain.
For quite a while, the "Cost to renounce citizenship" was at $2350. Turnip lowered it back to $450.
But no, US citizenship, like everything else in this country, a cost.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/16/travel/renouncing-us-citizens...
And if you have unforgivable student loans because you believed the k-12 propaganda, then you can never "leave". You might be done paying them by the time you, uh, die.
[flagged]
1% says correlation is not causation
Not only is changing laws harder. Changing regulations requires following the Administrative Procedure Act. They might also be short circuiting APA - as in typical for this admin to attempt.
What part of this memo changes the regulations? The punchline is this: “Where adjustment of status is in the discretion of USCIS, officers are reminded that they are to consider all relevant factors and information in the totality of the circumstances in exercising that discretion.”
All the memo is saying is reminding USCIS officers that adjustment of status is an act of administrative grace and applicants aren’t entitled to have their status adjusted. That’s always been true.
That is what the memo is trying to say. That no regulations or laws are changing, but it's simply pushing for a certain interpretation of the law that doesn't seem to have been the status quo for awhile.
Some stats I found online report that ~60% of greencards are granted to people already living the US. This memo makes it seem like that route will now be much harder. So while its true that the law as written has always been true, they're definitely pushing for a change that will result in past behaviors no longer being true.
> That's always been true.
Except it is completely contrary to how the immigration system has worked in the US for decades. It is absolutely standard for people who are already in the US on other types of visas to apply for Green Cards.
[flagged]
For him to have been given a mandate, he would have had to stick to one well defined, self consistent position for more than a day.
More like he's been given a political mandate to be needlessly cruel to non-citizens, and he's constantly finding new ways to do so - whether legal or illegal.
The latest move even forces spouses of US citizens to leave the country before they can apply for a Green Card. Why? No reason except spite. Hating on foreigners is good politics.
And then all sorts of people will come out of the woodwork to try to explain that this is all normal and fine, and that nobody should be upset by it.
It took decades of bait and switch and not enforcing the immigration laws to get to this point: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/29/podcasts/the-daily/electi...
The last time the U.S. had this level of foreign born population, it enacted extremely restrictive immigration laws and the foreign born population dropped from 15% to under 5%.
"Bait and switch"? Applying for a Green Card while in the US is allowed by the law, and has been the norm for decades.
Yes, the US has had other xenophobic phases in its history. That doesn't justify the new wave of xenophobic politics.
> Bait and switch"? Applying for a Green Card while in the US is allowed by the law, and has been the norm for decades.
The law was marketed to voters as a temporary worker program. That’s not what it ended up being. That’s the bait and switch.
> Yes, the US has had other xenophobic phases in its history. That doesn't justify the new wave of xenophobic politic
The immigration restriction was necessary to Americanize the immigrants culturally and dissolve their foreign identities and affinity for their own cultural groups. It was fairly successful, too!
It’s bizarre to have to explain this concept on HN. Silicon Valley companies spend so much time on culture and fit, and with good reason. Cultivating a successful culture is extremely important. It’s curation, not “xenophobia.”
A country is not a company.
The central belief that defines Americans is that the country is open to immigrants, and that it will accept anyone who embraces the civic creed: democracy and civil rights, as defined by the Constitution.
The attempt by Trump and his supporters (yourself included) to replace that American identity with a xenophobic, exclusionary identity is a major deviation from traditional American values.
> The central belief that defines Americans is that the country is open to immigrants, and that it will accept anyone who embraces the civic creed: democracy and civil rights, as defined by the Constitution.
Insofar as America has a "civic creed," it's principles like limited government, federalism, property rights, free markets, and individual liberty.[1] We know that, because America's founders were prolific writers and wrote down everything they thought was important: https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/full-text
It's definitely not immigration. Here's Alexander Hamilton on immigration: https://www.iwp.edu/articles/2016/12/21/hamiltons-actual-vie... ("The safety of a republic depends essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits; on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias, and prejudice; and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education, and family.")
Alexander Hamilton thought you needed a "common national sentiment," "uniformity of principles and habits," and "love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education, and family." Hamilton would have hated Mamdani.
> We know that, because America's founders were prolific writers (...)
Every single one of them was an immigrant. I mean, check the country's history.
By the way, the current US administration is questioning the legal principle which would support the idea that the founding fathers or even their descendants were citizens.
> It's definitely not immigration.
You have a massive statue at the gateway to your biggest city with a big ass plaque stating "give us your tired huddled masses".
It is the symbol of the country.
Are we so desperate to whitewash this mess to even dare to gaslight about such a fundamental topic?
Alexander Hamilton was a monarchist. He's hardly the single authority on what American values are.
If we're playing the "what did the founders think?" game, then I'll see your Hamilton and raise you a Washington [0]:
> The bosom of America is open to receive not only the opulent & respectable Stranger, but the oppressed & persecuted of all Nations & Religions; whom we shall wellcome to a participation of all our rights & previleges, if by decency & propriety of conduct they appear to merit the enjoyment.
And then I'll double down with a Jefferson [1]:
> and shall we refuse to the unhappy fugitives from distress, that hospitality which the savages of the wilderness extended to our fathers arriving in this land? shall oppressed humanity find no asylum on this globe? the constitution indeed has wisely provided that, for admission to certain offices of important trust, a residence shall be required, sufficient to develope character and design. but might not the general character and capabilities of a citizen be safely communicated to every one manifesting a bonâ fide purpose of embarking his life and fortunes permanently with us?
And of course, the most famous statement of the American attitude towards immigration:
> Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
> With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
> Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
> A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
> Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
> Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
> Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
> The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
> “Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
> With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
> Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
> The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
> Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
> I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”
0. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/99-01-02-...
1. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-36-02-0...
2. https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/46550/the-new-colossu...
> I'll see your Hamilton and raise you a Washington [0]
If America can be defined in terms of a "creedo"--which is your position, not mine--then surely that creedo can't include things that architects of the country like Hamilton and Jefferson disagreed on? The creedo must be the things they had in common, like federalism, republicanism, and property rights?
> And of course, the most famous statement of the American attitude towards immigration:
The American creedo cannot logically be defined by some poem some activist wrote a century after the founding.
Jefferson is much closer to the American credo than Hamilton was, though the United States did not remain stuck in the 1770s-1790s, so it's just a fallacy to treat the founders as the sole source of American identity.
But if you do want to play the founders game, Jefferson had a much larger impact on American self-identity than Hamilton. Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, created the Democratic Party, which is the only party that has survived throughout all of American history, and championed the idea of democracy, which Hamilton was highly skeptical of. Hamilton was a monarchist, as I mentioned before. He had a major impact on the American financial system, but was much less successful as a political figure in his own right and did not shape American cultural and political identity in the way Jefferson did. His political party collapsed within 20 years, and his conceptions of an elite politics were overtaken by the rapid democratization of the US.
There have always been minority streams in American politics that have been xenophobic and have opposed immigration - you just happen to belong to the latest one. But these movements have consistently lost out over the course of American history. Successive waves of immigration have brought new groups to the United States. Xenophobes like yourself have constantly said that every new group would ruin America. The Irish didn't ruin America. Neither did the Germans. Neither did the Italians. Giving African Americans civil rights didn't ruin America. Chinese and Indian people haven't ruined America. Haitians aren't ruining America.
You seem to have some sort of obsession with Mamdani, which is weird, since he's as American as Apple Pie. It's actually difficult to think of anything about Mamdani that comes across as particularly foreign. He speaks perfect American English. He acts just like any other progressive New Yorker. He's extremely hooked into American culture. What, exactly, is it about Mamdani that's foreign or dangerous to America?
When you ask what makes immigration part of the American credo, this is what does that: the US is not a country founded on any ethnic identity. It's a country founded and peopled by immigrants, whose only common identity is belief in the American project, which is defined in purely secular and civic terms. Throughout its history, immigrants from all over the world have embraced that identity and have been rapidly incorporated into the society of the country. You don't like that, and want to undo it. Too bad.
> principles like limited government, federalism, property rights, free markets, and individual liberty.
A laundry-list of principles the current federal Republican regime has been destroying or violating the last two years, and surely each one far more important than (non-)immigration.
It started by abusing the responsibility of "immigration" to violate the First Amendment, punishing people purely for op-eds and opinions the President didn't like. [0] Then he unilaterally declared an "invasion" by a Venezuelan street gang, using that as an excuse to round up dozens of people (without charges, let alone evidence) based on a crazy "any tattoo I can't recognize" rubric (for a gang that doesn't even use tattoos) and violating court orders to deliberately ship them into a third-world dictator's brutal gulag. [1]
That was, what, just the first month? We've had dozens of other things that ought to have been scandals worse than Watergate since then.
> Hamilton would have hated Mamdani.
Hamilton would have embraced Mamdani as a brother, if the alternative was Trump having any position of public trust.
Discussing immigration, it seems a little strange to target the mayor of a particular single city, instead of the enormous cartload of impeachable offenses being committed by the highest office of the land that actually does immigration stuff.
[0] https://www.aclu.org/cases/khalil-v-trump
[1] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/pro-soccer-player-sent-...
> Hamilton would have embraced Mamdani as a brother
No. Hamilton was very worried about immigrants bringing foreign social and political views to the U.S. Jefferson, meanwhile, though the immigrants would support the Democratic Party, and favored those radical ideas. It's the same debate we have today: https://www.iwp.edu/articles/2016/12/21/hamiltons-actual-vie.... Hamilton was the MAGA of his day.
That's unfair to Hamilton: There's huge difference between "kinda wanted a kingly system" versus "would have approved of that becoming king while breaking the rules of a different system."
> on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias, and prejudice
If that includes Russian and Hungarian influence, Mamdani is waaaay closer to that then the JD Vance, Trump and the rest of Putin + Orban loving group.
In fact Mamdani and left are way closer to having actual consistent values they operate on, positive national sentiment then the above gentlemen. The right is in the process of destroying to values and replacing them with wast amount of corruption on the oligarchs sake.
> and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found
The people you promote hate America as it is. Their literal project is to destroy it and rebuild completely different feudal setup - the one based on suppression and violence.
> to be closely connected with birth, education, and family
It is again right who is trying to destroy education and to modify family into mini dictatorship where connection does not matter, because you will do as ordered of punished.
not just de facto standard and not just in the US, it's a logical way to intepret the laws, in many western countries. The laws should streamline and welcome people who have already established connection and contributed to the success of America. It makes no sense for people to have to leave the country to apply for permanent resident, and be treated like all those to-be immigrants who have never lived in America.
> The laws should streamline and welcome people who have already established connection and contributed to the success of America
The law should do what it was designed to do. The H1 system reflects a compromise between people who wanted skilled workers and those who didn’t want foreigners becoming permanent residents. So the compromise was a temporary worker program where most people would go home afterwards.
The law should be interpreted to give effect to that compromise. Your approach of streamlining immigration wipes away that compromise.
they still need to file for permanent residency and you can still reject them.
If the laws need to "wipe away that compromise", better just disqualify them from filing in the first place.
It makes no sense to deport some of the people that you're going to give permanent residency to, while you're giving permanent residency to them.
> Essentially they're trying to change the rules by aggressive re-interpretation of the existing legal framework, and not actually changing any laws or regulations.
If you want to make that argument, you have to confront the fact that H1 is by its terms a “nonimmigrant” visa for people who are “temporarily” in the U.S. 8 USC 1101(a)(15)&(a)(15)(H). While adjustment of status was possible, it was never intended to be a de facto immigrant visa that typically leads to permanent residency.
Note the law does also have immigrant visas which are designed to lead to permanent residency, such as E1 visas: https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/visa-inf...
H1-B (I think H1 generally) is dual intent. https://fam.state.gov/FAM/09FAM/09FAM040210.html
You have to think about what "dual intent" actually means. The relevant provision is 8 USC 1184(h):
> (h) Intention to abandon foreign residence > The fact that an alien is the beneficiary of an application for a preference status filed under section 1154 of this title or has otherwise sought permanent residence in the United States shall not constitute evidence of an intention to abandon a foreign residence for purposes of obtaining a visa as a nonimmigrant described in subparagraph (H)(i)(b) or (c), (L), or (V) of section 1101(a)(15) of this title or otherwise obtaining or maintaining the status of a nonimmigrant described in such subparagraph, if the alien had obtained a change of status under section 1258 of this title to a classification as such a nonimmigrant before the alien's most recent departure from the United States.
What does the text in italics mean? It's there because having an intention to abandon your foreign residence makes you ineligible for a nonimmigrant visa, including H1B. All 1184(h) says is that a petition for permanent residency cannot by itself be used as "evidence of an intention to abandon a foreign residence" for purposes of renewing your H1 visa.
That's all "dual intent" means. It's a fiction where you can keep saying "I intend to go back home after my temporary work in the U.S."--which remains a fundamental requirement of H1B status--and the government can't point to a permanent residency petition as evidence that you are intending to stay in the U.S. permanently. The law doesn't give the H1B holder any right or expectation of being granted permanent status.
The law does have immigrant visas for people who can come here and say "I want to work here and seek permanent residency. I'm not intending to go back." H1B isn't like that.
> The law does have immigrant visas for people who can come here and say "I want to work here and seek permanent residency. I'm not intending to go back." H1B isn't like that.
you are, obviously, interpreting the law to fit your narrative:
""The fact that an alien is the beneficiary of an application for a preference status filed under section 1154 of this title or has otherwise sought permanent residence in the United States shall not constitute evidence of an intention to abandon a foreign residence for purposes of obtaining a visa as a nonimmigrant described in subparagraph (H)(i)(b) or (c), (L), or (V) of section 1101(a)(15) of this title or otherwise obtaining or maintaining the status of a nonimmigrant described in such subparagraph"
All this means is that you, indeed, can be dual intent and apply for permanent residency while holding a H-1B, like generations of Americans have done before ourselves.
It’s a shame that I had to scroll past pages of invective and name-calling to get to your comment, which is the first one to substantively deal with the policy change.
Like you, I tend to think this is a ham-handed move, but like one of the sibling comments, I also have to acknowledge that it’s common for other nations to require change-of-status applications happen outside the country. For example, Japan requires this for some (but not all!) visa modifications.
Also, I’ve seen otherwise reliable sources making unsupported claims about this (e.g. “Existing applicants will lose their ability to apply again if they leave the country”) that aren’t clear from the minuscule amount of information that has been released so far.
As usual with these debates, the content is far more heat than light.
Japan only requires leaving for converting a tourist/digital nomad visa and some Working Holiday Visas to a normal working/spouse visa. And WHV to normal status is really dependent on the partner country. For example Australians don't need to leave, but Canadians and Brits do, and I've heard that immigration will sometimes just grant the change of status anyways. So that seems to indicate that Japan doesn't really care.
Needing to leave to convert a normal working/spouse status to PR is not the norm anywhere.
> . So that seems to indicate that Japan doesn't really care.
Additionally, Japan has a very clear and straightforward process to convert HSP Visa (Highly skilled visa) to a permanent residency.
It can be done in 3years for most and to 1year for the high level candidatures (PhD profiles).
This is very far from the current H1B shitshow.
> Additionally, Japan has a very clear and straightforward process to convert HSP Visa (Highly skilled visa) to a permanent residency.
I mean, that's true as far as it goes, but HSP is one special visa amongst many, and they're not all so easy. Also, Japan is currently in the middle of its own dramatic restructuring of the immigration system related to HSP, including a number of new requirements that would drive critics of the US system to apoplexy (i.e. language fluency requirements).
Overall, the Japanese system looks a lot more conservative than the US one, though the sanity and consistency level is far higher.
> HSP is one special visa amongst many, and they're not all so easy.
Japan has a selective immigration system where the profiles JP gov considers as "necessary" are made easy to immigrate, and the others not so much.
One can disagree with the method, but at least it is consistent.
Near that, half of the American tech (and associated GDP) is constructed highly qualified immigrated engineers on H1B visas, and still the US gov openly shit on them.
> US system to apoplexy (i.e. language fluency requirements)
JP mainly just put some Japanese language level requirement on the HSP visas related to roles with communication. That honestly does not shock me.
We agree that the Japanese system is far more consistent. I think it's better!
But let's not kid ourselves: if the US instituted a CEFR B2 language requirement [1] for anyone on an H1B visa to gain residency, it would be an absolute shitshow.
[1] This is the new Japanese language requirement.
Assuming English is the language, CEFR B2 is roughly 75 in TOEFL, such a low standard that community colleges would think twice before admitting such internationals students. In reality H1B tech workers easily blows 100+.
No, it would not be a shitshow. That's just your assumption.
Do you think I could not pass that test?
> Do you think I could not pass that test?
Well, I don't know you, but you've missed the point entirely so...
It would be a shitshow because of the politics of it. I am certain there would be plenty of people who could pass, and some who can't.
Also, it's obviously my assumption.
Right, it's obviously your assumption, but you stated the resulting shitshow as an obvious fact—"let's not kid ourselves".
I doubt H-1Bs would oppose taking that test. Many already took English proficiency exams by the time they apply for the visa.
I assume Americans in general would favor this extra requirement too.
And companies, if we decide we care about what they want, really have no reason to oppose the test. There's a large enough number of applicants that they can easily pick from the ones that do speak English fluently.
So to conclude it would be a shitshow because of the politics is likely incorrect, certainly defeatist, and gives up on the actual thing we should strive for, which is to make the H-1B visa better.
For the US to institute a language standard, we'd first have to agree on an official language at the federal level.
There's a (fairly basic but extant) English language requirement for naturalization, so it doesn't seem inconceivable that could be applied to a visa.
This has been a political issue in the past--mostly with respect to Spanish--but there's essentially a de facto English requirement for most purposes.
[flagged]
I think one of the primary divergences of thought happening here is whether H1B is indeed a temporary visa or whether it was meant to be a stepping stone to a green card.
H1B is only 36 years old. The Immigration Act of 1990 always meant it to be a temporary status, which is why it is so easily imperiled.
Yes, it's temporary, but the 1990 act explicitly established dual-intent, which clearly made the visa eligible for adjustment of status under INA 245. Nobody is really debating that fact, but the announcement memo is also not clear about what they're going to try to do in terms of actual administrative process.
Part of the noise around this topic is that the administration just announced something vague with no detailed guidance, which leaves the door open for bad-faith interpretations by everyone.
It's also necessary for media to exist as an industry. The objective of nearly all news articles is clicks, comments, and sharing. Bad-faith interpretation is by far the best way to increase the count of all of those things regardless of how detailed the guidance might be.
It's a shame you scrolled past pages of comments and missed the point entirely.
The fact that it's "common in other countries" is entirely irrelevant to what the United States does.
It's not even clear it's common in other countries. Japan is notorious for being insular.
This is a garbage move by this administration that flies in the face of decades of precedents _in the United States_.
I don’t want to defend the cure administration, but it’s very common and normal for a country to require a person to leave to change status.
Every time my Canadian work visa expired I had to drive over the border, enter the US, turn around and drive back to start the new one. The border guards call it “flag-poling” because you do a U turn around the flag pole.
When I went from work visa to permanent resident I had to do it, in January, in Alaska, at -44 degrees and nasty ice on the roads. That border required 30km of driving through no man’s land before I got into Alaska. I asked the Canadian as I was leaving if I could just u turn his building and come back right now, and he was very firm I had to enter the US, even if for just 20 seconds. Nasty drive, but all ok
Okay but this has not been the case in the US and everyone knows that. We can try to make things up to rationalize why this being done.
Or, we can be honest, and acknowledge these actors have proven themselves to be irrational. What is happening is that an end-goal is desired, and then the trump administration is working backwards to make it happen.
H1B as a visa status (and the one nearly everyone in this thread being affected by the green card status) is only 36 years old.
The immigration act of 1999 very clearly created it as a temporary visa not a stepping stone to a green card. That's a modern invention.
congress made h1b dual-intent in 1990
The "only" is doing A LOT of heavy lifting. Also, you're being a bit dishonest here, because this does not only apply to H1B visa holders.
Also, are those people not the exact demographic that so-called "anti illegal" Republicans should want? They're highly educated and desirable, not welfare queens right?
I will repeat my point. You have been lied to. The Republicans do not give even a single shit about what is legal and what is not. What they desire is less brown people, and then they work backwards to justify it. Any other interpretation is just not reasonable at this point, with the evidence we have been given.
> What they desire is less brown people, and then they work backwards to justify it.
Which is a perfectly fine thing by the way. I can't see anything wrong with it. If the Americans want fewer "brown" people in their country, that is entirely their prerogative. It's their country, after all.
I am from India. Indians themselves have preferences for the kind of people they'd like to allow to immigrate to India. Bangladeshi muslims are not desired, whereas Tibetans are welcome. Intra-regional migration is a problem within India itself, with certain populations being seen as less desirable in certain areas.
Perhaps the "brown" people can work on fixing their home countries so that they wouldn't have to emigrate in order to enjoy a better quality of life.
> Perhaps the "brown" people can work on fixing their home countries so that they wouldn't have to emigrate in order to enjoy a better quality of life.
That's an ignorant thing to say. Even in democratic western countries, it can be very difficult for the average person to institute change even at a local level. If you have to battle corruption or war on top of that, it could be impossible. For example, would it be fair to say that a Sundanese villager should just fix their country as PMCs being hired by the UAE(and others) are committing genocide? Or would you consider that reasonable to flee the country in search of a better life?
We have to admit there are lots of cases where people can't just "fix" their own country as there are complex geopolitical issues that a normal person, or a group of normal people are not able to fix. If Americans want fewer "brown" people in their country, the idea should be to promote global economic and political stability so that people can reasonably make their countries a better place, not to just tell them to go away and fix their own problems.
> If Americans want fewer "brown" people in their country, the idea should be to promote global economic and political stability
Speaking as an Indian: "brown" people's countries are "brown" people's own responsibilities. If their countries are messed up, they should also own the task of fixing them.
Other countries can feel free to pitch in if it suits their interests, as you say. But the primary responsibility for our motherlands is with ourselves.
> that a normal person, or a group of normal people
We just have to become not-so-normal then!
> Speaking as an Indian: "brown" people's countries are "brown" people's own responsibilities. If their countries are messed up, they should also own the task of fixing them.
>Other countries can feel free to pitch in if it suits their interests, as you say. But the primary responsibility for our motherlands is with ourselves.
Yes this would make sense if the US & other countries had a policy of non-intervention. When the US & its allies are actively destabilizing these countries, you can't turn around and be like oh now its your fault your country is messed up and you are solely responsible to fix it after we bombed, invaded, or otherwise economically destabilized the region. The long term solution to stop people from immigrating to the US for a better life is to promote political and economic stability in those countries, ie. not bombing them, invading them, removing their leaders, promoting trade with them etc.
I live in Canada and the US is actively trying to destabilize my country through threats of annexation, disregarding trade deals and implementing tariffs, promoting separatism. What can I do to stop the US from doing this exactly? If the US ends up destroying my country, is it my fault? am I solely responsible to fix it?
Nobody said it is their fault. But it is their responsibility.
United States immigration policy is supposed to benefit the United States. It doesn't need to be fair.
The US can bomb a country if it's in US interests, and then deny immigrants from that country if that immigration is not in US interests. It really is that simple.
I never said that they can't bomb a country or deny immigrants. They certainly can and are. I also never said that it needs to be fair. I'm saying its ridiculous to be mad when people are trying to immigrate to your country for a better life and you're tell them to go back to their country & fix it when you're the one(or your close friends are) actively making it worse on purpose. I'm sure you can see the hypocrisy in this.
I'm not sure what is controversial about if you want to reduce people trying to come to your country then you should promote global economic & political stability so they don't have any reason to come. Especially when you are the most powerful country in the world that is already meddling in everyone's affairs.
> Which is a perfectly fine thing by the way. I can't see anything wrong with it. If the Americans want fewer "brown" people in their country, that is entirely their prerogative. It's their country, after all.
Which Americans? Whose country is it that "their" is referring to here?
Bangladeshi Muslims demanded and got a country for Muslims as they wanted that's why they are not welcomed by Indians. Read history
I'm from India too. It's disingenuous to say things like "Bangladeshi Muslims are not desired" and not mention the massive backlash the Citizenship Amendment Act received. It's almost as if people recognize arbitrary discrimination is the opposite of just.
Attitudes like yours - justifying entitlement without holding its corruption accountable - is why people have to leave their home countries: their own insufferable countrymen.
Nobody would care about this if it didn't affect H1B. The confusion is whether h1b is a temporary visa or some kind of stepping stone. According to the immigration act of 1990 and US law it's a temporary visa and subject to this rule.
For example O-1 is not affected because O-1 is not considered a temporary visa in US law.
O-1 also has no cap. The USA can take in unlimited O-1 immigrants.
O-1 is nonimmigrant in the statute, so by definition we take in zero O-1 immigrants. It’s a temporary work visa.
People care about this because it is arbitrary and capricious and runs counter to decades of established practice.
What are the Canadians up to and why are they doing it?
That’s strange. I was able to renew a work permit in Canada while staying (and continuing work) in Canada. Same for study permit. This was over a decade ago, so perhaps things have changed.
They also were not called visas, but permits. Visa is for entering the country, permit is for staying.
The article is about U.S and not Canada. Also yes, you can stay in Canada while apply + wait for the final decision, but if you get rejected, you have to leave. Also in your application, you have to state where you applying from. I find the Canadian immigration system clear and fast, login, input data, pay, wait.
you can renew the same permit without, but you can't go from one type of permit to another (student to working prof in my case) without flagpoling; you also can't go from a visa to a permit without flagpoling
Even if it is common (i don't think this is required any more anyways), just why? Why do we need to make someone run back and forth across the border for the immigration department to do some paperwork? It seems purely designed to inconvenience people for absolutely no gain to anyone.
My guess: If they end up being denied then it's easier to not let them back in by not letting them cross the border whereas if it's in the country it's harder to locate them to deport?
Seems pretty brutal to me though.
I was “denied” re entry doing a flag pole run once.
They let me in, but had me sign something that I would leave within 30 days.
I have a strong suspicion this is another way of doing an end run around the courts. If the person is denied entry can they realistically get that changed by a US court? I doubt it.
It also means that if you came here fleeing persecution that you might not be able to return.
> Even if it is common (i don't think this is required any more anyways), just why?
As far as Canadian law goes, there are two factors at play in the parent's events;
* NAFTA work permits are applied for at the border, on entry; they operate differently from the 'normal' work permit streams.
* Permanent residence is conferred at the border, but the application process can happen either inside or outside the country depending on the stream. There are also limited 'inland' options which evidently have expanded (https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/se...) in recent years.
In neither case does Canada have a blanket rule that an applicant must leave the country during the whole of an extended application process, and even 'abroad' processes can often be carried out while an applicant is living in the country on other status. (It can get awkward if a consular interview is required, though.)
Unlike the US, Canada is generally comfortable with 'dual intent', where intent to apply for permanent residence through legal channels is not disqualifying for other sorts of statuses.
A consulate overseas is more equipped to vet someone from the country where it is located than a USCIS office in New Hampshire. E.g. it has people able to read the documents in the local language and access to the officials who can validate those, it has people able to call or mail local authorities to ask about an applicant's involvement in crime, it has people who can recognize affiliations with local extremist groups etc.
It is actually really bizarre that the USCIS would essentially take the applicant's word without any vetting before this memo.
Maybe they've heard of email, faxes, phone calls?
Depending on the person, they may have spent years or possibly a decade or more in the US before trying to get an AOS. As such, the USCIS is probably a better adjudicator than a consulate.
If someone came in as a child then it's true, and thus there is a discretion. Adults have history in their home country which does not disappear in 10 years or any period of time.
Because the people and computer systems and processes to admit people into the country and start a visa or PR or whatever are located at the borders.
It’s just how things are done.
largely/generally this is how it's done for NAFTA visas
> I don’t want to defend the cure administration, but it’s very common and normal for a country to require a person to leave to change status.
This new policy is different than the "flag poling" you've described. The new guidance requires immigrants to return to their country of origin, then apply for the change in status, and wait in their country of origin while the change in status is being processed/considered which can take many years. If the status changed is approved, they can move back to the US.
You say "normal" and then add the other paragraphs, which are very clearly not normal. Common maybe.
They have repeatedly taken incredibly broad if not downright delusional interpretations of legal precedent and used them to set policy. They literally tried to override a constitutional amendment (birthright citizenship) with an executive order. They have been laughed out of court many times but have won a shocking number of these ridiculous cases. This is just another one. Set the maximal policy that they want and make their opponents challenge it in court. It's legal until someone (with standing) stops them.
Trying to follow the Constitution literally is hard and in practice, it's not done. The political system just interprets the Constitution in whatever way the consensus of the given moment wants to interpret it. The 14th Amendment is clear that all persons born in the US are citizens of the US. However, if you follow the 2nd Amendment just as literally, it means that the Federal government, at least, cannot make any laws restricting us from owning nuclear weapons.
The second amendment is very much intended to protect access to military weapons. It was never intended to address personal defense or sport hunting but national defense by state militias.
Read the law! It’s there in black and white! It’s 8 USC 1101(a)(15) and (a)(15)(H). It’s a “nonimmigrant” visa for people “temporarily” in the U.S. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1101
How is it “delusional” to interpret a law that’s plastered with the words “non immigrant” and “temporary” and say that maybe it shouldn’t be a de facto path to permanent residency?
Because the words temporary amd nonimmigrant don't carry the meaning that you're imbuing into them. Fiance visas operate very similarly to these dual intent H1 visas. You're granted a temporary nonimmigrant status while you pursue a permanent one. The words nonimmigrant and temporary doesn't exclude pursuing a permanent status at all.
In the case of a K-1, it is assumed you will transition from a temporary nonimmigrant status to a permanent status. [1] Requiring folks to move to the U.S., and then go back out of the country to get a green card, only to return again, is absurd. That absurd dance for both K1 and H1 w/dual intents is the reason the laws and guidance provided to agents changed starting in the 50's through the 90's. These changes in guidance to agents are nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to suppress people coming to the U.S. lawfully, which is absurd and deeply anti-American.
[1] https://www.uscis.gov/family/family-of-us-citizens/visas-for...
The K1 visa is even more temporary! It’s only for 90 days, and under the section 1255(d), the government doesn’t even have the power to convert a K1 visa into permanent residency. It’s like a tourist visa. The visa itself is not a pathway to anything.
People who come here on a K1 get permanent residency once they get married through a different statutory route: 8 USC 1154. But that has nothing to with the K1 itself. That route is available to anyone married to a US citizen, including illegal immigrants under certain conditions, or aliens who get married abroad. The K1 visa isn’t a stepping stone to permanent status. It’s just a convenience that allows people to have the wedding in the U.S. instead of the spouse’s home country.
> It’s like a tourist visa. The visa itself is not a pathway to anything. > ... > People who come here on a K1 get permanent residency once they get married through a different statutory route: 8 USC 1154. But that has nothing to with the K1 itself.
The UCIS explicitly links the K-1 (which has the words temporary and non-immigrant visa scattered throughout) to a de facto path to permanent status (see below). The fact that the two are different statutes is moving the goal posts (i.e., a logical fallacy). The government clearly sees them as a linked pathway to permanent status.
> "If you are a U.S. citizen who wants to bring your foreign fiancé(e) to the United States in order to get married"
https://www.uscis.gov/family/family-of-us-citizens/visas-for...
> The K1 visa isn’t a stepping stone to permanent status. It’s just a convenience that allows people to have the wedding in the U.S. instead of the spouse’s home country.
There's a reason they require a medical exam to be filed with the consulate as a part of the K-1 application, they expect you to be in the U.S. for a long time. K style visas are a lot more than a convenience, they are the law of the land and have been so for nearly 75 years.
As is the K-1 fiance visa. Talk to us of how the purpose of the K-1 fiance visa is a "nonimmigrant" visa that is for people to be allowed "temporarily" into the US to see their spouse, and that it is "delusional" to think that that might be a path to permanent residency with their spouse.
H1b (the visa status of nearly everyone here affected by this change) is only 36 years old. We're not talking about ancient case law here.
Is the legal precedent they are ignoring only 36 years old? No? I guess that makes us talking about case law older than 36 years then. (As we all know, laws less than 40 years old are option to follow anyways).
[flagged]
H1B is very explicitly a "dual intent" visa.
Where has it been shown? Links?
Gives them the freedom to interpret it 'case by case' which is to mean punishing businesses and states not aligned with Trump with a million inconveniences, while leaving his base unmolested. The most divisive and punitive president ever.
I wonder why all of this
Don’t you technically leave the nation when you enter an embassy?
Not at all, no - embassies are granted special privileges but are still the territory of the country they are in.
No. This is a popular myth.
So this is an example of being careful what you wish for.
Neil Gorsuch's mother had to resign in disgrace as the EPA administrator under Reagan in a case that ultimately became what was called "Chevron deference" [1]. Chevron deference meant that when Congress wrote ambiguous statutes, courts would defer to the interpretation of the agencies responsible for enforcing them. Almost 40 years of laws were written with this standard in mind. Critics claimed Congress should be explicit but they know this is bullshit. Congress simply doesn't have the bandwidth to pass a law every time an agency wants to change a regulation and they know it. This is all about deregulation so companies are free to poison the air and water without fear of prosecution or lawsuits. It would allow, for example, a Federal circuit judge in Amarillo, Texas to issue a nationawide injunction on pretty much anything where before Federal judges had to defer to agencies.
It has been Gorsuch's life mission to avenge his mother's humiliation. Overturning Chevron became a mission of the conservative movement and they finally succeeded in a case called Loper Bright [2]. As an aside, Gorsuch really should've recused himself from the case. A consequence of that was that the Supreme Court accepted an interpretation that executive agencies should be government by the Administrative Procedures Act ("APA") instead. So that's been the law of the land since Loper Bright. That creates a number of problems:
1. To change an agency rule now requires a complicated process unde rthe APA of proposing a rule change, getting public comment and generally following a statutory procedure. This administration that wanted Chevron overturned never does that. So under Chevron they probably could've done that. Now? Any memo like this can be challenged for failing to follow procedure. There have been cases where USCIS has had temporary injunctions imposed on them for this reason: the judges are saying USCIS is likely to lose; and
2. This memo is relying on a Supreme Court case that considered adjustment-of-status ("AoS") an act of "grace". Well, that precedent was set under Chevron. Chevron no longer applies. So which is it? Do you want Chevron deference or don't you? You can't have it both ways;
3. Millions of people have open cases under the previous rules and interpretations. Courts are likely to take a dim view of a retroactive rule change like this. New cases filed after this memo was released may not enjoy the same protections; and
4. There are people who cannot or should not leave the US to consular process. They may have incurred unlawful presence that will then get them a 3 or 10 year bar from returning. This bar may well apply if they have to consular process instead of do an AoS. Some people may not be able to leave (eg asylees). The wait time to get an interview at a local embassy or consulate varies wildly. In some cases it's already more than 12 months. If you add over a million current AoS cases to that, the wait times are going to explode. But the cruelty is the point.
Also, decisions by consular officials have very limited ability to be challenged in court. That's also the point.
This will be challenged in court. I think it will make it up to the Supreme Court as early as the next term and this court more than any probably in history bends over backwards to let the president do whatever he wants.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevron_U.S.A.,_Inc._v._Natura....
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loper_Bright_Enterprises_v._Ra...
Your comment is completely wrong:
For example:
> Overturning Chevron became a mission of the conservative movement
Chevron’s biggest proponent was Justice Scalia!
> A consequence of that was that the Supreme Court accepted an interpretation that executive agencies should be government by the Administrative Procedures Act ("APA") instead. So that's been the law of the land since Loper Bright.
Executive agencies have always been governed by the APA. That’s why it’s called the “Administrative” Procedures Act.
> To change an agency rule now requires a complicated process unde rthe APA of proposing a rule change, getting public comment and generally following a statutory procedure
That’s been true since 1946. That was the whole point of the APA. Chevron itself arose out of an EPA rule making under the APA.
You’re completely mistaken about what Chevron was about. It was just about whether courts must defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes, or whether they get to decide the interpretation themselves.
> There are people who cannot or should not leave the US to consular process. They may have incurred unlawful presence that will then get them a 3 or 10 year bar from returning. This bar may well apply if they have to consular process instead of do an AoS. Some people may not be able to leave (eg asylees).
This feels like it might be the actual motivation of the Trump admin to do this change. The cruelty is indeed the point.
> They may have incurred unlawful presence
> The cruelty is indeed the point
What's the difference between this and just outright saying that enforcing the law is cruelty? After all, nobody enjoys being punished, even if it's for breaking the law.
I don't want people to be unlawfully present in my country. Enough people desired that same outcome that, through the democratic process, we have laws controlling immigration. There has to be consequences for breaking that law. It absolutely cannot be the case that anyone can break the law and then have it not matter on the grounds that to make it matter would be cruel. What even is the point of the rule of law?
This cruel and unusual measure only applies to people following the law.
Thank you for this fantastically informative comment.
No, the comment is complete misinformation. In particular:
> A consequence of that was that the Supreme Court accepted an interpretation that executive agencies should be government by the Administrative Procedures Act ("APA") instead.
Executive agencies were always governed by the Administrative Procedures Act. The law was created in 1946 for the purpose of governing executive agencies.
OP is completely wrong about what Chevron and Loper Bright were about. Agencies have always had to do rulemakings with notice and comment to promulgate regulations. Those rules obviously have to follow the statutory law.
Chevron was about what happens when an agency action is challenged in court and the statute is ambiguous. Chevron says the agency gets deference from the court in deciding what the law means. The court has to accept ghr agency’s interpretation as long as it’s reasonable.
Loper Bright says the court has to decide what the law means itself, just like it does for any other law.
More broadly, this isn’t even a “conservative” versus “liberal” issue. Scalia was the biggest champion of Chevron and Gorsuch authored Loper Bright. Both were/are Federalist Society guys. This is an internal disagreement among conservatives about whether agencies or courts have the last word on what statutes mean.
So here was the first version of your comment that I saw:
> The comment is misinformation. For example:
>> A consequence of that was that the Supreme Court accepted an interpretation that executive agencies should be government by the Administrative Procedures Act ("APA") instead.
> Executive agencies were always governed by the Administrative Procedures Act. The law was created in 1934 for the purpose of governing executive agencies.
So this seemed like the most ChatGPT comment, particularly because it made factual errors (eg APA was 1946 not 1934) but, hey, at least you corrected it. Maybe it was run through ChatGPT after the fact? I found this [1]:
> The U.S. doesn’t have a real statutory pathway to permanent residency for skilled immigrants. The current H1B to Green Card pipeline is built on a legal fiction papered over a visa program that was the word “non-immigrant intent” written all over the statute.
> Gemini gets this correct: “The H-1B visa is a nonimmigrant classification that allows U.S. employers to temporarily employ foreign nationals in ‘specialty occupations’ that require highly specialized knowledge and at least a bachelor's degree.”
Gemini, huh?
So back to the merits. Let me quote the actual decision [2]:
> Held: The Administrative Procedure Act requires courts to exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, and courts may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous; Chevron is overruled
This was what "Chevron deference" actually was: presumptive validity of agency interpretations vs what we have under Loper Bright where the APA is the only way of changing agency interpretations (other than Congress passing laws, of course). So, under Chevron, the USCIS could issue this memo and courts would've had to have largely deferred to the agency interpretation. Now they don't have that defense.
Or, to put it yet another way, it's what I said.
You should probably disclose your politics here. I'll use as an example this George Floyd comment [3].
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48244638
[2]: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf
[3]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48188084
I made a typo and wrote “1934” instead of “1946,” which I quickly corrected.
Your comment meanwhile is still fundamentally wrong about the most basic facts: “A consequence of that was that the Supreme Court accepted an interpretation that executive agencies should be government by the Administrative Procedures Act (‘APA’) instead.”
The whole point of the APA was to govern executive agencies. So you’re wrong about the most basic premise of your post.
> This was what "Chevron deference" actually was: presumptive validity of agency interpretations vs what we have under Loper Bright where the APA is the only way of changing agency interpretations
Incorrect. The APA allows agencies to proceed in two ways: rulemakings and case by case adjudications. Agency interpretations can arise in either context. You don’t need a rule making to change an interpretation. You only need one to change something that was already a rule.
> Gemini, huH?
Yes, I quoted Gemini as a rhetorical device. “Even Gemini knows” that H1B is a temporary immigrant visa, not a pathway to permanent residency.
[dead]
It is actually remarkable how much of the bullshit we have to put up with comes down to our giving power to craven or unscrupulous men with a chip on their shoulder.
Bush W. and his father's single term.
Biden and his family's troubles with the federal government.
Musk and gestures broadly at South Africa
Trump
I'm sure the list goes on.
[dead]
I received my green card in 2023 and I have mixed emotions.
On one hand, I'm so relieved that I have been able to dodge everything that the administration has been throwing at immigrant (legal and illegal alike), trying to see what sticks, like mass deportations, border wall expansion, visa restrictions, asylum crackdown, H-1B cuts, and chain Migration Ban.
On the other hand, we cannot apply for citizenship for 3 more years, even though me and my wife have been in the US for combined 25+ years, and paid over $100,000 in taxes last year alone, and it's jarring to imagine what the administration will come up with next to make the process less straightforward than it seems.
Most disturbing is the fact that a lot of people I know who climbed the same ladder will go out and cheer what the administration is doing.
I received mine in 2020 and have decided to move back home. The uncertainty in general just keeps me up at night. Feels like the goalposts could move at any moment. I know I'm likely overreacting but it is what it is.
If anything everyone else is under reacting.
You have ICE officers randomly abducting people off appearance alone and then detaining them for days if not weeks. If you were a citizen the whole time, cool who cares.
No one in America has any rights.
That aside, even as someone who's been in this country for generations, I've been exploring options to leave.
America is behind most of the developed world in terms of standards of living. I was in Asia for a while and I felt a fraction of the fear I constantly do at home.
It's not getting better.
GC holder of 25 years with citizen parents. I agree with you and I stress about this daily. It's always been a shitty deal though - we are taxed with no representation in government.
>we are taxed with no representation in government.
In which country can you emigrate to and be allowed votes in government representation just because you pay taxes? I'm an EU citizen and living in another EU country and am not allowed to vote in that country's government elections, just local ones. If you want to vote at government level then you need to apply and get citizenship which also comes with the responsibility(or obligation more accurately) of military draft.
Everything about this seems pretty fair to me. I'm not sure why not to you. If you're not a citizen you shouldn't be allowed to vote at gov level since you're not subject to a draft, because in case the shit hits the fan militarily, unlike citizens, you can just pack your bags and go back to your home country and avoid dying in the front lines. So why would any country let people who aren't subject to draft vote? Makes no sense. You don't have the same skin in the game as citizens who are draftable just because you pay some taxes.
Now if you're paying taxes in a foreign country where you can't vote, it means you're there voluntarily because you're getting a much better deal than being in your own country where you can vote. Probably you're in the US because you make orders of magnitude more money than in your own country, but nobody in the US dragged you there against your will to work and pay them taxes, you agreed to this situation voluntarily because it also benefits you personally, and you would just as easily leave if it stopped benefiting you.
> In which country can you emigrate to and be allowed votes in government representation just because you pay taxes?
There are a few, with varying degrees of residency time (and possibly other conditions) required. New Zealand requires being a resident for a year.
The UK is particularly interesting, if you're a citizen of a common wealth nation you can vote in national UK elections if you're a resident.
Personally, I agree with you though. I didn't vote in the UK despite being able too. Let the citizens decide the future of their nation, I have the privilege to leave (and have done so already). Feels wrong for me to influence the nation when I'm not fully invested in the outcome.
Indeed. Entitlement on immigration issues is through the roof here.
As a person, why should you not have a say in how things are governed where you live?
The idea that you should be required to swear some loyalty to a government before you get a say in how the place you live is governed is the position that’s actually absurd.
(Yes, I do think there should be a global republic and that there should be full freedom of movement. It’s way past time for that.)
It make sense, you don't want to give voting rights to someone who might decide not to continue living in your country anymore. If they are serious about it, then they must go through the process of obtaining citizenship. I have same issue with dual citizenships, it is absurd that someone holding foreign passport can have major decision making roles in your government.
Because as a non-citizen, you are technically still a guest?
If you love the place you're living in and want to actively participate in its governance, including implementing any changes, you should obtain citizenship.
And even if you do, your stake would still be less than those who've been living there all their lives, across many generations. Maybe the natives actually don't want the changes that the immigrants want to see implemented.
(not going to argue the finer details of ethics like racism or xenophobia, etc. which I acknowledge can often come up in cases like this).
Genuinely curious why didn't you pursue citizenship though? (No pressure to answer of course, that might be a deeply personal thing.)
We did not meet continuous residency requirements for 10-15 years due to travel for my dad's work. Afterwards, it took me nearly 5 years to meet that requirement due to the fact that I lived and graduated abroad for highschool. I tried around COVID, was denied based on truthfully admitting I had smoked some weed in the previous 5 years while I lived in Colorado. That reset my clock for another five years. I constantly wrestle with whether I even want to be associated with this country for the rest of my life. I'm prideful and a high earner, there's only so much I'll accept before moving my family and assets somewhere else.
Hope that provides some color. To all the fans of the current immigration policies - you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
The choice is not so binary, as anyone seriously discussing this topic should immediately recognize. There are indeed ways for foreigners to participate in local politics in many countries, here is some data if you're interested in learning - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-citizen_suffrage
My country does in fact provide this right to foreign residents who live a certain amount of time in the country. Even if it didn't, it would not be a hypocritical position to state something is bad. Do you think I wrote the laws? Hardly seems like a good-faith argument or even a sound one!
It's certainly possible to make different arrangements. Some European countries do that for local elections, for example.
>we are taxed with no representation in government
You have representation. Perhaps you mean suffrage.
Or perhaps they mean the same thing as was meant by the slogan when it was first coined, around the time of the American Revolution, and the same thing as was meant by the women's suffragists who used it in the late 19th century.
Maybe in some sense "no taxation without suffrage" would be more accurate, but it would be a worse slogan. In any case, "no taxation without representation" is a well known phrase, it's been around for over 250 years, and I don't think much is achieved by nitpicking its wording.
You do have congressional representatives and senators who represent you and your interests and can take action on your behalf just as they would if you were a citizen. I have had decent luck in getting assistance from them despite not being a citizen.
Yes and colonial Americans had personages they didn't choose representing their interests at court so clearly that was not what they meant by it, let alone as members of the British empire their interests were represented by the king the highest position in the land...
The person you're replying to knows this. You're missing their point.
To exist is to be taxed. If you exist at all in the US, you will be taxed. You may even be taxed even if you are not in the US. So saying that taxation somehow implies voting ability would be quite absurd. This doesn't hold true anywhere in the world.
When someone says "No taxation without representation!" they don't mean "As a matter of fact, no one ever gets taxed by a government they don't have the power to vote for or against". (If that were true, there'd be no need to demand it.)
They mean "I would like our government to stop taxing people who don't get to vote for it" or "It is unjust for a government to tax people who don't get to vote for it" or something of that sort.
The fact that things aren't already the way you want them to be doesn't make it absurd to demand that they change to be that way.
(You might argument that governments don't give a damn what anyone demands and for that reason it is absurd to demand change. But I think that in fact governments do take notice of what people want, if they fear what the people might do if they don't get it. Whether that's voting them out of office or putting their heads on pikes or anything in between. And they will take more notice if more people are demanding whatever it is, and a large part of the point of saying things like "No taxation without representation!" is to get other people who aren't in the government to sympathize with your cause and maybe start demanding the same thing. So I think it's manifestly not absurd to make such demands, as such. Some particular demands -- "No taxation without $1M/year universal basic income!" -- would be absurd, but this one seems obviously not to be in that category.)
There is a typical ladder here though of non-immigrant/temp visitor, legal permanent resident, and citizen. The main practical distinction bw the last two is the ability to vote and hold office. What concretely is the demand here? That the last two should effectively merge into one? Or is it that everybody along this ladder should get to vote and that citizenship is a separate axis?
The demand is that there shouldn't be anywhere on that ladder where you are expected to pay taxes and aren't given the right to vote.
Is it a sensible demand? I dunno. Some people have thought so. Some other people have thought not. I'm not trying to settle that question; just trying to bring some clarity as to what the issue is.
I don't know man, I'm just telling you what I see in the conversation:
OP: Complaint about taxation without representation
A: Acktually it's called suffrage not representation
B: This phrase has been in use forever and people use it interchangeably when they mean the other. It's a slogan, chill
A: I've had great representation without suffrage!
C: You're missing their point
A: Taxation without representation isn't an issue
I feel like I'm chatting with an LLM with a broken input box.
This is probably the most embarrassing comment I've ever seen on HN.
Perhaps they live in DC?
America is also run by a cabal of pedophiles and despite that being pretty out in the open at this point, there have been no consequences for them at all. It's not a good looking situation when even CSA and genocide are met with an "eh, what can you do?" shrug by a populace that has been led to accept worse and worse every year.
Don't forget the blatant corruption at a scale we've never seen. Literal crypto scams are being run out of the Whitehouse, and no one seems to care. Complaining about Hunter Biden being on the board of some company seems so quaint at this point.
If this was actually true, there wouldn't be so many people from the developed world trying to immigrate to the US, and upset about the US government making this harder.
That just means the US is better than the place they’re moving from. It doesn’t mean the US is among the best places in the world. Also, public perception of how good things are through US media (Hollywood) is different from reality.
Many, many people immigrate for an imagination of what life in the US will be. Objectively speaking, the US really is far behind most of the developed world in standards of living .
Also, money. Salaries are simply higher in the US (even if life is worse and less fulfilling overall)
I'm an American currently living in the Philippines, and that's utter nonsense and I know it. Developing world countries are so far behind the US in infrastructure, clean water, food quality, pollution, overpopulation, waste disposal, cleanliness, littering, open public spaces, and numerous other vectors that your comment blithely ignores.
The only possible way you could write a comment like that with a straight face is that you've never walked through a barrio in a developing world country with brick block contruction and tin roofs with tires holding the roof on, or favelas in Brazil with crowding, unsanitary conditions and resulting disease, drug crime, and gang warfare.
The standard of living in the US is vastly better than in these third-world shitholes, and it requires a stunning amount of out-of-touch suicidal empathy to project that it doesn't.
They said behind the developed world, not the developing world.
The US is not "behind the developed world", it's literally the developed world. The lightbulb. The airplane. The telephone. NASA. Space X. Tesla. And on and on...
When people talk about being behind or ahead the developed world, they are talking about the average person's availability of food, housing, internet, AC, transportation, healthcare, education, culture, day to day life, etc. Not century+ old tech or the handful of Billionaires' pet projects. Or, well, really, most of the time people just mean "The US is not like a subset of European (Likely Nordic) countries".
But that's besides the point, because I'm not the person making the argument. I was just pointing out that the comment was misread and misresponded to.
Gave back my green card the moment I left the US. No longer wanted the hassle and ties to an unpredictable regime. Haven’t looked back.
I don't think you're overreacting. Received mine in 2020 and decided to move as well.
You're not overreacting in my opinion.
If it looks like 1930s Germany and quacks like 1930s Germany, get as far away from that duck as you can.
Not every (slightly) authoritarian government is akin to a regime that was responsible for the industrial scale killing of more than 11 million people.
Perhaps you should wait to make that case, we're starting to see ramifications from USAID cuts as the worse one, but there's also health and nutrition effects from Medicaid/SNAP reductions, and whatever in the world is happening on immigration and detention with insane ICE behaviour, plus second order effects from abortion and public health changes.
We shall see. I hope you're right.
Not just uncertainty, but the apparent speedrunning of making the US an undesirable place to live compared to other countries.
Where did you move to and what are you doing now? (I'd love to hear from anyone else who's left too)
> and paid over $100,000 in taxes last year alone
Genuinely curious, what does taxes have to do with it? Everyone pays taxes, legal or illegal in some form.
I don’t think paying your dues should make you more likely to get through the pipeline. After all, you paid those taxes because you made good money, which is what people come here for.
I think the point is that they are contributing to the US, and were the best option for their employer, and are supporting their communities, etc.
All things that we should be supporting if we are indeed wishing our nation to prosper.
A plurality of Americans don’t pay federal income taxes, so we’re essentially turning away someone who is building up our country.
> A plurality of Americans don’t pay federal income taxes
What does a plurality even mean here? This is a binary question, so plurality and majority are the same thing. And I don't think it is factually correct that the majority of Americans do not pay income taxes.
I apologize on the wording, but this is an easy thing for you to Google!
https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/latest-federal-in...
I didn't look hard but that's the first thing I found. Famously, Mitt Romney complained that 47% of Americans don't contribute to federal income tax revenue, which is what I was thinking of.
Side note...I hate this stat because it makes it sound like the rich are paying their share of taxes. The reality is that people who make large w2 income pay a large part of federal taxes, and while they would be considered rich they are not the ultra-rich we see in the news every day.
> .I hate this stat because it makes it sound like the rich are paying their share of taxes
Yes! I agree, I don't mean to sound like I support the status quo. In this particular case, I wanted to clarify that green card-holding immigrants carry a disproportionate amount of tax burden (but that is not to support the current state of things).
I didn't mean to imply you did support the status quo. And you're right about GC holders as they tend to make good money and fall into the worst spot tax wise - having a large w2 income.
People who complain about people not playing income taxes ignore payroll taxes.
Payroll taxes are just that - payroll taxes!
Income taxes are not payroll taxes
Payrolls taxes are a tax based on (some of) your income. So they are a type of income tax in the broad sense.
Yes, technically payroll taxes are not income taxes.
And people who that x number of people do not pay income tax are implying they are paying no federal taxes when that is not true. It is a disingenuous argument.
Someone else would have taken that job maybe for a higher salary.
But then they gave up a tax paying job and thus the net effect is zero.
Looking holistically the person leaving the US (or lets say 100 people to make it easier to see the point) means 1 to 30 less startups and so maybe an entire company or more not being started. That is less revenue for US.
What most people from the "they steal our jobs" mentality (not saying that is you, but this a seperate point) don't get is productive people create jobs by being a customer of many businesses.
Then someone lower got a better job and someone out of work ends up in a job.
This is called the "lump of labour" fallacy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy
So the job market doesn't exist? Interesting!
These one dimensional brush offs of a complex system are a bit tiring. Doesn't sound like genuine curiousity. It is almost like political rhetoric.
Yes the job market exists.
To be clear, their point is:
>The facts show that just like the amount of labor is not fixed, neither is the size of the economy (fixed pie fallacy) and as more work is done, the economy grows
Your reply is a glib thought-terminating cliche strawman that doesn't address their point at all. Interesting!
Those theories are based mainly on the effect of Cuban immigration in Miami, however they lack a control so you can't really conclude anything.
Besides, yeah, if you hire people who will work for any salary, the amount of jobs will increase, but salaries will decrease, for locals as well. After some time, locals will flee sectors where the migrant workers are brought in, creating further self-inflicted "labor shortages"...requiring more migrants!
The main winners are capital owners, who, thanks to the migrant workers, can now acquire a larger part of the added value generated by workers.
But a jobs worth of GDP was lost due to the lost consumption. Harder to measure for 1 person but imagine 100k people suddenly left a city. That would be felt somewhere. Dry cleaners, cafe, supermarkets etc.
This might be less true if there is resource starvation but we have transport and imports and exports. You can accomodate more people and feed them.
There are not enough qualified people in any particular country for all the possible new technologies that could be deployed. You're not likely to hire your plumber to program a webapp.
That doesn't mean your plumber isn't qualified—just that people looking for webapps want to hire workers who know how to make them.
So many computer science grads can't find work many have left the field. I don't think we will run out of workers.
There is the other side plenty of workers successful at programming language could be trained to fill any gap. That's what happened in the 50s and 60s..
lol cs grads can’t do this work
Companies also struggle to hire. It is a skills matching issue.
Companies struggle to hire at a rate they want to pay. They don't struggle to hire at a market rate pay or more. Funny how that works.
PS The number of roles that there aren't qualified Americans for could be counted on one hand. This has always been about reducing salaries, not shortages.
I highly doubt a company can find 20k senior Photolithography experts in rural Nebraska if a company wanted. No matter what money they are paying. They'll have to bring them in.
Of course I am exaggerating, but this is not a 1 dimensional problem.
Please check what the majority of H1-Bs are hired for. It's a visa mainly used for cutting costs, not hiring ultra specialized people.
I was demonstrating that throwing money at the shortage does not magically create new talent in a geographical area. It has to be imported.
The issue is that if you import all of skilled workers you need, salaries won't rise in the branch, and students or workers in adjacent fields don't have any incentives to learn the skill. If you can hire Syldavian photonics engineers for 50k$/y, no one is incentivized to learn photonics.
This is why in the modern world some sectors are always crying about "worker shortages" while asking always more migrant workers to come in - salaries are compressed as a result, and locals have no incentives to enter the branch.
Hence importing workers may be useful for needs that are limited in time and space (say, install a specialized foreign machinery in a power plant), but systematic importation leads to dequalification of the local workers, who flee the branch that has now low salaries.
it's a companies not wanting to spend any amount of time and money training an employee and wanting 100% utilization the second the employment starts issue.
Writing web apps is not the most skilled of jobs. Despite what some egos would have tou believe.
Those seem like bold assumptions about % of startups created by green card holders?
I feel like the better argument is that the greencard holder was the best candidate and thus will be more productive in the role. It is just efficient resource allocation. That, even without new companies, will drive profit/expansion/more jobs
More likely there would have been one less job.
There isn't a "lump of labour" that gets distributed in the economy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy
Humans tend not to be fungible.
At a certain point, there aren't enough Americans for these jobs. So the choice is to let other nations absorb these skilled laborers, or simply hire the best people.
It's funny how we forget about meritocracy as soon as the median American is threatened.
> At a certain point, there aren't enough Americans for these jobs
Is that really true? I’m sure in some fields where you need rare experts I believe it. For the average engineer who is just another cog in the wheel of big corp, I highly doubt it.
> Is that really true? I’m sure in some fields where you need rare experts I believe it. For the average engineer who is just another cog in the wheel of big corp, I highly doubt it.
Have you ever hired someone before? Did you decide to take the best person you found or did you pick an American?
> Have you ever hired someone before? Did you decide to take the best person you found or did you pick an American?
Many times. Sometimes we don’t offer sponsorships so we hired who didn’t need one. Other times not. During the interview process where they’re from isn’t the matter at hand. Either way, there’s no shortage of good candidates - solely American / GC or not.
Though let’s be honest - there is a question behind the question, isn’t there? Why don’t you just ask that instead?
> Though let’s be honest - there is a question behind the question, isn’t there? Why don’t you just ask that instead?
You answered it - you picked the best person, who sometimes was not American.
That doesn’t directly prove that there aren’t enough Americans who can do the job. Sometimes yeah, the non American is better like in photolithography.
Generally though, the foreign candidate is not so much better that hiring an American would have lowered the bar.
Sometimes it also comes down to leveling - I’ve had to down level people due to budget concerns. Americans can hold out for that better job, but the other cannot so companies take advantage of that.
My point is that it’s not a skill issue, it’s a wage + location issue. Foreigners will find that their wage is better than what they can earn at home, so they can undercut that citizens who’s held out for a better opportunity.
> so they can undercut that citizens who’s held out for a better opportunity.
Just to better understand, genuinely, do you mean that the company would increase their budget in the event that a foreign worker had not been available, and that an American would have taken the job at that time, given the higher wage?
Why wouldn’t they? It’s a supply and demand thing, supply is lower so pay is higher to meet demand.
Other ways to solve is to settle for less if the job isn’t that crucial, or look for someone who lives in a lower cost of living area who can take the wage. But that also depends on the whole RTO fiasco.
To be clear, if you are doing leading edge R&D or some super special project like SpaceX, etc then yeah you need to seek the brightest minds across the globe. But to maintain your CMS or work in some ERP softwares, you can definitely find an American to do it.
The basic point I’m making is a large majority of H1B work can be done just as well (within an acceptable error rate) by someone here. There are reasons why you need some special talent but those aren’t as common.
With AI taking a percentage of jobs there will be enough people to fill those positions and more. Why bring in workers when productivity is taking away positions.
> With AI taking a percentage of jobs there will be enough people to fill those positions and more. Why bring in workers when productivity is taking away positions.
Have you ever hired someone before?
AI is forecasted to remove 30% of white collar jobs in the next few years. People are not hiring now.
Do you work in hr?
> Have you ever hired someone before?
You didn't answer!
Not in hr or own small company with 3 workers
So we should strive to maximize companies profits over the citizens?
>It's funny how we forget about meritocracy as soon as the median American is threatened.
What meritocracy? This is a myth pushed to justify a kind of "just world" interpretation of our social ills. Nepotism is increasing, social mobility decreasing. To believe in meritocracy in the face of this is to deny reality.
Or it would have moved overseas forever.
I can already on the ground see the effect of the Trump policies. So many tech jobs that would have been in the US are being lost. And companies are learning how to be effective with overseas teams.
It is questionable if US has the education system or people capital to support all the science based sectors it has IMO.
Immigrants doing a very large portion of tech work can't be just because they get paid less
"Immigrants doing a very large portion of tech work can't be just because they get paid less"
It is solely about that. Remember, immigrants didn't really play a role in the US tech industry for half of its existence and didn't play a major role until a decade ago. This is despite the fact that US colleges openly and actively discriminate against US citizens for grad school spots for 2 or 3 decades now.
> Remember, immigrants didn't really play a role in the US tech industry for half of its existence and didn't play a major role until a decade ago.
Bell, Wang, Fairchild, Intel, Sun...
> This is despite the fact that US colleges openly and actively discriminate against US citizens for grad school spots for 2 or 3 decades now.
Can you provide a citation for this specific claim? I used to do admissions to a grad program in the US, and we ended up admitting mostly foreign students soley because very few US citizens actually applied (probably only 10% of apps). Whether that's because they were not qualified or couldn't afford it I do not know. But it's not because they were openly and actively discriminated against.
>US colleges openly and actively discriminate against US citizens for grad school spots for 2 or 3 decades now.
Isn't this just because foreign students pay more than citizens? Isn't this just capitalism and the free market efficiently allocating resources?
Something about 'having the cake and eating it too'.
Not just that, universities (especially smaller research universities) love having grad students whose research is paid for. China, Saudi Arabia, Brazil (less so now than in the past), Qatar, and others have all had programs for years where they paid the tuition and research costs of students at universities. Why would the university not pick that over a local kid who the university has to pay for out of their own coffers?
> Not just that, universities (especially smaller research universities) love having grad students whose research is paid for.
> Why would the university not pick that over a local kid who the university has to pay for out of their own coffers?
Universities don't pay for research - and departments usually don't pay for research either.
At the margin, a professor will prefer someone who has her own funding, but that person also needs to be competent, so I doubt the national schemes you are citing have made an impact on who gets into graduate school.
To be fair, not many parts of the US higher education system can be accurately described as free markets or capitalism.
I've been involved in .. applied CS for 40 years, and the industry has been filled with people of a wide variety of backgrounds for that entire time. Even during the time I worked for the US DOD many of the people I worked were international.
> and didn't play a major role until a decade ago
Sergey Brin? Paul Graham? Elon Musk?
You do realize every major tech company has offices in EU and in India. You make it hard here they will hire more there
[flagged]
Just so this doesn't go unanswered:
That is a far-right conspiracy theory for which there is absolutely no evidence.
Importing people from countries with higher fertility rates into a country that gives citizenship based on birth location. What else could be the result?
> So we’re essentially turning away someone who is building up our country.
They're not being turned away. There's a requirement to be in the country for 5 years with a green card before citizenship. It seems to me that they are just upset that they have to follow the rules which aren't hurting them at all.
> They're not being turned away.
They are actually in fact being told to return to their country before completing a process that previously - legally! - could be done in the US. That = being turned away
> There's a requirement to be in the country for 5 years with a green card before citizenship.
That is absolutely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Until next week, or whenever the current system is again upended haphazardly.
> It seems to me that they are just upset that they have to follow the rules which aren't hurting them at all.
It seems to me that they were all following the rules. The rules are now being capriciously changed with sly marketing words to confuse everyone.
> which aren't hearting them at all.
They are effectively being ruled by a system that they have no say in. That's incompatible with America's democratic values. Of course it's reasonable that we don't allow non-citizens the vote; the problem as I see it is that if someone has worked here for 25 years for all intents and purposes they are a citizen, the government just doesn't formally recognize the reality of their situation.
I strongly disagree. That person retains the option of returning to their origin country and having a say there.
This is so confusing. What does GC -> citizenship have to do with this? The rules work fine now because they apply for the change of status and keep on working until its accepted and leave if not. This new rule means they have to leave the country they are living and working in for anywhere from 1 month to 2 years, probably losing their job and majorly disrupting their lives for seemingly no reason at all. People who have lived in the US for a decade with a job, mortgage, family and children randomly need to leave to years, and what does that accomplish for anyone? If the govt. wanted to deport them, they could do it at any moment. The govt. can process their change of status paperwork exactly the same whether they're in or out of the country. So what is the point of any of this?
Taxes are supposed to pay for public services. An efficient visa system is a public service. If you pay tons of taxes but don’t get a public service that’s personally very important to you, it’s natural to feel let down
Yeah that’s fair, I feel let down all the time with how my taxes are (ab)used. Not a surprise, It’s been like this as long as I can remember.
You have to do a lot when you get a green card to prove you won't be a burden on the US tax payer. It's a big part of the system and a big part of the anti-immigrant rhetoric
> Genuinely curious, what does taxes have to do with it?
It's popular trope from the GOP that immigrants are an economic drain on the US. They get free <insert whatever you want>, so the US must throw them out to save money.
Just because someone pays some taxes (it's hard to avoid paying sales tax if you buy a thing in a store, regardless of your citizenship), doesn't mean they're a net economic benefit to the country they live in, depending on exactly what taxes they pay and what taxpayer-funded services they get.
Immigrants come to the US with a variety of financial situations. Some immigrants are blatantly scamming welfare systems designed for poor Americans or are outright committing fraud (this is much of what is going on with the federal investigation and charges of Somalis in Minnesota). Other immigrants are paying taxes comparable to what American citizens would pay (this is probably the case for most people on H1B visas in the tech industry).
A lot of the anti-immigrant rhetoric involves some version of the lie that immigrants don't pay taxes.
Citizenship is tied to the right to vote and Taxation without Representation was literally the driving force for the creation of America itself
> Taxation without Representation was literally the driving force for the creation of America itself
The issue of taxation without representation had far more to do with the founders’ status as Englishmen and British subjects than their status as taxpayers. Paying taxes by itself was not a sufficient qualification for political representation. Felons, minors, and women were also required to pay taxes in the 1770s, despite not being able to vote. Immigrants who believe that the taxes they pay entitle them to this representation have bought into a falsified version of American history that was popularized during the Civil Rights Era.
United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” March 26, 1790:
> Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States.
> I don’t think paying your dues should make you more likely to get through the pipeline. After all, you paid those taxes because you made good money, which is what people come here for.
https://www.trumpcard.gov/
One can reasonably argue that not paying your dues should exclude you from the pipeline.
> After all, you paid those taxes because you made good money, which is what people come here for.
You mean they’ve contributed generously for the compensation they’ve earned?
Uncle Sam likes tax payers.
To show that they're not freeloaders. A lot of right-wingers have a belief that immigrants are implicitly freeloaders, and therefore getting rid of them will make the economy better.
Of course it's just not true. Like most current Republican talking points, it's plainly fabricated; it's an outright lie. But, since a lot of people believe it, it's useful to reminder everyone that its not the case.
A very common xenophobic narrative is that foreigners do two things at the same time (1) steal your jobs and (2) drain your social systems. Another even more vile one one would be anything to do with coming for your daughters and women, but for this you will have to favtor in race. Because a rich white Frenchman coming your daughter doesn't have the same ring to it for bigots.
If the US, a country with a too low birthrate, throws out even the best kind of migrant (namely the kind that generates a lot of value for the country), you're going to be in deeper shit than ever before for decades to come.
Now I agree that paying taxes or not should have nothing to do with it.
It's not just a narrative and has been proven true, at least for (2).[0]
For (1), I think that a good discussion with any business owner in a migrant-dominated field will tell you that hiring foreigners is done to keep costs low and avoid Baumol's law. As a result, locals don't want to work in such fields, reinforcing the need for migrants.
[0] https://scanalyst.fourmilab.ch/uploads/default/original/2X/9...
So what you're saying is that people arriving in a country don't earn as much as people with established ties there? Cool. I wonder how that could be? /s
Hours worked: https://cphpost.dk/2025-06-18/business-education/career/inte...
> people arriving in a country don't earn as much as people with established ties there
Not true as Europeans are not concerned.
> how that could be
It doesn't have to be like this; for instance, you could require that migrant workers earn at least 2x the median salary to get a visa. It would avoid the whole exploitation of third-world workers paid a subsistence salary to save on costs.
Do you know a country that does this? ... Danemark! https://www.nyidanmark.dk/pl-PL/You-want-to-apply/Work/Pay-l...
Signaling.
Have you tried being white? The trump admin is rolling out the red carpet for white south Africans.
I'm being facetious of course. I hate what maga is doing to our wonderful melting pot.
Don’t listen to this op, you don’t need to change your race.
If I was you I’d choose to be a multi-billionaire instead and keep my race.
"Most disturbing is the fact that a lot of people I know who climbed the same ladder will go out and cheer what the administration is doing."
I always joke that all naturalized (citizens) immigrants automatically become republican. I say it in earnest because effectively all naturalized people who I know side with anti-immigration, except agaisnt people they know, but none of them take my "joke" seriously.
Even those still halfway up said ladder: https://x.com/flowersslop/status/2058161240350794165?s=20
This shit is sadly true.
Not entirely safe even if you naturalize as they are now making noise about stripping citizenship[1]
[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/trump-administr...
They're doing this on the basis that crimes were committed before naturalization so therefore the N-400 submitted was fraudulent.
[flagged]
You mistake me reporting the method they intend to use for support of this action.
I think denaturalisation should be impossible and constitutionally protected.
Ah, my apologies then
If it makes you feel any better, and I’m sure it won’t. There are US citizens outraged by this as well. And I’m one of them.
I got mine in 2019 and feel the same way. I'm actually in the process of applying for citizenship and my application seems to have stalled - it's been nearly 10 months when the USCIS processing times page says I should expect 7 (it was 5-6 when I applied). There's been some articles that the government is going to force everyone to retake fingerprints again although there's been nothing official about that yet. I really wish I had applied for citizenship as soon as I was eligible.
I was approved 2 weeks ago. The process took 4 years end to end. I've been updating my paperwork (SSN, Global Entry and CA DL). I saw this news and immediately thought that it would've impacted me and I wouldn't've been able to maintain my job until a consular interview.
Also a consular interview has no appeal process. A denial stands unlike AOS.
I am paying taxes in US for over 20 years, don't hold a green card, not interested in ever getting one and not complaining that I don't have the right to vote. How are these things related?
I’m An immigrant, so I can relate. Not in the US.
I left my home country for a better life.
If the country I moved to was going downhill, I’d be looking to move again. I already did it, so I know it’s worthwhile.
Same is happening in Japan because the politics here loves to copy the USA. It’s fucking lame.
What's with tax thing? Is it only paid in US? Are they not supposed to pay taxes when they have taxable income?
If one paid 100K+ in taxes I assume one had opportunities to make such high income by being in US which one can be thankful for.
> On the other hand, we cannot apply for citizenship for 3 more years, ...
I am sorry but I am just seeing too much of an entitlement here.
I'm also seeing a lot of broken promises here.
> me and my wife have been in the US for combined 25+ years, and paid over $100,000 in
Sounds like you may be a good candidate for Trump's gold card.
I'm being fecitious of course, but I'm just pointing out that thinking of citizenship worthiness in monetary terms is something the president has already considered.
i’m fairly confident the gold card is the only kind of immigration they want to encourage now. you either pay up or go home and cross your fingers
[flagged]
That was literally the premise of America at its foundation, and it’s a better national identity than this weird, ahistorical attempt at white christian nationhood currently popular on the American right.
That America was founded as an economic zone open to all seems more ahistoric. The phrase "ourselves and our Posterity" appears in the first sentence of the Constitution. And you cannot deny that the founders were in fact white Christians[0].
Look, I'm a visibly nonwhite immigrant. I am proud to be a naturalized American and have renounced all legal ties to the country of my birth. I think dual citizenship is at best weird, and I honestly don't understand how one squares that against the oath of allegiance. I believe the onus is upon the immigrant to assimilate, and that America is a rare place where that is in fact possible. I have no desire to recreate the country of my birth in America, especially not in a segregated ethnic enclave.
I would like to live in a colorblind America and, though it may sound implausible to you, I believe the American right has the better claim to that future than the left. I do not empathize more with potential immigrants from my ethnic background than I do with my fellow Americans, and I quite dislike it when those from the left automatically assume the former, because it means they are treating me as being fundamentally different than any other American. And I think this mindset is table stakes for any immigrant to any nation.
Much of the West has seen levels of immigration over the past few decades beyond the capacity of the native population to absorb in a way that results in assimilation. It has increasingly been from cultures that are substantially different, further hampering that effort. It's disconcerting to see that any efforts to pump the brakes even a little bit immediately results in accusations of racism or fascism.
[0]: I don't want to split hairs over 18th-century Deism. All of that was contained within the Christian cultural framework, anyway.
Hey man, I get it, you’re new here. I don’t know how anyone observing the American right could possibly believe what you believe, and especially not if you’ve been observing them your entire life like I have, but if I was a new citizen of a country, I imagine that I’d also have some pretty naive beliefs too. Best of luck to you.
[dead]
"Land of Opportunity" is in fact a long-used nickname for the United States, so your position appears to be mostly rejected.
It is not as a country. Certain regions within the nation are still growing.
This news has to be read alongside the immigration visa emission pause for 75 countries by DOS[1].
Since USCIS is blocking Adjustment of Status, and the Department of State is blocking green card emission for citizens of 75 countries, this means that if you are from the following countries you are effectively banned from getting a Green Card:
Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Antigua and Barbuda, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Burma, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Colombia, Cote d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, The Gambia, Georgia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Haiti, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Kuwait, Kyrgyz Republic, Laos, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, North Macedonia, Pakistan, Republic of the Congo, Russia, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Tanzania, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, and Yemen.
[1] https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/News/visas-news/i...
I'm from one of the countries on the list. Not only is there no way to legally immigrate to the US anymore, but just visiting US once requires me to give an interest-free loan of up to $15k to the US government. Yeah, no, thank you.
I never considered illegal immigration, nor will I ever - I value predictable outcomes.
But looking at these new rules, I can't help but think that it really punishes people who want to play by the rules and sets the price for ones that don't to approximately $15k.
My country is not in the list (Mexico, not that we need to... Americans hate us), but I just cannot comprehend why people would go through all the pain for the immigration process in the US.
Actually, it kind of make sense why only the most desperate try to get into the US , people who have something to lose are naturally repelled by the bureaucracy.
The average American, at least in my state (Washington), does not hate Mexicans. The people running the federal government seem to, however.
We love to paint the US in broad brushstrokes of color, but it more of a muddy brown across the entire country. Washington State doesn't have huge expat communities of Mexicans, but what about if I'm Chinese going to school in Spokane? Or Somali in St Paul, MN? or Pakistani in Chicago? Some "average Americans" seem to hate these people in every locale.
EDIT: Wash. is actually a top 8 destination in the US for Mexican immigrants, with an estimated population of 250-300K people, so not huge but definitely sizeable!
I dunno. The southern parts of SW WA can be pretty racist (Lewis County and south). Rural, much more red, but without the extensive farming more pervasive on the east side.
Yeah, I'm brown. I'm not even going to visit the US while the turd reich is in power. I had always wanted to visit the Smithsonian.
>Americans hate us
I don't mean to minimize any negative experiences you've had. But as a lifelong American, I've never heard anyone make a negative comment about Mexicans. Even in online spaces like X where there is a lot of racism, it's usually not directed at Mexicans.
If you look at Trump's famous comment about Mexicans in his speech from 2015, he actually points to Mexicans in the audience and refers to them as Mexico's best people. The media cut that part out, of course. (I'm not a Trump supporter.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apjNfkysjbM#t=3m25s
Here is the actual quote you are defending:
There is no apparent indication in that video that the people he's pointing at are Mexican.Among other issues, countries are not generally 'sending people' to immigrate to other countries. Most countries are in general keen to avoid emigration.
>There is no apparent indication in that video that the people he's pointing at are Mexican.
But it seems like the most natural interpretation.
The most obvious, good-faith interpretation of this quote is that Mexico has a mix of good and bad people, like every country, and the ones immigrating illegally tend to be bad. The fact that the media didn't even consider this common-sense interpretation contributed a lot to Trump's popularity.
Cool. Here's something he said today:
Really earning that good faith!> But as a lifelong American, I've never heard anyone make a negative comment about Mexicans.
What an absurd statement on its face that comes from a place of extreme privilege. I am a brown-skinned man in America and I lost count of all of the times people that look like me have been denigrated and lambasted in this country.
>What an absurd statement on its face that comes from a place of extreme privilege.
Oh boy, here we go again. I even said "I don't mean to minimize any negative experiences you've had" and I'm still getting the privilege discourse. You are really determined to prevent the Democrats from winning elections, aren't you?
Even assuming I am privileged, then what I'm telling you is that privileged white people like myself aren't shit-talking Mexicans behind their back. Wouldn't that be relevant information? Why would it be an absurd statement?
>brown-skinned
That's not the same as Mexican.
When was the most recent time this happened to you in person? A recent, representative concrete example would be a lot more compelling that performative outrage.
It can't be online. White people catch lots of crap online too: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/G88oMOwWAAIqBUp?format=jpg&name=...
I've always thought I'd end up in the US at some point, but as someone who prefers to make things rather than spend years at some faceless megacorp (writing up cover sheets for TPS reports), it never seemed hugely viable, even starting out from a first-world country.
Now it doesn't seem viable at all. Meanwhile, anyone who shows up illegally is merely "undocumented", and half of US politics consists in coddling them (the other half in enforcing existing immigration laws capriciously). Even for someone who's quite pro-immigration like myself, that's just bizarre. There's no way this is a functional system.
Most of the people in my circles don't want to go to the US anymore. I suppose I'll ride it out and see what comes next (after 2028 at minimum). If I ever make it, I'll have spent many of my productive years outside the US, since I wasn't welcome during those. Weird system.
[dead]
India has the largest backlog of applicants, this will help Indians (and to some extent Chinese) get GCs quickly.
The quota per country isn't being adjusted. I'm not sure what you're referring to?
U.S. Pause on Immigrant Visas for 75 Countries Could Add 50,000 Employment Green Cards—Big Win for Indian Professionals: https://www.visahq.com/news/2026-01-24/in/us-pause-on-immigr...
Family-based. I am quite certain everyone here talks about visas for professionals, not your mom or dad.
How so?
unused family-based immigrant visas ‘spill over’ to the employment categories the following fiscal year, see link above
Family-based. I am quite certain everyone here talks about visas for professionals, not your mom or dad.
Immigrating to the usa is not a right. It is granted.
I don't see the problem, and I'm not even American or Trump supporter. It just makes sense.
That's what I just commented as well, I'm not from the US but that seems so obvious, in which country it's a "right" of some sort? It should definitely be hard, maybe even very hard to emigrate there, to show strong commitment and intent and most especially you should have something special to bring to the table knowing you didn't abed by the same rules growing-up (not the same level of education necessarily and so-on) which is a bit unfair for local citizens.
I don't really understand the position of many comments which seems to be somehow "We should be welcoming the world" but like why? Why wouldn't you prioritize your citizens first especially seeing the job loss lately?
Part of it is cultural due to the origins of our country. We are mostly a country of immigrants. On the base of the Statue of Liberty is a poem “The New Colossus” which says:
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame, With conquering limbs astride from land to land; Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
There are reasons beyond the cultural history or being a country of immigrants. Much of the innovation of the US over it’s history is due to immigrants. From modern physics, the telephone, the Internet, mRNA vaccines, etc. 46% of Fortune 500 companies were founded by Immigrants or their children. 44% of billion dollar tech startups are immigrants.
Without immigration, the US would have negative population growth, which is economically probably a disaster. We’d have to achieve impossible levels of productivity to support the larger aging populations. Additionally the job losses you mention are mostly in Technology, Finance and Government… sectors that aren’t exactly dominated by immigrant labor.
Being protectionist doesn’t typically work out from a cost and labor perspective. We already have shortages in farming, construction and health care labor, which are often populated by immigrants. So overall, we’d have more unfilled positions, which would result in higher prices, etc. Native born Americans just don’t seem to want those jobs.
> Without immigration, the US would have negative population growth, which is economically probably a disaster.
Nobody knows what the population growth rate would be without immigration. The two are interlinked; ceteris is not paribus.
> We already have shortages in farming, construction and health care labor, which are often populated by immigrants. So overall, we’d have more unfilled positions, which would result in higher prices, etc.
Letting the price of labor in those industries find natural market equilibrium is fine. For agriculture especially, labor is a pretty small part of a product's final cost, anyway.
> Native born Americans just don’t seem to want those jobs.
The price of labor aside, have you ever worked a job where you're surrounded by an ethnic clique? I don't blame anyone for not wanting that.
>Immigrating to the usa is not a right. It is granted.
It's not about rights, it's about keeping your promises.
"Join the army and get a green card" -- oops did we say that?
But then we have only been fair weather friends (see how we treated pretty much any one who put their lives on the line) so I'm not very surprised at what's happening.
I don't know, some Americans are earning a ton of money in their 30s post-millitary and are retired for life and can even live abroad and keep getting their pension, do you have statistics to back it up?
This is about green-cards for joining US military. What are you on about?
We carry the seeds of our own destruction they say. So this is a good thing. America should take care of their own citizens first. It is a good thing. Also there is a school of thought that says prosperity of any country is primarily a function of the kind of citizens they have, and how the country is able to leverage the intellect of its citizens. An important thesis of recent discussions of American prosperity is that a lot of it has been built up by the immigration of enterprising people into the US. So it can be argued that American prosperity is at the cost of prosperity of the rest of the world. And most of these things have compounding effects. The more intellect gathers in the US, that country can leap frog into the future at a far more vigorous pace than other could if most of these people were left inside their own countries. But in any case, these current events give us an opportunity into testing the thesis of American prosperity. Either balance will be brought to how global prosperity is distributed, or finally a country will be able to take care of its own citizens first. Either way this is all a great thing.
This is a really horrible policy and I personally know a fair few people and families that are going to have their lives upended by this.
On the other hand I've always wondered if most of America's competitive advantage at driving tech innovation hasn't simply been through capturing the ROI of other more social minded countries investing in public education. It could be a massive long term benefit to Europe and Asia especially if they get to keep the talent they created, and more globally distributed innovation seems like it could have some benefits to global welfare.
Those countries could keep their own talent through economic policy (i.e. fuck you pay me)
That they don’t is entirely their own fault and they deserve to be brain drained. “Talent” are people with agency and not possessions subservient to national interests.
Sure, and now they don’t need to keep their talent through economic policy. The USA is being kind enough to force them to stay in Europe/Asia :)
no, there are already runoff places that will brain drain the rest. there will be no "great repatriation". it's not just "The US" and "Home", there is an ease of immigration, quality of life, and success potential gradient.
Nobody was talking about repatriation.
So much of the US immigration process is built around punishing and exploiting. The primary reason for the strong border is allowing farms and construction companies to find cheap labor which can't complain about mistreatment.
It helps that a decent portion of the population hates and/or is fearful anyone different from themselves. That is what's allowed for these even more draconian and brutal measures.
This is the part that is the wildest to me. The current system seems to generate a collection of second-class citizens: people we openly rely on for labor but that have no recourse if they're exploited and no regulatory protections such as minimum wage (even though I argue against min wage, if we're going to have it, have it!).
My personal preference would be to allow nearly unlimited legal immigration but strip welfare programs for all. In this way we allow anyone and everyone to become an economic participant, voting participant after the naturalization process, and mitigate those immigrating purely for handouts.
But I haven't thought through this policy well. Maybe there is something this seemingly solution is missing.
Are you going to allow ER’s to refuse patients and let people die on the street? What if the Patient is unconscious with no identification but looks Hispanic? Can they be turned away?
Stripping away all wefare because of immigration is a bad bad bad idea.
[flagged]
So in your utopia, what's the process to determine if someone is a gross and terrible homeless druggie that deserves to die on the sidewalk; versus someone like yourself who is very important and deserves all the help right away?
Society makes this judgement every day in a thousand different ways. Resources are limited. It's why we don't give 85-year-old's heart/lung transplants - the 30-year-old recipient can use it better/longer. Does that mean we don't give any health care to 85-year-olds? No, and to argue it is so is a slippery slope fallacy. It's why we don't have lights on all 4-way stops even though it's safer than stop signs.
Given that we make these judgements, the problem with your argument is that you paint the GP as some sort of monster for making the judgement and picking a spot on the scale. It's a valid thing to disagree with where he picks on the scale; it is invalid to argue that there should be no scale.
> it is invalid to argue that there should be no scale.
And to put that into policy gets rid of the scale for everyone. You can see it with abortion restrictions in various states. Instead of the doctor's expertise, the lawyers are the ones to decide.
Then again this is very much on point for the US. There are no experts other than lawyers. /s
Yeah you've just described private health insurance in a nutshell.
> But I haven't thought through this policy well. Maybe there is something this seemingly solution is missing.
What about long term immigrants who end up disabled through no fault of their own? Or who get cancer? Or who end up having a child (who is an American citizen) and that child is special needs and the immigrant can't manage a full time job and care for their child? If they get pregnant and end up on bed rest or with a traumatic birth that takes them out of the workforce for a period of time?
There are ways to end up needing to rely on welfare that aren't due to laziness or a desire for handouts.
If the answer is 'kick them out', I'd be worried about what we're teaching our American kids watching. There are two lessons they could pick up, and neither is good for their moral development or sense of self. The first is that anyone who lacks the ability to work has no value, and that will engender greater alienation and isolation as they place all of their self-worth on their ability to earn money. They'll look upon the elderly, children, and caretakers with disdain (Interestingly, this probably won't help the birth rates either...). The second is that they are protected but those people should be disposed of when they're not useful. This will make them arrogant and introduce the idea of dehumanizing other groups, which will further the cracks of division in our society.
That’s by design. Maybe not initially, but we’ve been having this immigration debate as long as I’ve been politically aware, which is going on 4 decades. It absolutely is the desired outcome today.
Kids. Kids are the piece of this policy you haven’t considered. Poor people have kids too. Then you have starving babies in the street and 5 year olds trying to find work to pay for food. Then you might think, “okay, maybe we take care of kids. Healthcare? Food? Education?” Great. But do you have forced separation from parents in order to provide these services just to the kids? What if the parents eat the kids food because they’re starving. Now you have to feed the parents. And providing care for orphans costs more than healthcare for parents, so probably rational to give them healthcare too. And do you want to create a system where having a kid gets you food and healthcare? Probably don’t want that incentive. So now you’re maybe giving food and healthcare to people without kids.
So, whenever you think about purely capitalistic policies with no social policies, we just have to be okay with having a large number of babies and toddlers starving on the streets in front of us.
When you hear about republicans cutting $900 billion from Medicaid, and millions of families losing coverage, that means children. Almost 50% of Medicaid recipients are children. Most of the other 50% are their parents. So millions of children now do not have healthcare. Your post advocates for millions more to lose coverage. That translates to children dying and having lifelong disabilities from otherwise preventable illnesses.
The other inevitable outcome of policies like this is exploitation of women. It might start with “voluntary” sex work, but it becomes a bigger business that invites true exploitation and rapidly leads to human trafficking. Btw, that “voluntary” is there because it’s usually a choice between sex work and spiraling into homelessness and poverty - so not super voluntary to begin with. And we’re not even counting women more women who stay in abusive relationships because they are fully dependent on their partner for sustenance and shelter.
All that is to say that anytime advocate for a certain set of social policies over another, it’s usually informative to look at how they impact the most vulnerable in our society. Start with kids, then consider disabled and women. And finally ask why we’re generally okay with men starving on the street but not toddlers.
Is this a surprise? This is hardly anything new. The United States was built with slavery.
So do you support building an even higher wall, and doing even more deportations, to keep the so-called "slaves" out?
If the US is so "exploitative", we should be keeping illegal immigrants out for their safety.
Generally, republicans want lots of illegals for two reasons… first, cheap labor. Second, it’s a drum to bang during election season.
And democrats only halfway want to fix it. If they actually succeed, they also lose a drum. And have to pay more for chicken and oranges.
Making non-immigrant visa or work permits easy to obtain would be trivial (relative to other gov endeavors). But we don’t. I’m left to conclude the political elite on both sides like it this way.
> This is the part that is the wildest to me. The current system seems to generate a collection of second-class citizens
What do you mean seems too. The biggest proponents of immigration routinely ask "who's going to work the fields?" As a call to allow immigration. I don't know how to interpret that as anything but importing an underclass.
> The current system seems to generate a collection of second-class citizens
Poor choice of words. Illegals are not citizens. That's the whole point.
> have no recourse if they're exploited
The recourse is to go back. In the era when you could just immigrate to the US just by getting on a boat (before the Immigration Act of 1924), about 1/3 of immigrants went back to their home country if they did not make it in the US.
See:
> From 1908 to 1932, 12 million individuals migrated to the United States. Over the same period, four million returned to their source country.
-- https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00144... (you have to pirate it to view the full thing)
But now, the expectation of leftists is that the government is somehow supposed to help the failed immigrants.
There are no leftists in power in the US government outside of maybe a very small handful. We have not had a leftist president or majority ever, unless you just group neo-liberal democrats into that bucket, which would just be wrong...
Even if true (and it's not), what even is your point? Do you not think people that work and pay taxes should get any benefits? Do you think it's ok that people are exploited if they're immigrants?
It's not like undocumented immigrants even get welfare or other social programs, but they do have to pay taxes. Interesting enough, they even commit 50% less crime than citizens.
To think these people can't be exploited and that it's trivial to return to their home countries shows a lack of critical thinking.
For example, many of these people flee countries that have dire situations directly caused by US interventions over the past decades including most of Central and South America.
The list of countries that have had their democratically elected leaders overthrown or were otherwise destabilized by the US and its corporate elite is long and well documented.
>It's not like undocumented immigrants even get welfare or other social programs
False. Medicaid is US state-subsidized health insurance, which undocumented immigrants are eligible for:
"Children (0–18 years old) can get full Medi-Cal coverage, no matter their immigration status. Adults (19 and older) are currently eligible for full Medi-Cal coverage, regardless of immigration status. Starting on January 1, 2026, adults who do not have Satisfactory Immigration Status (SIS) will no longer be able to enroll in full Medi-Cal. If you already have coverage, you can keep it; just make sure to renew your coverage during your renewal month."
https://www.dhcs.ca.gov/medi-cal-immigrant-eligibility-faqs/
(Medi-Cal is the California version of Medicaid)
>For example, many of these people flee countries that have dire situations directly caused by US interventions over the past decades including most of Central and South America.
Not everything is the fault of the USA.
Chile, one of the most famous examples of American intervention, is now one of the wealthiest countries in Latam: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/daily-mean-income?mapSele...
Polls showed most Panamanians approved of Operation Just Cause. You can see after the operation in 1989, Panama's median income started ticking upwards: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/daily-mean-income?tab=lin...
And when the US intervened in Venezuela recently, Venezuelans were dancing on the streets.
As an isolationist, I'm against American interventions. Our track record is mixed at best. But the idea that every world problem, or every South American problem, can be blamed on the US somehow is a vast oversimplification.
Medi-cal and the Washington state medicaid programs both allow for non-citizens. However, they do not use federal funds to cover non-citizens, they use state funds. They leverage their higher tax revenues to cover.
Federal medicaid funds do not go to illegal immigrants. If a state wants to cover them they have to do that out of state revenue.
Since medicaid is partially state funded and mainly federally funded that's what opens up the door for states to have different rules for eligibility (expanding beyond the federal standard). However, the states have to cover the excess when they decide to do that.
>Medi-cal and the Washington state medicaid programs both allow for non-citizens. However, they do not use federal funds to cover non-citizens, they use state funds. They leverage their higher tax revenues to cover.
That would still mean runtime_terror made a false claim: "It's not like undocumented immigrants even get welfare or other social programs" They didn't specify whether the money for welfare or social programs came at the federal vs state level.
We were talking federal funds, that's what I was referring to. I'm well aware MediCal covers immigrants; and I'd argue they should get coverage as they pay taxes after all!
If you meant federal, you should've said federal.
Do they pay income taxes if they're getting paid under the table in cash? If so, please explain how.
The person you’re responding to is writing in bad faith and being stupid on purpose. The discourse you are trying to have about immigration with them is exactly why immigration in this country is a disaster.
> The discourse you are trying to have about immigration with them is exactly why immigration in this country is a disaster.
I agree that bad faith presentations on how things work is definitely a problem. But I think the reason immigration is a disaster is because both republicans and democrats have decided to be xenophobic. There's no political party pushing an alternative narrative. But further, the current system works for big corporate donors. The broken immigration system makes it easy for a company to exploit H1B workers or farm laborers/construction workers.
That, IMO, is why the system is so broken. Our politicians used 9/11 as a way to ramrod in draconian border policies "to fight terrorism" but really because they benefit those that own big businesses.
Until either party decides that immigrants are our neighbors and not scary "criminals" the system will remain completely busted.
Even if the money comes out of the California budget rather than the federal budget, runtime_terror's claim "It's not like undocumented immigrants even get welfare or other social programs" was not fully true. California is half a trillion dollars in debt, and is the only state which hasn't paid back its pandemic loan from the federal government. I sure hope the feds won't be responsible if California collapses.
I'm not even sure how I feel about immigration restriction. But I do want to get the facts straight. Be careful about assuming that anyone who mentions facts which are inconvenient for your worldview is "writing in bad faith" or "being stupid on purpose". That's a fast-track to epistemic closure like we see in religious cults.
> If California collapses
Hahahahahhahagahahhahagaggahahahahahahahahahahhahahahaha!
Brother, we're the 4th largest economy in the world. We hold up an outsized percentage of the US economy.
> But I do want to get the facts straight
Oh do you now? You're the one that believes countries are better off after the US overthrows their democratically elected leaders and that the Venezuelans were celebrating in the streets (most of those were AI videos btw).
You just want to defend US imperialism and to scapegoat hard working immigrants.
>Brother, we're the 4th largest economy in the world. We hold up an outsized percentage of the US economy.
Why hasn't the pandemic loan been paid back? Why do so many in Silicon Valley want to relocate to Austin or Miami?
>most of those were AI videos btw
Source? Most of the discussion on the venezuela subreddit seemed pleased about the intervention
https://old.reddit.com/r/vzla/comments/1q2yxsb/trump_acaba_d...
https://old.reddit.com/r/vzla/comments/1q4nfzm/opiniones_kam...
You believe Maduro was "democratically elected"? I don't think any serious observer believes he won a free and fair election.
You claimed the dire economics in South America was a result of US intervention. I gave 3 data points indicating that it's not that simple. You haven't given a single data point in support of your position.
>defend US imperialism
As I said, I'm an isolationist. I just get tired of people blaming the US for everything.
There are very few Leftists in the USA, and even fewer in government. Who are you talking about?
Most people in the US are immigrants, including white people. Very few white people have a lineage to the revolution. Most came from Europe following WWII or, perhaps, before. This most likely includes you.
The idea that the US is composed of true Americans that have been here since the beginning is an outright Republican fantasy. A delusion to make white immigrants feel better about themselves. But it's just not true.
This has always been a country composed of immigrants, and it's always something we've been proud of. We have long been the melting pot. To think otherwise is anti-American, and you do not belong here.
> Most people in the US are immigrants, including white people.
If they were born in America they aren’t immigrants.
> To think otherwise is anti-American, and you do not belong here.
United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” March 26, 1790:
> Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States.
There is no "we" on this matter. Americans have been sharply divided about immigrants for a long time going back to the 19th century or even before. There is no such thing as an American consensus on immigration. Certainly you don't get to define what is American and what isn't. Neither do I. You're just one person.
"To think otherwise is anti-American, and you do not belong here." is just a useless emotional thought-terminating phrase.
I say this as an immigrant to the US myself.
Americans have not been divided on immigration, this is a conservative revisionist history thing. For the past couple hundred years, everyone has agreed that immigration, as a concept, is a net-benefit for America.
What is different this time is that, for the first time ever, we have people who believe that immigration, as a concept, is not a net-benefit. We can disagree on the amount of immigration, sure.
But never, in our history, has "none" been an acceptable viewpoint. It is fundamentally incompatible with everything this country stands for, going back to our inception. And, before anyone says anything, yes the far-right is trying to stamp out all immigration. They might not say it, but their actions certainly do.
There are vastly fewer "immigrants for handouts" than right wing media would like you to believe. Coming to the US is incredibly challenging. People who do it are mostly young and wish to work, to support families. Handouts don't accomplish that.
It take tremendous effort to immigrate, legally or illegally. Anyone telling you that they are lazy is obviously lying.
As a US native, I have met zero lazy immigrants, but lazy Americans are everywhere I look. Thus I think this sentiment is more a projection of their own behavior: “they must be as lazy as we are”.
I think you hit the nail on the head. It maps directly to much of their coalition’s rhetoric, accusations, policy agenda, and behavior these days, including, but not limited to, their obsession with pedophilia.
Americans work more hours a year than most countries.
And for all that, we barely beat Germany on labor productivity. Truly working ourselves to death to enrich the Epstein Class.
Best I can give you is Russian oligarchs and criminals, and corporate welfare. Deal?
[dead]
> The primary reason for the strong border is allowing farms and construction companies to find cheap labor which can't complain about mistreatment.
That doesn't make any sense. If you want "cheap labor [that] can't complain about mistreatment," you want a weak border, not a strong one, because a weak border creates a larger pool of illegal immigrants to draw from.
A strong border, at a minimum, reduces the supply of illegal immigrants, and may even push the employer into hiring people with legal immigration status who can complain and sue over mistreatment.
> It helps that a decent portion of the population hates and/or is fearful anyone different from themselves. That is what's allowed for these even more draconian and brutal measures.
I'd put it another way: a large part of the population has been put under a lot of stress and pressure, while simultaneously being intensely conditioned to not blame the people actually responsible. That stress has to go somewhere. Don't blame the little guys, even if you find them contemptible because they're not from your culture. Blaming the little guy (for "hat[ing]...anyone different from themselves") is another aspect of the conditioning that protects those actually responsible.
Strong border policies with moderate (weaker) and selective enforcement will give the combination that GP describes: enough supply backed by the threat of strong individual penalties if someone here illegally “gets out of line”.
> because a weak border creates a larger pool of illegal immigrants to draw from.
A larger pool with more rights and less fear of being deported. That means it's easier for them to pick and choose the jobs they do or even to start their own businesses.
They could, for example, form a union without the fear of deportation.
Look, if this were all about stopping illegal immigration, there are very fast paths to doing that. A prime one would be punishing not the immigrant, but the employer of the immigrant. Fine every farm in the US that employs an illegal immigrant and you'd quickly see the number of those jobs being worked drop.
But that's not what ICE is about which is why they and legislators haven't done that really basic enforcement.
Heck, at the start of this admin, Trump had to pull back ICE from raiding farms because the business interests of the farmers collided with the xenophobia of Steven Miller.
Why does the US have to offer jobs to the whole world? People flood US borders like it's a magnet sucking them in and cry when they can't stay. If it's so exploitive why don't people stay in their own country or go somewhere else?
> People flood US borders
They have "flooded" the US borders because in the first Trump term, Trump instituted a policy of having applicants for all sorts of reasons to have to stay in Mexico before they can be accepted.
That's the primary reason why there are now huge encampments at the border. They weren't there under Obama, Bush, or Clinton.
> why don't people stay in their own country or go somewhere else?
A lot of people are asylum seekers, and a lot of that reason they are seeking asylum is US policy which has destroyed their home nations. The best example of this being the likes Venezuela, Cuba, and Haite. The US putting international trade embargos on governments it doesn't like, plunging them into poverty, creates a bunch of refuges.
Some people are simply seeking a better life. Some have bought into american propaganda about how awesome the US is to live in. Some people are simply trafficked into the US for the explicit purpose of being exploited. (In fact, that's the majority of human trafficking in the US [1]).
[1] https://www.dhs.gov/human-trafficking-quick-facts
I question the idea that the US has a strong border compared to other countries of a comparable economic and development level.
Also, allowing farms and construction companies to find cheap labor is a reason for a weak border, not a reason for a strong border.
> I question the idea that the US has a strong border compared to other countries of a comparable economic and development level.
It's all over the map. A lot of countries are easier to visit. Becoming a citizen, however, is difficult for most countries.
> Also, allowing farms and construction companies to find cheap labor is a reason for a weak border, not a reason for a strong border.
You are mistaken in thinking this is a normal labor market. The reason it reduces prices is because it weakens the ability for labor to negotiate. A strong border with internal enforcement makes it easier for a farmer to tell a day laborer "do this, or I'll call ICE on you". How well do you think a day laborer can negotiate a raise in that circumstance?
Consider, for example, the fact that farmers aren't employing US citizens or documented workers even though they are infinitely more abundant than undocumented workers. Why do you think that is? What mechanism is making the undocumented worker cheap and the documented one expensive?
A fast path to documentation and more rights lets more people in, but it also increases the labor costs because the workers are able to negotiate in the market.
lol "draconian and brutal measures", it is not your right to become a citizen in another country, they are doing YOU a favour. If at any point you think it is unfair, go somewhere else.
[dead]
Absurd, currently trying to figure out how to sponsor my wife and now this. The wording seems to imply that even those here on valid non-immigrant visas (F1) would need to apply via their home country. It doesn’t help that I130+I485 (AOS) could take over a year to process?
If you have filed I485 and they fail to process it before your current visa expires (D/S ends like F1 OPT). Then what? You just have to leave, abandon AOS and re-apply for CR1?
It’s insane that the simplest immigrant pathway; spousal green card could take 12+ months and may now require temporarily moving and being separated. Guess I actually will be paying $4K for a lawyer (plus the 3-4K just to file the USCIS forms).
I wish they would just have a simple fast lane for the 100% legal, non-complicated case.
And don't forget that US consulates in 75 countries, or approximately a third of the globe, have stopped conducting Green Card interviews.
By the way, if you move outside the country, you lose Domicile which is required to sponsor the visa. And if you don't spend enough time in their country visiting them, your application can be temporary "denied" (delayed) with a request for evidence (that the relationship is real) they'll spend 3 months deliberating over.
Today's news make this crystal clear: the current admin does not want citizens marrying outside the country, regardless of how quickly the marriage rate among US population is falling.
> simple fast lane for the 100% legal, non-complicated case
Immigration policy in the current administration (which seems to be driven by Stephen Miller) is not based around legalaities, it's based around cutting immigration as much as possible because that's what satisfies Trump's voter base. These people do not care if you 'did it the right way'. They have an atavistic hatred of foreigners.
> Immigration policy in the current administration (which seems to be driven by Stephen Miller) is not based around legalaities, it's based around cutting immigration as much as possible
White immigrants are fine with this administration.
"All but 3 of 6,069 refugees taken in by Trump are White South Africans"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/news/2026/05/22/trump-south-a...
Yeah, the move to take in only white refugees from SA was a clear message to their voter base that it’s about race. They could have chosen not to do that and have some plausible deniability, but they wanted to make that point very publicly.
Not just race, but political orientation. Not all white South Africans qualify for refugee status - only Afrikaners. A group who are generally conservative and likely to vote Republican once they've been fast-tracked to citizenship. (English-speaking, urban white people tend to vote more liberal there.)
Do you think the Biden-admin immigration shenanigans (2M illegal crossings a year, "temporary" protected status, CBP One, etc.) weren't predominantly aimed at a group of people who were deemed to be more likely to vote Democratic?
> Do you think the Biden-admin immigration shenanigans (2M illegal crossings a year, "temporary" protected status, CBP One, etc.) weren't predominantly aimed at a group of people who were deemed to be more likely to vote Democratic?
Most Hispanic families and cultures are overwhelmingly socially conservative leaning.
In addition, non-citizens cannot vote in federal elections.
That "theory" has never held water, and was always a racist dogwhistle.
> Most Hispanic families and cultures are overwhelmingly socially conservative leaning.
The idea that Hispanics and other ethnic minorities would vote Democratic was so popular that people wrote a whole book about it[0], until the idea was finally put to bed with Trump's electoral gain among every nonwhite group between 2016 and 2024.
Until then, the broad demographic makeup of the illegal crossings during Biden's years would absolutely have been assumed to lean Democratic.
> In addition, non-citizens cannot vote in federal elections.
Noncitizens count for Congressional apportionment, and as GP said, there is the implicit understanding that at least some of those noncitizens will become citizens in the future and vote for the party that facilitated their arrival into this country.
[0]: The Emerging Democratic Majority, 2002.
> In 2015, in an essay The Emerging Republican Advantage,[4] Judis recanted his views in the book and argued that the long term Democratic majority had given way to an "unstable equilibrium" between the parties. He wrote that the long term Democratic Majority was gone as Hispanics and Asians were considerably less Democratic than he assumed and that white working class voters were abandoning the Democratic party.[5]
It was a stupid premise, of course they were wrong.
It did more to help US conservatives through counter-propaganda than anything else.
I won't defend Biden's weak border, but I don't see any signs that he was specifically letting in people based on their political leaning while excluding others, nor were they given a fast track to citizenship.
As someone who came here on the K-1 (fiance) visa, this would have impacted me as (IIRC) there are two points where I had to adjust status: once, after marriage, to get "Conditional" Permanent Residency, and after two years of marriage, to "remove conditions" on my residency.
I get being out of the country for the initial application (the consular officer in Sydney explained that it typically had to be filed by the sponsor, while the sponsor was in the US and the applicant was overseas, so that there was "no" concerns on coercion, etc.), but this... oof.
> Guess I actually will be paying $4K for a lawyer (plus the 3-4K just to file the USCIS forms).
And then of course the $85 biometrics fee every time you talk to USCIS, which could be multiple times in the process.
> Guess I actually will be paying $4K for a lawyer (plus the 3-4K just to file the USCIS forms). I wish they would just have a simple fast lane for the 100% legal, non-complicated case.
It would have been cheaper, and faster, for me to have come here from Australia on the visa waiver program (which says "no marrying a USC"), married my partner, said to USCIS "oops, my bad, can I stay anyway?" and go through -that- process, than the proper K-1.
I’m pretty sure you can both be out of the country, at least me and my wife were. We were married long enough to get a fast track though, according to the rules at the time.
It sounds like your wife came to the US on an F1 visa, you got married and are now filing or have filed for I130+I485 for her. I assume too that you were a US citizen. These facts may not be correct. IANAL but I absolutely think you should be forking over the money for an immigraiton lawyer and that was true before this memo came out.
I've seen so many people who call their cases "simple" or "straightforward" but 2 minutes of fairly superficial questioning reveals there are actually huge minefields or deep, fundamental flaaws in their case. It's way cheaper to have a lawyer from the start than it is to screw up her case and then get a lawyer involved once she's in removal proceedings, which is a very real possibility.
So here are some base questions to ask:
- How did you get your citizenship? If you were born here or got a green card through an employer or parent, that's fine. If you got it from being sponsored in a previous marriage, that's what USCIS calls a "pivot case" and you will have a high level of scrutiny;
- Did you know your wife prior to her coming to the US? If so, USCIS might take the position that this was a scheme for her to come to the US and adjust status rather than consular processing and the burden of proof that it wasn't is on you;
- It sounds like your wife is on OPT. If so, she completed her studies, which is good. USCIS hates cases where someone comes on an F1, doesn't complete their studies and get married. They can accuse such people of committing immigration fraud;
- How soon after her last entry to the US did you get married? Too quick (generally under 60-90 days) and USCIS may accuse her of misrepresentation, which is a huge problem;
- Did she make any visa applications and misrepresent her status to you?
- Did she make any misrepresentations to CBP about her relationship to you when entering the US?
- Did she ever violate the terms of her F1 visa? For example, working without authorization;
- Has she been married before? If so, were there an I130 filed for her previously?
- Has your wife ever been arrested, charged or convicted of any crime other than traffic ticket citations? This can be a far bigger problem than you realize even if it's something "trivial" where she gets probation;
- Did she apply for an F1 for one school, come to the US then change schools? If so, USCIS might take the position she did a misrepresentation.
Also, anecdotally, USCIS seems to be taking advantage at interviews of people who don't have a lawyer by threatening the citizen to withdraw the case or by getting the citizen or immigrant to agree not facts that aren't in evidence or aren't true and then using those facts to deny or delay the case.
Are you prepared for the interview where the officer may separate you and then compare your answers?
There's more to an immigration attorney than just filling out forms. A good attorney will prepare you for the interview and identify (and hopefully solve) any potential issues before they become issues. People generally make bad witnesses. I'm reminded of the "do you know what time it is?" scene from the west Wing [1].
I'd strongly advise a lawyer.
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VChTiGcWsCs
I would strongly advise for a lawyer, too, but some of your statements are less accurate, as someone who came here on a K-1 visa, in a genuine and sincere relationship, divorced and in the process of the divorce missed some filing deadlines and also hired a lawyer to clear it up.
> Did you know your wife prior to her coming to the US? If so, USCIS might take the position that this was a scheme for her to come to the US and adjust status rather than consular processing and the burden of proof that it wasn't is on you
Depending on status, per my lawyer, the assumption is that the visa is valid based on the initial application process. The burden on my "fixing" things, despite divorce, etc., was on USCIS to show that it wasn't sincere. That means they -did- ask for evidence (bank statements, insurance policies, financial instruments, cosigned leases, etc.) but they had to show that those "didn't sufficiently show an authentic relationship".
> Did she make any visa applications and misrepresent her status to you
This can be a challenge, but not usually a problem. After my visa was granted I started interviewing from Australia for jobs. When I did get a job, my new employer through a HR mixup set wheels in motion for a H-1B for me, which I hurriedly told them to cancel as I didn't need it.
> Are you prepared for the interview where the officer may separate you and then compare your answers?
Definitely will, not may. We faced questions like "what night is garbage night and who takes out the trash usually", "how long have they been working in the field they are currently employed in" (not just how long at current job). "Are both their parents alive, where do they live?" etc.
A lawyer is, especially now, a solid investment.
1. Born in typical midwest American town from American parents also born in the US just as their parents (at least 4 generations) 2. Nope, met after arrival. 3. Studies completed and employed legally. 4. "How soon after her last entry to the US did you get married" - actually maybe an issue, we just happened to travel internationally before deciding to get married sooner. But it would be silly to not return to the country you live and work in just because you took a vacation. 5. CBP doesn't even ask questions when you re-enter with valid visa documentation. 6. No previous marriages of either party. 7. No criminal history, not even a speeding ticket. 8. Nope, went to school, graduated, started working, so on.
We live together and spend >90% of our non-working time together so I can't imagine an interview being a problem.
As you can see, besides maybe the "crime" of taking an international vacation, our case is as simple as it should be.
> Also, anecdotally, USCIS seems to be taking advantage at interviews of people who don't have a lawyer by threatening the citizen to withdraw the case or by getting the citizen or immigrant to agree not facts that aren't in evidence or aren't true and then using those facts to deny or delay the case.
I mean that's really the issue. USCIS appears to be intentionally adversarial.
> I wish they would just have a simple fast lane for the 100% legal, non-complicated case.
The explicit purpose of this is to reduce legal immigration, and reduce the number of people becoming citizens.
There is no world in which the same racist, fascist administration doing this does anything remotely like what you describe.
I'm not from the US, but isn't it like almost every country in the world? Reducing immigration when it's already too much does increase job availability for locals (which should always be priority imo). Immigration to a country is a privilege, not really a right, but again I don't really know about the US, I just know that like Emigrating to Japan permanently or like in Dubai getting citizenship is very difficult and it does sound normal to me, why should it be easy? You want ultra motivated potential citizens, not the ones that just want to come for a few years to improve their CV or just pile up savings and then bail, they don't bring anything to the country as they'll not spend in the long-term within the US and will not really assimilate as well.
I don't think this is "racist", even Europeans are in the same boat to apply as far as I know, those are mostly white, I don't think racist is the right term here. Isn't America already heavily mixed?
Newsflash: Many European countries are, in fact, racist.
The French are virulently racist against Arabs and Muslims. Most of Western Europe is racist against the Romani, as well as against most Eastern European ethnicities (yes, even though they would be considered "white" in the US). It hasn't historically come up quite as much as in the US because most European countries are more homogeneous than the US is, but with the increase in migration—and particularly in asylum-seeking emigration from war-torn areas—it has become much more salient in recent times.
Japan is also racist, varying from moderately to horrifically depending on what the target group is.
These forms of racism don't always look the same as racism does in the US: for instance, the Western European bias against Eastern Europeans, IME, largely shows up as a widespread belief that they're lazy, and the bias against Romani is that they're seen as dirty, smelly thieves.
90% of all anti-immigrant sentiment, anywhere, is rooted in racism of varying types. Plenty of studies have made very clear that immigrants contribute more to the community and the nation, and have lower rates of crime, than people born in the country.
It is true that when a wave of immigrants first arrives in a new country, they take up more government resources for a period of time, because they literally have not had a chance to find jobs. But once that happens, they are likely to be working at lower-status, lower-paying jobs that the locals mostly didn't want in the first place. And once they have jobs, they aren't just somehow "taking up jobs that locals could have": they also create demand in the local economy, which creates more jobs. Because "number of jobs" isn't a fixed quantity.
And finally, in case you have been hiding under a rock for the last decade of American politics, this anti-immigrant sentiment is explicitly aimed at nonwhite immigrants. To the point that ICE routinely targets people based on the color of their skin, wholly disregarding their victims' status (many are legal immigrants or even citizens), and Trump actively seeks out white South Africans who want to come to the US.
> Plenty of studies have made very clear that immigrants contribute more to the community and the nation, and have lower rates of crime, than people born in the country.
You should distinguish between the American model of immigration, which has long been the beneficiary of positive selection effects until recently, against the European model (which seems to be more relevant to the GP), which unfortunately seems to have been designed for the exact opposite.
It's trivially easy to find research from Europe that consistently shows immigrants and descendants of immigrants as having higher rates of criminality than the native population. Even a pro-refugee source has to admit that immigrants in Denmark commit crimes at a level 2-3x higher[0].
And taking a step back, your statement on immigrants contributing more than the native population is absurd on its face. Why are immigrants immigrating to begin with? To seek a better life. Who made a better life possible on the other side of the fence? The native population. The degree to which immigrants, especially to the US, outperform the native population, you're just looking at the aforementioned selection effects; you're comparing the cream of the crop of one group to the median of another.
[0]: https://refugeeswelcome.dk/en/information/focus/crime-among-...
I'm not entirely sure I agree with the fact that 90% of anti-immigrant sentiment is racist, more of a protective culture thing which has nothing to do with race, actually color is different from race as well, I'm pretty sure people have no problem with Black americans that are completely assimilated, but they would have a problem with someone from Zambia that skipped a high part of its education and suddenly land in the US as an adult without the same set of values or education. That's not about color, that's about compatibility. Not recognizing that there is a drastic difference in behavior and education wouldn't be logical, some nations are seriously lagging behind, this is a fact, not an opinion or belief.
It's known that some EU nations such as France will have majority of Arab & Muslims in a few decades, this is a valid concern as we are talking about a potential replacement of culture, it has nothing to do with racism. Currently it's at 33% as per this source (Citizens coming from immigration): https://www.frontieresmedia.fr/societe/demographie-33-de-la-...
You wouldn't want to go in Japan and see that it's majority of Muslims, the same as you wouldn't want to fly to Qatar and see that it's a majority of French, it would feel out of the place and somehow disappointing as nations maintain their charm and alignment by actually having an identity, with the globalization of everything nowadays, we are streamlining the world as if we should all behave and believe the same things, at this stage, I don't think the world is ready to be entirely aligned on values. Some countries don't even recognize some fundamental rights that we take for granted, it's not about them being right or wrong, it's just not compatible.
I wouldn't want my daughter (of course she can, she is free to do as she pleases) to marry a Korean, or even a Japanese, or even someone who is Muslim, for reasons that it wouldn't align with our family values, all my friends are from different ethnicity/nationality (I live in SEA so I'm an immigrant, from EU, it took me 12 years to get a residency, and this is normal, I wouldn't want this process to be easier) and this isn't a racist take at all imo, just a recognition of difference of beliefs and even preferences. Actually in Asia we have no problem talking about color, ethnicity and especially difference in behavior depending on nationality and so-on. What I'm stating is exactly the same sentiment across Muslim nations, Indians, Koreans, Japanese..., they want to marry their "own" and give jobs to their own in absolute priority, the rest is secondary, it's not about racism (it can be for religious reasons only, which has nothing to do with racism, it's valid).
Regarding ICE, I'm just familiar about it when I sometimes check US news, but from what I understand it's just an agency that is made to arrest people that remain in the country illegally, to me entering a nation illegally or overstaying your welcome is definitely a crime, I don't really understand why people wants illegals to remain in the country, isn't that unfair for all the ones actually following the local laws & immigration regulations? I don't know, never it would cross my mind to just cross the border to Singapore or Thailand illegally, I would know for sure I'm committing a serious crime doing so. If ICE is arresting US citizens of course the agency needs to be prosecuted for it for sure, that's clearly wrong, but is this a decent percentage? Errors happen all the time in all fields of the law, it's not realistic to think we can enforce something at scale without some unfairness. Where I live, immigration deports all the time overstaying aliens and I really don't see anything wrong with it.
Again, this isn't from a US perspective so I don't really know the mindset of Americans, I however have many American friends that have similar opinions.
Edit: I just checked the statistics regarding ICE deportations [1] and it does seem that the number was higher during 2012 (Obama as per my search) era (record amount of deportations than recently, it doesn't seem to be a last decade issue but more like an always issue, but I just don't really understand what is the problem with deporting people that don't follow laws, that seems just rational.
Also, how do illegal aliens actually work? Doesn't it push employers to also break the law because they don't have a legal status?
[1] ICE Deportations by Fiscal Year (2000–2026): Fiscal Year Deportations Notes 2000 278,921 — 2001 189,026 — 2002 162,059 — 2003 168,767 — 2004 201,311 — 2005 256,066 — 2006 280,944 — 2007 319,258 — 2008 369,635 — 2009 389,834 — 2010 392,862 — 2011 396,906 Peak year 2012 409,849 Highest in the dataset 2013 368,644 — 2014 315,943 — 2015 235,413 — 2016 240,255 — 2017 226,119 — 2018 256,085 — 2019 267,258 — 2020 185,884 — 2021 142,750 Lowest in recent decades 2022 141,171 — 2023 243,735 — 2024 280,000–300,000 Range (final figures vary) 2025 300,000
> I'm pretty sure people have no problem with Black americans that are completely assimilated
This is incorrect in the US.
Can you elaborate so I increase my knowledge? Give me practical and theoretical examples.
So, at this point, you come across like someone "just asking questions" in an attempt to sow dissent and propaganda, because the antipathy of the entire right wing of the US toward all nonwhite people (but especially black people) is very, very clear and very, very well-documented at this point.
But in case you are genuinely just hopelessly ignorant of the situation and somehow unable to use Wikipedia [0], I'll give you just a couple of examples.
For decades, the practice of redlining[1] exacerbated and perpetuated the lower socioeconomic status of minorities, but especially black people, in America.
The Black Lives Matter protests were sparked by the killings of black people by police in the US—not "a couple of black people", but "a long history of killing black people in their custody at hugely disproportionate numbers, with a few very, very prominent instances leading up to the protests."
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_the_United_States
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining
I'm not hopelessly ignorant, I'm arguing in good faith.
I'm just trying to hear more sides. If I wanted the same recycled talking points I could just open Reddit. You linked a general Wikipedia page on the history of racism in the US and one on redlining. Those are broad historical overviews, not answers to the specific point I made which is more of a "daily life" type of deal. Let's say: Today I'm born black within the US, what can't I do that white persons can? Of course dealing with individual racism is something real, people will just hate you for who you are (if you are white in Africa it's the same thing, they'll call you all sort of nicknames and just attempt to scam you and many are racists individually but that has nothing to do with political view) but that doesn't necessarily change real life opportunities, I also deal with racism on a daily basis where I am, and it doesn't change the fact that I can still open my company, hire people and so-on, having some haters is just part of life.
For Black Lives Matter, the person that was killed (that "became the face of it") was a serious criminal himself (already convicted, and a drug addict) so it's a bit hard to really look into it objectively tbh.
I asked for practical and theoretical examples regarding the claim that Americans have no problem with fully assimilated Black Americans. Can you give me concrete examples of how that plays out (or doesn't) in everyday life, hiring, neighborhoods, relationship, marriage, moving in different state...?
Regarding crime, you can't ignore the fact that the number of murders are statistically committed way more by Black people (it's not a racist take, please let's not go in the rabbit hole, I'm not racist (just restating to avoid personal attacks)) which means that a deeper route issue is probably cultural, structural, family and so-on.
Official FBI statistics on murder offenders (latest available detailed data, 2019–2022 averages): | Race % of Population % of Known Murder Offenders Rate per 100,000 Black ~13.6% ~52–55% ~27–30 White (non-Hispanic) ~57% ~42–45% ~3–4 |
This suggests the issues are not really about skin color but about culture and family. You can't ignore the fact that there is just more crime being committed, this isn't about people getting more arrested because they are black, it's people directly committing serious crime (solved murders). The main issue imo is cultural, maybe based on initial rage due to the shitty history they endured, but the one born today doesn't have this history felt.
A direct correlation could be that 70% of black fathers abandon their children, while only 25% of white do, most grow up without a father which will of course lead to a life of crime in average. That's one of the strongest predictors of poor outcomes across every race, I believe internationally as well.
From what I'm reading, US indeed do have active racist policies called DEI which favor certain outcome depending on Race, that's the exact definition of racism, those laws/policies should be clearly abolished, no one should be treated differently (in the sense of a policy/law) based on his race, it's actually surprising that policies like this still exist today.
This has nothing really to do with "right wing" or "left wing" (it seems to make no sense anyway nowadays, it's like people are in a basket just because of X belief).
Give me real data as it's available, not history pages, I'd love if you could reply to my other points above as well.
The sitting president of the United States was forced to settle a discrimination lawsuit after it was shown that he instructed his staff to mark applications with a “C” (for colored) so that they could be rejected later.
Jesus Christ, that's a bad situation. It seems extraordinarily risky to leave the country to return. I know a native-born American whose foreign-born wife has been waiting years now to come to the US. By contrast, I received my green card (through marriage) shortly after application. Considering the rapidity by which friends of mine (who were married after and applied after me) received their green cards in mid-2024, I wonder if the Biden administration anticipated losing the election a few months later.
I suppose little matters from the before days, but I've only been a permanent resident for 2 years so maybe this timeline helps: https://wiki.roshangeorge.dev/w/Green_Card_Application#Timel...
Happens as well in Germany and it's pure insanity. The US at least does not depend on migration as much as Germany, I believe.
Even the current right wing party CDU doesn't seem to want to make migration harder, but when the extremist party AfD gets voted into office, an already highly damaged balance will break.
Sad how people become so detected from reality that they make their society irrelevant and destroying a lot of wealth in the process.
> The US at least does not depend on migration as much as Germany, I believe.
To me it feels like the US pretends they don’t need immigrants when:
1. The overwhelming majority of current US residents were immigrants themselves at some point in the last 150 years (only natives were there, everyone else immigrated from somewhere)
2. The US wouldn’t function without illegal immigrants
3. Every country is short of workers in one domain or another. Encouraging immigration in these domains (see how Canada does it for instance) would be the smart move. But instead… yeah let’s make it even harder across the board
1. Appealing to the attitudes of 150+ years ago leads to all sorts of absurdities. We live in 2026.
2. The US not functioning without illegal immigrants is a bad thing. More often than not, employers like illegal immigrants because they can abuse them in some way or another. If you actually interact with illegal immigrants or the people that employ them, this is clear. “We need modern indentured servitude” is not the country I want to live in. I would rather these industries just be subsidized by the government to whatever extent it takes for US citizens to take the jobs with all of the protections we expect workers to have.
3. Not every country is short of workers. Employers may be short of workers that they can lord over, but refer back to point 2. Pointing to Canada’s policy as an example of a “smart move” is a strange play.
The current administration is certainly not working on the above premises, but I’m floored when I hear supposedly progressive people going on about who is going to work the psychologically scarring meatpacking plants if we don’t take on an undefined number of people who are only here to get shit on for a good paycheck. I have compassion for illegal immigrants, which is exactly why I don’t want them in the US.
My point wasn’t that exploiting illegal immigrants is good.
My point was that with the sorely lacking rules already in place, illegal immigration is a problem and at the same time there is still a supply problem.
So acting even more high and mighty like it’s the greatest place on earth to be and require people who want in to grovel even more certainly isn’t good policy.
I’m also confused why you think Canada isn’t doing it better? You can immigrate but your profile needs to match what the country needs: its win win, because once you’re there you have a fair chance at a good life (integration, job, etc) vs taking anyone in and then having issues with people who can’t find jobs, be happy in the country, and integrate into society.
But the process around the US visa and immigration program is a lot more hostile than it needs to be. I had the displeasure to deal with this grinder and it’s really showing that the attitude is “you’re less than nothing, it’s up to you to prove you’re worthy of us even reading the forms you filled in and paid for, fuck you very much”
Canada let an absurd level of unqualified immigrants from India who either can’t find jobs (or work min wage) aren’t happy and don’t assimilate.
Are we talking about the same Canada here?
[flagged]
As far as I know agriculture works similar in Germany in the sense that it relies on cheap labor. Except, I believe it's mostly legal because they come from inside the EU, making it easier to work here. Also giving them the same rights, in theory at least. In practice it often doesn't work out like that, but that can't be easily changed I guess. Can't imagine they actually get German minimum wage. In that case and in that sense, they actually don't work here legally I guess.
From what I remember, most of them don't migrate though but return to their home country after a season. Back to their families and a country with much less living cost.
Was some time ago that I last read about that topic though.
In the Netherland, as an immigrant - not sure if always, but definitely in tech - 30% of your income are tax free for the first 5 years. I am actually looking for jobs there right now because of that.
Here is the 1870 census of the USA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1870_United_States_census
Note, indigenous people were less than 1%. New York City had the largest proportion of immigrants at 45%. Your claims of "only natives were there" and "everyone else immigrated from somewhere" are demonstrably false.
How is it false? “Natives: 25,731, total population: 38,925,598“
Are you being dense on purpose? The US has been a country for 250 years and the Mayflower landed 400 years ago. Most of the people were born in the US.
Yes, that’s exactly it, I’m the one being dense on purpose.
Are you going to address that your statement does not square with the fact that the majority of the people in the 1870 census were not foreigners (born abroad) and therefore did not immigrate?
No. It doesn’t seem we can understand each other and I’d rather do other, more fulfilling things with my time. I don’t live in the US (thankfully) and don’t want to spend any more time arguing with you.
'*The constitutional population excludes the populations of Native Americans "maintaining their tribal relations and living upon Government reservations" and "the newly acquired district of Alaska."'
Yes. That is how they differentiated "True population" and "Constitutional population". They also have two "Indian population" line items for on and off reservation. That footnote does not mean they were not counted.
> The overwhelming majority of current US residents were immigrants themselves at some point in the last 150 years (only natives were there, everyone else immigrated from somewhere)
Having an ancestor who immigrated to one’s country does not make one an immigrant.
Depends who you ask.
It’s irrelevant who you ask because it isn’t how the word is defined.
You could take the unemployed workers you have and train them instead.
People are repelled by country shopping by 3rd worlders.
EU countries are working on imigration rules that would allow for bringing imigrant labour without ever extending citizen privileges to them. A sort of permanent uderclass. This is what voters want at this time.
In EU, I don't think an underclass is what is wished. What we lack is being able to chose who is allowed to stay or not. Currently it's whoever manages to come illegaly is allowed to stay. It's madness
And then, people who come to work and use the official processes for legal migration suffer from complicated and insane rules and huge inefficiency. I have seen it with people I know, it's unfathomable.
Administration trying to force somebody out of the country to apply for a work visa just after they finished their 3 year training ("Ausbildung") on a training visa.
Before, the mother was not allowed to bring her child (10 years old) even though legally she had the right to do so. Fighting for a year, then paying a lawyer to solve the problem within a few weeks.
All while we are in desperate need of those people. In healthcare and other security as well.
It's madness as well and unfortunately people fail to realize both sides of the story, only seeing one of them.
We need their eorkforce, we do not need their democracy and woman despising culture.
I personally can't understand anyone wanting to move to the US anymore except for extreme reasons. And, yes, I have actually lived in several other countries so I know how green the grass can be in different places. So with how ugly the US is being right now, what is holding back the remote worker from turning truly remote, at least in tech?
For clarity here, I don't think this is a great direction. A massive strength of America has always been its ability to draw immigrants. People that are willing to leave their families, cultures, etc behind are generally a cut above the average and it shows. The US is being, in a word, stupid and we are already paying the price for it and will for generations to come.
> I personally can't understand anyone wanting to move to the US anymore except for extreme reasons.
I am German and honestly can't wait to move to the US once I get a suitable H-1B offer. I already spent 8 months in Boston for a research stay, and back then the doomer mentality among natives was wild to me. From an outsider's perspective it’s crazy to watch. Life, and especially the ceiling for what you can achieve, is still 10x higher in the US than anywhere else.
I think people in the US severely underestimate how stagnant it feels in Europe and other continents right now. We are basically just stumbling from one crisis to the next, without any strong leadership (the US two-party system definitely has its advantages here, as you're able to charge fullspeed into one direction instead of not moving at all).
If you actually want to build ambitious things, the friction here is exhausting. And instead of being rewarded for high output you get taxed to death to prop up a system favored towards an aging/declining population. It's essentially a massive boomer tax. Younger workers have zero political leverage to change it because our demographic is just too small to matter at the ballot box.
Sure, the US definitely has its ugly sides, but if you want to work hard and actually capture the upside of what you build, it's still the only game in town. Even if that means jumping through all the hoops the current gov throws in your way.
I hope I can call myself an American one day.
So many words just to say you want more money.
> Younger workers have zero political leverage to change it because our demographic is just too small to matter at the ballot box.
Because:
> can't wait to move to the US once I get a suitable H-1B offer.
That isn't why though. Germany has a demographic cliff right now. Same post WWII baby boom as anywhere but for whatever reason, no echo boom in the 80-90s like the US. Also US has absolutely been sponging up central and south american immigrants hand over fist especially the last 40 years, meanwhile europe has been quite a bit less permissive in this aspect.
> if you want to work hard and actually capture the upside of what you build
But not if you want to build solar or wind energy. Then you get rekt, no matter what the law says.
> if you want to work hard and actually capture the upside of what you build, it's still the only game in town
I think that this is only true to some extent. There are many successful engineers and scientists who work in Europe that earn good money and live well. Especially if you're a researcher, Horizon grants provide really good opportunities to collaborate with people from different countries
Some people see fascism as a ply. It’s a thing
It does sound appealing to a small group, if you're part of that group then you'd be all in. For the rest of us, not so much.
> So with how ugly the US is being right now, what is holding back the remote worker from turning truly remote, at least in tech?
I think you haven't applied to remote jobs. Almost all of them only hire within $country.
>So with how ugly the US is being right now, what is holding back the remote worker from turning truly remote, at least in tech?
Because money and taxes, both of which are unchanged due to this policy
And boy wait til you find out how other countries treat immigration and visas. You'll be shocked to learn they're also super racist and don't give everyone citizenship at birth just because of being there!
They are, in your words, very stupid countries
If you're looking for international precedent, this is an old vs. new world issue. Birthright citizenship is rare in the old world, but it is the default for the Americas. Canada, most of Latin America, and a decent part of the Caribbean have birthright citizenship.
I thought France had it. It turns out France, Italy, Netherlands, UK, and Belgium have a conditional deferred version: you can become a citizen at 18 if you're born and have been living there (plus a few caveats).
Agree, all the old world countries are stupid and all the talent is fleeing from France and the UK to countries like Uruguay and Bolivia
Your sarcasm is misplaced because yes, this has unironically been true for large chunks of Latin American history.
- Argentinians in particular are over 60% of Italian descent.
- The richest man in Mexico was born to Lebanese immigrants.
- The chief military leader of the Chilean war of independence was born to an Irish immigrant.
- Peru had a president who was born to Japanese immigrants.
These countries have all, at various times, had an influx of overseas immigrants whose birthright citizen children rose to high stations in society.
If you want to be genuine about investigating this issue you would obviously compare countries of equal wealth and economic power, but we all know that's not your goal. Could actually be a very interesting comparison if your reasoning weren't so motivated.
Okay, do China. What's their policy on dual citizenship and accepting refugee seekers from Afghanistan?
This is just reckless without any responsibility.
A number of people, especially in tech sector, legally stay in US while their GC is being processed. They have kids born in the USA. If such people were to leave USA to seek green card:
- the kids must first get visas to their parent's countries
- once reaching the other country, consular offices now have multi year wait lines for getting an appointment with a office to even hear your case.
- parents may stay in that country but what if kids run out of their visa? A number of countries offer citizenship via parents e.g. Indian parents can obtain Indian citizenship for their kids but it also means letting go of the kids' US citizenship. And what if the parent's country does not have such mechanism?
It's completely illogical that a person must first stay in a country for 5 years to become eligible for a green card and then leave for x years to get a green card to come back !! this is just a tactic to get non-immigrant visa holders out of the country.
> e.g. Indian parents can obtain Indian citizenship for their kids but it also means letting go of the kids' US citizenship
This is not true, India has something called “Overseas Citizenship of India” which is technically not a citizenship even though the name says, but its a life time visa available for US citizens of Indian origin. And you don’t have to give up US citizenship
> This is not true, India has something called “Overseas Citizenship of India” which is technically not a citizenship even though the name says, but its a life time visa available for US citizens of Indian origin. And you don’t have to give up US citizenship
The OCI card is better thought of as a green card that you have to reapply for once at the age of 65.
It provides the ability to live and work, with some minor restrictions, but none of the typical benefits of citizenship that wouldn't come with permanent residency in the US.
It’s a visa that you do need to apply for. And it’s not a guaranteed thing. If it doesn’t work out. Kids stay in the US and parents get kicked out?
I know you are asking rhetorically, but this occurs routinely under the current US immigration regime.
There have been over 100,000 children separated from their parents in the United States due to immigration enforcement since 2025.
The feature story in the linked article is about a now 2 year old whose parents were not there for them beginning to walk or talk.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/18/us/brookings-institution-...
> the kids must first get visas to their parent's countries
The bigger issue honestly is that the kids may already have grown up in the American culture and fluent in English and it could massively disrupt their education and well-being to throw them into another system somewhere else, depending on how they were raised and whether they are fluent in the language of the country of their parents. In many cases they are not.
> it could massively disrupt their education and well-being to throw them into another system
I'm curious: If these changes aren't designed to be harmful in these ways, then what do we imagine is the intention?
A monthly reminder, that they don't want smart people over there.
Look, I’m an immigrant. You know the risks you take when you come to the US on a non immigrant visa. We all choose to play the game and nothing is guaranteed. I would’ve considered reckless to have a kid in the US knowing that my status is not stable without having an alternative plan. We need to face the facts and stop acting like we immigrants were victims of some bait and switch and must be protected from any fallout of this process. The rules of the game are transparent.
But Republicans also don’t believe in abortion and have made it illegal in half the country.
So what’s a pregnant immigrant to do ?
Use a condom. If you’re smart enough to figure out a temporary visa, you’re smart enough to understand conception.
Condoms are often up to the male partner to use correctly.
Personally I have no problem giving people at a minimum permanent status if they decide to add to our declining population. I like to imagine when I'm old and weak someone there to provide my medical care.
I'm not picky on where their parents are from.
This is a completely different discussion. One can be responsible, if you’re not, there are consequences. It’s not just this. Zone out a bit driving and go too fast? Ticket. Left weed in your jacket by accident and went to the airport to fly internationally? Well… Everything has consequences, all I’m trying to say is that people know what those are and we shouldn’t be “aw but what if they don’t read the rules?” Uncertainty is clear from the start.
Elon Musk was arguably working here on a student visa.
So it's only ok when rich people need special treatment ?
Immigration laws are racist to an absurd degree, the 7% rule unfairly makes it significantly easier for European nationals to get Greencards for example.
Recently it's been cranked up a notch, only White South African refugees are being approved now.
Honestly the problem is going to solve itself. Without being able to brain drain the rest of the world , America will start to fall behind economically.
Less people will want to come here.
Which brings me a certain sadness, my friends growing up were largely immigrants. The future of America without immigration frankly sucks.
With bland food too.
Ok? What does that have to do with what I was talking about?
It's only logical if you are anti-immigration, which is what the US is now.
The population has always been anti immigration. But what the population wants is barely considered.
This makes it seem like roughly an even split:
https://imgur.com/a/4W9Ub2t
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_Nothing
[dead]
The most important immigration reform that the US ought to do is a constitutional amendment eliminating the birthright citizenship clause of the 14th amendment. The children of people who are not citizens or even permanent residents of the US should not be allowed to become US citizens just because they were born on US soil. Foreigners should not be able to reside in the US for so long that they have kids, and then use those kids as a justification for why the US is obliged to let them become citizens too.
Holy shit, I cannot believe this is an actual belief people currently hold. We fought a war for this amendment.
I think that if you went back in time to 1868 and told Senator Jacob M. Howard that a century and a half in the future, the primary consequence of the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment would be that foreigners from all over the world would attempt to immigrate to the US, even on temporary work visas or explicitly contrary to federal immigration law, with the intent of bearing or begetting a child on US soil who would be legally counted as a fellow-citizen who, upon coming of age, would go to the polls and vote with all other citizens; and that further the parents of this child and their political sympathizers would use the very presence of that child as a justification for why it was immoral to restrict the federal government's lawful authority to control immigration to the United States - that he would've spent a bit more time considering the exact wording of the text.
The "birthright" citizenship clause of the 14th amendment was intended to clarify the citizenship status of the recently freed black slaves. That intent is clear by contemporary written material.
Now, you could absolutely argue that whatever the intent of the amendment was, it still protects the present-day state of Chinese mothers having zero ties to this country popping over for a few months and giving birth to a fully-fledged American citizen, because the law says what it says. That's a much better argument than saying that the Civil War was fought for the right of transient visitors or illegal immigrants to this country to birth citizens, because that's just absurd.
Birthright citizenship is on the chopping block too. It’s only a matter of time.
> It's completely illogical that a person must first stay in a country for 5 years to become eligible
This is wrong. There is no minimum time in the country for a green card. You are thinking of citizenship. That is different.
> This is wrong. There is no minimum time in the country for a green card. You are thinking of citizenship. That is different.
You are incorrect. What you said is technically true in that there is no statute that requires it, but in practice, OP is correct.
It varies depending on the country of origin, but in the case of immigrants who hold citizenship from India, which is the country OP mentioned, you can likely expect to have to wait that period or even much longer before becoming eligible, unless you have a way to otherwise jump the queue.
You absolutely have to wait several years, but the point they were making is, there is no requirement to have ever worked IN the US or held any nonimmigrant visa to get a green card. The way the law was originally written, both the employment and family green card categories are standalone. They require work/research accomplishments, but there is zero requirement that that work was ever done in the US or for a US company.
Because it takes so long, in practice the issue is that for anyone to sponsor you, they want you working for them during that time, and so that's why it often looks like someone gets an H1B and then "graduates" to a green card.
While you are correct, that's a minor issue in an otherwise cogent post by the parent, so addressing those other more substantial points first would have made the debate better.
Wow. Downvotes for stating an obviously verifiable fact.
HN is now filled with agenda pushers peddling obvious fake information about the US.
Because while the green card itself has no minimum requirements on time spent in the US, with the exception of the DV program, all of the visas with green card pathways have one. So yes, there is - it's just attached to the visa pathway that determines green card eligibility, not the green card itself.
Can you think of any other reasons why you might have been downvoted? It seems a little conspiracy-minded to jump to “agenda pushing” I think.
> the kids must first get visas to their parent's countries
In this situation, wouldn't the kids already have citizenship of their parents countries?
No? If you're born in the US you have US citizenship, you're American. You don't just magically get citizenship for your parents home country, at least not for most countries.
You can automatically be a citizen through descent of most countries in Europe and Asia, and everywhere in North America.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_sanguinis#Jus_sanguinis_st...
It’s not automatic, it requires applying and at times can take years of proving in terms of paperwork, that is by definition not automatic. I have personal experience with the Greek, German, and Italian systems, prepare your self for 1-2 years to gain it even if you have rights to it.
In some countries it is automatic in others it is not.
Say one of your parents is a citizen of some other country.
If they're Canadian, you're a Canadian citizen. Period. The process is to get your documents that prove it. You don't apply for citizenship, you apply for proof.
In many European countries you are not a citizen. The process is to become one by descent. You apply for citizenship.
Very different.
Why did you need to be a citizen of three countries?
Fair question, though it assumes citizenships are simple things you “use,” which you either need or don’t. They’re not. People attach all sorts of baggage, duties, and rights to them. Mine are a mix of ancestry, residence, and ones I helped my spouse with. They’re not things I “need,” they’re just where my family and life have been. European family trees often produce this. The original point still stands: even when you’re entitled to a citizenship, actually obtaining the documents takes real time and money.
Also, in some cases, you may automatically lose your original nationality if you seek an additional one (Spain comes to mind; though in their case you'd need to manually request not to lose your nationality to keep it within a certain time period, IIRC).
Quite a few countries do not allow dual citizenship. So a person who was born in the US and is therefore US citizen at birth will not be allowed to have that country's citizenship until they revoke the US one.
China and Singapore are some of the more prominent examples.
Both of your examples are wrong.
China considers it a "nationality conflict," the child is issued a Travel Document and treated as a citizen domestically, they can still be registered on hukou and get ID card. Apparently they used to unofficially force you to decide as an adult, but stopped a few years ago and now issue the Travel Document for life.
edit to add -- that assumes the parent is not a unconditional green card holder, which is the scenario here.
Singapore allows dual citizenship until 21. Which is not necessarily a good thing, as if you do not do their national service you will effectively get banned from ever going there even if you renounce it later.
Japan and Korea both allow it forever from birth in practice, but the latter also has some complexities regarding the military (either renounce before a certain age or you have some restrictions returning until past a certain age).
> Both of your examples are wrong.
They are not entirely wrong. The person you replied to said "that country's citizenship":
> So a person who was born in the US and is therefore US citizen at birth will not be allowed to have that country's citizenship
Taking example of China, you said "the child is issued a Travel Document and treated as a citizen domestically"
"Treated as a citizen" is not same as "having Citizenship". OCI card holders are India are pretty much treated as citizens, except few rights such as the right of suffrage/ability to engage in agricultural land use etc, but that doesn't make them citizens of India.
There is a huge political difference between OCI and a Chinese travel document. A CTD explicitly lists the bearers nationality as Chinese.
An OCI card, as you said, is effectively like a PR card for former citizens. It is explicitly not citizenship politically and India fully recognizes their foreign citizenship.
If an OCI holder with a US passport gets arrested, India will notify the US consulate as they are a citizen. The same would not apply for a Chinese travel document holder. That is what I meant as “treated as a citizen domestically.”
As to political rights, I assume in practice that one cannot join the Party without first revoking their other citizenship, if at all. But since it is not a democracy, that was never a right/element of citizenship in the first place.
The Netherlands as well.
Most countries determine citizenship eligibility primarily by parentage, not place of birth.
The whole concept of getting citizenship where you're born is mostly an American concept. Though, if you do get born in a place where you get citizenship based on location alone, your parents will probably need to figure out a lot of paperwork to sort things out.
Most of North America and South America operates under Jus sanguinis -- you get citizenship for being born in country, even if your parents are not citizens.
I think you meant “jus soli” (“law of soil”) - “jus sanguinis” means “law of blood.”
You are right!
North America and South America are America, though?
A lot of countries don’t provide citizenship automatically without condition by blood. China for example, a kid only inherits citizenship if one parent is a chinese citizen and not a PR of any other country (so kids born to Chinese parents with green cards don’t count, which doesn’t really matter in this case).
Also the USA used to have weird rules about young mothers not transferring citizenship automatically (which the whole Obama birther myth relied on).
What happens if two Chinese parents are living and working in the Netherlands with permanent residence. If they have a child, what is the nationality? I don't think it will be Dutch because the Netherlands does not have automatic birth right, unless to prevent statelessness.
The child has Chinese citizenship (and presumably some kind of Dutch PR) from birth in that case.
> Any person born in China whose parents are both Chinese nationals or one of whose parents is a Chinese national shall have Chinese nationality.
> Any person born abroad whose parents are both Chinese nationals or one of whose parents is a Chinese national shall have Chinese nationality.
> But a person whose parents are both Chinese nationals and have both settled abroad, or one of whose parents is a Chinese national and has settled abroad, and who has acquired foreign nationality at birth shall not have Chinese nationality.
- "Settled abroad" means having unrestricted, legal permanent residence. Recently, it was clarified that the two-year conditional US green card does not count, for example.
- Due to an "interpretation," as this law was written pre-handover, the "settled abroad" limitation sentence does not apply where (one of) the Chinese parents is a HK/MO resident.
- A parent from HK/MO pre-handover, or Taiwan, is still a Chinese citizen and will transmit citizenship to their children.
If both/the only Chinese parent is a mainland or Taiwan resident, not settled abroad, the child would get a Travel Document to enter mainland China. They cannot get a visa to do so inside the foreign passport. Foreign passport can still be used for HK/MO/TW.
The child cannot get the ordinary red Chinese passport (unless they "resolve the conflict" by abandoning the other citizenship). They can, IIRC, still get a resident ID card if their parents still have hukou and register them?
In your scenario (not overseas citizen at birth), the child does have a regular red Chinese passport. Because they live overseas, they can get a permit from the Chinese embassy inside the passport to visit HK/MO, and they can also get an entry permit from the Taiwan authorities to visit for two weeks at a time, which is a loose leaf paper.
If one Chinese parent is a permanent resident of HK/MO, the child generally gets both Chinese nationality and HK/MO residence. Thus they are issued a full HK/MO passport. These passports still cannot enter the mainland directly, so they can ALSO get a Travel Document OR first visit HK/MO and then apply for the Home Return Permit using the domestic procedures.
Dual nationality for kids in China is a PITA and we were careful to avoid it for our son. I had a coworker who had a mess in figuring it out, with Beijing (where they had residence) demanding documents from Shanghai (where the mom had hukou) that Shanghai didn’t issue anymore.
Sometimes. In many/most countries, it requires at minimum that both parents be citizens of the same country. In a few countries, dual citizenship is banned completely, so if the kid is a US citizen they cannot be the country's citizen.
cruelty is the point in case it wasn’t obvious
Yes and one step further: it is attention, ultimately to extract wealth.
Trump is a distractor and can make a whole country forget about <insert recent insanity>. Passing a judge is a minor detail here.
Of course it is stupid to talent-leak your country but he just needs you to forget about $LATEST_SCANDAL. That's the value for him. Trump doesn't care about the future of US.
And distracting does not take skill. It only takes a mind poisoned to the core. He will throw anything in his chaos machine to extract wealth. And US has an endless supply of those juicy valuables and values that you can sacrifice and shed.
Let's see what next week has in store!
How is it logical that their kids get birth right citizenship when their parents don't have it?
This is over a hundred year old rule and common in "the new world". You can guess why it is common if you think about the phrase I put in quotes. All these countries are composed of immigrants...
Here's a short and incomplete list: USA, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Chile.
The logic is that the culture is what makes you part of the country, not the blood in your veins.
The other side of that logic is that you're not guaranteed citizenship to the country of your parents. It certainly isn't automatic.
It’s clearly split old world vs new world.
But new world is getting pretty old now too.
I'm sorry, the new world still has a few hundred years to go before we can even consider it old. It's not even a pre-teen by the standards. I mean we only discussed Europe. But the pyramids were older to the Romans than the Romans are to us.
The old world is... old
Birthright citizenship is an astonishingly rare policy. Nonexistent in Europe and the developed world.
Canada has it since the 1950s only.
It's not astonishingly rare. The comment you're replying to contains examples, here are some more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli
About 20% of all the countries have it. That isn't "astonishingly rare" in my book.
Please, for the love of god, just read the comments you're replying to. It's like the absolute bare minimum requirement.
Why do you think they are arguing with you instead of adding to your comment?
I cannot find an interpretation that is an addendum. They are telling me I'm wrong
Children integrate into the country so much more easily.
This is a bit extreme. On the other end of the spectrum the existing system is heavily abused and hard to defend. For example many if not most PERM applications in tech are a complete sham. Putting tiny job adverts burred deep in a newspaper hoping nobody applies to try and say there are no skilled workers in the US is just one example of current abuse of the system.
Not anymore. My PERM was cancelled for this exact reason. The job advert was put on LinkedIn and the company's website like any other job. They didn't hire the local worker either because they didn't pass the interview but my perm had to be cancelled bc a skilled local worker with "minimum qualifications" existed.
What you are saying used to happen but not anymore.
They still do the tiny print in a Sunday newspaper, they just also now are supposed to post on LinkedIn and the website (aka normal hiring process).
Interesting that there is a difference between minimum qualifications and actually qualified to do the job.
What is minimum qualifications? Enough to get an interview?
To successfully process a PERM a company needs to make the argument that they’ve tried and literally can’t find anyone else in the US to do the job. Thats obviously a very high bar, but for many years it was on open secret that companies mostly fudged these claims.
With so many tech layoffs now it would be nearly impossible for most roles to claim there’s nobody else available, and under the current administration the historical games are no longer just flying below the radar. That hasn’t stopped some companies from still trying though.
an undergrad for most of the jobs.
Isn't the correct response to the sham hirings to regulate that jobs are posted on a gov-run board for some period of time, ~30 days, before you can claim no qualified workers? That seems more reasonable than turning the spigot off entirely.
Perhaps. But given the volume of abuse that appears to be out there the tactic is more turn it all off then selectively back on where appropriate.
Thats obviously extreme but given the abuse in the status quo it’s hard to defend what was going on and whine about this now. Some folks are obviously angry, but that anger is better directed at those that were abusing the system not those trying to fix it.
It sounds like you're trying to defend going nuclear on green cards by arguing about a quirk of the H1B.
The H1B system was stupid. That doesn't justify any of what the Trump admin has been doing.
PERM doesn’t just apply to h1b, having to prove no qualified hires was never required for h1b, it’s green card requirement which also applies to o1 and bunch of others. PERM is the thing that is stupid - they should automatically grant you GC if youve been legally employed for 5 years or something and dont have any criminal records
Only if that job board was an actually useful and common source for genuine hiring. If it becomes “these companies are checking a box, don’t bother applying” or “these companies are considering an H1-B application, flood them with resumes”, neither of those is helpful to qualified workers who actually want to find a job.
Agreed. I don't really know how the current process works, but I would assume there is some level of oversight, meaning that errant (unqualified) applicants shouldn't detract from a qualified h1b under the current system any more than a centralized one. Tying a profile to a human (gov can do this) should at least help with determining whether an applicant is qualified (not that they are an actual fit for the team) which could provide some proxy for fitness of the current pool.
I mean the entire point is that there isn’t oversight, the system is being gamed. And as a practical matter oversight is virtually impossible. The immigration system is in no position to evaluate whether a candidate is qualified or not.
The job board is inevitably going to devolve into one of those scenarios.
You've just described what already has to occur for PERM, you have to post on the respective State Workforce Agency website.
Exactly this. The difference in the pitch to voters (labor market test) vs the actual implementation (box checking sham), just shows how dishonest the whole tech industry and immigration lobby is about this. The actual solution is somewhere in the middle, but it will likely never happen because those with political capital and high social status benefit enormously from low wage h1b/opt/l1 workers. The people who are hurt by these immigration programs don't have high social status so nobody cares.
Ironic that liberals turn into libertarian boot likers for mega corps when it comes to immigration.
So punish/disincentivize employers. This is a burden on the presumptive legal immigrant.
This is insane. I cannot fathom how I, nor educated and talented people I know, could have possibly stayed in the US back in the day if this requirement had been in place then. Applying for a greencard while working on an H, J or O-class visa is extremely common.
Far from a loophole, applying from inside the US is the only reasonable way to apply for a greencard. Depending on the country of origin, there may not even _be_ a US consulate, and where it exists, the wait can stretch into years, and the odds of approval much lower. You can't reasonably get a job at a US firm while being physically located somewhere else and on the other side of an uncertain and greatly attenuated greencard application process. That's just not how this works.
Whoever thought of this is either intentionally malevolent or inexcusably incomprehending of the immigration process.
Unfortunately, I think this is the point. They want to push the needle so that even legal immigration is restricted or difficult (unless you happen to pay them directly)
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/23/us/politics/trump-legal-i...
[flagged]
Yes and one step further: it is attention, ultimately to extract wealth.
Trump is a distractor and can make a whole country forget about <insert recent insanity>. Passing a judge is a minor detail here.
Of course it is stupid to talent-leak your country but he just needs you to forget about $LATEST_SCANDAL. That's the value for him. Trump doesn't care about the future of US.
And distracting does not take skill. It only takes a mind poisoned to the core. He will throw anything in his chaos machine to extract wealth. And US has an endless supply of those juicy valuables and values that you can sacrifice and shed.
Let's see what next week has in store!
[flagged]
[flagged]
Do you happen to remember where this stat came from? I have not heard about it and would be interested in learning more about it
I'm not OP, but after many long hours of research, and oh so many vague references, i am now pretty sure that this is the original source:
https://youtube.com/shorts/29iZS4vAGV4?si=IhkMkEZweNv1uHro
No, this only makes it so that H1B and others are more at the mercy of their employers.
Maybe you should look into where statistics that are "going around" are sourced from. This seems to be something an anti-immigration lobby cooked to in 2014, which was an artifact of their analysis; they considered workers aged 16-65, and the effect disappeared if you considered workers of all ages.
Trump resurrected it in 2024 to claim that all job growth under Biden had gone to immigrants. It wasn't true then either.
wait, how many workers fall outside the 16-65 range??
> wait, how many workers fall outside the 16-65 range??
A little less than 10% of the workforce.
GP is correct - basically there was a report making that claim about the decline in employment rates of US-born workers over a certain time period. It was almost immediately debunked because it excluded workers older than 65, who are almost exclusively US-born, and excluding them heavily skews the average. Many of these workers also aged out of that bucket during that time period, which makes the comparison misleading, since the actual size of the studied workforce varied, and the workers who were excluded from the studied cohort were strongly correlated with the effect they were trying to demonstrate.
Furthermore, that effect is also exacerbated because of the uneven distribution of baby boomers.
This is going to be followed up with - DHS creates an “extraordinary” carve out for large tech companies and anyone who pays into Trump’s pockets.
And mid size companies hire foreign workers in foreign countries and accelerate offshoring.
People then talk about how government should restrict offshoring and punish companies while the Orange Man manufactures his phone and caps in China.
Surely a win for the people.
Why don't they just say what they mean, and ban immigration completely? Are they trying to trick most immigrants into leaving voluntarily so they can deny re-entry?
I think big companies still want H1B visas but mostly as indentured servitude.
H1B is transferable. How is it remotely considered "indentured servitude"?
[flagged]
>> so that even legal immigration is restricted or difficult
like it was simple and easy before that. Now it becomes borderline impossible
[flagged]
These hypotheticals tend to accidentally reveal a disturbing worldview in the way they treat immigration as a natural phenomenon rather than people with agency of their own. It's dehumanizing.
For example, where does that 99,999,999th person sleep on the night they arrive in this country? What is their immediate plan? How and why did they come here? Your hypothetical has them almost emerging from the ether as an inherent problem rather than a person making an active decision to move to somewhere they think they will have a better life. If we stop providing them a better life, they'll stop coming. But the primary path to doing that is making life worse for everyone already here and none of us should want that.
[flagged]
You know what, I made a mistake in engaging. The way you moved the goal posts from open immigration to the obligation to provide social services to immigrants above and beyond any services provided to citizens and they way you're combining the concepts of immigrants and refugees tells me it isn't worth having this conversation with you.
[flagged]
If you live in a Red State, it is highly like that my Blue State money pays for your health care, highways, narcan, and a myriad of other transfers.
Like, I feel for you and your situation, but I just don't think it's sustainable for Blue States to keep being patsies by letting the Red States control what happens with Blue State money.
Mate, I live in Europe like my comment says. And no need to wave the flag, people can tell you're from a blue state since you couldn't extract that from reading my comment. Minnesota learing center alumni by any chance?
You lost me in the first sentence, with the premise that immigrants are “overburdening” our social services. Most immigrants work. Most immigrants come here specifically to work. They pay taxes. Immigrants who commit social security fraud have taxes deducted from their income that they will never collect in the form of social services. Most of the immigrants receiving public assistance (like, for example, asylum seekers) are doing so because our government doesn’t allow them to work, even if they want to. The solution is to let immigrants work.
> with the premise that immigrants are “overburdening” our social services. Most immigrants work.
I just want to point to a flaw in your reasoning.The point is not that immigrants are some special kind of human beings that require more assistance. It is just that immigration can unlike natural population growth, result in arbitrary population growth in a short amount of time.
From that view point, it makes sense that immigrants can overburden the social services, because the latter does not get a chance to accommodate the increased population properly, causing additional suffering to existing population.
It would have to be an extremely fast influx to cause real problems along those lines. Social services are able to handle a growing case load with growing budget pretty well.
You can't grow doctors on tree just because you now get more funding. It take 6+ years to train a doctor while people can cross a border and grow the population right now.
Are doctors usually underrepresented among legal immigrants? I could see it actually helping out with our self-inflicted doctor supply problems.
Also the "all immigration happens overnight" plan is obviously a bad way to handle things. That lag wouldn't be a big deal if we 'merely' instantly doubled the rate we issue green cards and ramped up from there, just to make up some numbers.
>Are doctors usually underrepresented among legal immigrants?
Definitely.
>I could see it actually helping out with our self-inflicted doctor supply problems.
Only if they are overrepresented which they aren't(in Europe at least). You need to actually work hard to convince doctors to come to your country and not others, but with other migrants you need the opposite. Convince them to stop coming.
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2025/11/how-immigrant...
Well the US isn't Europe and it imports a ton of doctors.
We pay doctors a lot and have an artificially limited supply of native doctors.
That totally depends on the existing population of the state/region in question...
Immigration trends are also localized, so that largely cancels out.
Let's say the government can't care for 100M people because of lack of doctors. Now they could train one over 10 years, or you could have one of the smartest doctors in the world come be 100M+1. Would you take that?
Now expand that across socio-economic spectrum (not enough plumbers, teachers, AI experts, researchers etc). That is what legal immigration is meant for.
But if the justification for immigration is prior immigration, is there a stopping point here? Like, after you import a bunch of doctors, is it going to turn out that now you need a bunch of fast food workers, back and forth?
What?
Population growth can happen with or without immigration.
Also, what? Are you describing a healthy economy?
>Let's say the government can't care for 100M people because of lack of doctors. Now they could train one over 10 years, or you could have one of the smartest doctors in the world come be 100M+1. Would you take that?
But that is not what usually happens, right? What usually happens is that some hospital employs a doctor educated from some other country where standard of education is less, instead of someone who is educated from native institutions, because they accept to work for 10x less salary. In this case both the US Society as well as the US educated doctor losses, and the US Hospital and the migrant gains.
Feel free to expand this across socio-economic spectrum..
>Let's say the government can't care for 100M people because of lack of doctors.
Then the government is proven to be severely incompetent and shouldn't be trusted with more migration because it will guaranteed fumble that too. Barring mass migration, populations don't naturally just explode overnight for you to suddenly end up with 100 million people and no doctors.
Governments have all the tools and data at their disposal to see population trends, piramid, emigration, immigration, job statistics, housing, etc. all this data you can use and plot out to determine how many doctors you'll need in the future as the population follows the trajectory and plan training and recruitment of doctors ahead of time so that when population reaches 100 million or 500 million there will be an proportional number of doctors.
So then why didn't the government do this preemptively when they had all the info and levers at their disposal? Could it be because they simply don't give a shit and they only care about winning the next election and not what happens in 20+ years when the population reaches 100 million and there's no doctors? Because they won't be in charge then when the shit hits the fan so they don't care to be preemptive for something that's not a pressing issue now. So then given this, why would you trust these same people with enabling mass migration on your behalf? They clearly don't care about the long term future planning and second order effects of their actions.
> or you could have one of the smartest doctors in the world come be 100M+1. Would you take that?
In which case do 1 million of doctors and only doctors and nothing else but doctors show up at your borders because if that were the case I guarantee you everyone would take them in no questions asked.
That's the classic bait and switch. Merkel also told Germans they're getting "doctors and engineers" in 2015 and the only thing that increases is sexual assaults rates, crime and welfare spending to the point where "doctors and engineers" became a meme phrase for migrant crime in the news.
>That is what legal immigration is meant for.
In theory yes, but just like Germany, in practice the system has always been abused to dupe voters to accept anything other than doctors so that corporations can get cheap labor and landlords more tenants. The overton window has gotten so bad on this topic that if you complain about migrant crime, they'll maliciously ask you back "but what about doctors, you don't want them either?". No, we want doctors, We just want the doors shut to people who aren't doctors, it's really that simple.
So ask for it. Seems like your issue isn't immigration, it is abuse. The recent changes don't do much to fix that, imo.
>So ask for it.
Nobody in government wants to listen. They're too afraid of being called "far right" if they give airtime to people wanting less migration so what happens is that that only breeds resentment and a rise of the actual far right, leading to a self fulfilling prophecy that could be avoided if they just enable discourse to things they don't like to hear but are pressing issues of large voter base.
>Seems like your issue isn't immigration, it is abuse.
Because governments don't make the distinction between the two, you give them an inch, they take a mile. If you let them enable any migration over time they will abuse it to flood the market with cheap labor as their corporate lobbyists push them to, like they did with H1B since 1990, which was initially a a scheme to import top soviet scientist after the USSR collapsed(kind of like operation paperclip) and is now used for US companies to import "Microsoft Certified Specialists" from India.
If you want to stop the abuse you have to stop migration completely and then start political negotiations from that point of leverage, on a controlled points based migration system that accounts for actual shortages and domestic public resources.
That’s like saying the free pizza parties are draining the company’s resources and so we need to cut them.
The pizza parties ARE indeed draining the company, but it’s so minor and ultimately spending your big brain on cutting pizza parties is diverting attention from your real problems that led to this point.
I don’t support illegal immigration but it has little to do with our current major problems. It’s just a political tool to distract the voter.
One reason is population growth. Our current system is based on the assumption of an ever growing labor force to fund things like social security, medicare, fund our massive debt, and evrything else we want the government to spend on. In their current form, these systems will break down in the face of population decline. Since existing Americans are having fewer kids and trending downward, immigration is the only way to sustain the model.
This doesn't neccisarily.mean the is the best, or even desireable, way to structure society, but I also think the political system is dysfunctional to the point major change is currently impossible
I didnt down vote you by the way. Just throwing out a counter point to consider
Immigration is a net positive for social services, housing, childcare, healthcare, etc. over the long term. This country was built by immigrants.
There can be negative effects with large inflows locally, but that's a policy failure that can be addressed.
The British who came to this land weren’t “immigrants.” They were settlers. They came to this land, and created a country based on British law, British civic institutions, British political philosophy, and British economics. The Germans and Scandinavians came here for the most part also developed towns and cities that weren’t there before. Immigrants are the people who then moved into those places.
you are just BS'ing!! native people lived here before that - they had their own version towns.
Just as one example, 13th century Cahokia was comparable in population to London and Paris.
What? You make a distinction between settlers and immigrants?
Is "invaders" on that list to?
The distinction between settlers and immigrants is extremely salient from a sociological standpoint.
In the U.S., we have a right to a jury trial. To decide whether a jury trial right exists in a particular case, we look to whether that case would have been tried to a jury in 1791 in a particular country. Which country is that? The people from that country were the settlers.
If you look at American legal theory and elide people’s names, you might not realize there was anyone here besides British people. There’s more influence in our legal system from ancient Rome than modern Italy.
surely this is sarcasm
I notice isn't quite often that the people complaining about immigration are less than the most shining examples of American ingenuity and hustle. They are, very nearly to the one, small, terrified people who seem to think that their position in the social heirarchy is threatened by the relative concentration of melanin in the area (or they are pretending to hold that opinion to manipulate those people to their own ends)
America needs the vigor and drive that immigration brings. Our countrymen have always been immigrants and we were greatest when we stole the most courageous, the smartest, the hardest working from everywhere in the world. We reject that resource today at our own peril.
Do we want to be the UK? Inward-focused ignorant navel gazing and xenophobia are how we get there
>They are, very nearly to the one, small, terrified people who seem to think that their position in the social heirarchy is threatened by the relative concentration of melanin in the area
Literally nobody brought up skin color in this entire discussion but you and you're using it in bad faith to call other racists. The typical way of liberals and democrat arguments is always rejecting logic and statistics if they make immigration look bad, and focusing on identity politics and skin color to deflect your arguments as racist. Look in the mirror, the racist might be right there if skin color is the first thing you reach for in a discussion.
>Our countrymen have always been immigrants and we were greatest when we stole the most courageous, the smartest, the hardest working from everywhere in the world.
And tell me, what happened to the native American Indians when you "courageous, smartest and hardest working" immigrants(my ancestors) moved to America? Where are the descendant of the native Indians today and how many are they and what's their socio-economic situation at the moment in society relative to the immigrants that displaced them? Or look at what happened to Palestinians after they opened their doors to Jewish refugees from Europe since 1945. How are the descendents of those Palestinians faring today? Not so good, huh, barely trying to survive not being genocided by the guests they welcomed in 80 years ago. Every mass migration event in the world has led to violence and demographic displacement of the local population. If those invading your land in high numbers are "smart and hard working" it makes no difference to you if you're getting demographically displaced.
>We reject that resource today at our own peril.
As we should. Why would I want to happen to me what happened to native american Indians or to Palestinians when they accepted foreign invaders(now called migrants)? Just think about it for 3 seconds, why would anyone voluntarily want to bring in their own demise? Except this time around, I'm pretty sure once you're demographically and democratically displaced, you won't get your own minority rights, reservations and casinos by your invaders, because they'll see your suffering as just retribution for the conquest and past sins your ancestors have done over the natives back then. The overton window has already shifted to the point where democrats call and win election based on racist policies of taxing white people more. It'll be like what's happening to the descendents of European immigrants in South Africa and Zimbabwe today. Not pretty.
>Do we want to be the UK? Inward-focused ignorant navel gazing and xenophobia are how we get there
Except UK has had more migration per capita than the US especially since 2020, and their situation has only gotten worse. If you accept more migration then you're guaranteed to end be like the UK.
Why is it that when Americans travel abroad and say how amazing, clean it was and how safe they felt in X country, that country somehow has very low migration rates and draconical laws on visa entry and is hard on crime? Weird how they can't connect the dots on this one.
Whew, touched a nerve there, sounds like. Quite a novel you took the time to write there. It's a shame nobody will ever read it
I don't care about who reads it, upvotes or changing people's opinions, I care about being right. Darwin and all that will decide in the end.
Lol darwin, ok himmler
I have a habit of upvoting attempts at civilized argument, so I upvote once again.
For the "people who understand supply/demand", why use "want a limit" language? What you actually mean is "want a lower limit, from Y to X".
It's flat-out amazing to me that you blame immigrants for the problems of the American medical system -- which are entirely political in cause and financial in nature.
>Clearly not for curious discourse.
This isn't "curious discourse", whatyou're doing is JAQing off (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions)
immigrants don't need to be 'taken care off' because legal immigrants in the US are net social contributors (in fact particularly large ones because the US government didn't subsidize their upbringing and education).
Five minutes on Google would have told you this, that is why "folks I'm just asking questions" gets downvoted, everyone can see through these pseudo gullible provocations
[dead]
You can't complain immigrants are flooding your boarder while your government is actively working on destabilizing the world. Such arguments are extremely malicious and hence why everyone is downvoting you.
You want a hermitical state, it has to go both ways. You lock yourself in, but also stop fucking around with military and non-military interventions on every contanent on earth.
>while your government is actively working on destabilizing the world
I live in Europe, small landlocked country. My government isn't destabilizing anyone but still has some of the highest illegal migration rates per capita in OECD.
Alternate take: Consider strategically avoiding exporting your anti-immigration views for visibility here in the US. That way an intelligent administration can take hold that doesn't cause further havoc in the Middle East and accelerate the rate of emigration from there. Deal?
[flagged]
>it was already downvote bombed in less than 10 minutes with no counter argument
Your submissions to HN evince a pattern that suggests engagement with you would likely fall on deaf ears.
The only people over burdening the system are billionaires demanding corporate welfare while denying the same welfare to civilians.
[flagged]
@dang, @tomhow, how about application of HN rules here please?
[flagged]
Depends on your definition of "immigrants".
Sure, you might think of it as "people with citizenship of another nation."
But I suspect it's more along the lines of "people who don't look like me."
White Afrikaaners are welcome (we'll even invent persecution and call them refugees), but folk from elsewhere (ie actual refugees), um, less welcome.
The trope about "culture assimilation" also comes up. It's OK for Irish and Italian immigrants to keep their culture, adding to the melting pot, but Mexicans and Africans less so
And sure, lots of people are friendly to "the immigrant they know" while at the same time being very against "immigration". One need look no further than the last few elections to see this in action.
My favourite one is second amendment rights are inviolable… unless blacks are owning the guns.
When the Black Panthers armed up in the 60s, that was when California, at the time a Republican state with legal open carry, very suddenly grew the most restrictive gun laws in the country.
So what? No one is forcing you to come to a country you deem hostile to foreigners.
Thinking that immigration should be slow enough that they can be thoroughly assimilated before they change American culture isn’t “hating immigrants.”
Many of the people doing this are themselves children of immigrants. They recognize that individual immigrants can be fine but the large-scale flow of immigrants can create undesirable changes.[1] Don’t assume people are irrational just because they don’t agree with you.
[1] Trump narrowly won the naturalized citizen vote. Saying “you wouldn’t want America to become more like the place you left” is a compelling message to many immigrants.
> immigration should be slow enough that they can be thoroughly assimilated before they change American culture
I support your idea. Would you agree that all immigrants that arrived in America after, let's say, 1493, have to leave America and apply for citizenship?
If you don't agree, can you propose another immigration year after which you'd have to leave America again? Would you agree on 1783?
Your joke inadvertently shows the error in your logic. “America” (in the sense of the nation) didn’t exist in 1493. Various Indian nations existed in this land. British people didn’t “immigrate” to those Indian societies. They created a new society on the land. They were settler colonizers, as the kids say these days.
> Your joke
I'm not amused. Are you amused?
> They created a new society on the land.
I see my message didn't quite get through.
You're almost there however. Think one step further: What stops the next "immigrants" from renaming your cute "society" that you currently have there, and declare a proper, civilized society, with a proper culture for once?
Nothing! If a superior civilization comes to America and wipes it out and builds a new society in its place, then those people will also be “settlers” not “immigrants.”
I'm worried about your use of "superior" here but yeah the rest of that is right.
Why? It is demonstrably superior. If it wasn’t we wouldn’t be debating whether it’s immoral to not let everyone else on the planet in.
The only real advantage of European settlers was smallpox immunity. If not for that the history could move in a very different direction.
This entire thread is filled with people willfully lying about history like you are right now. It’s incredible to see. I can’t tell if it’s because this is a simple is vs ought distinction and you are having a hard to reconciling your ought with the is.
In his last book “The Dawn of Everything” David Graeber very convincingly argued that the idea of modern democracy came from Indian tribes in Northern America.
And it is also interesting how easily European countries went back to authoritarian or even totalitarian states given the opportunity. Yet US is more resilient and one explanation is subtle influence of Indian culture that still affects US.
As for technological advantage of Europe then 3000 years ago Ancient Egypt was way more advanced than Europe. 1000 years ago Arabic countries were more advance and 500 years ago China was more advanced. And Europe was lucky that China was focused on internal problems and not territorial expansion.
I think you have to be on drugs to think that American democracy came from Indian tribes. I grew up in the Midwest, so this mirror universe explanation for the origins of my country isn’t going to work on me.
>1000 years ago Arabic countries were more advance [sic] and 500 years ago China was more advanced.
Yeah real life isn’t your science fiction fantasy. None of this is true. I am aghast at how ostensibly smart people have, just in the last couple years, adopted a view of history that is completely at odds with the written record.
Eh. I wouldn't say only but it was the biggest advantage. The Europeans brought better tech and bad racism along with the terrible diseases. If they had established trade without disasters we might have seen the natives be very successful too.
Ah, that explains the Israeli "settlers" in Gaza.
I think it’s telling that you have the opinion that a superior civilization would wipe out another at all.
Do you mean the kind of superior civilization that progressed from chattel slavery to being run by a cabal of pedophiles?
The kind that invented the internet and the airplane and the microchip and put a man on the moon.
> The kind that invented the internet
Seriously did not expect a MiniTel reference here. Vive Le France‽
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minitel
ARPAnet had already been out a decade by then. TCP/IP was standardized the same year MiniTel came out.
> Think one step further: What stops the next "immigrants" from renaming your cute "society" that you currently have there, and declare a proper, civilized society, with a proper culture for once?
Nothing, but it is our right, as Trump does, to call that an invasion and forcibly reject it.
[flagged]
The legally correct term is “Indian.” Obviously they had their own names for themselves. “First Nations” and “Native” are terms that are not rooted either in Indians’ names for themselves nor in the U.S. government’s name for them.
Of course native people didn’t call themselves Indian prior to settlers assigning them that name, with legal consequences. But native people usually refer to their tribe identity, like Diné or Lakota, rather than the generic term Indian.
As an actual Indian from India I do get annoyed that Columbus's misconception has lived on this long, although I understand there's nothing I can do to change that.
At this rate they’ll fix the ambiguity by fully adopting Bharat.
CGP Grey argues this same point: not only is Indian the legally correct term, but it’s the correct term in general. https://youtu.be/kh88fVP2FWQ?si=touZCydc-7jckeLh
He doesn't seem to talk anything about the endonym of the inhabitants of the country of India so I'm not sure how it's the correct term in general.
Certainly not, but it would have been natural for the American Indians to desire this. They lacked the means to carry it out of course.
That tracks, elsewhere:
~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_ChiI like how you think you’re dunking on immigration restrictionists but in your hypothetical you implicitly admit there’s a hierarchy of belonging and claim to a nation, and temporal proximity to its discovery and founding is quite obviously one of the most important.
How are they supposed to assimilate if they have to leave the country to apply?
It slows down the flow, which facilitates assimilation of the smaller pool people who go through the process. You’re much more likely to assimilate if you’re not living in a place with thousands of other people from your origin country.
Define assimilation please!
- i started watching football with my american friends
- i studied the american political system enough to have educated discussions about it
- i caught healthcare fraud at federal level which was mainly hurting very old americans.
- i started doing barbeque
- i started going out on the weekend
- i tip heavily
what i don't do: eat at drive throughs, buy stuff that i don't need, guns etc.
I still carry a chip on my shoulder and worry about ICE just detaining me for no reason.
"They don't assimilate" is just a cover for "They don't look and talk like us".
The things you’re describing are superficial. My wife’s dad is a Japanophile and she grew up eating sushi, etc. That doesn’t make her Japanese.
Assimilation is about how you think and what you value. It’s not just knowing about the American political system, but understanding and embracing the values and worldview that created it.
Go ahead and tell us what it means to be a real American then
[flagged]
Your description of 'real Americans' remind me of the description of Gavin Newsom as 'looking like an American president in a Canadian movie'.
Are you a real American? Am I?
I’m not. I have a Bangladeshi sense of the flow of time, I have basically traditional beliefs about family structure, raising children, social obligations to elders, etc.
But I appreciate and enjoy Americans the same way I appreciate and enjoy the Japanese.
> I’m not. I have a Bangladeshi sense of the flow of time, I have basically traditional beliefs about family structure, raising children, social obligations to elders, etc.
Why don't you live by your principles and return to Bangladesh? To use your own argument (not mine), your culture is both inferior to the American culture and Americans have voted to not have "your kind" here.
One way or another, you are being disingenuous, either through your words or your actions.
And how much does the Trump administration understand and embrace the values and worldview that created the American political system. How much do they agree with the Founding Fathers? ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.’?
Honestly, not very well. Trump is from an immigrant background. He doesn’t talk like an American (unlike Obama or Bush or Clinton). The American right these days is filled with people from recent immigrant ancestry whose understanding of American values is something of an impersonation of the real thing.
The founder’s America ceased to exist at the national level with the election of FDR.
Was that "Rose-uh-velt" or "Roos-uh-velt"?
FDR was quite blue-blooded himself.
>>Assimilation is about how you think and what you value. It’s not just knowing about the American political system, but understanding and embracing the values and worldview that created it.
Now you are just bullshitting bc you think you have ran out of substantive things to say, which you never had, to begin with.
Do you think that people from different cultures don’t have different values and worldviews?
Do you think that kids born in America (or anywhere for that matter) don't care about fitting in with the other kids? Did you? When you were a kid were you more concerned about your Bangladeshi heritage or not being an outsider amongst your peers?
And yet I'm sure you didn't lose respect for your family and background, because one can do both things simultaneously. But those other brown people are different and bad and have bad culture that ruins things, right?
> - i started watching football with my american friends
And I'd assume and hope parts of your native culture rubbed off on your American friends.
As someone whose ancestors have been American for quite a while (1850s) I can't make sense of the idea espoused by some on this thread* that "American culture" is something that needs to be strongly protected from changing and that's why we need to virtually lock-down immigration.
The feature that makes "American culture" powerful is exactly that it assimilates to the people who come here, not that they assimilate to it.
* (not you, this is just a convenient jumping off point for me to chime in on)
>> And I'd assume and hope parts of your native culture rubbed off on your American friends.
not that i know of, actually all the american friends i have made are super respectful of my native culture, especially the food and festivals.
[flagged]
> But is that true? Massachusetts is one of the most functional states in the country. It is both affluent and prosperous, but also orderly and well governed. What’s a good part of Massachusetts culture that doesn’t come from the original British settlers and their descendants?
I spent the first 22 years of my life living in Massachusetts around the Boston area and a lot of my fondest childhood memories center around celebrating multiculturism: St Patrick's day parades in Southie, Saint Anthony's feasts in the North End, August Moon Festival in Chinatown, etc.
> Wouldn’t New York City be a better city—cleaner, less corrupt, more orderly—if it was in Massachusetts?
I don't think so, I also lived in NYC for a year in 1999 and have visited it many times before and since and found NYC a much more interesting and vibrant place than Massachusetts, though both have their charms.
> I spent the first 22 years of my life living in Massachusetts around the Boston area and a lot of my fondest childhood memories center around celebrating multiculturism: St Patrick's day parades in Southie, Saint Anthony's feasts in the North End, August Moon Festival in Chinatown, etc.
Those are all superficial. Without those cultural influences, Massachusetts would still be basically the same state, just with worse food.
> I don't think so, I also lived in NYC for a year in 1999 and have visited it many times before and since and found NYC a much more interesting and vibrant place than Massachusetts, though both have their charms.
“Vibrant” is a euphemism for “chaotic and dirty.” Nobody ever says Copenhagen is “vibrant.” Massachusetts is objectively better than New York in almost every way. It has great schools while New York has shit schools, but Massachusetts spends 25% less per student. Massachusetts has much lower corruption, greater state capacity to perform public works, etc. Those are the measures of a place—not whether it is “vibrant” or “interesting.”
Honestly, it is pure hatred and plain stupidity.
They don't have the same religion, customs, values, history, etc.
Assimilation takes generations, and the point of integration is that some of their culture is retained. That is how you get pizza snd maffia to New York (to name two random examples), or how languages evolve.
For example, I am from Amsterdam area. The culture there was heavily influenced by Jewish diaspora, and the dialect by Yiddish and Bargoens. The street language nowadays is a mish-mash of English, Jewish, and Arabian culture, as well as that which influenced Dutch language before (mainly English, German, French, Latin, Greek, and I am probably forgetting to mention some). Some parts of our culture are still artifacts from past, we just take them for granted. Last name for example, was introduced by Napoleon. The Austria-Hungarians had influence on the south, and religiously the Catholics are mainly from south (as well as entire Belgium) with the North (above the rivers) being rather Protestants. Language-wise, Belgium's history of three languages is of interest, you could say the same about Switzerland. I wouldn't call USA solely English-speaking either. Heck, just look at the names of places around SV.
Also, would you tip if the food was terrible? I wouldn't. They should be happy I paid (my wife before I knew her once had soup so salty, she send back to kitchen. Chef said was normal. They didn't resolve, yet the soup was on the bill. She and her friends just left).
My recommendation to you? Well, I am not from USA but been in Cali a couple of times. Pivot to people who accept you for who you are. Don't hide where you're coming from, use it to empower you instead.
I feel like we agree on a lot so I don’t get your conclusion.
> They don't have the same religion, customs, values, history, etc.
Correct. But why is it “hatred” for people to not want immigrants to bring foreign customs and values with them? Customs and values are substantive! The customs and values of people around you affect your life, especially in a democracy where those people get to vote on the laws that govern you.
> Assimilation takes generations
Correct! You and Stephen Miller are on the same page about that.
> That is how you get pizza snd maffia to New York (to name two random examples)
Correct again! Why is it “hatred” and “stupidity” if you think the pizza wasn’t worth the mafia?
> For example, I am from Amsterdam area
My hypothesis is that New York City would be cleaner, more polite, better governed, and more orderly if it was still New Amsterdam. But the food would be crap. Do you disagree?
Ok, but do you eat peanut butter and drink root beer - those are the sure signs of full assimilation.
Sorry where I come from we drink peanut butter and eat roots are we still American?
clearly in detention centers
Stop with your logic, please. Obviously they must complete American Nationalism training, readily available in whatever country they come from, which they can learn from Voice of America.
> ...They recognize that individual immigrants can be fine but the large-scale flow of immigrants can create undesirable changes
You should also consider the other side of the equation, which is that immigration is the only thing that's keeping the US workforce and total population growing.
The size of the workforce and overall population has real economic, fiscal and quality of life impacts that every American feels on a daily basis and there's a very strong argument to be made that if your interest is in maintaining US wealth and "strength" globally, you don't want to become Japan, South Korea, Italy or Germany.
This is not to say that immigration policy should be made thoughtlessly or recklessly, but I rarely see the staunchest immigration opponents mentioning the stark demographic reality that faces the country.
56% of college grads are still looking for their first job 2 years later up from 25% for millennials. If you want to “grow the workforce” why not just hire the people already here?
Even if your statistic is true (which I don't believe it is), there are two issues here.
The first is that even if every graduate was hired tomorrow, it still wouldn't be enough to outpace the number of older workers leaving the workforce. The Social Security worker-to-retiree ratio was about 5:1 in 1960 and is about 2.7:1 now, and still dropping.
The second is that most new college grads aren't filling the jobs that need filling. The most acute shortages are in fields like agriculture, construction, home health/elder care, meat processing, and hospitality. Unless new grads are going to start doing farm work or taking care of the elderly, there still aren't enough American-born workers to meet the needs of the labor market.
So basically, immigration solves a different problem than the one you're referring to. Yours is a big one too but it's a separate issue.
[dead]
What a bunch of misleading and gross noise.
Nobody above said people who disagree with them are irrational.
Nobody said immigration should happen faster than anyone can assimilate.
They said preventing people from applying for green cards while on an existing visa will make it much much harder to immigrate legally.
If you think immigrants need more time to assimilate so they don't change your culture but you still think immigration is good then it seems like you'd be against this change. On the other hand if you want to limit immigration to just the wealthy this sounds like exactly the matching policy.
Also, Trump winning the naturalized citizen vote doesn't mean naturalized citizens all think the same way. Even if they all did think the US was perfect and their country of origin was garbage that STILL doesn't mean they think other people from their country are bad, obviously. Being at risk from your government or thinking your government needs to change doesn't imply you think other citizens from your culture are bad.
> you think immigrants need more time to assimilate so they don't change your culture but you still think immigration is good then it seems like you'd be against this change.
It reduces the number of immigrants, which facilitates assimilation and reduces the capacity of immigrants to change american culture.
> Also, Trump winning the naturalized citizen vote doesn't mean naturalized citizens all think the same way.
The point is that it’s not just “immigrant” versus “anti-immigrant,” because immigrants themselves are split in views.
> Being at risk from your government or thinking your government needs to change doesn't imply you think other citizens from your culture are bad.
There’s an assumption baked into your statement: that the government they left is unrelated to the “culture.” That’s hotly debated.
My parents grew up in Bangladesh, and both of them believe that Bangladesh is the way it is because of our culture. Their views on immigration thus are nuanced. They think we should treat immigrants well, obviously. But they are pretty alarmed by Little Bangladesh and the ethnic enclaves that exist now, which didn’t really exist in the 1980s when we came here.
I'm not sure why this is being downvoted.
> Saying “you wouldn’t want America to become more like the place you left” is a compelling message to many immigrants.
There is a very very large Indian community that echoes this sentiment (which you can see in very large expat FB groups) and wants to close the doors. They are extremely vocal and supportive of closing immigration, because their children now have to compete with the continuous influx.
Its just humans being human. Everyone wants to look after their own interests and there are lots of special interest groups, each with their own interests.
I cannot understand why people downvote otherwise civilized posts they disagree with, so I'll upvote.
That said, you are impressively wrong. If someone doesn't agree with me because they choose to believe obviously false or made-up data, that is being irrational.
Is it rational to suppress large-scale studies of vaccination? If someone says "I am against vaccination because there are no large-scale studies", is that rational?
I was talking about immigration. The anti-vaxxer people are completely irrational.
As a rather conservative foreigner in the US I find this to be a very presumptive statement. We've made good friends, conservatives and liberals alike - we're people, that's what matters not the policitcal orientation. No conservative I know "hates immigrants." Consider what the policy intends to do rather than blanket-blaming it on hate.
I have a family split along classic ideological lines between the northeast and southeast of the US. If you are unfamiliar with conservative's hatred toward immigration, I suggest you travel more.
I just went around the circumference of the US by RV. Kinda hard to travel more.
What I do notice is a clearly liberal HN bubble that does not represent the country I see and the people I talk to and I'm not selective. You're of course entitled to your views, just don't take others' views as unfounded just because you don't agree. (Collective you). I love the US and the values it stands for but dialogue and the "I'm right, you're wrong" has to improve on both sides.
I grew up and live in the southeast. I also lived on the west coast for a decade.
I find your comment completely off base.
I constantly travel the whole east coast, I suggest you take a look around
> Consider what the policy intends to do rather than blanket-blaming it on hate
It looks like the policy intends to prevent immigration in every way possible, and (along with other policies that have come about recently), kick out as many people as possible; even those that are immigrating here legally (or have already done so).
So, other than a hate for immigrants/immigration, I don't see another possible explanation.
When you come as a non-immigrant, you agree to not stay permanently. If you want to stay (because life happens and the US is a great country after all) you go through the proper channels. That may mean exiting for the duration of the process - that's entirely legitimate given the amount of abuse. No reason to invoke "hate" of any kind to justify the need for the policy. I know it's not the popular view here on HN and anti-HN-mainstream views get downvoted really fast. Think about that if you value democracy.
Only, we've seen
- People that didn't go through the proper channels, but have been here contributing peacefully to our society - hunted down, incarcerated, and/or kicked out, even though they're valuable members of our society
- People that are trying to go through the proper channels -hunted down, incarcerated, and/or kicked out
- People that are currently going through the proper channels - hunted down, incarcerated, and/or kicked out (sometimes literally _at_ the court houses while trying to go through proper channels)
- People that have already gone through the proper channels and have their greencards, hunted down, incarcerated, and/or kicked out
- People that are natural born citizens, hunted down, incarcerated, and/or kicked out
So our willingness to give the benefit of the doubt to the crowd that is claiming "we're just trying to get them to do it the right way to prevent abuse" is... just gone. It's not believable. Are there _some_ people that are honestly trying to do things right? Sure.. but the ones with the actual power, the ones out there taking action? They're not. They're out there causing harm just for the sake of causing harm.
This may not be the intent of some conservative voters, partly because some are plausibly immigration friendly, partly because many movement conservatives have more of a opinion-vibe than a policy position on immigration (among other things).
But conservative voters that don’t want much immigration at all (especially from some places/backgrounds) absolutely exist, and more to the point so does leadership that’s determining policy with that goal in mind.
Perhaps you and your circle reflect the more egalitarian policy-driven view. Commendable if so. But it’s not commendable to deny that conservatism has a xenophobic streak a mile wide right now.
GP seemed to be commenting on the Trump administration, not necessarily individuals of conservative persuasion. The Trump administration diverges materially from traditional conservative doctrine in many ways.
Do you believe the immigrants in Ohio are eating the pet dogs? Because Trump sure does.
> No conservative I know "hates immigrants." Consider what the policy intends to do rather than blanket-blaming it on hate.
If you look at the rhetoric from the Trump people over the years, they absolutely and clearly do hate immigrants, or are doing their best to seem that way. As an example, consider the following quote^[1] from Trump just a few years ago:
> They let — I think the real number is 15, 16 million people into our country. When they do that, we got a lot of work to do. They’re poisoning the blood of our country [...] That’s what they’ve done. They poison mental institutions and prisons all over the world, not just in South America, not just to three or four countries that we think about, but all over the world. They’re coming into our country from Africa, from Asia, all over the world.
It's trivial to find more like that. Weird white supremacist-adjacent rhetoric. Equating immigrants with animals. Etc.
American conservatives may not hate immigrants, but they sure love a guy who fervently expresses his hatred and disdain for immigrants every chance he gets. They've voted him into our highest office twice, and immigration was a central pillar of his campaign both times. I fully understand that many people who voted for him did so for reasons besides immigration, but at this point if they aren't willing to disavow him after the catastrophic first year-and-change of his second term then I am done giving them the benefit of the doubt, because there must be some reason they still support him, and at this point it sure isn't his performance on inflation, general affordability, etc.
In fact, looking at the Silver Bulletin charts^[2] as of right now, immigration is the only macro issue they track where his approval isn't in free-fall.
[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/trump-says-im... [2] https://www.natesilver.net/p/trump-approval-ratings-nate-sil... (paywalled i think, unfortunately)
That quote you pulled is about illegal immigration. Conflating undocumented immigrants with “anti-immigration” is a false equivalence.
There are no doubt people against immigration entirely but the majority opinion I hear from conservative leaning people is that legal immigration is great and people that skip the system are the problem and the drag on social safety nets.
But the legal immigration system is broken and they did that on purpose. And how is your immigration status relevant to your contribution to taxes?
It is not a false equivalence. Both legal and undocumented immigrants are net positive for our economy, less likely to commit crimes, and part and parcel to the American experiment. This “we only disapprove of the illegal ones” continues to be a disingenuous and ignorant point of view.
It’s still a false equivalence and the concern isn’t paying something to taxes. The bottom 30-40% of all federal tax payers contribute less than they receive back. So even in a tax argument, adding additional low income earners is not a good thing for the system.
But taxes aren’t the point, we have a process for legal immigration that works for millions of people a year. This is just like every other country (with even less stringent requirements than many other countries). Why should undocumented immigrants be granted the privilege of ignoring the law? Do you argue that Japan, China, Singapore, Australia, and/or Norway should do the same?
It’s fine that many conservatives still feel this way, but they are not electing officials implementing fair, mature immigration policies. They’re electing immature people who aren’t willing to systematically think through immigration policy, and instead say whatever hateful blurb gets them the most attention.
It’s frankly despicable, and I don’t respect conservatives who continue voting for politicians who are obvious liars and at a minimum are not campaigning on bringing level-headed reasonable ideas to immigration policy — only on how much they hate immigrants. Which reflects very, very poorly on conservative voters.
There are some that try and they get roasted as “RINOs”. The problem with the two party system is that you either vote for a despicable person that implements your major beliefs or someone pleasant that wants to implement policies you think directly result in murder/famine/societal collapse.
Trump can get far worse before the calculus changes for someone who thinks abortion is murder to start voting for Elizabeth Warren.
Whatever man. Do you remember his comments last year about Ilhan Omar ("garbage") and Somalis?
> I don’t want them in our country. I’ll be honest with you, OK. Somebody will say, ‘Oh, that’s not politically correct.’ I don’t care. I don’t want them in our country. Their country is no good for a reason,
> Their country stinks, and we don’t want them in our country,
> I am recommending a full travel ban on every damn country that’s been flooding our nation with killers, leeches, and entitlement junkies.
> We always take people from Somalia, places that are a disaster, right? [...] Filthy, dirty, disgusting, ridden with crime. The only thing they’re good at is going after ships.
> [Minnesota is] a hellhole right now. The Somalians should be out of here. They’ve destroyed our country. And all they do is complain, complain, complain,
Some other selections I found with zero effort:
> I’ve also announced a permanent pause on Third World migration, including from hellholes like Afghanistan, Haiti, Somalia and many other countries,
> Our country was going to hell. And we had a meeting, and I say, 'Why is it we only take people from shithole countries, right?' Why can’t we have some people from Norway, Sweden, just a few? Let us have a few from Denmark. Do you mind sending us a few people? Do you mind?'
> I think allowing millions and millions of people to come into Europe is very, very sad. I think you are losing your culture. Look around. You go through certain areas that didn't exist ten or 15 years ago.
> And I think [Europe] better watch themselves because you are changing culture. You are changing a lot of things. You’re changing security. You’re changing — look at what’s happening. I mean, you take a look. I mean, look at what’s happening to different countries that never had difficulty, never had problems…. I do not think it’s good for Europe and I don’t think it’s good for our country.
What do you call this rhetoric if not anti-immigrant? None of this is specific to illegal immigration; he commonly targets legal immigrants with his denigratory, hateful rhetoric (see above), and his second term immigration policy has in several high-profile instances targeted legal immigrants for deportation, as well as making it more difficult to obtain residency/citizenship (see: the subject of this post).
I guess he's specifically calling out immigration from "shithole countries" (brown/black people) while he is explicitly (though apparently hypothetically) fine with white people ("people from Norway, Sweden, just a few") coming in. Maybe he's just openly racist? Is that better, easier for "conservative leaning people" to swallow? When they say "legal immigration is great", is "legal" just a wink-wink shorthand for "white"?
---
Edit: I alluded to this in a reply below, but thanks to everybody replying to this comment for demonstrating that the theoretical "conservative I know" and "conservative leaning people" are, apparently, not universally representative of conservatives.
I hope you will not be offended if I don't reply to you individually, but I'm just not interested in having a conversation about whether these attitudes are valid. It's off topic, for one thing—the fact that they exist, that they surface in this context, is the only relevant takeaway here.
Research the cultures of those places and it's clear there are huge differences which are going to make assimilation very, very difficult.
So it's not about illegal vs legal immigration after all, but about where the immigrants come from?
Where they come from also correlates with how likely they are to try entering illegally vs legally.
In my original comment in this thread, I said this:
> American conservatives may not hate immigrants, but they sure love a guy who fervently expresses his hatred and disdain for immigrants every chance he gets. They've voted him into our highest office twice, and immigration was a central pillar of his campaign both times. I fully understand that many people who voted for him did so for reasons besides immigration, but at this point if they aren't willing to disavow him after the catastrophic first year-and-change of his second term then I am done giving them the benefit of the doubt, because there must be some reason they still support him, and at this point it sure isn't his performance on inflation, general affordability, etc.
Thank you for demonstrating what this looks like, I guess?
What a complete non-sequitur.
Like what?
Like US culture perhaps.
In Australia it's not uncommon for Somali immigrants to get econ and business doctorates and spawn commercial enterprises: https://thewarsan.com/the-somali-australian-success-stories-...
Cool, may I suggest you spend your next holiday there then
By most accounts Somalia is a beautiful country. It’s currently at war, in part because of its colonial legacy. But if that stopped I would love to visit.
Funnily enough the blame always falls back on the "western countries"
It's the perfect crutch, great way to never take responsibility for nothing
Though I do wish you well on your holiday plans
Interesting that nobody on the conservative side hates immigrants but continue to vote on politicians with platforms built upon the hatred of immigrants. It’s almost as if they’re lying.
[flagged]
> the other side actually has reasons that you haven’t bothered to consider?
Cool, like what reasons, for example? The reasons given in this press release are transparently pretextual.
> Cool, like what reasons, for example? The reasons given in this press release are transparently pretextual.
OK, so once again, you’re dismissing the other side’s arguments as lies.
If you want to convince people of your argument, start by engaging in actual debate instead of simply calling your opponent names.
Also, once again: I am not your opponent. I don’t agree with this change.
You said the other side has reasons that I hadn't considered. So, besides the "official" reasons in the official press release (which I have already considered), what reasons have I failed to consider?
> So, besides the "official" reasons in the official press release (which I have already considered), what reasons have I failed to consider?
How many times do I have to repeat myself? I am not a proponent of this change.
I am saying that calling your opponent a liar is not a convincing debate tactic, nor does it add anything new or useful.
So you can start by explaining, in good faith, what is wrong with the argument that you’re dismissing without explanation.
No matter how many times you repeat your evasions, they are unlikely to persuade anyone that you’re simultaneously entitled to your bailey (disavowing any investment in defending the new policy) and your motte (“maybe they have honest reasons that aren’t anti-immigrant, ever think of that even though I won’t speculate on what those would be”)
What "evasions"? I have repeatedly said that I don't support the policy. I don't support the policy. I think the argument advanced by the administration is wrong. I want you to tell me why you believe that, instead of just screaming "liar!" because you disagree. But you can't do that, to the extent that you'd rather attack me, even though I already agree with you.
Calling your opponent a liar convinces nobody. Making a constructive argument has a chance of doing so. But that's harder than insulting people.
> you’re simultaneously entitled to your bailey (disavowing any investment in defending the new policy) and your motte (“maybe they have honest reasons that aren’t anti-immigrant, ever think of that even though I won’t speculate on what those would be”)
You don't understand what Motte and Bailey means. I am not making an argument in favor of the policy, then backing away from that argument to a different position. I am making an argument against calling people names in lieu of actual debate.
Hi timr
I'm going to engage with you a bit because this situation does read to me like people talking past each other and I personally don't like when I see that happening
I'm going to state some assumptions up front and I appreciate if they seem incredibly simple and or naive but I find it's useful to have a common frame of reference in these situations
Reading what you wrote, I think it's plausible that you don't seem to realise that the disagreement that your getting into with people is one that's deeply emotionally charged and the current zeitgeist of how we engage in disagreement these days being predominantly meta disagreement means the vast majority of people are pattern matching on situation, context and vibes than what's said is the norm
I'm not a fan, but I absolutely can recognise and acknowledge that for a lot of the people who are coming into forums like this looking for civil discussion, this meta argument is very much what they retreat to unless they feel like it's worthwhile engaging with someone else honestly and vulnerably, because the dominant tactics of online disagreement are all about managing and depleting the energy of the person who you disagree with instead of engaging with them, while at times doing so in a way that makes them look unreasonable or foolish to the wider audience or signalling to that wider audience so that they're in on the joke as it were
So given that context, your argument will read to many as engaging in that style, and as a result they really don't want to engage with you on the merits of what your saying
If you want to really get engagement from people now, which I believe you want to on charged topics like this, you usually have to act in a way that falls outside the pattern, which requires some thought and effort
We're really cynical these days and dislike wasting our time and energy, not so much because I think we care about the time or the energy, I've seen a lot of people still just arguing back and forth and can't help thinking to myself that if they were willing to put that energy into arguing so much why didn't they try something else that might have had a higher likelihood of success
But at least in my view, we don't want to be as vulnerable anymore, too many people have put in the time and the energy of disagreeing in good faith sincerely believing that they were speaking with someone and reaching for understanding only to later realise that the other person they were speaking with was just running an algorithm, probably not even a very sophisticated one at that
And I'm not immune to this either, it's not fun, this dominant cynical strategy of our age
It stifles legitimate and interesting discourse and prevents us from working towards better understanding each other in what I don't think anyone will disagree with saying are trying and difficult times
My personal reaction to it is stuff like what I'm doing here, jumping into a discussion when I see people speaking past each other and when I've got the capacity arguing for a pause and a change in approach and then leaving it up to them as to whether they want to do that
I'm directing this at you not because I think you're particularly at fault, just that I think you've got the most capability to shift the conversation by changing how you are responding
I could be wrong, maybe you don't want to, as is your right, or if you do people will still engage with you poorly believing that you aren't speaking in good faith, as is theirs
Thank you for your time if you read this, hopefully it leads to a more productive discourse
> So given that context, your argument will read to many as engaging in that style, and as a result they really don't want to engage with you on the merits of what your saying
On the contrary, everyone is engaging timr within the scope of the exact challenge that he himself designed. Repeatedly, he has refused to answer his own question while insisting that he has. It's pretty wild.
> Repeatedly, he has refused to answer his own question while insisting that he has. It's pretty wild.
The only question I have asked is for you to make an affirmative argument.
> The only question I have asked is for you to make an affirmative argument.
You asked us to consider the reasons why conservatives vote for politicians with platforms built on the hatred of immigrants, besides hatred of immigrants. Remember?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48253510
> You asked us to consider the reasons why conservatives vote for politicians with platforms built on the hatred of immigrants, besides hatred of immigrants. Remember?
No, that is literally not what the comment said. I'm actually sort of amazed that you can get that from what I wrote, and treat is as some kind of "gotcha", when it's the top of this thread, and literally the same message I've been repeating throughout:
> Or maybe, when you say that the platform is “built upon hatred”, that’s just your opinion, and the other side actually has reasons that you haven’t bothered to consider?
> I don’t like this policy, but engaging in exaggerated rhetoric, then calling the other side liars because they disagree with your rhetoric, is everything that is wrong with political debate in the US right now.
To wit: stop calling people liars. Make an argument instead.
The fact that the current US administration lies is indisputable. I'm not calling them liars because they "disagree with [my] rhetoric" but because they have been shown to have repeatedly lied. Saying that Trump is a liar is not "calling names" but reminding of a well-known fact. But ok, I'll indulge your bad-faith argument:
1. The administration has claimed to oppose only illegal immigration in order to encourage legal immigration. [0]
2. The administration has consistently lied about and demonized immigrants who came legally. [1]
3. Recent policies have made legal immigration more difficult. [2]
4. The effect of these policies will be to reduce legal immigration, contradicting the administration's earlier stated goals. [3]
5. The administration has repeatedly expressed white nationalist sentiment. [4]
[0] https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/05/trump-state-of-the...
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHycpIhnFcU
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/23/us/politics/trump-legal-i...
[3] https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2026/01/20/trump...
[4] https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/2026/01/stephen-miller-...
I didn't ask you to make an argument that the administration has lied. That's trivial. And though you're getting closer with "the administration has lied about immigration issues in the past", again, that's trivial and non-responsive. And telling me that the administration is against immigration is telling me that water is wet. So what if they are? Elections have consequences, and this is not a sudden discovery.
I asked you to rebut the arguments in front of you, instead of just calling people liars. It isn't hard, if you're even a little bit intellectually curious. I'm tired of responding, so I'll just model the behavior for you, and then I'm done.
First, five reasonable arguments against this change, none of which involve calling people liars:
1) It targets the very people who are most likely to contribute positively to US society.
2) It's clearly against the intent of the original status adjustment legislation.
3) If it's actually applied to H1B visas (which is unclear), it's clearly against the intent of the 1990 immigration reform act, which established dual-status visas.
4) It seems intended to eliminate / dramatically reduce green card issuance without legislative intervention. I am against this because it is unconstitutional.
5) It discourages smart people from moving to the USA.
OK, 6:
6) It's especially cruel to families where one family member is already a US citizen or permanent resident.
Now, five arguments in favor of it:
1) It's appropriate to ask people on non-immigrant visas (e.g. tourists, students) to return home at the end of those visas, rather than creating a limbo class of people who are sitting around waiting for status transitions, which is both real (i.e. I personally know people in this situation) and a problem.
2) It distributes the review load around the world. Obviously true.
3) It was never the intent of the 1960 status adjustment legislation to allow non-immigrant visas the ability to transition directly to permanent residence.
4) However blunt the approach, it does eliminate a major incentive problem for gaming the short-term immigration system, if you know that you have to return to wherever you came from, and wait for approval.
5) While I don't think it's appropriate to make this change for pending applications (and to be clear: we don't know if that's what's happening), I think it's completely fair to announce it as a policy change going forward.
Okay, I'm surprised by how much you are missing the point, so let's imagine a dialog taking place in the 1930s in Europe.
A: Hey, I think we should murder all people of <ethnicity> because they are a threat to national security.
B: I think that your argument in favor of genocide is based on animus and not offered in good faith.
A: How dare you call me a liar! Why don't you actually engage with my argument??
Sorry for the crude analogy, but that is what you are saying. You are completely missing what is shocking about this scenario.
Everyone already knows the arguments for and against legal immigration. We've been having that discussion for decades, or centuries, and there are valid and coherent arguments on both sides. There is no need to reiterate them here.
What is unique about the current situation is that the current administration is not engaging with valid arguments against immigration: they are offering transparently nonsense justifications, which we are not used to seeing from our government to this extreme degree -- even the bad-faith arguments for the Iraq war were dressed up in real argument clothes. No matter how you feel about immigration, you should be shocked by the administration's behavior. Not just that the arguments are unreasonable, but transparently so. Pointing that fact out is completely relevant, as it is IMHO more novel to our society and dangerous to democracy than simple immigration policy. Furthermore, treating the administration's arguments as valid just gives them legitimacy, which they do not deserve.
The people in favor of these policies are not making thoughtful decisions for the good of the nation and it does no one a favor to pretend that they do. They will not be persuaded by the well-reasoned arguments you point us towards because reasoning is not part of their decision making process. That's why everyone in this thread is calling you a tool, and why pointing out the bad faith is completely relevant.
I appreciate the thoughtful reply. I don't think I'm "talking past" the people I'm replying to -- I understand exactly what they're saying, I get that these are emotional outbursts, and I'm simply trying to re-iterate the futility of it, in the hopes that someone will get it -- but I do agree that it's likely pointless and probably a waste of time.
> It stifles legitimate and interesting discourse and prevents us from working towards better understanding each other
We definitely agree on this.
> So given that context, your argument will read to many as engaging in that style, and as a result they really don't want to engage with you on the merits of what your saying
If we are at a point where "do not call people names instead of arguing" is considered a tactic or a style, we really are doomed.
Thanks for engaging with me positively
To briefly clarify, I don't believe it's pointless, that wasn't what I intended to convey, what my position is, is that the current mode of communication demands more of us, so as a result at least I and people like myself engage with it less often, but when we do, we do so wholeheartedly and if it looks like the other party isn't engaging in good faith, try a little, but are willing to wrap up, at least in my case after taking a few stabs at itI personally find that this strategy both makes me feel more empowered and engaged in these situations as well as gives me hope that if my strategy is more sustainable, then it will slowly be adopted, which is good, I would be delighted to engage with someone who's also following this approach or something like it
I don't think it's quite that negative, from my perspective this has become a very negative value game (in the Von Neumann sense) and being mindful of the fact that it is very much being treated like a game, adopt a strategy that allows for people to engage with it like discourse, deescalate and clearly signal my willingness to engage with the other party, yet however still be a reasonable move in that game are all goals that should be met when I communicate in these sorts of contextsGiven there's likely multiple other ways to hit those objectives, the route I'm taking only being one of them, I'm satisfied to continue tilling the odd windmill here and there
Once again, thanks for engaging, have a great day!
> What "evasions"?
You kicked off this subthread by saying (among other things):
> the other side actually has reasons that you haven’t bothered to consider?
In response, it's entirely reasonable for someone to ask you to speculate what those specific reasons might be whether or not you agree with those reasons. You suggested those reasons exist, asking someone who expresses confidence they exist is a reasonable place to start.
Here's one of the ways that you're evading answering that question:
> I have repeatedly said that I don't support the policy.
No one here required you to publicly marry yourself to the policy. We're all aware of situations where we can speculate on possible reasons for a position without agreeing with it in the end. So saying "I don't support the policy" is a non-sequitur.
If you don't want to answer the question "what reasons have I failed to consider?" one way of resolving the tension left by your assertion that such reasons exist would be to say something like "I don't want to speculate on specifics, I acknowledge that this weakens any assertion that such reasons exist, but I still think we shouldn't just call the reasons given dishonest." Perhaps there are other ways of resolving that tension.
But saying "I don't support the policy" is not in any way adequate. You were not asked whether you support the policy, you were asked to back up your assertion that "the other side actually has reasons that you haven’t bothered to consider."
> I want you to tell me why you believe that
I don't think I've personally staked a position in this discussion regarding the administration's policy, much less whether or not they're lying, so it's not clear why I'd have any obligation to defend a position before we hear what your reasons are for asserting the administration "actually has reasons that you haven’t bothered to consider."
It's also not clear why someone who has staked a position that the administration's reasons are pretextual and dishonest would be obligated tell you why they think that before asking you to back up your assertion that other reasons exist, though of course you are also free to ask people why they believe something (and some people have at least mildly elaborated on specific reasons they believe the administration is not honest).
And I understand perfectly well what Motte and Bailey means. I specified exactly what I identified as your Motte (“maybe they have honest reasons that aren’t anti-immigrant, ever think of that even though I won’t speculate on what those would be”) and your Bailey (disavowing any investment in defending the new policy). Repeating your Bailey does not defend your Motte. Insisting that people are misrepresenting your Motte as a defense of the new policy does not defend your Motte, it is simply repeating your Bailey.
Your original position was "the other side actually has reasons that you haven’t bothered to consider?" and you have retreated to "I don't defend this policy so I have no obligation to defend my assertion that the other side has actual reasons I just want better discussion."
If you want better discussion, an explicitly acknowledged retreat from "the other side actually has reasons that you haven’t bothered to consider" will look more honest and less evasive. You could also speculate on what those reasons might be, and that would also strengthen your asserted position that "the other side actually has reasons" to the extent those reasons look credible.
Some people may also be considering the possibility that your claim that you disagree with the administration's position is not honest (as well as approaching the admin as dishonest actors). That's always discouraging of course -- we certainly want to be perceived as honest when we believe we are, and it's also convenient to be perceived as honest even when we are not. I haven't staked my criticisms of your engagement on whether or not you are dishonest: I allow room for the possibility that you're honestly wrong, and even some for the possibility that you may eventually make a substantial counterargument as yet unconsidered. Still, dishonesty is a real possibility to be reckoned with, and bringing it under consideration is reasonable enough. In that light, reducing reckoning with that possibility to "just screaming 'liar!'" also looks like rhetorical evasion.
> In response, it's entirely reasonable for someone to ask you to speculate what those specific reasons might be whether or not you agree with those reasons. You suggested those reasons exist, asking someone who expresses confidence they exist is a reasonable place to start.
Great. Perhaps you can start with the ones stated in the memo. So instead of saying "I don't believe the people making the policy have legitimate reasons, because those people are liars and their reasons are all lies" (which is ~essentially the comment I was replying to) you can instead rebut them.
> So saying "I don't supporting the policy" is a non-sequitur.
No it isn't. It's not an argument. It's just a statement of fact. I don't support the policy. I didn't write it. My advocacy for a policy I don't agree with is irrelevant to my argument here, which is: "don't just call people liars."
> You were not asked whether you support the policy, you were asked to back up your assertion that "the other side actually has reasons that you haven’t bothered to consider."
You're deflecting. If you think the policy is wrong, make an argument.
> Perhaps you can start with the ones stated in the memo.
You could have done that in response to the person who asked you what reasons they had not considered. That would have been one reasonable way to engage, it would have mildly trespassed the bounding attempt in their statement that they had considered the memo, but it would have introduced substance backing up your claim and let you interrogate their claim that they had in fact evaluated the reasons given in the memo.
You didn't do that, though. For some reason you instead chose "I don't support the policy" which, as stated, is a non-sequitur in response to the question ""what reasons have I failed to consider?"
If you'd like to talk about the reasons in the memo or other reasons not in the memo, no one has been stopping you.
> > So saying "I don't support the policy" is a non-sequitur.
> No it isn't. It's not an argument. It's just a statement of fact.
A non-sequitur can be entirely factual. This means affirming something as a statement of fact is not an adequate defense against the charge of non-sequitur, it is actually a further non-sequitur.
> my argument here which is "don't just call people liars."
This may be the argument you intended to make. But because you also asserted that legitimate reasons for the policy existed and then refused to defend that assertion with a reasonable response to the question "what reasons have I failed to consider?" (including "the reasons in the memo" up until this level of the discussion) and also appear determined to avoid that quality of engagement, you've ended up engaging in a way that works against a general ethos of better discussion and the micro-dynamics which support it.
There's also the fact that it's reductive to assert anyone has "just" called the administration liars. Given that the federal judiciary has retreated from traditional presumption of regularity when fulfilling their judicial responsibility[0] (ie, that the executive is acting in good faith), that's compelling reason to believe the judiciary has found a pattern of admin dishonesty in the social/institutional setting where honesty is most critical. Retreating from the presumption of honesty in lay discussion is a pretty reasonable step. This in addition to my previous argument that dishonesty certainly exists in general and reckoning with that should not simply be reduced to "screaming liar."
I can also see how someone may nevertheless feel that calling the memo transparent pretext is not adequate. The productive response to such a failure where you feel it has occurred would be to bring the official reasons from the memo into the discussion, then ask people what they specifically think is wrong with those reasons.
I didn't engage your comments to defend or attack the policy -- I probably could do that, but it certainly didn't seem to be where you've focused. Instead you've focused on the quality of the discussion, and seem to be confused about why people have been critical and even hostile towards your engagement. It seemed like if you wanted better discourse, explaining how some of your engagement draws that criticism would help. It's strange if you're not interested in that, given that your stated position is about policing the quality of engagement in general, but no one can make you focus on what you don't want to, only point out the contradiction in that as well as the problems of your engagement.
[0] https://www.justsecurity.org/120547/presumption-regularity-t...
If you think the policy is wrong, make an argument why. Don't just call people names.
All the words you've spent here, and you still can't bring yourself to make a single argument against the thing you hate so much.
The only thing I've targeted as wrong is how you argue. That's what I hate, and with amply described reasons.
I've spent a lot of words on it under the charitable assumption that you were truthful in your desire for better discussion. At this point, you've persuaded me that was overly charitable.
Instead it appears you're determined to maintain a fictional posture implying bad behavior in others whether or not it exists so you can claim whatever fruits of grievance you're here to harvest.
If the time comes when I care about defending or attacking the memo, I'll do so effectively. I haven't taken a position on the memo. I've only asked you to sustain positions you've taken or honestly retreat from them. And not pretend other people are taking positions that they aren't, which is apparently a big ask.
If you think the policy is wrong, make an argument why. Don't just call people names.
Why is this so hard?
You are missing the point in spectacular fashion.
This is not a debate about immigration policy. This is a debate about government-sanctioned racist scapegoating under the guise of immigration policy. Honest discussion requires calling a spade a spade.
Having a debate about the policy on their terms is exactly what they want. How well did that go when for a week in 2024 everyone was asking "Do Haitians really eat cats and dogs"
It's hard because you're wrong.
It's hard because you continue to love pretending that people are calling you names even when they're not. It's hard because you find it convenient to demand people defend arguments they're not making.
My position is that your arguments are bad. I've made my arguments why. I don't have to argue about the policy, because I haven't staked a position on it.
I haven't called you names, so it's disingenuous to respond as if "Don't call people names" is on topic. For sake of contrast, saying something like "You're a dishonest piece of troll shit" might be calling you names; it's pretty clear most of my discussion has instead been focused on pointing out the problems with your arguments, positions, and rhetoric, which is part of why you're finding things so hard.
Though at this point your dishonesty is manifest to anyone following along.
The thing they hate so much is how you keep making non-sequitur arguments. They didn't say anything about policy, and they didn't call anyone names.
Why is this so hard?, as they say
> If you think the policy is wrong, make an argument why. Don't just call people names.
You are operating under the misapprehension that pointing out bad-faith arguments is "call[ing] people names." No. We should not engage with bad-faith arguments because the other side has already abandoned rational debate. That's what "bad-faith" means. I'm not going to waste my time, or yours, rehashing tired old pro- and anti-immigrant arguments.
I think the policy is wrong, and allegedly so do you, but that's not relevant, because the validity of the policy is not the problem here. The fact that the government has abandoned the pretense of rational policy in favor of feeding raw meat to its rabid audience in favor of openly racist policies is much more problematic. Saying, "Aktshually, immigrants on average contribute to the GDP!" is going to change exactly no one's mind.
You don't get to skip backing up your claim while waiting for them to go first.
What are the arguments they haven't bothered to consider?
Seriously. I wish I could find any positive-constructive [0] results/values to frame Trumpism in terms of. I understood why people voted for him in 2016, or at least I thought I did. But based on his actual results, I've been trying to steelman for ~6 years now. I haven't been able to come up with any positive values, the only things I'm ever able to come up with are destruction, spite, and hate.
Trump supporters should be perfectly capable of articulating some positive values they see Trump as actually championing. There's really no reason to be arguing for them. But rather instead, I just see fewer and fewer flags up as the damage to our country grows and grows. I guess the reality is finally setting in?
[0] eg "deport immigrants" isn't a positive result as it's framed around a negative (immigrants not being here). "Fix the economy for manual labor" or "Restore X/Y/Z cultural values (that immigrants are supposedly disrupting)" would be positive values. But of course Trump hasn't actually made either of those examples better.
thanks for being the voice of reason, however futile it is in a social media scoring system
> thanks for being the voice of reason, however futile it is in a social media scoring system
Treating an obviously racist and xenophobic immigration agenda as good-faith government policy does not help the country. It only serves to lend undeserved legitimacy to a corrupt policy-making apparatus that does not deserve it.
Well yeah, they are lies. It's quite obvious to everyone who's not caught up in the lies. Those people can't be convinced anyway, so they're not the target audience.
> OK, so once again, you’re dismissing the other side’s arguments as lies.
Because they are lies. Assuming they are lying has served me well. When I did spend time assuming the best, I was disappointed time and time again to find out I'd been lied to. Now, assuming they are lying has proven to be the correct choice far more often than reasonable.
> If you want to convince people of your argument, start by engaging in actual debate instead of simply calling your opponent names.
Why do you think we care at all about convincing people? Why do you think we haven't already tried to do an actual debate?
You can't have reasonable discussions with people who dismiss reality and facts. I'm not talking about opinions, but facts.
For example, who won the 2020 election? Who was the president when 9/11 occurred? Who was the President in 2020? Is Trump a felon? Who pays for a tariff?
None of these are opinion based. And yet, you see government leaders who are unable to answer these BASIC questions. And it filters down.
Sorry, but you can't debate with people who don't believe in basic facts.
Let me show you how that works:
> Also, once again: I am not your opponent. I don’t agree with this change.
Yes, you are. Yes, you do agree with this change. Why do you agree with this change? Why do you support it? Why do you hate America?
For anyone curious this is a great example of sealioning:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning
Well that’s cute.
We’re so far around the bend now that making a plea to do something other than scream “liar” at your opponent has been characterized as a malevolent political ploy.
For the record, you didn’t even read the first paragraph of the thing you linked to:
> Sealioning is a type of trolling or harassment that consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity
I’m not asking you for evidence. I’m asking you to stop calling people names. If you think the argument is wrong, explain why it is wrong. If you can’t do that, you lose.
Look man there are several different ways people argue and calling someone a liar or saying a policy is cruel despite the official line is entirely reasonable. If you’re taking that so personally that you have to personally respond to everyone about that then I have to wonder if you’re just trying to defend the policy in a motte and then retreat to the bailey of “I don’t support the policy I just don’t like how you’re arguing.” Calling someone cruel or a liar is not a slur, they’re calling out what they view as shameful acts. I think it’s within the bounds of civility to call someone cruel or a liar. I really think you’re just trolling with repeated requests for civility here.
Calling someone a liar is not an argument.
> Calling someone a liar is not an argument.
Correct. On its own, calling someone a liar is not an argument. However, if a person is a liar, that fact provides useful context in evaluating statements made by that person. Traditionally, when a person has been shown to lie repeatedly, one should expect them to continue lying, and therefore one should not take their statements at face value. Can you understand how that is relevant in this case?
then calling the other side liars because they disagree with your rhetoric
The POTUS has lied about immigrants since the moment he came down the escalator in 2015 and hasn't let up since.
From the old tired crime arguments of the past to outright bs (eating cats and dogs!).
Honestly I wish that was all he lied about, but nothing is sacred.
> and the other side actually has reasons that you haven’t bothered to consider?
Such as?
Such as the desire for theocratic surveillance fascism (what Jesus advocated for tirelessly).
> I don’t like this policy, but engaging in exaggerated rhetoric
The Trump admin just sent an official death threat to trans people and anti-fascists (lol??). I am so incredibly sick of people acting like this is ok and normal and any calling out is exaggerating. At some point, you're not defending sensible discourse, you're lecturing people for being upset when they have a murderous regime targeting them. It's a shitty thing to do. You're defending actual fascism at this point. And I'm happy to back up that claim without rhetoric by demonstrating the ways in which the US is (and has been) slipping into fascism for decades. Something tells me I'd be wasting my breath though.
I’m tired of people acting so naive past the point of zip-tying entire apartment buildings and building concentration camps. White supremacist manners and politeness are disgusting.
Every conservative I know centers their politics around hating and demonizing immigrants. I blame Youtube and Elon.
In the nineties usian professor of philosophy Rick Roderick produced a series of lectures for The Teaching Company called The Self Under Siege. Perhaps they might change your view that this is a recent development.
https://rickroderick.org/
In 2011 the usian professor of political science Corey Robin published a book on conservative thought, which is a pretty succinct and easy read. Here's the second edition:
http://digamo.free.fr/coreyrobin2017.pdf
Just FTR conservatives aren't the only ones on the Right
https://informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/left-vs-ri...
[dead]
Immigration is not a human right. Countries have a right to restrict legal immigration too.
"Rights" is not the point. You're correct that a country doesn't have to welcome you.
However, the US has been a prosperous country because it welcomes ambitious, hard-working, and skilled people from around the world. They immigrate, build inside the US and for the US, and the US economy grows. This is how the past several decades have worked, and restricting legal immigration would basically destroy this country, its economy, and everything that makes it a great place to live.
I'm a citizen of the US, and I 100% want more smart and hard-working people from around the world to come here and set up shop.
This is not true. It’s a pernicious lie that the United States has always been doors open, and this falsity makes discussing this topic increasingly impossible because it’s like there’s two different realities that aren’t reconcilable. The US became the economic powerhouse and world power it did during the most restrictive period of its immigration history. The amount of immigration over the last 30 years, and especially over the last decade, is completely unusual and unprecedented. I can go to neighborhoods in the city I grew up in where I played baseball as a kid and it is quite literally completely foreign. A lot of people, and you seem to be one of them, think that America’s immigration system is a cosmic vacuum cleaner that scoops up would-be Einsteins from around the planet and plops them in US cities where they churn out unicorns between writing an opera and running a 10k. This isn’t the case.
The percent of the US population that is foreign-born is about the same as it was before 1920.
To use your vocabulary, it is a pernicious lie to pretend that America's success from WWI through the WWII recoveries was due to immigration policies, rather than other major countries having their infrastructure destroyed and being forced to use the US as a key supplier due to rather large wars.
(and that's ignoring that US population had booms in there that meant that even though immigration was persisting, there was just a big increase in domestic births).
Though if we're going to adopt those immigration policies, perhaps we should also adopt the tax strategies, corporate regulation, and worker unions that accompanied that growth.
> and it is quite literally completely foreign
I'm quite fine with that. I drove through an Armenian neighborhood of LA and stopped for a meal at a restaurant whose name I could not comprehend and it was really, fucking tasty. Zhengyalov Hatz in Glendale, if anyone is wondering.
But yeah, this is the kind of stuff that makes the US awesome. "Would-be Einsteins" are far from the only flavor hard-working people who I absolutely welcome.
Oh well as along as the food is good.
The United States was literally built on the idea of immigration.
https://www.cato.org/blog/founding-fathers-favored-liberal-i...
Cato is doing their usual thing here where they lie by omission.
>These foreigners, if not properly disposed of, will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its directions, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass.[1]
-Thomas Jefferson
The Founders had a conception of immigration that is completely at odds with the free for all that exists today, and Cato is partially responsible for people incorrectly thinking that the US was “literally built on the idea of immigration”.
[1] https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/gdc/lhbcb/0490...
I can't find that in your reference. Additionally, signed by Jefferson into law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1802
Right, a law that made it easier for white people from Europe to become citizens.
Europeans who arrived, seized land, imported enslaved people, broke treaties, then later decided that later arrivals were the real problem? Those Europeans?
Would you prefer the United States didn’t exist or something? What is even the point of this comment. “Bad things happened in history, there was violence and war and conquering, woe is me” this is what you sound like. Profound, truly.
You're Navajo, are you?
Did you roll a dice and pick one or are you actually familiar with Navajo history or something and that’s why you tried to use this retort as a way to imply you’re not allowed to have opinions on American immigration policy unless you’re from a Native American tribe?
That's a no, then. Go back where your family came from, eurotrash.
There it is.
> because it welcomes ambitious, hard-working, and skilled people from around the world
"From around the world" more like the "world tour" definition
They were welcoming mostly Europeans. First from WASP countries, then for more southern/eastern ones. And then from East Asia (I'll save the rant about the word "Asian" for another time)
Every piece of data shows some groups excel while some groups lag behind
(of course I haven't forgotten about other groups of people that came to the US but most of those didn't come willingly)
You also have a right to become homeless, doesn't suddenly mean you're prospering.
On top of this, do you think legal migrants are equal to your fellow country men?
Why else the need for this non sequitur?
I didn't say it's a good policy. I just said it's not some moral failing to not allow immigration. The implication of all these criticisms of the Republican administration's policy on immigration is that if they oppose immigration, they're racist. I find this to be a very manipulative form of emotional blackmail that abuses the racism allegation.
The current Republican regime’s only pro-immigration policy is white South Africans. Your knee jerk defense to a point no one made is inconsistent with the facts
Trump also supports immigrants who work in the hospitality industry since he wants to pay them less than Americans.
I'd have more sympathy for that view if it were straightforward regulations being passed that placed strict and objective limits on the process. However what we have in practice appears to be a campaign to spread fear and uncertainty via underhanded regulations while feigning ignorance.
It is a moral failing when many times the immigrants coming to the US are coming from countries destabilized by our direct or indirect involvement. Reaping the benefits of our colonization while washing our hands of any of the consequences is morally wrong.
I don't know how you would possibly quantify the U.S. impact on the stability of other countries. The historical default has been extreme instability. It's only in the last 200 years or so that nation-states as we know them have existed in most of the world. Before that, a lot of the world was ruled by warlords, petty kings, and empires fighting over territory.
So treating instability in these countries as mainly the result of U.S. involvement seems overly simplistic. Many U.S. interventions have contributed to instability, but many forms of U.S. involvement have also contributed to stability. Not to mention the enormous amounts of economic resources that come from the U.S. and enrich other countries through trade, investment, and remittances.
You can make a humanitarian case for immigration without reducing the causal history to "the U.S. destabilized these countries, so the U.S. owes them entry". The history is much messier than that.
Choosing the suboptimal economic policy due to feels is a moral failure.
Are you a libertarian? Do you support the right to travel or should you always need a travelling license to travel?
I'm not sure that immigration policy is relevant to libertarianism because a nation in some sense is like private property. So one could argue that the people of a country have a collective right to restrict who enters their borders. Transversing a nation's airspace would be a different story. I think if a nation blocked other nations from using its airspace for transversal it would be a violation of other people's rights, by abusing, essentially, private property exclusivity.
That's just a way to rationalize policies that are obviously anti-liberty. Is the Texas/Mexico border my property? Really? All of it? And isn't abuse of private property anti-liberty anyway? You literally just said it is.
Countries do prevent other countries from using their airspace, by the way.
Preventing people from encroaching on your nation is fundamentally no different than preventing people from trespassing on your property. It's not anti-liberty, since we don't have an inherent right to any land on earth. That right to occupy a piece of land, to the extent that it exists, emerges through homesteading and the principle of First Possession.
As for U.S. territory, yes, you can make a case that it's the collective property of American citizens who then decide how the property will be governed through their elected representatives. How is that anti-liberty?
Through what right do countries exist and have rights and those rights transfer to their citizens? What causes me to have a right to control the Texas/Mexico border?
A political community can make a claim over a territory because it builds institutions that build and defend it. It's not identical to homesteading, but it's similar. Think of private property and national sovereignty as different layers of ownership that emerge through similar principles.
Non-European origin immigrants, presumably? Like are they against Irish people coming over in small numbers? Just wondering if you’re actually blanket saying they hate immigrants, I hadn’t heard about that.
Does this rule make an exception for European immigrants? No, so the obvious answer to your question is yes they blanket hate all immigrants
Well not really. If they make an exception it’s much easier to call them racist. Also what the people in the party or whatever support and what the government actions are are rarely exactly aligned.
There is noone in this administration that cares if they’re called racist. See the white South African refugee for example.
Im going to infer what they support from what their actions clearly say.
"intentionally malevolent" -> Stephen Miller's second name. The cruelty is and always was the point.
This is true. I resisted this conclusion for a long time, imagining it was tendentious, but there is really no other way to understand his rhetoric and his actions.
I thought his second name was Goebbles?
Yup, he's not minced words in all the interviews he's done and he's happy to label US citizens "terrorists" if he thinks they're in his way or 'race traitors'.
All because he was a massive loser in middle/high school, and like most bigots, his hatred is rooted in needing to have someone "beneath" him. So he based his entire personality and life around hating anyone not straight, white, male, and "American" so he could feel better about himself.
It is amazing how many people have been killed from all the policies he's been ramming through, simply because of a huge inferiority complex.
It's also a bit sad how every generation of immigrants turn around and pull the ladder up behind them.
>> It's also a bit sad how every generation of immigrants turn around and pull the ladder up behind them.
This is a real head scratcher. Some of the biggest Trump supporters I interact with at work are people of color, from countries the adminstration has labelled "shitholes" - they would never be allowed to visit - let alone immigrate - today. I guess once you get yours everyone else can go to hell.
I had a Panamanian neighbor who was big on Trump in 2024 primarily because of his stance on immigration. My neighbor felt that since they and their family had come to the US legally, it was only fair to kick out those who had come illegally. There assumption is that this would be a tough-on-crime thing and that the existing law would applied strongly but fairly with respect to the legal status of the people being deported.
Folks from communities of color in the United States I have generally experienced as trending conservative in their values (Oakland notwithstanding). Trump being a 'tough guy' and a 'macho' is often well-received.
Also, for many folks, Trump has long been seen as something to aspire to and someone to emulate. Trump sells a very American and New York image of success, many people believe they want the life he has (notoriety, money, cars, beautiful wife, mistress, good-looking kids, glitz, etc). The Apprentice was a big success for a reason, it sold a version of reality many people wanted to believe in.
So yeah. People don't believe in race. They believe in money and power.
It's a very immigrant thing to be susceptible to the strongman political manipulations of the country they left, to believe that emulation and imitation can bring luck/success. America is very much defined by immigrant dreaming.
Which is why it is nonsense to say banning immigration is anything other than anti-American.
The idea that it would be a crackdown on illegal immigration was an essentially greedy belief that legal immigrants, especially Hispanic, would be elevated in status. Of course nothing could be further from the truth. Their skin color, their language and their community all mark them as targets for harassment.
It will be very hard for the machismo cultures to accept that they were deceived so they'll vote for Trump again.
Do we really want a bunch of immigrants that are susceptible to strongman political manipulations?
Unfortunately there is less incentive for talented and qualified people from prosperous democracies to more to the US. There is significant drama in obtaining a work visa (high sponsor administrative burden), you are tied to an employer, it is difficult for your spouse to also get a visa, etc.
So the source of high skill immigrants is countries with dictators and economic dysfunction. That used to include places like Poland, Czech Republic, Italy, etc. The first generation brings new ideas and cultural flavour, the second generation is completely American. As long as you don't have religious schools and ethnic charter schools getting state funds, integration is systematic and inevitable.
> I guess once you get yours everyone else can go to hell.
Sounds they truly have become naturalized Americans
A very common attitude in low trust societies, not just the US.
This is also why a lot of fellow Eastern European immigrants tend to be incorrigibly racist to black or Hispanic people, but especially black.
The best explanation I've been able to come up with is that insecure and fluid middle classes, unsure and anxious of their social position but certain that it's not too high, need someone to stomp on, to feel that at least there's someone who's even below them.
Some of the biggest Trump supporters I interact with at work are people of color, from countries the adminstration has labelled "shitholes"
They're in the US precisely because they have the same sentiment about where they came from, and don't want the worst of their origins to follow them. I assume they are also fully assimilated into American culture.
You should double check Project 2025 before solely blaming Miller.
They called Miller out as one aspect, not the totality of the problem.
There will be plenty of blame to go around when the trials start.
There never will be trials. Assuming things actually swing back the new admin will talk about healing and looking forward.
Fair point, but one can hope.
When you're in your visa or green card process it's not uncommon to be advised not to travel out of the country...
Yep. You're kind of in jail.
It doesn't mean that you cannot, it just means that it might complicate your already complicated application. So if a family member dies, maybe... But that's it
I've known people who left for a brief period during the GC process on emergency basis and then were put into a literal jail on their return to the USA.
>> put into a literal jail on their return to the USA.
You'd be lucky today if that literal jail was IN the USA.
If you end up in “jail” for leaving the country on a green card then clearly you made a mistake.
The process is very straightforward - without advanced parole or a valid visa you can’t come back in.
Or if you’ve violated immigration or criminal law you run the risk of being detained.
But that’s how the system is supposed to work.
[flagged]
This maybe doesn't feel like an lol type comment. It really stinks that our processes are this broken, and frankly it's a bit embarrassing.
This is true. But you might be conflating two different issues: having to apply for a greencard from outside the country, and being restricted in traveling outside the US during the (potentially very lengthy) pendency of that application.
No, I'm aware of the difference. I just wanted to write this down as 'being told you cannot do something' is not something the typical American likes. Yet, when going through immigration, it's common...
I don't think it applies to folks on H or L visas. Wording from the site:
"Nonimmigrants, like students, temporary workers, or people on tourist visas, come to the U.S. for a short time and for a specific purpose. Our system is designed for them to leave when their visit is over. Their visit should not function as the first step in the Green Card process. "
I'm not sure I share your optimism. What is a worker on an H-class visa, if not a "temporary worker"?
I read this with the assumption that "nonimmigrant visa" applies to every category of visa listed here under "Nonimmigrant Visa Categories":
https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/visa-inf...
A “non-immigrant” is everything under 8 USC 1101(a)(15): https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:8%20section:1...
Includes H and J. The letters used to refer to those visas comes from the subsections under 1101(a)(15)
It specifically lists H1B as non-immigrant visa on that page, so if you are here working at Google you must leave the country.
If you read the actual policy (it’s on the ISCIS website), it specifically says dual-intent visa are appropriate for AOS in the US.
This is a pretty broad swath of immigrants - H visa (worker and family), L1 (corporate transfer and family) and K1/3 (spouses of US citizen or green card holder).
What this limits are the truly temporary visitors - tourists, students, etc
I originally thought that this new regulation would only apply to, say, B-1/B-2 visitors applying to adjust their status (which is how some immigrants bring their parents, for example), but nowhere in the policy it explicitly excludes so called “dual intent” visas (H or L), so given the whole anti-immigration approach of the current administration, I won't be surprised if it turns out that the regular work visa pathway to green card is affected by that too.
Edit: the policy actually indeed mentions dual intent categories:
> USCIS reminds its officers that applying for adjustment of status is not inconsistent with simultaneously maintaining nonimmigrant status in a category with dual intent.
It does it in a way that will, for sure, cause confusion though.
[1]: https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/memos/PM-...
My understanding is that the dual-intent visa categories have change-of-status rules written into law.
The adjustment of status process is written into law for all non-immigrant visa categories (except for a couple weird ones, like the visas for crew of ships and aircraft).
If you mean that there is a general law related to change-of-status that was passed in the 70s (or whatever), then yes. But I'm referring to specific wording in the dual-status visa categories (and perhaps some others?) that explicitly prevent the administration from applying this change of interpretation to those categories.
Can you point to the actual statute you're talking about? To my knowledge "dual-intent" only means that the requirement in INA 214(b) that they are presumed to be immigrants until they demonstrate otherwise does not apply. I'm unaware of anything in the adjustment of status process that is different for those on dual-intent visas.
I'm not sure which statute you're talking about. The one establishing adjustment of status as a process was the immigration act of 1952; 8 USC 1255:
https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-8-aliens-and-nationality/...
With the caveat that I'm absolutely not an expert in this area and have no clear idea what changes have been made since, it's still highly informative to read this section and the carve-outs that were made at the time.
My current understanding is that the creation of "dual-status" visas (immigration act of 1990) paved the way for using the adjustment-of-status process established 8 USC 1255 for those particular visas (like H1B), and thus makes those visas less vulnerable to a change of interpretation by the executive branch. Contrast to, say, a regular tourist visa.
Yes, I'm asking what carveout for dual-intent visas you're aware of in the Immigration and Nationality Act. The section on adjustment of status, INA 245, doesn't mention dual-intent at all.
Dual intent didn't exist when INA 245 (= 8 USC 1255) was drafted.
My current understanding is that the "carveout", as it were, is the creation of the notion of dual-status itself, in the 1990 immigration act. This made H1b visas both immigrant and non-immigrant visas, and thus eligible for INA 245.
For example, a law firm's opinion:
> However, the USCIS memo suggests the new policy may be less applicable to dual-intent nonimmigrant categories (e.g., H-1B, L-1 and their H-4 and L-2 dependents), where applying for adjustment of status is not inconsistent with maintaining status as a temporary visa holder. Dual intent means that a person can legally intend to reside temporarily in the United States for purposes of their temporary H-1B or L-1 work visa and simultaneously intend to apply for a future permanent residence status. Dual intent is a well-established concept in business immigration law, with many decades of support in federal law and regulation. The USCIS policy memo does caution that maintaining H-1B or L-1 dual-intent status alone is not sufficient, on its own, to warrant a favorable exercise of discretion. The USCIS officer must still weigh whether or not to exercise discretion in approving the adjustment application, but adjustment applications have always been discretionary.
https://www.quarles.com/newsroom/publications/top-5-things-t...
Looks like it applies to all visitors.
From https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/green-card-processes-and-pr...,
> Adjustment of status is the process that you can use to apply for lawful permanent resident status (also known as applying for a Green Card) when you are present in the United States. This means that you may get a Green Card without having to return to your home country to complete visa processing.
"Non-immigrants" is a legal term that means surprisingly more than you think. People on H visas, for example, are "non-immigrants" and would fall under this.
It’s intentional malevolence that’s a given from this admin
The secret sauce is bad faith and crime.
Thankfully, malevolence, bad faith, and crime are unsustainable as governmental motivations.
Unfortunately, they do stir the populace in a cadence long enough that prior examples are are only fragments of memory.
More unfortunately, however, is that the time it takes to heal from such governments is similar to said cadence.
I take that as a given, too, especially considering the diabolical architecture of Miller Thought.
The cruelty is the point. They want people to leave so they can refuse to allow them back in. That's the goal. It's not more complicated than that.
If you come to the U.S. on a visa that’s explicitly labeled a “nonimmigrant” visa for people who are “coming temporarily to the United States to perform services,” then it’s not “cruel” to actually enforce that. Those words are literally in the law.
The law doesn't describe reality, though. The so-called "non-immigrant" visas are really not that. "Non-immigrant" has a specific legal meaning, and like many legal terms, they don't match up with what you might consider everyday usage of the term.
And even if they were truly non-immigrant, who cares? If someone comes to the US, does good, useful work, and stays out of trouble, I want them to be given the opportunity to stay permanently. You may not, perhaps, but, well... I don't care.
When the reality doesn’t match what the law says, that’s a bad thing!
> The so-called "non-immigrant" visas are really not that. "Non-immigrant" has a specific legal meaning
The legal meaning here is the same as the common usage. For example, H1B is defined as someone “who is coming temporarily to the United States to perform services.” The words here are being used in their ordinary way.
> And even if they were truly non-immigrant, who cares?
You should care that the actual operation of the immigration system reflects the laws Congress actually passed through the democratic process. Congress didn’t have the votes to pass a permanent immigration pathway back then, and it doesn’t have the votes today.
If you want to make your case to change the law, be my guest. There’s zero appetite for it in the GOP, and very little willingness to use political capital on the issue by Democrats. Think about the fuss Democrats have made over deporting illegal immigrants. But they’ve said almost nothing about Trump’s attempts to restrict legal immigration.
Are you talking about Hart-Celler or 1990?
1990. The 1990 law was a compromise that kept H visas as a nonimmigrant temporary worker visa. The 1990 law created EB-1 visas, which are explicitly immigrant visas. So there was a clear intent to reserve the guaranteed permanent residency pathway only for people meeting very high standards.
The law is ever changing and is not always a reflection of what's right, moral, ethical, etc.
You have plenty of historical examples of this, most prominently slavery being legal.
It's ok to defend a thing, but just because the law says so is very rarely a good argument.
[flagged]
> The cruelty is the point.
This phrase is one of those viral ear worm kinda things tossed into so many conversations, it doesn't actually mean anything at this point it's so overused.
it's a specific claim, they want to set up the process to be so onerous that immigrants self-deport
It's shorthand for 'emotional argument'
That isn’t cruelty. It’s immigration policy that the rest of the world already has
That's not true. If I'm in Japan on a work visa, for example, I don't need to leave the country to apply for permanent residency. And Japan is not a country famously welcoming of immigration.
You’re going to need to strongly source this one, sounds completely made up.
These are all non-immigrant visa classes. The understanding is that you are temporarily immigrating to the United States. Why should it be surprising then that it is hard to become a permanent resident/immigrant if you explicitly came on a non-immigrant visa?
All I hear is that there's a subset of people that don't want immigrants at all. And for some godforsaken reason they got hold of the executive, legislative and supreme court
>a subset of people that don't want immigrants at all.
Does anyone have data on what this percentage is? Seems like it could be 55%:
https://news.gallup.com/poll/647123/sharply-americans-curb-i...
“Do you want Johny Stinking Foreigner coming to this country, stealing your job while collecting welfare and raping your daughters or would you like how America used to be when there were no immigrants?”
The problem at this point (and not just the US, throughout the west), I don’t think a pollster even needs to slant their question. So many people have been taught that lens over 100+ years of politics.
It’s why I am happy to be Irish American: we never forget a slight, so I am a living vessel for the stories of every time one of my great-grandparents was treated poorly for being a dirty, non-white papist piece of jetsam.
The chain goes ever on. My Italian-Canadian aunts and uncles never forgot the Irish-Canadians who threw rocks at them on the way to school and called them wops.
For sure. I grew up in Southern New England, so Irish v Italian was a “steel sharpens steel” sort of thing.
I'd be willing to bet at least 10% of those 55% are married to or in relationships with immigrants and are going to say "Not like that!" when their loved ones are forced to leave the country. FAFO is coming for them.
And then the overwhelming remainder of those 55% very likely love talking about their Italian/Irish/Polish/Cuban/whatever heritage and see no sense of contradiction.
We’re going for round 3 of jingoist isolationist Americans not understanding how the world or their own culture and government works.
Wonder if we’ll get a third world war that we stay out of until halfway through and then pile on at the end.
That's the only conclusion I can see.
That’s a strawman. There’s wide gulfs between “I want very permissive immigration à la Canada” to “I want the US immigration system as it was under previous administrations” to “I want no immigrants”. For example, I personally want the standards for H1-Bs to be a lot higher, but would willingly grant substantially more immigrant visas to top academics and workers under EB1, EB2 and EB3 visas.
[flagged]
Because coming to the United States on a non-immigrant visa is pretty much the only way that a person can hope to become a US citizen (or green card holder) eventually.
I don’t see a carve out for spousal or family reunification applications.
Those weren’t services for the benefit of the immigrant. Those were a service to the US citizen who sponsored them and had to sign up to be on the hook to take care of their welfare.
The government was very clear to my spouse that she could divorce me the second her application was granted and I was still on the hook for any welfare she may end up needing.
This is just being anti immigrant. The same way they talk about illegal aliens and then you find out they really mean legal asylum seekers because they don’t like the process.
Or when they use the phrase Heritage Americans to discount recent immigrants.
Or when they just straight up say we have too much legal immigration.
The only surprising thing about this change in policy to me is that they are still keeping a veneer of not being racist on it, instead of just being as open as they have in other cases.
This seems like one of the most obtuse or bad faith comments I’ve ever seen.
Practically every country has pathways to permanent residence or citizenship via non immigrant visas, including the US.
Why? Because it makes practical sense. You can be living in the US on a H1 visa for 6 years, and at this point you could have a wife, kids etc, so it makes sense to have a pathway to residency where you don’t have to leave the country at that point.
H1B and O1 are dual intent..
because the government realize more than 75 years ago that conditions change and "adjustment of status" can be in everyone's best interest. People get married, students graduate and get jobs or start companies, and so on. It was never about rubber-stamping greencards; they're still tough to get. It was about making it more efficient and keeping strong players in the US. If you send 100 students back to their home country after they graduate, more than 50 of them won't come back.
There isn't really such a thing as an immigrant visa. These non-immigrant visas are the only legal route to come here, by and large, excluding a few obvious exceptions like marriage to an American.
Also, it's quite hard to become a permanent resident/immigrant even without the obstacle of this being categorically prohibited. My family, for instance, overcame some very low odds of success to make this happen (highly educated, both PhDs, for what it's worth).
I have learned that most Americans, probably through no fault of their own, have absolutely no understanding of how their own immigration system works. The options for legal immigration were _extremely_ limited and byzantine, and have been for decades, long before Trump.
This is what is broken. The current system is archaic and circuitous. It also performs a legal fiction around non-immigrant visas functionally being a path to permanent immigration.
We should increase the number of immigrant visas and make it straightforward what the process is to get a green card like what one would see in other countries like Canada and Australia.
Meanwhile, non immigrant visas should remain non immigrant and very restricted criteria for changing status (eg. marriage) without reapplying abroad.
That's interesting. European countries do have immigrant visas, and I think Canada does too. (As in, a visa that's issued for the sole purpose of letting you immigrate.)
If it seems too interesting it's because it isn't true. There are five functional categories of immigrant visa in America, each with several subcategories: Immediate Relatives (IR), Family Preference (F), Employment Based (EB), Special (S), and Diversity (D). The last one is basically done by lottery.
How many people become permanent residents of the US through these visas, as opposed to the others?
> How many people become permanent residents of the US through these visas, as opposed to the others?
The majority of permanent residents gain their green card through a status adjustment (ie, from a nonimmigrant visa).
Status adjustments are the norm, not some fringe edge case.
In the first quarter of FY 2025 54% of all new permanent residents adjusted, including 70% of those who got green cards through employment (and 84% of the first preference employment category) and 69% of those who got green cards through marriage to US citizen spouses.
The only large category of immigrants that does not come primarily through adjustment are the "family preference" categories for more distant relative such as adult sons and daughters and siblings.
https://ohss.dhs.gov/system/files/2025-07/2025_0725_ohss_leg...
> 69% of those who got green cards through marriage to US citizen spouses
Nice.
That I wouldn't know. I only know the above from the one employee I helped (successfully) immigrate to America
So, at least one
The US has three classes of immigrant visa. See the bottom of the state department visa resources page.
https://www.state.gov/visas/
An immigrant visa is basically the same thing as a green card, i.e. permanent legal residency. Once you have an immigrant visa, you can enter the US and receive your green card in the mail a few weeks later with no additional work. After five years, you can apply for citizenship. You have unlimited rights to work and live in the US.
However, ignoring family-sponsored routes, it is extremely difficult to get an immigrant visa in the first place, usually requiring years + $10k+ of fees to work your way up to it. You also need a sponsor to pay the fees (legally, you can't pay it yourself). Therefore, the vast majority of people start on a non-immigrant (temporary, restricted employment) visa and eventually ask their employer to sponsor a green card.
When people say "if you wanted to immigrate, you should just get an immigrant visa", they usually assume any other route is a hack or loophole. But it's actually the most common way to immigrate by far. You can, of course, interview for a job from abroad and ask the employer to directly sponsor an immigrant visa, but they'd have to wait years (best case) until you could actually step foot in their office. Plus they'd be forking over thousands in legal fees for an employee they haven't even seen in person. Nobody would do this, so the commonly accepted way is to bring an employee over as a temporary worker first and then apply for a green card while they're in the country.
By the way, the same checks apply for immigrant visa applications both inside and outside the US. You might think that employers are scamming the government by turning purported temporary immigrants into permanent ones, but the exact same qualifications checks, eligibility requirements, waitlists and quotas apply if you do the process inside vs. outside the US. It's entirely possible, and common, for green card applications to get denied (and the applicant's location doesn't factor in to this).
I know you believe that, and I know that's what the State Dept calls them, but they're not really how most legal immigrants come here and aren't available to most of the people who apply for greencards today.
As a practical matter, all these immigrant visas pretty much entail a greencard soon thereafter. In other words, to get them is about as easy as getting a greencard in the first place, give or take, more or less.
The discussion here is really about legal workers, students and others on temporary visas who convert to permanent status.
>> excluding a few obvious exceptions like marriage to an American.
this is a good example, because let's say someone is here on a student visa or temp work visa, falls in love and gets married. without the ability to adjust their immigration status they now have to leave the country - probably for years - to apply and hopefully get a greencard. Good luck making that marraige work.
There is no immigrant visa by that logic. Unless you count the one that costs a million dollars.
Spousal one? I got it outside the US
Yeah, that's one notable exception. Doesn't invalidate the generalisation.
I’m pretty sure it did.
Perhaps you're the exception that proves some rule?
That's a pretty big exception.
This.
I cannot be this calm about the administration that is all about the chaos and harm. Thank you for writing what I can't.
> Applying for a greencard while working on an H, J or O-class visa is extremely common.
But it’s not supposed to be extremely common to apply for a green card on an H or J visa. Those visas are explicitly “nonimmigrant” visas for people “temporarily” in the U.S. who have “no intention of abandoning” their foreign residence. Read the statute: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:8%20section:1.... It’s subsections (a)(15), (a)(15)(H)(i)(b) and (a)(15)(J).
The people who thought of this are trying to return the practice to the actual intent of the law. The law was sold to the American public as a temporary worker program. It was not billed as a pathway for permanent residency.
Sure, it’s temporary. But what if you’ve been working in the US for a while, like your job, and want to go permanent? Does it make sense to have to give up your job, move back home where there may not be a US consulate, and then apply from there? Or just apply for permanent residency? Why does your physical location matter if you’re in the country legally already?
If the intention was to limit the number of people becoming permanent residents, then they could have done that explicitly. But by doing it this way, they are just fucking with people. And the talent that built our tech will take all their knowledge and skills back to their home country.
If the intention is to strengthen other countries by stopping their brain drain, then this would be a good move.
Why are you looking at the law from the viewpoint of the foreign worker? Obviously what they want is a quick and easy path to citizenship. But they don’t get a vote.
The question is what was the intention of the H1B program when the law was enacted by duly elected legislators? It was never sold to the public as a path to permanent residency. It certainly wasn’t sold to the public as a system where each H1B granted would lead to citizenship, followed by bringing several family members with them through uncapped family reunification visas.
No, the question really is what is best for the country. Making it easier for bright, hard working people to naturalize as US citizens has been proven for centuries to be great for our country. As others have pointed out, the original intent is not relevant. The current program grew out of a need for more outstanding citizens to grow our economy and help drive innovation. These sorts of slow changes of intent and effect grow out of pragmatic needs. The current administration has suddenly decided decades of precedent and practical needs must be reversed simply to accommodate an odd hatred of anyone who doesn't fit their perverted idea of "American." It is hate born out of a bizarre fear of "foreign," despite the fact that almost all of us came from somewhere else at some point in the past and that has been the key to US strength, leadership, and growth.
It was for billionaires to suppress white collar workers’ wages.
Can't answer for others, but I look at this law from the viewpoint of foreign workers, cause I am a foreigner worker. In Canada. Decided to absolutely never immigrate to the US due to the US blatant rise in xenophobia.
And the US has proven me correct over and over again in that assessment. Will watch with great pleasure the brain drain your country will face, and I honestly hope your economy will completely collapse.
> I honestly hope your economy will completely collapse.
The U.S. passed restrictive immigration laws in 1921. The foreign born population dropped to under 5% by 1970 (compared to 15% today). The decade on either side of that was a golden age for Silicon Valley.
For the record, Sergey Brin, Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, Patrick and John Collison, and Jerry Yang are foreign-born. Probably more would not have been here if their parents had not been allowed to immigrate. Now that you mention it, I would trade a few of them away, but I doubt the market would like to erase their work.
The first three we would be better off without, don’t recognize the last three. Not sure you are really selling your point.
I don't have a particular love for any of them, but the point was they generated billions in value for the valley in what some consider a golden age.
Google at least, I think people would say there was a period of near-universally believing it was a good thing, and an immigrant was a co-founder.
It definitely shaped our society. And if you think it's for the worse, might that suggest college-educated Anglo-adapting immigrants are more dangerous to us than the ones right-wingers are telling us to focus on?
Sergey Brin recently said having to pay taxes on his 280 billion to the state took him in and where he built his business was akin to the horrors of boleshivsm that his family fled from.
That is your “good” immigrant. He is the right winger.
The original point was only that a Silicon Valley "golden age" can coexist with immigration. Admittedly it could be a better argument if it holistically made a recommendation, but at least as a starting point it tries to refute that idea.
It can but not under the current system. People are far less likely to support social safety nets in a high immigration society. There just isn’t the social cohesion and trust necessary.
OK, then why has there always been the ability to adjust your immigration status for someone like an H1B since 1952, and and why was it expanded in the 90's to allow categories - like overstayed visits - pay a fee and apply to convert without leaving? It was an acknowledgement that millions of people are already embedded in U.S. families and labor markets, and Congress preferred a penalty-fee legalization path over forcing departure because that was in the best interest of the country. It's that last part that Trump ignores.
The US is a common law system, where the law is a combination of statutes and precedent. The statutes alone are insufficient for interpreting the law.
Your approach would be more correct in a civil law system, but there are no pure civil law systems anywhere in the world. In actual civil law countries, once there is an established interpretation of the law, it usually cannot be changed without legislative action.
People change their minds. Is that illegal? Maybe they had the intention to only be in the US temporarily at first, but now they'd like to get permanent residence. Why shouldn't they be able to apply for it, from the US, while still on the temporary visa?
Then the administration can say yes or no, in the same way that they can say yes or no to someone applying from abroad.
BS!! H is a dual intent visa. Do you have any idea how the law works?
> You can't reasonably get a job at a US firm while being physically located somewhere else and on the other side of an uncertain and greatly attenuated greencard application process. That's just not how this works.
For IT jobs - why can't you?
I believe there are tax/nation border issues. Can a Polish citizen work for a US company while in Poland. They need to pay Polish income tax. Does the company need to withhold their taxes. Usually companies will have a Polish subsidiary so the employee is working for a Polish company in Poland.
Not to mention what does the company do for the I-9. The emploee has no authorization to work for a US company.
> Whoever thought of this is either intentionally malevolent or inexcusably incomprehending of the immigration process.
Have you not been paying attention?
I agree with mostly everything you’re saying; but it’s not uncommon to be processed via your local consulate, even if you are already living in the US.
This is usually just for the final issuing of the GC, and where USCIS approval has already happened (for instance, on an EB1A).
People frequently do this so they don’t have the travel restriction. Source: I just did it.
> but it’s not uncommon to be processed via your local consulate, even if you are already living in the US.
It's relatively unusual. 84% of EB1s adjusted rather than apply at consulates in the last quarter USCIS released data for. Maybe it made sense for your circumstances.
https://ohss.dhs.gov/system/files/2025-07/2025_0725_ohss_leg...
> Whoever thought of this is either intentionally malevolent or inexcusably incomprehending of the immigration process.
It's always weird to me to see confusion/uncertainty such as this.
It's intentionally malevolent. Obviously. MAGA types hate immigration. They make a lot of noise about illegal immigration, but the fact is that they hate all kinds of immigration (unless you're white-looking and conservative enough). Anything they can do to make it harder for non-citizens to stay in the US is exactly the point for them.
And more the better if they can sow fear and threat of cruelty while doing it. That's their playbook. It's MAGA 101.
It was more a bit of rhetorical flourish than serious doubt as to which motivation is the true explanation. :-)
I’d encourage you to read the policy before you get too upset.
The policy specifically calls out immigration violations as the problem. It doesn’t seem crazy to me to restrict the benefit of AOS in the US to people who have NOT committed immigration violations.
In addition, the policy specifically calls out that AOS in country is entirely appropriate where immigrants hold dual intent visas. This would include H1-B (skilled workers and family), L1 (corporate transfer) and K1/3 (spouses of citizens).
Well, the short summary of it all is that the US is the very curious case of a superpower attempting to become a third world country.
GC issuances were already way down because DHS has basically stopped working on processing them. Now they're taking the next step and saying the ability to apply for a GC while in the US was a "loophole" which is utter horse shit; "adjustment of status" has been part of immigration since the 50's, and was expanded in the 90's and 2000 with support from all parties to increase efficiency, reduce the backlog and keep strong economic players in the US. You may notice that this adminstration has figured out they could weaponize inefficiency and a huge backlog if you don;t give a shit about the economic health of the country.
This is a long winded way of saying you're right with "intentionally malevolent"; this is the next step in a pretty transparent plan.
I think what this actually means is that you can apply permanent residency in the US, but you can only get the physical green card outside of the US when the case is approved. So, the last step to get the card need to from outside the country.
What is the point of that?
They might as well mail it to your home. That’s what happens today.
They are intentionally malevolent, and at this point, it's safe to assume that anyone making excuses for it is as well.
Intentionally malevolent is kind of their thing in this administration
Intentionally malevolent.
Not surprised. There are worse things in the works.
> Far from a loophole, applying from inside the US is the only reasonable way to apply for a greencard.
So that's kind of the point, to make the system arbitrary and capricious. It's to make the lives of immigrants more difficult.
For example, when one applies for adjustment of status ("AoS", meaning the I485), there are several things you can also apply for, most notably an Employment Authorization Document ("EAD", I765) and/or Advance Parole ("AP", I131) to allow you to travel.
In years gone by, you'd get the temporary documents in 3-4 months typically and your green card in under a year (after filing the I485, not for the entire process, which can be substantially longer).
So this administration has seemingly started a process for marriage cases where you file an I130 and I485 concurrently (the I130 is to prove you're free to marry and you have legally married, the I485 is to adjust status) where USCIS will approve the I130 but then just sit on the I485, not approving or denying the case, and never issue the EAD or AP so you can't work. Lots of people can't afford to not work for 1-2 years while this all plays out.
But that's the point.
Also, there are rumors that Palantir is getting invovled here. Rumor is that USCIS is sitting on I485 approvals while they wait for a new system to come online that will let USCIS look at way more data, likely including social media data, to find reasons to deny cases, so they don't want to approve cases before it's available. This is uncofirmed but there's a lot of anecodtal data for approved I130, no decision on the I485.
For marriage cases, this administraiton clearly wants people to consular process instead because the administration has broad powers that can't be challenged to simply withhold visas to nationals of certain countries and those bans can't be challenged in court, as per Trump v. Hawaii [1].
This is a problem for people who have made asylum claims because they realistically can't use the passport from whcih they've claimed asylum (if they even have it) and they certainly couldn't or shouldn't go back to their home country. A separate rule generally requires people to use the embassy of their country of birth. Again, that's to make life difficult.
It's not clear to me yet how this rule change affects those on H1Bs that want to adjust. Is the Trump admin going to require H1B holders to leave the country to adjust? That's going to create problems if so. The asylum case and the home country embassy rule mentioned above are two big reasons.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._Hawaii
> Whoever thought of this is either intentionally malevolent or inexcusably incomprehending of the immigration process.
It’s the former: intentionally malevolent. Trump cabinet members, including Stephen Miller have said this is exactly why.
Don't assume incompetence at this point--Miller (and Trump) are anti-immigrant, full stop.
intentionally malevolent
Everything anti-immigration under both Trump terms comes directly from the fascist Stephen Miller. From blocking Muslim countries to trying to end birth right citizenship.
Of course he has full support from Trump who usually lies about knowing fascists he's had lunch with or tells to "stand back and stand by."
And endlessly lies to demonize immigrants. "They're not sending their best." "They're eating the cats and dogs."
SPLC has an article on Miller if you want to waste your time.
https://www.splcenter.org/resources/extremist-files/stephen-...
After 10 years of his bs I can't imagine anyone not realizing trump, maga, and heritage foundation people aren't intentionally malevolent
This is the point. Welcome to America.
> Whoever thought of this is either intentionally malevolent or inexcusably incomprehending of the immigration process.
It surprises me a lot. You can be a politician making a career on a hatred of immigrants, but your prosperity is bound to the prosperity of USA, so why to destroy it? It cannot be just malevolent, it is plain sheer stupidity. It seems to me even worse than roman elites fighting their civil wars while Rome itself was crumbling. They were in a situation of a tragedy of commons, stupid but understandable. But USA politicians really going against immigration is just something else. You can always look tough on immigrants while not hurting brain drain from all over the world.
There were dumb rumors that Trump is a Kremlin agent, but now I don't think they are so dumb. It is not enough to be a fool to inflict so much damage to USA.
[dead]
[dead]
There are people with billions of dollars that want the population of the US to drop significantly. It's hard to control 300+ million people, and that many people can just remove unpopular governments by marching in the millions. Also, I believe the "Georgia Guidestones" if I'm not mistaken, that have writing about reducing the population of the USA to 500,000. I much more manageable number. Or maybe I'm just reading too much into things.
Yes, you are reading too much into things. The ultrawealthy are supporting the current MAGA nonsense because they wish to permanently lock up the massive wealth transfer they've engineered over the past two decades, and the only way to do that is through a combination of nationalism, populism, and fascism.
Every part of the MAGA platform is a smokescreen of outrage, intended as cover for policies that favor the ultrawealthy.
An aware and motivated population legislates and taxes their way out of the establishment and perpetuation of dynasties; this has been done in the past.
The UK, the EU, Japan, and Australia all have identical rules to this policy.
All of my interactions with German immigration have not only happened in Germany, but at an office in the town I was living in at the time: the initial residence permit application, the first renewal, and the renewal where the Beamterin (government employee) helpfully pointed out that as the spouse of a German citizen, I had been resident long enough to go ahead and apply for a Niederlassungserlaubnis (permanent residence; aka, German equivalent of a Green Card).
Six weeks and 255 Euro later, it was in my hand. I have to “renew” it every ten years, but that’s only because the card needs to match my US passport number (and means I don’t have to carry that book around); there’s no interview or document gathering.
In the EU you can apply for a permanent residency card when you're in the country. One of the prerequisites is how long you have been in the country where you're applying. It seems unlikely the other countries have the same policy as the US has now.
UK's 'indefinite leave to remain' (closest thing to a green card) requires that you apply from within the UK. https://www.gov.uk/long-residence/apply-to-settle
Posting comments in bad faith is not funny, e.g. EU permanent residency requires 5 (or 7) years to have been resident already.
You apply for permanent residency in Japan from Japan.
Which is also the only way that makes sense... Permanent residency but you have to be... Outside the country? lol
It is false for the UK.
The whole system of US of needing to leave the country to even renew visas is absolutely bizarre and does not have analogues in most other countries (at least EU/UK)
The logic of it is that if your visa renewal is rejected they don’t have to catch you and deport you. You already deported yourself.
Having to go abroad when a visa/PR has already been granted is totally pointless. Green cards are mailed to your home in the US right now.
Australian immigration rules are definitely not like this.
Whenever I see something this obviously false on a forum, it’s always a head scratcher.
Perpetrator of misinformation or victim? Ignorant or malevolent?
Completely false for Australia.
Nonsense.
I hear "I'm not anti immigrant, I'm anti illegal immigrant" a lot. To which there is an easy solution: increase the number of legal immigrants we allow.
Instead we're doing exactly the opposite, cutting down on legal immigration as well. Making it hard for me to believe that it was ever about illegal immigration at all.
Even worse, with changes like this we are taking large swathes of legal immigrants and transforming them into illegal immigrants. It reads to me that a substantial number of green card applicants will now be subject to ICE detention.
The cynical take is that with US companies expecting productivity increases via AI, they need to protect the US workers from competition via foreign labor. The current administration was voted in with an anti-immigration mandate so this is consistent. The practical reality is that you are not safe on any visa, it can be terminated arbitrarily by the state department and your recourse is likely expensive and timely.
The current admin does not understand that our lead comes from immigrants. Sorry, but most Americans are kind of mediocre academically.
I do not understand why the "American First" MAGA crowd can't get it through their thick skulls that everything nice they have, including our technological lead, is built by immigrants that are just smarter than they are.
This is just an ego problem I suspect. It bruises the ego of MAGA voters to realize that immigrants actually are smarter, they actually do get paid more (and not because they're "taking the jobs" but because they are actually more desirable.)
> The current admin does not understand that our lead comes from immigrants. Sorry, but most Americans are kind of mediocre academically.
> I do not understand why the "American First" MAGA crowd can't get it through their thick skulls that everything nice they have, including our technological lead, is built by immigrants that are just smarter than they are.
Which specific Americans are kind of mediocre academically? Which specific immigrants are smarter than the average American and are therefore responsible for the nice things about America?
Not all American citizens have the same level of intelligence, nor do all people attempting to or actually succeeding in immigrating to the US. To the extent that "everything nice" including technological development is grounded in the average level of intelligence of the people currently inhabiting a country (which I think is a substantial part of but not the entirety of the explanation), this doesn't necessarily imply that immigration which isn't specifically gated on the intelligence of individual immigrants will improve a country along this metric.
And in fact the US has a huge number of legal pathways for immigration (including some like "immigrating illegally, having a natural-born-citizen child on US soil, and having that child sponsor your legal immigration decades later) that have nothing at all to do with how intelligent a given immigrant is.
And of course, immigration itself changes how "mediocre academically" Americans are, by changing who Americans are - an immigrant might eventually become a citizen; or if they don't their children born on US soil will be.
Go to any top STEM PhD program and do a headcount. I don’t know what’s going on now thanks to this wave of xenophobia and funding cut madness, but back when I was in one (Princeton Physics, that was last decade), everywhere I go it was at least 50-50 in terms of international representation. You can also count the massive number of clearly foreign born faculty. It could not be more obvious.
Edit: And before you mention O-1 and friends for highly accomplished individuals (maybe that's not affected for now? Honestly have no idea), this kind of policy has wide ranging second order effects even if it doesn't affect top talent directly. Like I said I was U.S. educated myself, once I would encourage bright minds from elsewhere to pursue a higher education in the U.S., now I heavily advise them from even setting foot in the U.S.
> Go to any top STEM PhD program and do a headcount
Having done a STEM PhD, No. STEM PhDs are merely easily exploited labor by STEM departments. The PhDs and postdocs from foreign countries are typically a notch lower than the US PhDs and postdocs (especially the postdocs, because in many foreign countries you can do a 3 year PhD). It's just that most americans won't accept 100 hour workweeks in exchange for a $50k paycheck, and won't falsify the science to stay in pursuit of the next rung on the academic ladder.
But foreign PhD students and postdocs who are being paid partially in the legal right to reside in the US might well be willing to accept those conditions. Just as an H1B visa tech employee is willing to accept lower wages and less freedom to challenge their employer, or an illegal immigrant farm laborer is willing to accept those working conditions in return for not being in whatever country they illegally immigrated from.
Any justification at all for the US government to give a visa to someone - including student visas, including visas for postdocs doing ostensible research - will be gamed by people whose primary concern is access to the US. Demand for access to the US among the myriad peoples of the world is that strong.
Sounds like the bitter words of someone who got pushed out. I know the type, I’m no longer an academic myself. Sorry it didn’t work out for you, not sorry to claim that the overwhelming majority of the most important advancements are still made by people with PhDs, however many unsuccessful ones there are.
I did fine for myself. You're crazy or brainwashed if you don't think there's something wrong going on in the academe. I have long conversations with my friend (who is a professor at ASU) about it, I don't think he's blowing smoke up my ass.
I think there’s something very wrong with every single walk of society, and academia’s problems are far from the most grave. If I’m given the choice again, I take a rotten academia over fucking ad machines and quants that do no good / actively do harm in this world (both industries try to hire me and the likes of me) every time, even when I know I’m gonna leave at the end.
Ad machines and quants are bad. But fraudulent science is worth NEGATIVE, because good scientists burn out or don't get promoted because they spin their wheels trying to reproduce bad science (losing time on the ladder) and bad scientists who either make shit results themselves or don't speak up about bad science and "build" on top of it, they get promoted, and the rot rises to the top instead of the cream.
At least everyone knows that there's something icky about ads and quants, and good people like you reject the lucrative opportunities. Most people generally think that science can do no bad at any scale, and that just throwing money at the problem/good intentions are all you need. The enterprise of science has a truthseeking model that it needs to uphold in order to succeed at its advertised ends, and it's desperately becoming the exact opposite of what it should be, and nobody has reasonable remedies to fix it within the current system. If you have a suggestion on how to fix what we've gotten ourselves into, please , I'd love to hear it.
Most of these anti immigrant takes are ultimately sour grapes from people who were often rightfully left behind or economically downlifted by their lack of willingness to adapt to the changing world we are in.
Most of these who think that wasp Americans are harmed by high skilled immigrants are admitting that they can’t beat them. Pathetic slave morality which is life denying and ontologically damnable.
I'm not a wasp American. I'm a scientist that wanted to publish real science. And yes. I was not good enough beat cheats and frauds.
[flagged]
I saw seven cases of outright fraud by postdocs/grad students while I was in grad school, they were perpetrated by:
Chinese, Chinese, Greek, Canadian, Chinese, Chinese, German
They were called out by:
American, Indian, American, Polish, American, American, American.
Respectively
Why would an American smart enough to become a stem phd toil away for a decade in poverty under an abusive university system instead of becoming rich in tech?
[flagged]
If you mean “intelligent” Americans who work on fucking blood sucking ad tech or garbage financial engineering rather than pushing the boundaries of science and technology, sure.
It’s not that far in the future that you’ll start seeing quite a few ‘intelligent Americans’ in European and Chinese PhD programs :)
The flow of students between China and the USA is effectively unidirectional and always has been. What insight do you have to suggest that this will change in the near future?
> Which specific Americans are kind of mediocre academically?
Most of them. We have normalized getting Bs and Cs in our schools. Our school curricula are mediocre, and our culture around education is as well. It is distinctly uncool to care about education here.
> Which specific immigrants are smarter than the average American and are therefore responsible for the nice things about America?
Most of our best doctors, scientists, and engineers are all immigrants. Look at the ethnic breakdown of top AI researchers at the top labs.
> which isn't specifically gated on the intelligence of individual immigrants will improve a country along this metric.
It's not just intelligence. Immigrants overall have more grit, more entrepreneurial spirit, and more ambition and willingness to succeed than median Americans. It takes a lot to uproot your life and attempt to make it elsewhere. The vast majority of immigrants I've met embody the American spirit far better than most born-and-raised Americans I've met.
> And in fact the US has a huge number of legal pathways for immigration
That we are making harder and needlessly painful, which will in turn reduce the amount of highly intelligent and capable immigrants we get as well.
> Most of them. We have normalized getting Bs and Cs in our schools. Our school curricula are mediocre, and our culture around education is as well. It is distinctly uncool to care about education here.
Would you agree that caring about school performance constitutes acting white? Would you agree that acting white is uncool? Less flippantly, how much of American culture around education is specifically driven by a desire to eliminate or avoid noticing conspicuous racial discrepancies in measured educational attainment?
> Most of our best doctors, scientists, and engineers are all immigrants. Look at the ethnic breakdown of top AI researchers at the top labs.
What is the specific ethnic breakdown of the set of people you consider to be top AI researchers at the top labs? How does this compare to 1) the current ethnic breakdown of the totality of the United States of America, and 2) what the ethnic breakdown of the United States of America would be under your preferred immigration policy.
> It's not just intelligence. Immigrants overall have more grit, more entrepreneurial spirit, and more ambition and willingness to succeed than median Americans. It takes a lot to uproot your life and attempt to make it elsewhere. The vast majority of immigrants I've met embody the American spirit far better than most born-and-raised Americans I've met.
What kinds of immigrants have you met, and not met? How many of them can you talk with in the language they are fluent in, in order to get an accurate sense of the degree to which they embody the American spirit?
> That we are making harder and needlessly painful, which will in turn reduce the amount of highly intelligent and capable immigrants we get as well.
That might be worth it, if those highly intelligent and capable immigrants would, once they are settled in the US, turn their capacity and intelligence towards making US immigration policy more open to less intelligent and capable immigrants (e.g. their less capable and intelligent family members, or just liberalizing immigration policy in general).
> Would you agree that caring about school performance constitutes acting white?
No, the opposite. In my experience immigrants care far more about getting good grades, whereas most multigenerational American students were happy with Bs or even Cs.
> What is the specific ethnic breakdown of the set of people you consider to be top AI researchers at the top labs? How does this compare to 1) the current ethnic breakdown of the totality of the United States of America, and 2) what the ethnic breakdown of the United States of America would be under your preferred immigration policy.
A lot more Asians. Very few Asians. A lot more Asians.
> What kinds of immigrants have you met, and not met? How many of them can you talk with in the language they are fluent in, in order to get an accurate sense of the degree to which they embody the American spirit?
Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Russian, Nigerian, Mexican, etc. So many.
The only ones not fluent in English were the Hispanic immigrants, but despite this they better embody the American spirit than most Americans. I don't need to be fluent in Spanish to see that (though mine is passable).
The skilled first and second generation American immigrants do extraordinarily well. Most of my second generation Asian peers are clearing mid 6 to low 7 figures in their 30s, many working on their own ventures or at bold startups. And my Hispanic landscaper that came here with nothing, now owns a business enough to pay him and his four employees.
Now compare this to the median multigenerational American - working a dead-end job, comparatively far less grit, ambition, and risk-taking, too comfortable so there is not as much a drive to be exceptional or prove themselves.
Which group do you think the Founding Fathers would say better reflects the American spirit? To me immigrants are clearly the better reflection of the best aspects of American culture.
> Which group do you think the Founding Fathers would say better reflects the American spirit? To me immigrants are clearly the better reflection of the best aspects of American culture.
United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” March 26, 1790:
> Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States.
Note: “free white person […] of good character”
US Constitution Preamble:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Note: “ourselves and our Posterity”
I don't think the letter of the document captures the spirit.
Private correspondence corroborates how the founders felt about these issues. They would not have seen things your way. You’re appealing to them as a disingenuous rhetorical technique to validate your own ill-conceived arguments, not because you actually know anything about who they were or what they thought.
slop
It's a simple matter of math. The USA has less than 5% of the world's population. It's statistically impossible for that 5% to be the smartest 5% in the world. Therefore, if we want the smartest people in the world, we have to allow immigrants.
The smartest aren't uniformly distributed across the Earth.
They almost certainly are, at least before we account for education. Education is, of course, not uniform.
But... the US also has not the best education, so.
> account for education
and nutrition, pollution, infectious diseases, etc
That's true. It is possible that the smartest 5% are all here in the USA. But it is statistically unlikely that's true.
You put words in my mouth. I don't claim that the smartest are clustered in the USA.
So your original comment was somewhat of a tangent. the point jedberg made is that it is in the interest of a country with a strong economic and academic base to welcome the smartest people from across the world, since it is unlikely that all the smartest people in the world are in the US.
Yes, but Jedberg makes it sound as though -- given that only a small fraction of the world's population lives in the USA -- the country has little chance of succeeding if it is to go without immigrants. I disagree, and an extreme example I could offer as a counterpoint is Japan: tiny population (relatively), yet outsized performance.
Japan has struggled economically for decades. One of the fixes being put forth is to greatly increase immigration.
So we need leetcode for immigration now?
[flagged]
No? Not sure how you reached that conclusion. I'm just stating that the USA needs immigrants if we want to increase our median intelligence because we can't possibly have the smartest people in the world born here.
so in order to increase our median intelligence, we should make the process super easy?
Yes.
Why should immigration be kafkaesque? It is in the US interest to have a pipeline of smart, hard-working, innovative people come to this country. The US is/was in many ways a great country for them to come, but we are not the only international destination for such talent. Why would we want to put up such artificial barriers to entry, if we agree on the premises I laid out?
The purpose of this is to discourage legal immigration.
So what prevents the incompetent and lazy from immigrating?
Someone immigrating is almost certainly less incompetent and lazy than the median American. Immigration requires uprooting your entire life, and it requires entrepreneurial spirit and grit. That's why many immigrant groups dramatically out-earn American-born citizens.
TBH most immigrants I've met better embody the American spirit than most Americans.
What about the immigrant groups that don’t dramatically out-earn American-born citizens?
This is you in this thread: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions#Strategy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method
[flagged]
Are you implying that we should be trying to weaken Haiti?
[flagged]
Do you consider it humanitarian to further weaken a nation where the average gdp per capita is less than $3000 and who are in no way a threat to us? In what way do the immigrants arriving from there improve America? Can you give a coherent argument? I can easily argue the opposite from statistics:
From Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS) and Annual Social and Economic Supplement of the Current Population Survey (ASEC CPS):
Of Haitian immigrants ages 25 to 64, 17.1 percent have not graduated from high school, 30.3 percent have only a high school degree, 30 percent have some college, and 22.6 percent have at least a college degree. This compares to 6.6 percent, 25.4 percent, 30.4 percent, and 37.6 percent for U.S.-born Americans. (2022 ACS)
Of households headed by Haitian immigrants, 52.7 percent use at least one major welfare program. For households headed by native-born Americans it is 28.4 percent.5 (2023 ASEC CPS)
So it’s clear that the previous immigration regime that allowed this was optimizing for something other than improving America or intentionally weakening rival countries.
[flagged]
Enough. Any more of this and we're banning the account. We don't care what your opinions are, but personal abuse is not allowed here, and just in the past three days your comments have included these phrases:
> Which nation state propaganda mill are you being paid from?
> You immigrant hating America First losers are going to weaken the country
> Not much more going on in that empty dome. Honestly the void your brain represents is kind of relaxing
> Fuck have you never even heard of the Jungle?
> You would be bitching and moaning just as much if Congress directly made these rules and regulations.
> You first, cultist
You've been here long enough and participated here enough that you know this is unacceptable. I don't want to ban you, but if you keep this up we have to assume that you want to be banned.
ill take a week off to cool down then
Asking basic questions about finances and job searches/security, perhaps? Do you have any original ideas or assertions to make, or do you only ask sealioning questions?
Obviously those smart people are going to go where they feel welcome, rather than climbing through obstacles designed purely for humiliation and malevolence.
Just stop being a jerk.
The current American immigration process is not figure-out-able. As any immigration lawyer will tell you, there's strategies with higher or lower chances of success, but there's nothing at all like a roadmap which will definitely lead to permanent residency if you follow it well.
The smartest 5% are able to figure out where they're not welcome.
https://yaledailynews.com/articles/international-grad-school...
come on, don't do this here.
I’m not sure US academia is mediocre. It’s more like… normal?
But America being what it is, it attracts those with most potential creating and sustaining a network effect.
But there’s nothing intrinsically good or bad of the US, and it’s quite easy to mess up the equilibrium and go back to the mediocrity you mentioned
It’s a numbers game. Taking the best from the world talent pool is going to provide better results than from the much smaller American talent pool. Unless your country has more than a billion people, you need to look at world talent.
The US has to especially encourage immigration since we have gone out of our way to make the education system systemically broken. Our funnel is broken on purpose. Look at countries with strong showings in things like chess or running. Why is that? They encourage large populations of kids to participate, the larger the pool the more top performers.
It's not an ego problem. It's a racial one.
> including our technological lead, is built by immigrants
That's my point to get the Constitution changed (Amendment #28) to allow an immigrant to run for POTUS. We love US more than natural-born citizens. Our interests are far more aligned with the betterment of the country than anyone else's.
Oh boy! If we are talking about constitutional amendments I can probably think of a few that would be much more important than that.
>Our interests are far more aligned with the betterment of the country than anyone else's.
Generally, yes.
But then there's Elon Musk.
Peter Thiel too: while a US citizen by birth, he defacto immigrated to the US from elsewhere (as in: moved from another country to settle in the US).
Immigration for rich folks is a bit different, see.
Peter Thiel is a naturalized US citizen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Thiel
Musk was (mostly) great until 2020; Something happened to him during the COVID timeframe.
I'd not want Musk, Thiel, or Palantir guy to run for POTUS. Probably, there should be a clause that if your net worth exceeds the threshold, you shouldn't be eligible to run until you donate all of it to the government, with no option to get it back ever. Some more clauses can be added as well.
Edit 1: I think another clause, maybe most important, a minimum one term public office service experience required only as a Senator, Rep, Governor, or a Mayor.
>Peter Thiel is a naturalized US citizen
Oops, my bad, somehow I thought his parents naturalized before he was born.
Thanks for pointing this out; this helps the point I'm trying to make.
>I'd not want Musk, Thiel, or Palantir guy to run for POTUS. Probably, there should be a clause that if your net worth exceeds the threshold, you shouldn't be eligible to run until you donate all of it to the government, with no option to get it back ever. Some more clauses can be added as well.
Edit 1: I think another clause, maybe most important, a minimum one term public office service experience required only as a Senator, Rep, Governor, or a Mayor.
Can I vote for you and your proposals somewhere?
At this point, this reads like "I have a dream". But it's one worthy of trying to make a reality.
>Musk was (mostly) great until 2020;
Aside from running the Thai cave diver's life (and slandering him as a "pedo") for daring to rescue the children instead of letting them die waiting for Musk's non-existent submarine to rescue them.
That, and being generally known for working his employees to the bone.
And the whole "I need to spread my superior seed" conveyor belt approach to having children.
And the "420 funding secured" nonsense.
Oh, and the Hyperloop hype, which he did with the sole intent to kill high speed rail in California (which he succeeded in).
And the Boring Company scam.
And... nevermind, he was a known, not OK", great asshole before* he went full Nazi, but I can agree that he was "great" in comparison to what he's become.
>Something happened to him during the COVID timeframe.
It's ketamine. Ketamine happened.
Why would I want an immigrant smarter than me? If I have a 120 iq and he has a 130 iq then he is going to take my job. You really aren’t convincing me here.
You reasonably might not. We would though. Who prevails, the small-but-concentrated interest, or the vast-but-diffuse one? It's the central question of all public policy.
Why would the average us citizen want to import a smarter foreign competitor. There are far more workers than there are ceos.
An accountant wants better, more reliable, and cheaper software. They're not intrinsically motivated to subsidize native-born software developers.
No they don’t. They want to work 40 hours a week, go on vacation twice a year, drive a couple of cars, have their wife stay home and raise the kids. All things possible 70 years ago but no longer possible.
Accountants and software developers do not in fact share a fate. I know it doesn't feel that way when you're commenting on HN, but there are whole lucrative professions that do not care at all what happens in ours.
The same decent at math, moderately ambitious people do well at both. Not 100% overlap but pretty large. If one side collapses the other side will get flooded.
Because I want to work with talented coworkers and do business with talented counterparts and socialize with people who aren’t scared of immigrants.
Because without having the smartest people, the reigning superpower is totally, utterly, unequivocally fucked.
Power is a function of technological superiority. The moment you it stops attracting the smartest people, a country will fall behind on military and economic power.
Which matters not one lick to the average citizen. Norway is no superpower yet life is pretty good there.
I find it a bit hard to believe you actually think such a line of reasoning would be convincing. I think many MAGA voters in fact are aware that many of the immigrants are smarter than them, and hence they do the rational thing of trying to reduce competition. I don't understand why you wrote "taking the jobs" in quotes. That's exactly what's happening- superior immigrant applicants are taking jobs that would have been theirs.
This is a very racist comment, or atleast smells of xenophilia. "Americans are kind of mediocre academically". You can't use the term Americans are [all], followed by a blanket statement.
If that was about any other class of people it'd be downvoted to oblivion, but for some reason Americans and white can always be talked shit on.
This is the kind of shit US AMERICANS are talking about, this xenophilia bullshit that is infecting our nation.
I'm born and raised in the US. I don't think it's racist at all, it's just true.
Go to any high school and see how little American schoolchildren care about academics vs immigrant schoolchildren. Academic excellence being uncool is baked into American culture. You're a "nerd" if you do well and care. Getting a B is "good enough." And "C's get degrees." This mentality is plainly unacceptable in most immigrant cultures.
I took almost two dozen AP classes in my day. In each one, the concentration of immigrant groups was far higher than the rest of the school at large.
Expand this out to college. Look at the admissions for top colleges without affirmative action. How do their demographics compare to the rest of the country? - MIT, 47% Asian. Berkeley, 41% Asian. UCLA and Stanford, 27% Asian.
6% of the US population is Asian, and 75% is white, and these schools don't have affirmative action. If all groups were equally competitive, admissions would reflect demographics.
(Ethnicity here is a crude approximation for immigration recency. I am not saying one ethnic group is better than another - simply that children of immigrants excel.)
The same goes for top PhD programs, the highest paying STEM jobs, even C-suite positions at big tech.
I am American and when I say that we have a problem where most Americans do not give a fuck about education, I am not being racist, I am just pointing out the truth. Over decades, our culture has bred an anti-intellectual attitude, one that prioritizes being cool and sociable over getting shit done. This is the antithesis of progress and ambition. It is great for sitting around and demanding handouts.
Immigrants more closely approximate the culture the founding fathers intended for the US. They uproot their lives to build something great. They get off their asses, do exceptionally well, and are carrying the nation on their backs. The rest of our culture could learn from them, instead of blaming our problems on them and turning them away.
dude... using stats to back up your racism doesn't make it non racist. WTF are you talking about?
You didn't actually read the comment, you're just angry because you saw some stats. The ethnicity is a simple proxy for immigration, something you'd have seen if you actually read the comment. Also: Why do Trump supporters always devolve into one-line quips instead of engaging with the argument?
A lot of American citizens are nonwhite.
Our lead does not come from immigrants. The American people, who are a distinct people, have shown time and again a potential for great things.
Even if it were true, there are wider effects of immigration that you must consider. The purpose of life isn't to increase GDP. It reflects poorly on you that you must cast your opponents as being stupid and spiteful. Could it be that MAGA voters are humans with real motivations and rationales?
By “American People” you mean native Americans?
Because Literally everyone else in the US is an immigrant. Or are you referring to the Spanish that settled the west? The French in the far south? The Italians and Jews that populated New York? The British and Africans?
I’m painting in broad strokes, but to say “the American People” as if it’s somehow distinct from immigrants is just ladder pulling.
> Because Literally everyone else in the US is an immigrant
I'm not American, but this conversation happens a lot in Canada where I'm from too
I was born in Canada, in a Canadian hospital. I've never had any other home than this country.
I'm descended from immigrants, but I am not an immigrant. I'm not considered indigenous either, that's a whole other type of person.
What a strange thing, to be from a place but have many people say "it's not your place, it's stolen" as if I had a say in that. If I went anywhere else, I would be an immigrant there.
Very odd.
The point is your parents, or their parents, were immigrants. But those very same people we are now trying to restrict from coming here.
Meaning, if we time travel and apply these restrictions, you yourself would have never been a citizen. In fact, you probably wouldn't even exist. Do you see the problem?
That, my friend, is ladder pulling. When you destroy the very conditions that allow you to thrive.
The entire world has been settled and resettled. You can't let past conquests stop you from having a country, laws and borders or all countrys would be illegitimate.
>The point is your parents, or their parents, were immigrants.
Or my parents, parents, parents, parents, parents, parents were... And if they came here for a better life, obviously there was some mind virus that was going on in their home country that forced them to leave in search of a better life. Don't try and bring that mind virus here if you had to immigrate here to escape it.
The US in particular has always been made up of immigrants. I don't know how it works for canada. But for the US, that's always been the case. We're a country by immigrants, for immigrants. An American identity is not one of skin color or race. To suggest otherwise is not just a ahistorical, it's anti-American.
There is no mind virus. People wish to rewrite history to fuel their own delusions. They don't require enforcement around immigration, they require medication and perhaps a history lesson or two.
Measured as a percentage of population, we have more immigration now than we did in the 1890's peak. Given our drastically larger population, this is a problem.
Suicidal empathy mixed with this 'idea that america is illegitimate' cause we are a 'nation of immigrants', and we 'took land from the natives' is quite frankly retarded. And i can use the word retarded because i mean it in the literal since, "a verb meaning to slow down, delay, or impede a process."
Measured as a percentage of population, this graph:
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/imm...
shows the USofA having much the same level of immigration as it had from 1860 through until 1920.
Holy shit, we've gone form 4.5% of the pop and 10M to 14.5% to 50M?(!)in 40 years since 1970? Isn't that alarming? we are at the same level of immigration as the potato famine?
Also, check the definition of that chart... We have far more "illegal immigration" today than we did back in 1890. So.... egg zack ly. Don't you think that's a big problem considering our current size? I'm all for 'some' immigration, but the level we are at today is totally unsustainable when we have an absolute homeless epidemic in all of our cities?
Are you certain that all US cities have "an absolute homeless epidemic"?
I guess its was inevitable that Suicidal Empathy guys would break containment and make Hacker News accounts.
Au contraire, the actual suicide is blowing up our economy just to stick it to some brown people. Make no mistake, dumping tens of billions of dollars into ICE and supporting a man with the fiscal responsibility of a rock will not help the American economy.
It is truly astounding to me what lengths Republicans will go to to "win". Well, you've won. When are things going to get better? I'm waiting.
The point is that people who immigrate to USA and Canada will have descendants who will be just like you. Only difference will be their skin color (maybe).
Is Kash Patel any different from Americans who have lived here for generations? Is Rishi Sunak any different from the people who lived in Britain from generations?
It sure is odd! This is something that the educated descendants of colonizers just have to grapple with. I imagine it's still less difficult than being born as someone lacking the systemic privileges.
You don't know the meaning of the word you're using.
Immigrant (noun) A person who comes to a country to take up permanent residence.
'America' is named after Amerigo Vespucci. America is a European nation.
A distinct people? That's a myth. Every American is an immigrant, or descended from an immigrant.
The word loses all meaning then, because so were the ancestors of the indigenous people who crossed the Bearing Strait.
Unless your people walked across the Bering Strait during the last ice age you're an immigrant.
Which ones?
Certainly if 8,000[1] years ago a tribe walked across and settled, and then 7,000 years ago another group walked across and set up camp next to the descendants of that first tribe who had been there a thousand years, the second group were actually immigrants, right?
And how do we sort it out now, millennia after those various groups arrived, after all that DNA has been mixed together?
My point is just that it's silly to label any race or group "immigrant" or "native" based on what movements we guess from their skin color that their ancestors may have made millennia or centuries ago, or even what their parents did. Yes, I'm very in favor of birthright citizenship, even if people have "anchor babies" in bad faith the baby didn't have any say in it. And no one else of any color had any say in being born in America either.
[1] please substitute correct numbers -- they don't matter
I don't know. I do know that, as far as America is concerned, "native" doesn't include the colonizers who showed up 200 years ago when the land was already settled.
Land can only be nonviolently settled exactly once. The arrangement of who had what land 400 years ago when many European-Americans' ancestors started to arrive was merely the then-current state shaped by centuries of violent bloodshed (or "colonization") between one Native tribe and another Native tribe.
I'm saying that pre-colonial-age America was not a place where each tribe came in, found their own piece of virgin land, and lived in peace and harmony. They were not any different than the homo sapiens on other continents, which is to say, smart, determined, and willing to kill outsiders to improve their own tribe's chances of survival.
The only reason of course that they are viewed so sympathetically today is the tragedy of their near-complete destruction, which can be explained very thoroughly by their incredibly bad luck of having almost no domesticable native animals, and their not having gotten Iron Age technology. But in the end their destruction was mostly due to disease, traceable to early Spanish contact, which had absolutely decimated North American societies before almost any human Europeans had set foot on the mainland.[1] Europeans indeed did lots of bad things to those peoples, but I argue this is less proof that "Europeans are uniquely mean" and more proof that humans are brutal when they come into conflict over scarce resources and will press whatever advantages they have, whether it's large numbers of braves with obsidian arrowheads or muskets.
A good read for some perspective on what we can piece together about what pre-colonial America was like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Before_Civilization
> "According to Keeley, among the indigenous peoples of the Americas, only 13% did not engage in wars with their neighbors at least once per year. The natives' pre-Columbian ancient practice of using human scalps as trophies is well documented. Iroquois routinely slowly tortured to death captured enemy warriors (see Captives in American Indian Wars for details)."
[1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11831114/
You can excuse or justify the genocide of native people by European colonizers any way you want, although it baffles me why so many people want to. But it doesn't matter, they still don't get to call themselves native.
I think it's pretty clear these are shorthand terms for the issues with systemic bias in our modern society.
Pre-colonial North America was certainly not some idyllic pacifist utopia as people like to fetishize. However, any previous ethno-political disputes between those nations is irrelevant compared to the very recent history of the last 200 years.
The genocide of Native Americans in the 19th century happened under the unbroken chain of authority of our current government.
And under treaty with those so victimized. Which is continually forgotten in these sorts of conversations.
What if they took the bus across?
> Could it be that MAGA voters are humans with real motivations and rationales?
No, it couldn't. Trump tells them to vote a certain way, they do it. Look at Massie's primary as an example.
Go on thinking that, but it really won't help the Democrats win if they persist in this attitude. Voters are just looking at what's on offer from both parties, and one party's platform has been judged to be both hostile to their interests and also actively scorns them as people. The other is mostly hostile to their interests and is super corrupt, but it cuts taxes[1] and doesn't belittle them.
The Democrats squeaked out one miraculous win buoyed by the incompetence of Trump's band of corrupt idiots in the early COVID days. But now merely pointing out how incompetent and corrupt Trump is stopped working, as we saw in 2024. Do Democrats have anything left in the playbook besides derision and scorn toward those outside their tent? We will soon see, I guess.
[1] I know the talking points say that the tax cuts "only benefit the rich" but I'm far from a 1%er and can tell you that I'm paying way more taxes in a blue state than I would be in a red state, and also the OBBB improved things for me. Voters in those blue states can see their tax bills and the one thing Democrats can't say is that they don't put a huge tax burden on those who work.
You're just arguing that pandering and short-term-ism works. I won't hold my breath for a Republican caucus that's actually fiscally responsible.
I can only speak to 1 scenario but state tax was higher in CA than in TX, but property tax was higher in TX. TX had wild utility bills (top minds in CA are working on this though).
I'm not a Democrat.
> The current administration was voted in with an anti-immigration mandate
Given that they’re underwater for approval rating on immigration it seems both you and they have misread the room. Most people’s objections have to do with immigrants who are violent criminals that are going around neighborhoods hunting for cats and dogs to eat. This is what their campaign was highlighting as a problem. They have not been cracking down specifically on those immigrants. For this, they have no mandate.
>Most people’s objections have to do with immigrants who are violent criminals that are going around neighborhoods hunting for cats and dogs to eat. This is what their campaign was highlighting as a problem. They have not been cracking down specifically on those immigrants.
There never were "violent criminals that are going around neighborhoods hunting for cats and dogs to eat." That was a baseless, racist caricature and it's unfortunate that anyone took it seriously.
And we all still remember "the wall," and Trump complaining about immigration from "shithole countries" like Haiti (versus Norway and Sweden, gee I wonder what the qualifying factor is there) and how Mexico was sending drug dealers and rapists across the border. The immigration policy of this administration has always been that immigrants (specifically any non-white immigrants) are an existential danger to American culture and safety. You don't try to wall off your entire southern border because you think the problem is a minority of bad actors. The DHS doesn't deploy white nationalist anti-immigrant propaganda[0,1] because it's just concerned about a criminal element.
And they didn't misread the room. Trumpism is first and foremost a white nationalist nativist movement. People wanted the wall. They wanted immigration stopped. "The immigrants were taking our jobs." "Muslims can't assimilate into civilized society." "Europe is basically a war zone because of all of the Muslims and low-IQ sub-Saharan Africans." These are all things Trump supporters have been saying for years and that the American right has been saying since at least 9/11. "Borders, Language Culture" as Michael Savage used to say. It's all been out in the open.
White Christian conservatives still support Trump's immigration policies by a wide margin. He speaks to the people he intends to speak to. I don't know why so many Black people and Latinos signed up for the "Leopards eating your face" party thinking the leopards wouldn't eat their face, but that's on them. But pretending Trump doesn't have a mandate to purge the country of immigrants is just naive - that is the only mandate he actually has.
[0]https://newrepublic.com/article/199094/dhs-neo-nazi-memes-no...
[1]https://www.splcenter.org/resources/hatewatch/dhs-white-nati...
> "You don't try to wall off your entire southern border because you think the problem is a minority of bad actors."
I would challenge this. If you do believe that there are violent criminals coming through the porous border, whether it's 1% of the illegal immigrants or 100% of them, trying to seal the border off is not irrational. I'm not endorsing the physical wall itself, as I know a ton of illegal migrants are just overstaying visas, and I've heard of ladders and tunnels.
I think what's really compelling, and what the Left can't seem to relate to, is this: Everyone serious does believe the true fact that illegal immigrants have a lower rate of committing crimes than the overall population. But people who are victimized by those crimes have a valid point that those crimes are still incremental crimes - meaning that if we already had 1000 people in $BORDER_STATE who are going to commit violent crimes, letting in 1000 more people, even if only 10 of them (1%) are violent criminals, gives us 1,010 violent criminals. That's more crime than we had before. It's not like we get to trade in 10 of our own criminals for 10 immigrant ones.
Making no effort to control who comes here is irresponsible, because of course if there's a country that doesn't even try to vet you, and would feel guilty making you leave, of course criminals would be excited to go there.
> That's more crime than we had before
In absolute terms yes, but you're forgetting that you are also increasing the victim population, so the per-capita rate is still going to drop!
Assuming criminals more-or-less randomly choose their victims, the number of immigrant criminals hitting native victims is more than offset by native criminals now hitting immigrant victims instead of native ones.
>If you do believe that there are violent criminals coming through the porous border, whether it's 1% of the illegal immigrants or 100% of them, trying to seal the border off is not irrational.
Yes it is. Building a 1900 mile long wall with moats and barbed wire and armed guards ordered to shoot on sight across an entire continent because a fraction of illegal immigrants might be violent criminals is the definition of irrational.
Particularly when the same could be said of the border with Canada but no one is concerned about that at all.
> I'm not endorsing the physical wall itself, as I know a ton of illegal migrants are just overstaying visas, and I've heard of ladders and tunnels.
But Trump was talking about a physical wall. And a physical wall is what Trump supporters voted for.
>Making no effort to control who comes here is irresponsible, because of course if there's a country that doesn't even try to vet you, and would feel guilty making you leave, of course criminals would be excited to go there.
No one is talking about making no effort to control who comes here, that's another right-wing conspiracy point not based in reality. There is a vast degree of possibility between "doing nothing" and "building a wall and sending ICE to kidnap people and shoot them in the streets." There is a degree of vetting which is reasonable and responsible and this is not it. This is paranoia and fear born of racism.
Strangely, his current approval ratings on immigration policy is only about 37%. There appears to be a wide gap between what people thought they were voting for a year and a half ago, and what they are seeing now.
I think there's a wide gap between the consequences they expected and the consequences they got. I also think Trump acting like a buffoon and the Epstein thing affect the way people interpret his policies. If he and his administration weren't so overtly racist about it, they could get away with a lot of what they're doing and maintain broad popular support.
It's the classic "'I never thought leopards would eat my face', complains women who voted for Leopards Eating People's Faces Party".
> so overtly racist about it
Racism is literally the point.
"The Epstein thing" is an interesting way to refer to an overt pedophile protection racket. And "buffoon" feels a bit short of "malignant narcissist with dementia taking bribes and starting catastrophic wars", yeah?
We’ve also seen that you’re not safe on a green card either.
Trump has -20% to -25% net approval depending on the poll, and his approval rating on immigration is -10 to -15%. Clearly people do not like any of this in practice even though they might have liked it in theory.
I mean, the issue is that a large number H1B folks have vital skills for the US economy and that even just 20% of those leaving would mean every single big tech company would be in immense trouble
> even just 20% of those leaving would mean every single big tech company would be in immense trouble
I'm not so sure.
I think it would play out like this:
1. 20% H1Bs leave; 2. Those migrants are now in countries of origin, looking for work; 3. Many of the big US tech companies will already have offices in those countries, and those that don't can make new offices if they wanted to; 4. many, but likely not all, of those employees are now working for the same employer (or close enough), just in a different jurisdiction; 5. as none of these employees are physically in US hotspots, all the other stuff that happened in those hotspots because of big tech pay, suffers, conversely all the stuff which was suppressed because of those wages may (possibly) return; 6. two of the things that go down are the number of people transitioning from temporary visa to citizenship, and the available talent pool for the local-to-those-places startup and VC scenes.
Why would they stick with the Big Tech companies?
If you just got massively screwed over by them (having upended your entire life in hope of getting a better future, then having that rugpulled), why would you get another job at that company with significantly worse contract terms?
Considering the rest of the world is reacting to the US setting itself on fire by finally stimulating local tech, why not just join one of the local alternatives instead?
Perhaps. But I think the blame would go to Washington DC rather than the employers.
For this in particular:
> why would you get another job at that company with significantly worse contract terms?
Even if it is worse on paper (and it won't even be worse if the big tech companies do struggle to retain talent), it is likely to still be better than local companies offer.
Those same tech companies are laying off a lot of people right now. Maybe the skills of the H1B folks they employ aren't actually all that vital to the American economy.
Selective layoffs vs arbitrary people having to leave the country have very different consequences
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2026/05/20/...
Certainly a lot of them do. It's also true that having a large portion of them leave will just mean that the company will have to replace them with someone who will require a higher wage, and won't have any issue leaving if the workplace culture degrades.
"an easy solution: increase the number of legal immigrants we allow."
Not really.
The answer is: have a fair, transparent and function system.
Then - yes - you can totally 'increase' (or decrease) as needed.
'Increase a bit' likely the right thing to do - but it's a completely separate question.
But throwing Green Card holders out is completely insane, grabbing people out of church and schools and putting them into detention without oversight is cruel and inhumane.
The national debate is insane.
Just basic, normal, reasonable policy and process.
That's it.
Like DMV level stuff.
Then you can adjust the numbers one way or another.
> Then you can adjust the numbers one way or another.
The numbers need to go up.
China, in particular, has an "elite overproduction" problem. We should be welcoming every English-speaking Chinese STEM degree holder with open arms.
Anyone, from anywhere, with a STEM degree and a job offer from a US company, should be in this country. Period.
America needs to be the leader of the knowledge workforce world. We also need a vibrant and wealthy tax base and consumer base.
If we don't do this, China and other up-and-coming nations will increasingly start to displace us, which puts all of our workers at a disadvantage.
There are already far too many US college grads who can’t get jobs. I have friends who had 1500+ SAT scores with stem degrees who never found meaningful work. Give these people jobs before you give it to the Chinese.
+ Green Cards are mostly for spouses.
+ "Give these people jobs before you give it to the Chinese." is just slightly racist, I'm not saying it's entirely objectionable, but you could just say 'non-citizen'.
+ It's way harder to hire someone on H1B than a local. There is a reason they are being hired. 1500+ SAT is nice but it's not magic entry point for a job.
There are definitely some kinds of jobs - 'Plain IT' where Tata and some Indian companies are just 'India First'. That's H1B abuse.
But by and large, that's not the case.
It's better to consider 'tightening up the program' if you think it should be, as opposed to making very broad considerations.
'Broad Brushstroke' stopping of these programs will definitely hurt the US.
The context was China, not generic non citizen. I could have said Chinese citizens but that sounds wordy and awkward. Meh you can’t win.
If you can’t train a 1500+ SAT and instead need to import non citizens to fill your jobs you have failed as a society.
1500 SAT is not very meaningful. I'm a top-1% scorer on similar type of thing and it's not a strong indication.
If they had a CS degree, and were generally decent communicators and 'responsible actors' ... and could not get a job - now that's a problem.
Cool, I know half a dozen and I don’t even know that many people.
> There are already far too many US college grads who can’t get jobs.
Recent college grads have had a harder time, but is slowly improving again [1]. All college grads are around 3% which is usually considered full employment. It was so easy for so long, any reversion to normal is met with the sky is falling. We haven't really seen that yet. The job market is also much much larger than big tech.
In my own experience trying to hire people, it's hard to filter real resumes from fakes/garbage. I have to think this issue is making it slower to hire recent grads.
[1] https://www.newyorkfed.org/research/college-labor-market#--:...
It was always easy to get a job working at chipotle. We are talking real jobs here.
That's just DEI. We just got rid of that with much fanfare.
1) The US has a much greater 'Elite Over Production' problem than does China. China produces a lot of people with decent education that can' find work but that's not 'Elite Overproduction'.
Frankly EO is just a sign of a developed nation.
2) "Anyone, from anywhere, with a STEM degree and a job offer from a US company, should be in this country"
Since when did citizenship become about 'Economic Production'?
The vast majority of the people of the world don't agree with this - and this is kind of one of the roots of disagreement over migration.
Yes - surely 'educated migrants' are good and helpful, but that's only part of the equation.
3) "If we don't do this, China and other up-and-coming nations will increasingly start to displace us"?
Displace you how exactly?
All of this hints of 'Nationalist Industrial Capitalism' with hints of fear mongering. "But China's Gonna Get Us!" ... listen I get it - but this card is played a bit too hard, too often.
Also absent is the fact that there's a need to help refugees etc.
The US surprisingly takes surprisingly few refugees in from conflicts zones, even those it calamities it participates in.
Consider that a 'Nation' is a 'Community' - not a 'Business Centre' and that education and economic competitiveness are just parts of that consideration.
Ultimately, it's a choice, and those points are not invalid, but probably should be contextualized in the grander scheme of how most people define their communities.
America is the leader of the knowledge workforce world and that aint gonna change. We aren't getting displaced anytime soon. One look at the pay differential makes it clear where incentives lie
"We aren't getting displaced anytime soon. One look at the pay differential makes it clear where incentives lie"
This is a bit myopic, partly because it diminishes Chinese capabilities - they're definitely ahead in a few areas, notably battery tech, advanced manufacturing, and in some product categories like robotics, (arguably EVs) and they have demonstrated leadership in industrial capacity for many others, like Solar Panels, other things. They're less than 1 year behind on AI (admittedly, they 'distill' and do a lot of copying but there's legit Engineering going on).
When you put that altogether, and the pace of progress, it's formidable.
China does it with 'domestic talent' whereas US R&D and 'Tech Exceptionalism' would literally not exist without outsiders, who make up up to 1/2 of the primary innovations, companies etc.. Tesla, Nvidia, OpenAI, Google - so many critical people from Europe, Asia etc. None of the 'Godfathers of AI' are American (which I find odd actually). Europe in particular makes a ton of primary contributions which are leveraged by others.
It's not a reason to say 'anyone from tech can be a citizen' but immigration has to be recognized as a critical ingredient, maybe the most critical.
I know this is going to. be contentious, but US mainstream discourse seems to have completely eliminated the distinction between illegal and legal immigration, in the last 10 years. Everyone seems to be a "migrant".
US policy has also nearly completely eliminated the distinction, by making legal immigration close to impossible and ~arresting~ kidnapping people at courthouses who are there for their immigration hearings, then shipping them off to foreign torture camps.
It is so nearly impossible, that somewhere between a half million and a million people have done it every year for the past few decades (including last year).
correct. that number is a small fraction of the backlog. it's a big country.
I don't think that is true at all. For example, it was considered a big deal when ICE was rounding up US citizens. It caused a big drop in public trust for ICE.
Nearly half of the workforce of crop farmworkers in the US is made up of "illegal" immigrants. The US food-supply relying on those people has meant that, in practice, immigration law enforcement is deliberately selective and self-serving.
So, the idea of illegal immigration as a vice worth cracking down on and punishing has not been consistently applied by the people publicly condemning it (like this current administration), meaning there is a very real sense in which the distinction between illegal and legal immigration is not real.
"The people"? Are you sure you're not committing the common sin of conflating vocal people with most people? For example, I publicly condemn illegal immigration, regardless of which industry said immigrants are propping up, while at the same time recognizing that such industries need to be carefully extricated from reliance on illegal immigrants and also that the management of immigration and the definition of illegal immigration needs to be fixed.
As another disconnect, farmers overwhelmingly voted for Trump. I really don't understand how people are using their brains any more.
I'm right there with you, and it's why I go to great pains to articulate the entirety of my position on immigration when I get into these sorts of debates. The simpler someone's position on immigration is, the less they understand it at length or the more extremist their viewpoints tend to be.
Threads like these make me realize how wrong people can be. I understand the complexity and can see how misinformed people are. Makes me wonder what happens in other threads where I know little and just take whatever at face value. Eesh.
You see the complexity, but still categorize a noteworthy number of people somewhere as (relatively) reasonable as HN as clearly "wrong"?
It's wickedly complicated, isn't it? I'm distressed by anybody who doesn't change their position from time to time.
It's not that complicated, my immigration policy is "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
Mine comes to the same conclusion via a different route. I don't want my government telling me where I can or cannot travel to or decide to live, and I want all other governments to do the same.
It's a romantic rhetorical cudgel in this context. And it's actually quite complicated, though easy to say.
I mean, I think that's a noble position to take; I share it, to a significant degree. The problem is when you start getting into the nuance of the modern world, where everywhere has a record of who you are, what you've done, where you've been, etcetera. The existence of that data means the masses will want to judge immigrants by said data before permitting entry, which means bad actors will leverage said data to persecute those they hate.
In principle, I am 100% with you. Pragmatically however, it's significantly more complex.
[flagged]
That "19th century ethnic activist" was born in the US after her family emigrated here more than a century prior fleeing the Inquisition. Her activism was aiding refugees entering New York as they fled the pogroms of Eastern Europe. My ancestors entered this country in the 19th century though that "golden door" as "poor huddled masses" fleeing those same pogroms. I admire that "ethnic activist" not locking the door behind her just because her ancestors happened to make the journey in a prior generation and therefore I echo that mindset. For me, being anti-immigration would be like spitting on all their graves.
This country was built on the backs of immigrants and slaves which instills in me the belief that even more central than freedom, there is no ideal more core to the United States as a nation than immigration.
[flagged]
[flagged]
It's not helpful to tell citizens to "know their place" and leave their country and claim that people of a given race are boring and call people who love America "anti-American".
On HN of all places.
[flagged]
You crossed into personal attack here, as well as repeatedly perpetuating the flamewar in this thread. Both of those things are against the site guidelines, regardless of how badly other commenters may be behaving. Please don't.
If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
Please, please don't do this. Don't fall into this horrific hatefulness on HN - telling people they don't love their country, that they don't belong in it. Experiment with it elsewhere, and return when you have reflected on what it does to you.
[flagged]
Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
[flagged]
Please don't respond to a bad comment by breaking the site guidelines yourself. That only makes things worse.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
[flagged]
This isn't substantive.
I actually do harbor an immigrant family in my home! But I admit I am an outlier.
[flagged]
>I hope for your sake that you are never in a situation where you need help though :)
This is hideous.
Thank you
Please don't bring this style of hateful pettiness to HN.
Sure, if you can stop being sanctimonious.
I'm not, I'm honestly asking you with no political feelings. HN is the only place left on the internet I will interact with. I'm desperate for it not to fall like the rest.
[flagged]
We've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the site guidelines.
Please don't create accounts to break HN's rules with.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
[flagged]
[flagged]
"Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead."
a.k.a. please don't feed the trolls
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
[flagged]
my position has been steady since the start of my political consciousness (maybe ~12 years?)
all laws, including immigration laws, should be enforced consistently and universally, and without bias. and the laws should be changed to make it much simpler and easier to immigrate especially if you are able to already secure employment, housing, and health insurance.
In my experience, the phrase is just used to mean, "I don't hate immigrants, but..." (which, like the phrase "I'm not racist, but...", you are free to doubt case-by-case). I.e. it is not inherently inconsistent to apply the same disclaimer regarding a belief that legal immigration is too loose, too high, mismanaged, whatever; since that doesn't necessitate a belief that immigration as a concept is bad.
Somewhat ironically many of those most vocal about supporting all this are immigrants.
Those that jumped through all the hoops above bar, paid their dues in a messed up system where they bit their upper lip and got through it, and have been extremely frustrated at others trying to game the system.
I was one of them, and supported the idea of going after illegal immigrants. But now they're coming after me too, a faculty with a PhD, researching AI.
You really weren't paying close attention to their rhetoric, then.
But you obviously knew what they really meant to accomplish, right? How could you not, being a faculty with a PhD. And yet you supported them anyways.
Because I wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt.
I’m also an immigrant.
When I heard the crowd roar every time Trump said “we’re going to kick them out” I knew exactly what the crowd was cheering. Trump never used those moments to say “but America is a nation of immigrants and we celebrate their contributions”. He wanted to rile up a crowd while maintaining a fig-leaf of “oh it’s only illegals who are evil”
You don’t have to have a PhD to understand the appeal and consequences of nativist populism — just the slightest understanding of history.
I have a high school education and I saw this coming before he even ran for president. Were you around for the "Obama was born in Kenya" stuff?
There are plenty of voices explicitly saying that there are too many legal immigrants coming to the US under existing US immigration law, whose presence is not good for the majority of existing Americans despite not being illegal.
E.g. https://www.mediamatters.org/charlie-kirk/charlie-kirk-we-ha...
> And by the way, I want to make – I want to be very clear. I’m not just talking about illegal immigration, we have way too many legal immigrants coming into this country, too. 1.5 to 1.6 million legal people coming – Ilhan Omar came in legally and she hates the country. She’s a sleeper cell infiltrator of the United States representing Congress. She hates the country. She hates the west. She should be deported back to where she came from, Somalia. Go run for City Council in Mogadishu. The country is not enriched by people like Ilhan Omar.
It wasn’t ever about illegal immigration. It’s a way to make the position sound logical and tolerable. Now the goal post is moving to make only certain people legal.
Trump equivocated when it came time to condemn people shouting “The Jews will not replace us” and the Proud Boys. Anyone who thinks it’s just about illegal immigrants is delusional.
> I hear "I'm not anti immigrant, I'm anti illegal immigrant" a lot.
A lot of those people had no issue with ICE bullying and detaining legal immigrants.
Or citizens who look like a immigrants.
This was from the official DHS account -- https://xcancel.com/DHSgov/status/2006472108222853298
What do you think they mean by "100 million"?
The "anti illegal immigrant" crowd ignores, or more likely supports, the systemic racism built into the current immigration system put in place by racist lawmakers throughout the country.
This new policy is no different and is a trap to kick out and never accept back more non-white immigrants.
How is a scheme systemically racist when >50% of 13M green card holders are from Latin/South America and Caribbean?
You can't be serious.
I'm having trouble taking your comment seriously if you think that one number is enough to disprove systemic racism.
That's a strawman.
Even so, you're "having trouble" acknowledging a singular fact that calls a claim into question? Is two facts the magic number? Three? Why is one insufficient?
It'd be more effective to offer an actual reason.
Demanding proof of systemic racism every time it's brought up is kind of gauche and just tiring. You don't have to believe that it exists, but it very much does. I know you're going to clap back at me and say "so you have no argument, got it" and yes I'm not going to present you with one. I'm just telling you the way you're arguing this is kind of lame and incurious.
>I know you're going to...
Well, I'm apparently not in the imagined conversation you're having. Seems insecure to pre-bake an out for a hypothetical.
Never rejected systemic racism exists, but calling everything racist without substance (and accusing people of ignoring system racism without support) erodes meaning.
I suggest reviewing the HN guidelines for comments. If you disagree with them, this forum may not be for you.
The aim is not to fix the problem. These populists would be out of power the moment the problem is fixed. They want to prolong it - even make it worse - because that's what keeps people angry.
It took us 12-15 years to get a GC (depends on how you count).
People who fraudulently or illegally come in have had it easier. And I was in the top 1% earner, built things that everyone here on HN has used. I’ve contributed a lot and struggled to get recognized. People don’t know how much of a mess this is. They claim they want smart people to come to the US. The system isn’t setup for it.
It's the Stephen Miller types that instituted a policy that throttled GCs by country of birth, independent of that country's population, as a way to achieve racial bias without explicitly talking about race.
Miller's ilk is ascendant in this administration and their Court has blessed their approach to discrimination.
It’s a smokescreen people use to claim it’s not racist. It reminds me of that south park episode with the cable company representatives with velcro pockets. “Oh you want to migrate here legally? Oh it will take 3 years and it requires an active employment offer at application time and on arrival? Oh no… tell me more”
Many people hold one or more of the following positions:
1. Illegal immigration is bad, and we should do more to reduce it.
2. Immigration (any kind) is too numerous. Eg someone could say "Nashua, New Hampshire is now 17.2% foreign born and I think that is too high." Within 2. there are multiple separate reasons to have the position. One could think that its bad for assimilation, or one could be upset that the Nashua school system's budget increases are almost completely due to having to hire more ELL staff to accommodate the rapid rise in non-English speakers in a school system that used to be almost entirely English speakers. I'm sure there are more complicated examples but I hope that one is easy to understand.
3. Immigration (any kind) is used to lower wages of the working and middle class via labor and program abuses. At the low end, this used to be a leftist talking point (the kind Bernie Sanders once talked about). At the high end, it is grousing about H1B abuses. Despite many agreeing that th program has large abuses, H1Bs are legal immigrants.
Your idea of an "easy solution" doesn't remotely correspond to a solution for people who think #2 or #3. Even for #1, someone who dislikes illegal immigration does not necessarily want more legal immigration, though that used to be a very common view (eg, Bill Clinton in the 1990s, I think George Bush too). If a person believes #3, increasing the number of legal immigrants may simply increase the corresponding abuses.
n.b. the text above is descriptive, not normative.
I hear it a lot too. It makes no sense. Obviously, if only the illegality was the problem, we could just declare all immigration legal and that would "solve" it. But it wouldn't, obviously, because that's not what people are concerned about at all
What are people concerned about? If I walk into your house uninvited, that’s trespassing. Is that “solved” by declaring all entry into residences legal?
The problem with these analogies is that your nation is not only your nation, but also the nation of all the people who are very happy with all the migrants, for whatever reason.
> If I walk into your house uninvited, that’s trespassing.
Sure.
What happens if your kid invites round a friend of theirs you don't like?
What happens if you are a kid and your sibling does?
What happens if you rent out a room to a lodger, and the lodger invites someone over?
What happens if you're a tenant in a rental, and the landlord sends in an emergency plumber?
Remember, every single migrant working illegally in your country is someone that another person in your country wanted to employ; if you're in the US, most of those employers will be selling you your food and your houses, which most of you seem to like, while some were South Koreans making data centres which you personally may hate but your pension funds love.
The U.S. is an aggressively capitalist system. A person’s value is usually measured in dollars exchanged for labor. Legal immigration status is not a certification of capability, so it has little practical utility. In a capitalist exchange, it literally doesn’t matter.
What the lower classes are concerned about is the value of their labor relative to others’, while the upper classes are concerned with getting a good deal by avoiding increases to the labor-cost floor. Bribes/subsidies and offered scams, have worked so far.
If the federal government, as an institution, were genuinely concerned about illegal immigration, it would have a different set of tactics. Start by punishing the sources of capital (fewer people), then property owners (more people), and only afterward the laborers themselves (many people).
What I see is a combination of class warfare and political theater, not a sincere effort to enforce the law. The law is incidental, made obvious by the exceptions the administration has had to carve out for certain industries.
It's collective narcissism. Narcissists only ever express one emotion - aggressive contempt. So the destruction, incoherence, murder, and abuse are all predictable outcomes of a malignantly narcissistic regime.
Out groups are always the initial targets for these movements, but as time goes on any form of dissent will cause narcissistic wounding and will be treated accordingly.
Presumably the people saying that mean they like immigrants that meet the current requirements not a different set.
Otherwise we could just get rid of immigration law and then everyone would be a legal immigrant.
They only want a certain type of immigrants. I know some that go through the process easy breezy and others that absolutely suffer. It is largely dictated by country of origin, outside of the normal checkboxes.
Everybody across the world only wants a certain type of immigrant. The salient difference is whether the definition of "certain type" is petty or not (e.g. based on skin color vs based on qualifications).
Narrator: it was petty
Over and over and over, the greatest mistake of both sides of all political debates is to obsessively portray the other side as represented by their pettiest voices.
There are deeper lesson here.
First, a lot of the immigrants that people complain about now are only immigrants because the US fucked up their country. Venezuela is the poster child for this. There are consqeuences to destabilizing other countries for American corporate interests.
Second, companies like illegal immigration. It allows them to pay people sub-minimum wage in horrible working conditions and if the workers every complain, you just call in ICE to deport them. You pay a small fine for employing undocumented migrants and the next day hire a new batch. You probably even have avoided paying wages to the deported workers.
Third, a lot of attention is paid to people who sneak into the country. This is the minority. Also, "entering without inspection" (that's the legal term) is a civil infraction (unless you've previously been deported; then it's a crime), much like a traffic ticket. You technically aren't a criminal if you do this.
But the majority of undocumented migrants are visa overstayers. They get a legal visa to come to the US, often a visit visa, a student visa or a temporary work permit (eg J1, H2A, H2b) and just don't leave.
And to answer your implied question, it's not about illegal immigration. It's about white supremacy and the exploitation of labor under capitalism.
> But the majority of undocumented migrants are visa overstayers. They get a legal visa to come to the US, often a visit visa, a student visa or a temporary work permit (eg J1, H2A, H2b) and just don't leave.
Yes, and that's a big part of the motivation for this policy of forcing people on temporary visas to physically leave the US in order to apply for permanent residency. It prevents people who get a temporary visa and plan to overstay that visa and nonetheless apply for some kind of pathway to permanent residency in the US from being able to do that.
Do you have any proof it's "white supremacy and the exploitation of labor under capitalism." ? Why can't it just be xenophobia ?
There's xenophobia almost everywhere: Just look at South Africa this year.
Its not about immigration at all. It is about creating a "us vs them" tribal narrative. That's why people defend even US citizens being harassed under this administration. And the justification is because they might hold a different PoV.
The irony is that if anyone thinks they are going to solve this problem - I have a bridge to sell. If GoP solves this then they are going to lose of the biggest talking points in next elections. I can see this being challenged and drama played out for long time saying "other side" is not letting them move forward with it.
All the while the "extraordinary" Green Card will actually be "ordinary" - done by greasing POTUS palms. Because POTUS and his supporters are hell bent on turning America into a third world low trust country.
Do you believe mass immigration has any negative side effects, at all?
Let's say hypothetically the UK increased its population by around 3 million since 2020, including one particular influx designed and implemented by Boris Johnson to suppress wage inflation, which had a direct effect on the lower end of the job market for the native population. You could also easily argue it led to a direct surge in popularity of the far right party Reform.
Purely hypothetical of course...
You'd consider that a good thing?
The reality is that people who say that are certainly anti-immigration, they just know people don’t like when they say that
Anyone who uses this line is a racist.
Some people.
Well their either racist or they're too stupid to realize why it's racist. Which is... better? Maybe? But not by much.
I agree. I think there are ways to do that that could get more support than the way we're currently doing things.
Imagine if we began processing immigration applications at a rate ten- or a hundredfold of what we currently do. Imagine if just about anyone could get in, barring things like people with actual serious criminal records, etc. Imagine if when you got in via that system, you got some kind of long-term resident visa, which required you to pay an additional tax for, say, the next 10 years. Also imagine that this long-term resident visa gave you a path to citizenship, on condition of permanently renouncing all other citizenships you might hold. In other words, imagine that becoming a legal immigrant was far less onerous in process, but slightly more onerous in official requirements.
Such a plan could be framed as encouraging immigrants who want to "put down roots", and that kind of immigration is much more plausibly spun as beneficial, because people who move to a place to live permanently do not want it to be sucky. By making the process simpler but applying clear costs (e.g., extra tax), it also gives people an easy to way to demonstrate that they want to do things the right way.
Also, making the process more straightforward makes it much more politically palatable to deport people who violate it (which will still happen). A large part of the "bleeding-heart" leftist perspective towards immigrants stems from a sense that many people who immigrate illegally do so because "they had no other choice". If the bar to legal immigration is lowered so that it becomes a live option, this argument is harder to make.
This pattern plays out across so many things conservatives say. It was never about free speech. It was never about being civil after someone was killed. It was never about balancing the budget. Their anti-dei stance was never about fairness. And no it was never about illegal immigration. It’s almost like they lie constantly about their beliefs. To themselves as much as everyone else.
Trump grew up when anybody not white legally could be treated as less than. He lost this legal ability in his formative years in college.
Stephen Miller is upset he never got to experience that.
Immigrants from Europe will some how get an exception depending on their skin color. Same goes for South Africans
They were always just against immigrants, legal or not. It was obvious back then, it should be super obvious now. And most of them didn’t really hate all immigrants, just those with a particular skin color. The MAGA movement was always racist at its core, no one should be surprised by the turns it has taken.
Most of them saying they are anti illegal immigrant are lying if you dive into their numbers. It conveniently lines up with the legal asylum seekers.
Usually when I find out someone’s making that deceptive claim and call them out on it they quickly admit that they don’t think asylum is/should be legal
It's not. Trump has always wanted to revert back to a predominantly white America if he could achieve it. The government is racist and hides their racism behind shitty interpretations of our founding articles.
Democrats actively encouraged more than 10 million illegals to pour into the country during the previous administration. They lied about it and downplayed it for three years, and then (when election season rolled around) they talked tough about their plan to "seal the border"... which was another lie, as the bill they proposed would have allowed illegal immigration to continue at up to ~6X the historical average rate without requiring any action whatsoever to "seal the border". When the American people vote for mass deportations, those were called "fascism" and the basic enforcement of immigration law is actively, even physically opposed.
But an inconvenient process change has you clutching your pearls and crying "bad faith"? Yikes.
I'm curious what you think "actively encouraged" means here?
The Democrat election messaging that caused border encounters to ~3X immediately after Biden was elected, obviously.
https://archive.is/QKk0l#selection-923.73-930.0
https://dgcjnpzq7j07id.archive.is/QKk0l/41e225be79dbd90e86c6...
Okay so? Just saying "buh buh immigration!" doesn't demonstrate why the immigration is bad, which was the posters point.
Also, the fascism isn't enforcement, lol, and you know that. I hate people who try to be cheeky and dishonest and hope nobody is paying attention.
No, I know you've talked with people on the left. The problem is pouring tens of billions of our taxpayer dollars into ICE while they:
1. Do fuck all to improve the economy
2. Cause violence in our cities for no discernable gain
3. Have already shot and killed numerous American citizens
4. Regularly violate civil liberties because they have zero accountability
I mean, listen: you've won. We have the secret police, we've been deporting people left and right.
Well... is it better? Did it magically fix the economy like dumbass Republicans told you it would? Or is everything still shit?
Same shit as DOGE. "Ohh we just have to cut some stuff! Get those greedy Dems and their welfare state!"
Well, we cut it. Okay where's my check? Right guys?
Oh... or were we just duped. And maybe the reason you, and others, can't admit it is because your ego is bigger than your need for self preservation?
I'll keep repeating it: stop assuming that fascists use their words to accurately express what they think and feel. They don't. They use words solely as a tool to increase their power. Hypocrisy does not register for them, in fact they're tickled that their enemies shackle themselves by feeling the urge to be logically consistent. You cannot engage in debate with fascists, you're playing chess while they're playing shoot-my-opponent-in-the-head-while-he-thinks-we're-playing-chess.
And I will stop assuming that people know what the word fascist actually means
"Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past."
~ Jean-Paul Sartre, 1944
This is a quite interesting paragraph, because you can rewrite it to today's extremist (both far left & far right):
"Never believe that far-left woke extremists are completely unaware of the absurdity of their assertions. They know that their ideological mandates are fragile, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their moderate or conservative adversary who is obliged to use language responsibly, since he still believes in universal standards of logic. The ideological zealots have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by enforcing shifting definitions and linguistic traps, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by objective evidence but to intimidate, socially ostracize, and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent or weaponize moral outrage, loftily indicating by some accusation of bigotry or systemic harm that the time for argument is past"
[flagged]
[dead]
I'm not anti immigrant, I just really care about paperwork \s
[flagged]
People coming to live in your area, not your personal home, to work hard for opportunities, are in no material way like pick pockets. Your analogy is so extreme I am tempted to assume you argue in bad faith. The economic success of the United States, its simultaneous growth and flexibility and prosperity is directly caused by our heightened skills to welcome immigrants and make use of their talents and desire for success (compared to other countries with similar demographics). We are awesome at welcoming people into a modern society that values smarts, individual diversity, getting along with neighbors of differing backgrounds, hard work, risk taking, striking out on your own, the NBA, good home cooked food, fast food, and Taylor Swift, and getting them to enjoy these things also.
I didn't say they were pickpockets. I was trying to point out the absurdity of correcting illegal activity by simply eliminating laws.
I love immigration. We should have lots of immigration! But it should occur within consistently, fairly enforced laws passed by our legislative system. I get that our immigration system is arguably broken and that it's very difficult to pass meaningful legislation, but that doesn't mean we should just allow whoever is president to dictate immigration policy.
So the thing to analogize is that DHS is acting like a junior high school gang, enforcing ever shifting rules and norms capriciously for the fun of bullying to score points with the onlookers. The bullied folks are not analogous to pick pockets. We have laws, laws under which TPS is legal for ever, under which we don’t round up and export people without criminal records, laws under which people pay taxes and raise their families here; all of this suffering being caused by Miller is not for the effects of the policies but for the demonstration of cruelty, contempt for differences, and a distraction from the roll back of a middle class centric economy where hard work and education were a pathway to a good family life.
Yeah it was a bad comment. I really misunderstood the grandparent.
Been there, done that :)
> I was trying to point out the absurdity of correcting illegal activity by simply eliminating laws.
Isn’t this straw man? Who said anything about eliminating laws or being inconsistent about legal immigration? The top comment was only pointing out that slowing the flow of legal immigration does not fix illegal immigration and probably makes it worse. Some people don’t love immigration or feel we should have lots, despite the benefits, and sometimes those people say contradictory things.
Yes, it would be utterly absurd to decriminalize cannabis. Oh, wait...
It is to make a system where people are less incentivized to commit crimes.
This comparison is flawed because there is not legal pickpocketing, but there is legal immigration.
If there was a legal pickpocketing, and someone claimed to only be opposed to illegal pickpocketing, then it would be reasonable to point out that unless they're lying about their intent a solution to preventing illegal pickpocketing would be to make it all legal.
The analogy falls apart because nobody argues that they are "only" opposed to illegal pickpicketing.
If people are opposed to any form of immigration, then they should just admit that, rather than pretend they're only opposed to illegal immigration.
a. Opposed to someone taking my money against my will and the law just because they want to, “for a better life”.
b. Not opposed to someone taking my money in exchange for goods or services I want.
a. Opposed to someone moving into my country against my will and the law just because they want to, “for a better life”.
b. Not opposed to someone moving into my country because I married them and want them here.
There’s a whole spectrum between a and b, but I think most people are against a.
Legal pickpocketing is taxes you’re opposed to, or wages being garnished.
In theory people who say they’re only against illegal immigration are saying they completely agree with all policies regarding legal immigration, now and maybe into the future. Likely not what these people actually believe because while possible it would be a silly position. They’re probably just saying it to try to find some common ground with very pro immigration people. Likely a fools errand.
You've invented a whole new set of categories of pickpocketing that most people would disagree has anything to do with pickpocketing to justify a flawed argument.
To your last paragraph, no, they are not. There is no automatic implication that people will not change their minds depending on the situation. The argument is not that they can never change their minds, but that it is deceitful to pretend to only oppose illegal immigration in current circumstances and then go on to demonstrate they are also opposed to the currently legal immigration.
Breaking and entering is to immigrating as pickpocketing is to taking my stuff.
Sometimes immigration is legal. Sometimes taking my stuff is legal.
There’s often overlap between legality and what people support or oppose, but not always.
“I oppose something that’s already against the rules” is a simpler/easier argument, rather than saying “I oppose the against the rules thing, and some of the stuff that isn’t against the rules currently”. I think that's why people make this argument of "only against illegal immigration". I agree it could be deceitful, taking the easier argument. It’s also not a tactic that works long term though if it just results in the immigration they were against being made legal. A stronger anti immigration stance, legal or illegal, would be a better starting point.
To be fair there may also be some people who a couple years ago really did only oppose illegal immigration but were then exposed to new information, and changed their mind to oppose some or all legal immigration as well.
[flagged]
It’s sad that pragmatically adjusting quotas is never the loudest argument in the room. I’m in favor of greatly increasing legal immigration, providing paths for safe work and citizenship (when that’s the goal). I’ll admit that my idea of an ideal system is probably not palatable for many. But if we could start from anywhere near a sane baseline, I’d understand wanting to gradually find sustainable quotas that take all factors into account. I’m done with purity tests and letting perfect be the enemy of good.
I suppose by “all factors” I mean all factors aside from exploitation and xenophobia, but I hope we could at least move the Overton window back that far.
Okay. Let's choose a small random country as a basis for your immigration ideas. Ie., Rwanda (pop 14.8m) or Israel (pop 10.24m). What is the quantity of immigration flow that you want, who and from where and on what basis of admission over what time period. What are your intended demographic, social, and political shifts that you say are going to be "not palatable" for the people living there now? In fact, please expand on exactly how "not palatable" you expect your plans to be for them.
This strikes me as an unreasonable demand on the author of the comment. Part of the point of the current system was (at least at some point) to have knowledgeable people, armed with the available facts, figures and theories make some attempt at balancing the safety of the incoming people against (at the very least) their economic impact on the country. From there some rudimentary guard rails (quotas, visa type, etc.) would be set. I suspect few of us in this forum feel comfortable making these decisions from behind a phone, tablet or laptop.
My understanding is that many of us, perhaps including the author of the comment to which you are responding, would like to see at lease some small, inching movement towards such a system.
On the contrary, asking for well-thought out political thought is the most reasonable demand in the world. If you have an idea about health care, national defense, or trade policy, I expect thought and numbers, not vague platitudes.
For example, you want small inching movement. From what starting point? Inching movement from the near-zero flows of the mid-20th century? Inching movement from the mass flows of the 21st century? Both ideas would have major consequences, and if you are going to advocate for mass social change, you should think it out and advocate with care and thoughtfulness.
I’d take rapid movement, honestly, I simply think it unlikely. In terms of what kind of change, I was speaking of movement toward a rational system with clear goals, with decisions made by knowledgeable people. With that in mind any movement, I think, should be estimated from the present. We can’t change the past!
Agreed, care and thoughtfulness should be the rule, not the exception. Presently we are getting neither. I’m a software developer, I don’t work in policy; but I believe our immigration position should be aligned with policy goals and I’m not sure we have any of those, either.
In any case, re-categorizing so many legal immigrants in order to imprison them strikes me as pointless and fundamentally wrong.
> For example, you want small inching movement. From what starting point?
The obvious assumption is that they mean from where we are right now. We're not going to suddenly be at the mid-20th century again. This comes off as argumentative more than curious (as do your other comments in this thread, for what it's worth).
Advocating for small inching change to a rate is different from advocating from small inching change. Easy example: if you are in a car with an accelerator pedal depressed.
> Advocating for small inching change to a rate is different from advocating from small inching change.
No, it isn't. It is a change; whether it's acceleration or velocity is an implementation detail. Whether it should be changed suddenly or gradually is the spec.
Why do we need to quantify an exact quota to qualify as well thought out political thought? Some people think about this issue from the basis of fundamental freedoms. Innocent, productive people deserve the opportunity to move where they obtain the most prosperity.
If I advocated abolition in the 19th century, it would be missing the point to turn around and say "oh yeah? And how many slaves would you like to free per year, and what effects do you expect that to have? Include examples of past slave rebellions"
The US's strength is/was in part because of immigration. The best and brightest want to come to the US to go to school and then they often stay for the enormous opportunities only available in the US. I want any immigrant that wants to come to the US given a reasonable path to make that happen.
You are right that the Native Americans were completely misplaced by immigrants, but immigration made the US what it is today and I see no reason it won't continue to make the US a uniquely strong country.
You may be interested to learn that American immigration flows were higher or lower at various times (nearly zero for long periods). As you allude to with Native Americans, the effects of the different flows were not uniform on all people, and instead caused various negative and positive effects. The period of Americans great post-WWII economic and military rise came during its longest period of immigration moratorium, during which its population was fairly homogeneous. In recent decades, America has begun to decline economically and militarily relative to China, a country not subject to these "strengthening flows". Odd case.
The citizenry would probably fare no worse than with the arrival of the Irish, the Italians, or the Germans. What are you expecting, for the Indians or Chinese to sack DC aux Visigoths?
“Open borders” was pretty much standard across the world prior to World War 1. These tightly controlled immigration policies are, historically speaking, incredibly new.
I think it’s self evident that the U.S. benefited greatly from its mass immigration inflows in the 19th and 20th centuries.
It's a different world now
Your statement has no basis whatsoever in reality. The US, for example, had a four-decade moratorium on immigration beginning in 1924. Mass immigration flows appeared at various times and places in the past (often accompanied by bloodshed and suffering), but it's highly incorrect to imagine that 21st-century 1st world demographic shifts are some sort of historical norm.
How is the moratorium of any relevance considering WW1 ended a few years before 1924?
Are you serious?
"Oh, you support immigration? Write an entire nation's immigration policy. Can't/won't do it? You must be a paid shill."
People are allowed to have opinions without regurgitating policy documents on demand.
[flagged]
[flagged]
In this case the people brought up in the United States are sacrificing the well fare of their own children to preserve their own fears. I think that is wrong.
I want to keep the US a destination for hard work and smarts and striking out on your own. Don’t shelter your lazy kid, show them the beauty of complexity and mastery. Have them master some difficult skills, whether that’s a second language or botany or math or public speaking or building things. We are all responsible to each other for excellence. Respond to the opportunities for excellence, of what we can build together, dont’t yield to sloth and resentment being satisfied with turning your back on your own potential. The future is awesome and we welcome all who want to contribute! We welcome competition - better to be second best to the best than turning your back and cutting yourself off from the course of history.
Lots of things are wrong with giving people the power to make choices that affect the whole world, while excluding others who are equally or more affected, based on where they happened to be born.
If the logic is that people who are born somewhere else shouldn't have any agency over immigration laws, well, why does someone who lives in some town in my country with a negligible immigrant population get a say in who I and my colleagues can invite to work with us, and who I and my neighbors can invite to live with us?
[flagged]
> I hear "I'm not anti immigrant, I'm anti illegal immigrant" a lot. To which there is an easy solution: increase the number of legal immigrants we allow.
Being "anti illegal immigrant" doesn't have to imply you let in whoever wants as long as they follow some process. You are taking away the agency of the people to select its immigrants.
If someone says they're not anti immigrant and then turns around to say immigration should be more difficult, there's an obvious logical disconnect in their worldview. It doesn't matter about illegal vs. legal: they want to make immigration more difficult, after claiming they are not against immigration. The comment does not claim there's anything wrong with the policy choice, just that the following policy preference betrays the initial statement as false.
It doesn’t seem inherently contradictory for someone to think “I’m not anti-immigrant” and “my ideal target for legal immigration is at 80% of its current rate”.
I think I see where you're coming from. To use an example, Switzerland has tight immigration controls due to the policies which grant citizens and permanent residents certain welfare benefits, since they don't want those to be leeched by people who do not contribute as much back. That is against immigration while not being anti-immigrant; the point is that the immigration itself does not motivate the policy which limits immigration, instead being motivated by the existence and meaning of other policies (a kind of protectionism).
Tying this back to OP's comment, it's hard to see these policy changes as any sort of legitimate protectionism and it's just as hard to divorce them from the justifications given by people who start with "I'm not anti-immigrant".
Um. Yes. Those are obviously contradictory.
How so?
If legal immigration was at 40% of its current level and I wanted legal immigration to double from there, would that still be anti-immigrant?
Or does having any limit whatsoever mean that you're opposed to a thing?
I'm totally for it! I just wish there was less of it.
I don't know how else to read that.
I love ice cream. If I was eating a quart/liter of it every day, I could think I should cut back but still not be anti-ice cream.
I enjoy salt/spices; there’s still an optimal amount of spices to add to a dish and wanting to hit that optimal mix doesn’t make me anti-spice.
We've chosen to stop after having two children. Doesn't make me anti-child or anti-family.
We've chosen to have only one pet dog at a time. Doesn't make me anti-dog.
[flagged]
If the borders are often then no one is coming in illegally
Broken bot output?
s/often/open stupid iPhone
"If the front door is open it's not trespassing" is obviously a troll take.
That's not related in any way to what I said
Glad you agree that crossing borders that may not have walls is illegal.
there are quite a number of issues with the situation as it was evolved. lots of people are intersted as a matter of policy in admitting that the US is largely functional because of immigrant labor, but relying in illegal immigration to fill those roles hasn't been great for the structure of the country or the laborers themselves. and to be clear this is not just harvesting the crops, and raisin the children, and building the houses, its also doctors and engineers and all sort of other professions.
so there a huge need to have a difficult policy discussion about what to do without cratering the economy.
but when you start removing civil liberties and running around in gangs grabbing random brown people off the streets and sending them to indefinate detention in the middle of nowhere, dumping people in Somalia, claiming you have the right kill anyone you want, you shouldn't be surprised when people start waving around the f word.
>but when you start removing civil liberties and running around in gangs grabbing random brown people off the streets and sending them to indefinate detention in the middle of nowhere, dumping people in Somalia, claiming you have the right kill anyone you want, you shouldn't be surprised when people start waving around the f word.
You've been propagandized to believe that is happening. Remember when we were grabbing random brown people, including Black Olympian school superintendents right off the streets and sending them to concentration camps?
https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/27/us/ian-roberts-des-moines-sup...
Months later the truth comes out: illegal alien with guns in his possession, which is a federal crime. Deportation order issued under Biden's administration.
The post-truth era has made the f word effectively meaningless.
Maybe they saw the roving bands of masked militants roaming the streets and grabbing people without warrants with their own eyes like I did.
Masked ICE officers grabbing people with open warrants and deportation orders is what I saw with my own eyes.
A piece of paper signed by your boss isn't the same as a real warrant signed by a judge.
No real lawyer will ever tell you that an "administrative warrant" is a real thing that lets jackbooted thugs enter your home and detain you. It's absurd and disgusting, and you should feel dirty for defending it.
https://apnews.com/article/ice-arrests-warrants-minneapolis-...
https://ij.org/issues/ijs-project-on-the-4th-amendment/admin...
Sending masked goons to pull people off the streets is unconditionally fascist, and the people who participated are criminals who all belong in prison. If some of the goons were particularly conscientious and never arrested someone without good cause, that's great, and perhaps if they prove that we can shorten their sentences.
The following things are not in contradiction:
1) Someone can be against illegal immigration and for legal immigration.
2) That same person's idea about who should immigrate to the country may exclude most or all of the people who are currently immigrating illegally.
It's not like you can only be against illegal immigration because they forgot to fill out some form. Legal immigration has a component of deciding who gets in.
[flagged]
Point of order: that is blatantly untrue. Anti illegal immigrant has everything to do with ensuring the people in the country are known and allowed. It is completely uncoupled from legal immigration. To say an easy solution is increasing legal immigration is just saying lets leave all the security holes wide open and just make it so only the real bad guys use them because others have an easier time going legal.
You could keep the vetting system and still increase legal immigration a lot. Those are two separate issues.
Thats the other way to say what i just said. Its not as good a way to say it for this specific issue because it doesn't hilight the differences that matter to this particular discussion
Devil's advocate: My wife thankfully just got her green card three months ago. She first came on a J-1 and then an F-1. She knows many, many people who come with the intent of staying either without status or via questionable marriage licenses. The vast majority of her acquaintances in the J-1 visa program were young (<25 year old) au pairs with no intention of learning English (they had 'mandatory' English language cultural lessons per J-1). My wife is an extreme outlier in that she learned English in 5 years and just got accepted to veterinary school in USA.
The bottom-line is that she thinks the J-1 / au pair program should be discontinued.
That is completely orthogonal. Whether any non-immigrant visa program should or should not be continued is immaterial. The topic at hand is about adjusting status to permanent residency, for which you need to independently satisfy the criteria for permanent residency. The admin is proposing asking people to go out of the US for their interviews as opposed to an interview in the US. The admin can just as easily deny AOS in the US, but people have more rights in the US and can seek legal recourse. They cannot outside the US.
When I studied in the US, a lot of our friends were au-pairs, and they all spoke perfect English.
Your wife's experience is an outlier, not the fact that she speaks English.
[flagged]
to vote you have to be a citizen i think you've forgotten
No I haven’t. I’m specifically talking about a voter base that has huge representation of newly naturalized citizens. If Latino legal immigrants want maga, than they can eat “speak English” mandates, and other generally “anti Latino” policy. Reap what you sow since you want to act white and assimilate and bring the racism/colorism from your homeland so bad.
Refusing future applications to adjust status would be one thing (still wrong, in my opinion). The fact that they are canceling pending applications is simply evil. There will be so much unnecessary anguish and expense. I really feel for anybody who is now learning they will have to leave and wait years to come live in the US with their spouse, due to overstayed visas which were supposed to be forgiven under the status quo.
This administration is doing things that are illegal. They're getting sued and they're losing. Constantly. But that's expensive and time-consuming for immigrants, which I guess is the point.
USCIS doesn't have the authority to just unlawfully deny a case. It can be challenged in court. They can make your life really difficult. For example, they can put you in removal proceedings if you're an overstayer with a petition that they unlawfully deny and then you're out of status. So now you have to go to immigration court, where the odds are stacked against you, and either get your case approved there or get removal proceedings cancelled. And the administration is holding certain people in removal without bond even if they've been here for decades. And some people, like those on ESTA, have waived their right to see an immigration judge at all.
They prefer what's called "consular processing" (applying outside of the country vs "adjustment of status" in country) is that it takes way longer and the administration has way more power to arbitrarily deny your case, as is the case with certain current banned countries. The Supreme Court ruled the president's power to limit visas to certain countries can't be challenged. The case was from the first Trump term. It's called Trump v. Hawaii [1].
But one thing they are also doing, which is evil, is taking advantage of people come to a USCIS interview without an immigration attorney. They separate the couple and threaten the US citizen that they're committing fraud and to withdraw the case or they get the immigrant to admit things that are false or they just outright deny the case on faulty grounds because people aren't knowledgeable enough to fight back without a professional. It is evil.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._Hawaii
> They're getting sued and they're losing.
This means nothing if there are no real consequences in terms of change in behaviour. Every country has their own priorities, and looks like the US decided to move on from pax-Americana.
What’s different is in this case is applicants have years of status “runway” and can just sue or wait it out so to speak. I’m betting they will have to walk some of it back
> This administration is doing things that are illegal. They're getting sued and they're losing. Constantly.
Source?
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2026/us/trump-administra...
Court Listener is basically an open source listing of dispositions on essentially all cases, but definitely all major ones. It’s a wonderful resource.
> The fact that they are canceling pending applications is simply evil.
Where have you seen this documented? I haven't, and the only government statement I've seen about this was fairly clear that the change is for new applications.
I am genuinely asking. I have friends who are going through the process.
Why on earth would they need to wait years?
From the article:
"Forcing green card applicants to leave will render many green card applicants’ ineligible because, when they leave the United States, they will trigger the 3- or 10-year bars on receiving an immigrant visa based on accrual of unlawful presence."
Yeah, that's a wild leap to conclusions. The "accrual of unlawful presence" is when you overstay a visa, or otherwise stay in the USA illegally. Here's the definition:
https://www.uscis.gov/laws-and-policy/other-resources/unlawf...
Note particularly the following:
> Asylees and asylum applicants: Generally, time while a bona fide asylum application is pending is not counted as unlawful presence.
So unless there's currently a huge backlog of people staying here illegally who are somehow eligible for green cards in spite of this fact, the government changing it's policies to require new applicants do so from overseas is not itself causing these applicants to violate immigration law.
That note is grossly wrong though, ICE was/is putting them in jail while they appear for immigration hearing at courts.
The note is not “grossly wrong”. It’s from the USCIS website. It’s consistent with many other independent legal sources that you can find with a trivial web search.
> ICE was/is putting them in jail while they appear for immigration hearing at courts.
You’re talking about a completely different set of events.
This policy change was just announced, and it has nothing to do with things that happened months ago.
Says right in the comment.
Consular processing isn't that backlogged for majority of countries that's what i meant.
That's just plainly untrue.
https://refugeerights.org/news-resources/new-data-shows-visa...
With the raw data from 2023-2024 here: https://refugeerights.app.box.com/s/bizdcdev37oknqdwg8p93afi...
USCIS doesn't publish data on consular processing times, but even AoS processing were backlogged 3+ years. https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/green-card-processes-and-pr...
The majority of consular offices are, in fact, backlogged.
Is consular processing prioritizing adjustment of status applications? Here in India, as of now, a consular appointment for a B1/B2 non-immigrant visa application is about eight months away. The COVID pandemic was mostly over about three years ago and there’s still not enough processing capacity.
As an Iranian, it took 4 months for me to get a F1 visa. Now it's completely banned.
Do you have any personal experience with the immigration system at all?
The US isn’t what it used to be. It’s definitely not the best place in the world to live for quality of life, on basically any metric.
The requirement of being permanently obligated to pay us taxes on global income, if you have any kind of global mobility, is not worth it when you look at the situation objectively. The US is the only country that requires this, and signing up is voluntarily.
So while US immigration continues to act as though people will jump through any hoop they put up in order to be granted the extreme privilege of being able to live in the country indefinitely, it’s worth realising it’s not the 70s anymore and thats a goal many people are no longer optimizing for. In fact the opposite - the most talented people I know are all planning their lives to not settle long term in the US.
There's a term called "US Person". Many European banks will refuse to open your bank account if you're a "US Person" and require upfront declaration that I'm not a "US Person."
Reason? Because banks don't want to deal with the mandatory annual reporting of the "US Persons" to US government on regular basis.
Their solution? Don't have a "US Person" as your client.
I’m an American living abroad. I know a bit about this. Here’s my experience:
- The USA passed a law called the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA), which mandates that any bank doing business with Americans overseas must report certain information to the USA: https://www.irs.gov/businesses/corporations/foreign-account-...
- When anyone anywhere in the world opens a bank account, the bank asks if you have ever been a “US Person,” and if you have been, then you need to provide documentation about whether you currently are or aren’t (typically showing a USA passport or proof of having renounced USA citizenship)
- For banks that will work with Americans, they have to report basic information back to the USA every year, which includes highlights like your contact information, tax ID, account numbers, end-of-year balance, etc.
- Americans also must self-report this kind of information via the FBAR (Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts, technically FinCEN Form 114), which isn’t too horrible to fill out other than the fact that you file it through FinCEN’s clunky BSA E-Filing system, which still wants you to install Adobe Acrobat Reader like it’s 2010.
- FATCA is primarily annoying to banks because they already have to comply with CRS, the Common Reporting Standard, which is basically an international standard developed by the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) where participating countries automatically report each other’s residents’ financial information. The kicker is that the USA never actually joined CRS, so banks have to run a whole separate FATCA process just for a relatively small number of Americans living abroad, which is a big duplication of effort.
This appears to have been downvoted but everything is completely factual in what the parent poster said. I have literally been told by many banks they can't help me due to this.
People said the same when the $100K fee for H1b was introduced, and said that the US won't be able to fill the 85,000 spots. But there were 211,600 applications in the last cycle.
Also, your other 'facts' are incorrect. The US for example has the highest amount of disposable income per family, has a lower tax burden (despite your complaint about it) then almost all developed countries, and there is one more (small) country with global taxation.
USA joins the esteemed nation of Liberia in having global taxation.
Eritrea too.
They're not collecting 85,000 * $100k. I'd guess the majority will be adjustments and therefore circumvent the fee.
Correct - it has significantly shifted the makeup:
1. Master degree holders increased from 57.0% to 71.5%
2. Average wage increased by ~30% (estimated from the massive drop in the number of applications from the lowest category.
3. The balance has shifted from foreign workers to students in the US (F-1 visa), because they are exempt from the $100K fee.
I actually wish HN covered this, as many people were complaining about H1b being abused by abusive software companies bringing in cheap labor. About how hard it is for students studying in America to stay in America, etc.
But now we can't actually discuss a topic without attributing it to a person, so if it's attributed to Trump, all discussions become a shitshow.
The extreme privilege of being forced to pay a major portion of all income you make, regardless of where you earn it, to the us gov indefinitely. And they make it hard for you to apply to do this. Crazy.
> being forced to pay a major portion of all income you make, regardless of where you earn it
If you're a US citizen living abroad you get a Foreign Earned Income Exclusion of $130,000 for 2025 taxes. So if your income was $130k you'd pay zero in US taxes. You potentially also get to deduct housing costs and get a credit for foreign taxes you already paid among other things.
If you're paying a "major portion of your income" as a US citizen living overseas you're probably pretty dang wealthy. Go wipe your tears with your bands of $100 bills.
The FEIE and foreign tax credits are just there to limit the scope of double taxation, and often they can't even do that much. Then you have to consider the cost of compliance, requiring specialist tax advice encompassing two countries; the difficulty of obtaining financial services because of FATCA; the frequent impossibility of saving for retirement because of the way the U.S. treats foreign investment funds (PFIC).
There's a reason no other country on earth tries to do this.
> double taxation
Boo hoo double taxation. Normal people get double, triple, quadruple taxed all the time. I get (at least) double taxed every gallon of gas I pump. I get quadruple taxed just having a roof over my head. My labor gets FICA taxes (a collection of multiple taxes), payroll taxes, federal income taxes, and potentially state income taxes. Your million dollar stock trade hit a few different tax jurisdictions, boo hoo. Miss me with crying about "double taxation" nonsense, it's a phrase rich people use to make poor people feel sorry for them.
> consider the cost of compliance
Oh so sad wealthy people have so many bags of money they can't keep track of them all themselves. Sounds terrible. Maybe they should sell all those assets and give the money away and rid themselves of such hardships. Send me a message, I'll take those struggles off your hand and relieve you of such burdens.
> the frequent impossibility of saving for retirement
You're already clearing more income free and clear from a US tax basis than most US households do. If you find it impossible to save for retirement after making probably far more than $130k (remember, the standard was "a major portion" of your income) then you should really think about how fucked the vast majority of your fellow citizens are.
It's pretty tone deaf complaining about how heavy all these bars of gold are.
And yet why do people want this?
> The requirement of being permanently obligated to pay us taxes on global income
Many countries have higher rates than the US and have reciprocal treaties to avoid double taxation. In practice it means many people end up paying zero taxes to the US. Of course it will depend on the country you want to reside in, but then what's the point of seeking out a US passport?
> The US isn’t what it used to be. It’s definitely not the best place in the world to live for quality of life, on basically any metric.
There is actually a list with metrics https://greatcountry.org (disclaimer: my pet project)
#27th
Interesting project!
I would say some of the indicators are a little odd.
Some of them are questionable in terms of capturing the spirit of the idea ("violent crime" being the same in the UK and the US is a surprising one to me for example. It's capturing serious assault per 100k, but is then not considering murder as violent crime. You have murder later, but maybe combine / group them?).
Some are confusing because they are not clear politically: everyone wants less violent crime, but I don't know your politics and so have no idea which direction you have weighted net migration and asylum/capita.
All 37 factors are equal weighted.
> It’s definitely not the best place in the world to live for quality of life, on basically any metric.
I guess these immigrants must be stupid.
To be perfectly clear. The US has a much higher standard of living than the vast majority of countries in the world and people from those countries hope to improve their lives by moving there.
The US has a lower standard of living than basically all OECD countries.
To use a sports analogy, the US is last place on the pro league ladder, while also being first place on the “everyone else” ladder.
Also there is a bit of inertia. In people's imaginations, the US still seems to glimmer, even if the reality isn't the same.
I don’t think this captures the full story. The US has a bimodal standard of living reflected as a lower mean relative to other advanced nations.
It can be simultaneously true that immigrants to the U.S. from both advanced and developing nations both experience a higher standard of living than their countries of origin.
Immigrating to the U.S. with an advanced degree in an in-demand field: you likely will experience a higher standard of living.
Immigrating to the U.S. from a developing country without a particularly in-demand career: you likely will experience a higher standard of living.
> Immigrating to the U.S. with an advanced degree in an in-demand field: you likely will experience a higher standard of living.
And yet everyone here in SF has been mugged. Everyone has to deal with the poor air quality, crime, traffic, and a million other factors that impact daily life even when you are rich. Little paid time off, very short maternity leave.
I went back to Australia for the first time in 10 years, and even the guy stacking shelves at a liquor store had 8 weeks of paid leave, owned his own home, had a project car (a big V8), kids going to university, excellent healthcare even if he quits, etc etc.
Ordinary guy, better quality of life than many rich Americans.
> I went back to Australia for the first time in 10 years, and even the guy stacking shelves at a liquor store ... owned his own home
Australia is having the exact same situation with housing as most of the cities in the US right now and Australia lacks the rural population where things are affordable so this seems incredibly unbelievable to me.
Absolutely Australia has a huge housing crunch. No getting around that.
But everyone has healthcare. Everyone has university. Minimum wage is way, way higher than the US. Employee protections are huge (at will employment is criminal). Even the worst jobs have great paid time off and maternity leave. Overtime is paid, by law. Working 60 hours a week is unheard of.
Quality of life is much, much higher.
That the US is a better place to live than Venezuela or Guatemala or Haiti isn't crossing a very high bar of well developed countries.
The US is the best place you _can_ immigrate to (at least until a few days ago) from a lot of different perspectives.
Poor people from the countries you mentioned won't be let into the countries with strong safety nets so, you can compare what it's like to be a poor Swede and a poor American but a poor Venezuelan has a 0% chance of becoming Swedish.
A well off Swede would likely make significantly more money in the US and doesn't really benefit much from the social safety net anyway, aside from healthcare, which, despite the price, is also better in the US.
Anyone in the world who is looking to leave their home country for more opportunity probably has the US high up on the list of places they'd consider going to that they'd actually be able to go to..
[dead]
[dead]
The President confirmed this. They're not sending their best.
Literally how could he possibly know that? He's just saying racist things because he's obviously a racist. Haitian immigrants aren't eating cats or dogs either, we need to stop listening to him as an authority on anything. If Donald Trump is saying something, you should automatically assume it's a lie. Any other course of action isn't reasonable.
That comment was written tongue-in-cheek.
The U.S. doesn’t have a real statutory pathway to permanent residency for skilled immigrants. The current H1B to Green Card pipeline is built on a legal fiction papered over a visa program that was the word “non-immigrant intent” written all over the statute.
Gemini gets this correct: “The H-1B visa is a nonimmigrant classification that allows U.S. employers to temporarily employ foreign nationals in ‘specialty occupations’ that require highly specialized knowledge and at least a bachelor's degree.”
Intent (are you planning to switch immigrant visa later) and status (immigrant/non-immigrant) are two different things. Visas like B1 are non-immigrant and require that you are not intending to abandon your foreign residence. In practice that means that when you enter US you cannot be planning to apply for immigrant visa. H1B is also non-immigrant visa, but it is dual intent visa meaning it doesn't have that requirement and thus it's fine to enter even if you intent to apply for GC. You can even exit and re-enter after submitting your application.
> In practice that means that when you enter US you cannot be planning to apply for immigrant visa.
You are correct about this.
> H1B is also non-immigrant visa, but it is dual intent visa meaning it doesn't have that requirement
You're incorrect about this. The concept of "dual intent" doesn't exist in the Immigration and Naturalization Act. It was created by executive fiat. H1Bs, like other non-immigrant visas, still requires non-immigrant intent. It's different only that it has two carve-outs:
Subsection (b) excludes H1Bs from the "presumption" of immigrant intent that applies to other categories of aliens. Subsection (h) provides that applying for permanent residency "shall not constitute evidence of an intention to abandon a foreign residence" for H1Bs.
So H1Bs must still have non-immigrant intent. It's just that they are carved out of certain presumptions that would automatically establish immigrant intent, which would lead to denial of their visa. It gives the executive flexibility to essentially look the other way when an H1B applies for a green card. But it doesn't confer any legal rights* onto the H1B. The administration can at any time decide that you actually have immigrant intent and yank your visa.
You're not actually wrong, but your phrasing makes it sound like that somehow excuses this travesty of justice.
I can only assume that's accidental. You're the 17th most active person on HN, so I'm certain you've seen an overwhelming amount of evidence of how skilled immigrants are immensely beneficial to the US economy.
The H-1B is not the only path to a green card. There are many ways, every case is different, and pretty much all of the paths suck, even if you do everything right.
This decision only makes all of those paths worse.
> evidence of how skilled immigrants are immensely beneficial to the US economy.
That's irrelevant. "Justice" means following the rules. Congress gets to decide the immigration laws. Congress has never created a real system for skilled permanent immigrants. The term "H1B" actually comes from 8 USC 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(B).
Subsection (a)(15) literally defines the term "immigrant" to exclude people in the subsequent subsections, including (H)(i)(b). Subsection (a)(15)(H)(i)(b) then reiterates that the category is for someone "who is coming temporarily to the United States to perform services." Congress didn't hide the ball.
It's just an example of how the immigration laws have been a bait-and-switch for decades: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/29/podcasts/the-daily/electi...
Everyone who has applied for an "adjustment of status" is following the rules. It's literally a procedure you submit to USCIS.
People who have done everything by "following the rules" are now seeing the US backpedal on what was promised to them via an administrative memo published by USCIS at the behest of the president—not through new legislation enacted by Congress.
I don't know where you're getting your information from, but it's factually incorrect.
And as someone else said, "justice" does not mean following the law. That's the definition of "legal".
It's important to anchor these topics at a certain level of understanding of Law and Economics to discuss optimal policy, otherwise we'll just talk past each other with uninformed political views.
Your information is factually incorrect. You're confusing the USCIS procedures for the actual law. The current H1B to green card pipeline was never much more than "an administrative memo" to begin with.
Read 8 USC 1101, specifically subsections (a)(15) & (a)(15)(H)(i)(B). The statute classifies H1Bs among the "nonimmigrant aliens," and states that the category is for someone "who is coming temporarily to the United States to perform services." Does that sound to you like it was mean to be a pathway to permanent residency?
There was never a "promise" in the law. Instead, there were a set of USCIS practices and procedures that amounted to nothing more than writing down what USCIS was currently doing. But USCIS never had authority to turn what Congress created as a temporary worker program into a permanent path to citizenship.
I'm sympathetic to people who put their eggs in the H1B basket. As an immigrant, how are you supposed to understand constitutional law and limits on executive power? But the fact is that the modern H1B regime was created almost entirely by executive fiat and it can be undone by executive fiat as well. (All the 1990 Act did was undo some presumptions but left the executive free to decide at any time that an H1B has immigrant intent, which is a basis for visa revocation.)
You should listen to this NYT podcast on America's immigration system and how its operation in practice is very different from what voters thought they were getting: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/29/podcasts/the-daily/electi...
My information is perfectly correct. I think you, as a layman, seem to be understanding the Law as being identical to the US Code, somehow ignoring the fact that rules and regulations, as well as case law, are also primary sources of Law in the United States. Here's from the first hit on Google for "Sources of US Law"
> The four sources of federal and state law are (1) constitutions, (2) statutes and ordinances, (3) rules and regulations, and (4) case law.
https://guides.law.sc.edu/c.php?g=315539&p=10379907
With that in mind, do read CFR 8 § 245.1 Eligibility: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-8/chapter-I/subchapter-B/...
More broadly please read https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-7-part-a
This amounts to much more than "writing down what USCIS was currently doing". This is a specific source of law. These regulations are legally binding as Congress has authorized the agency to issue them.
There's also plenty of case law from USCIS-related adjudicative reviews, meaning specific precedents set by judges who hear cases related to immigration.
After reflecting on your comment, I hope you're not trying to force an argument that any person who's requested an adjustment of status is somehow illegally present in the country, because that would be woefully incorrect.
I also don't appreciate the patronizing remark that I somehow fail to grasp the facts because I'm an immigrant.
I'm not sure why you think people who were born outside of the borders of the United States of America do not understand how liberal democracies work.
Do you actually think immigrants have no concept of constitutional law and limits on executive power? Do you think that knowledge is somehow protected by a magic seal that prevents me from ever obtaining it? Or do you think other countries do not have constitutions or a system of checks and balances? Do you know how many years I've spent studying nations in general and the US specifically? Do you know how many comparative studies I've written? Do you even know what my specific qualifications and degrees are? And I can do this in 5 different languages.
You're way out of your depth and your bias is showing.
Not an expert but I'm pretty sure that constitution > statutes and ordinances > rules and regulations. Meaning that USCIS must follow the intent of the law when publishing regulations. In the case of H1B the law is clear that it gives a specific status of temporary worker distinct to the immigrant status. USCIS itself acknowledges it:
https://www.uscis.gov/newsroom/news-releases/us-citizenship-...
> Our system is designed for them to leave when their visit is over. Their visit should not function as the first step in the Green Card process.
The hierarchy of the law does not preclude USCIS from providing a path to adjust status while in the US. Nothing in the constitution or any statute or ordinance prohibits that.
The H-1B is not "the first step" in a Green Card process. That's why there's an adjustment of status!
You go from non-immigrant to immigrant status and it's not a foregone conclusion. The requirements for the Green Card are entirely different from the H-1B. It's a separate process, with its own rules, fees, timelines.
The "adjustment of status" is simply a way for workers and their families to remain in the US legally while the green card process runs its course, instead of requiring them to uproot their existence (which at that point is often in the 7-10+ year range, if they studied here before the H-1B). Why would we want people to leave and quit their jobs and _then_ give them a green card? They will be in a worse position to contribute to the economy then.
These people pay thousands or millions in taxes and take nothing back. Making their transition to permanent resident smooth is in the interest of every American.
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”
> I think you, as a layman
He's a lawyer btw
oh god
Justice doesn’t mean following the law. It is possible to have an unjust law. Like red lining or slavery. Or civil forfeiture. Etc
This sounds quite non-sensical. The statutory pathway is employment based immigrant visas (EB 1 through 5). I don't get why you bring up H-1B into the discussion. If you are looking for congressional intent for this H-1B->EB AOS path, Congress passed AC21 precisely to address this path.
Typing this from behind a VPN proxy, just in case but...
Does anyone know if this mean that I as a US citizen, who has a spouse who has already applied/submitted their application (but has been waiting while the government drags its feet on it for over half a year), will now need to say goodbye? Things were already getting blurry when we moved quickly to get things in when we saw the winds in 24....
This is all so terrifying.
IANAL. Seek legal advice. I hope you have an immigration attorney. I honestly think that in this administration, no case should be submitted without an attorney. DIY filing is incredibly risky.
What matters here is how your spouse entered the country, what visa they are on, how soon you got married after they entered the country, their entire immigration history and whether or not they've accured any unlawful presence.
It seems like people who are on so-called "immigrant intent" visas (eg L1, H1b) might still be able to ordinarily adjust in the US. What this will affect (if it isn't struck down) is people who entered on a visitor's visa or a student visa (both of which are not dual-intent) and then got married and filed for adjustment. Those people might be forced to consular process if this stands. People who have already filed when this memo was released might still be able to adjust. We really don't know until this gets tested in court.
But interestingly there are work visas that aren't dual-intent (eg TN, E3). Those people may not be able to adjust with consular processing if this stands. That's a big change. It may force them to adjust to an H1B first.
Looks like it. And if you are from one of those 75+ countries, whose consulates have already stopped processing GC applications, you are cooked.
That is batshit insane. Thank you for the insight and messages from people. (almost posted this on my main, scary times)
There does appear to be a limited walk back for dual intent visa holders (H1B and L1)
“A spokesperson for US Citizenship and Immigration Services, however, told Semafor that H1-B visa holders and high-skilled workers might not be affected in the near term.”
Source: https://www.semafor.com/article/05/22/2026/trump-orders-gree...
I see the article argues that this new policy is NOT following the law ("faithfully executing Congress' intent".)
So any further spokes-person-ment is just more of the same -- no rule of law, just what we decide today or tomorrow.
Everything set by precedent from 1952-present is out the window.
That “might” is rather load-bearing for something you are literally staking your future on, though.
They "might" also end up in an ICE facility and then deported to somewhere like the Congo or an El Salvadoran prison.
I don’t think this is realistic at all.
It basically means a huge percentage of these people might never come back. Once you go back to your home country, life moves on. Your plans change. Your path changes. And that could be terrible for the economy.
Hundreds of thousands of people either wouldn’t enter the local economy, or they’d be delayed for a very long time. I really don’t see companies being okay with that. Think about all the students who are ready to enter the job market. Instead, they’d have to go back home, wait for a visa, and only then come back. That kills the speed of the economy and makes hiring way more unpredictable.Or at the very least, it would seriously slow things down.
Number must go up
I had 10 years of work experience and had been married to my wife for two years, together for five, when I applied for my spousal visa. We had already gone through the UK visa process to bring her there, but decided we wanted to try the USA.
Despite being able to show 10 years of consistent working history with income far exceeding the minimum, because I didn’t have a job lined up in the US (who would, or could, in that scenario?) we had to ask my wife's elderly parents to sign affidavits of support to prove I wouldn’t become a "public charge".
There were several times where we felt so insulted by the process, the length, the cost, the targeting from scammy law firms, that we almost gave up. People who have never been through the legal immigration process don't quite understand the amount of work it requires and stress it causes. I feel for the thousands of people who now have little certainty over their futures, and it feels necessary to say: people who come here to contribute their skills and experience don't all come along on an H1-B/L1, nor do they only come from white or european countries.
This is pretty normal for most countries' visa processes. You often have to leave to renew a visa.
A green card is NOT a visa my friend. Getting a green card is a very involved process.
So why would you need to leave the country, if you couldn't figure out why you don't want to issue one in the year+ it takes to jump through the hoops
Just a fun fact, getting a green card means signing up for ten YEARS of tax liabilities in the US. And those 10 years start, AFTER you relinquished it...
Wrong - green card is visa
https://guides.sll.texas.gov/immigration-law/visas-green-car...
A green card is literally not a visa
A green card is literally not a visa in US Law.
In other contexts, it literally is.
"Green card" literally refers to US permanent residency cards; it's called that because the physical cards issued by the US are/were green. "Other contexts" are riffing on actual green cards as a metaphor, and if speakers in other contexts want to talk about legal specificities, they should use an accurate term...
It’s a type of visa with benefits afforded a more temporary form.
A green card like a visa can be revoked. Citizenship gets a bit more interesting with the current administration.
OK so apparently when you file for an IR-1 visa, the IR-1 is the sticker they put in your passport that gets you into the country. But once you get the card, it replaces the visa. So the card is not the visa.
Today I learned. Before this thread, I was under the same impression as bluesea.
Correct and it's a typical process for many countries. You get a visa so you can stay past the tourist time (often 90 days and with an intent to apply for residency), and then while in country you apply for residency (the green card). One of the issues in the US is the process can take so long you end up overstaying your visa. Logically you should be able to extend the visa or the gov. shouldn't care since it's their fault it's taking so long. But, it's better for one side to simply declare these people illegal.
The equivalent of greencard in most countries (permanent residency) usually requires that you're in the country, not outside, and the process is heavily reliant on you being present in country and able to show history of legal (temporary) residence.
The majority of people granted greencards are family/relative sponsored who apply outside the US. Only in the past 15 years have employee sponsored greencards surged, most of whom have temporary visas.
I think the biggest question the US needs to ask itself is do we want to be normal like most countries or better?
I think it's more like: the US is the most generous country in the world regarding immigration, funding global health, funding global defence, funding global aid, but Europeans and others (including a lot of the young American left) talk about it as though it's the worst country in the world. So why bother, when you can just spend your money on your own citizens the way most countries do and fund loads of internal benefits?
Because I think we've been generous because we recognize the benefits that come to us for being so generous. Proper generosity recognizes that the other's well-being relates to our well-being.
For example, giving funding to USAID to try to stop the spread of Ebola helps people in DRC, Uganda, and other countries directly affected, but can also help the US not have Ebola spread here.
Helping Mexico improve their economy can help people in Mexico not immigrate to the US.
I believe our generosity also benefits us much more than we can see when our perspective collapses and we see life from fewer and fewer dimensions. And I think we can collapse into the "us vs them" mindset that so many others have collapsed into or we can go the other direction and realize it's "us with them" and then we look at generosity differently.
At this point the US is the kid eating glue, it looks like.
USA has been far better for over 100 years. But that had to end at some point. So now we're seeing it end.
It did not "have" to end, it's merely a political choice by one political faction being forced upon the entire nation.
It's unfortunate, by and large the republican voters seem to have looked at the wreckage of the USSR and the continual looting and decline in quality of life that countries like Russia are enjoying under a kleptocratic regime, and they took their fingers out of their collective noses for just long enough to say "yeah I want that for here!".
Even with the cleptocrats in charge, the quality of life in Russia is incredibly better that it used to be in the USSR.
You mean the elected one?
People hate to be reminded of this, but that "faction" is the voters, in record numbers for the party.
Not really, voters didn't want this, and they hate it when they are told what's happening. The media silently accepted Trump's lie at face value when he said he knew nothing about Project 2025, despite anybody with half a brain realizing it was a lie. Reporters acted like they had less than half a brain, so that they wouldn't get bopped on their nose by their editors, who in turn were already bowing down to Trump.
The "faction" lied about their intentions in order to be elected. That in itself isn't uncommon, but what is uncommon is the degree to which it lied. Most Republican voters, when told about the actual policies being implemented by elected Republicans, don't believe the reports, and assume that nobody would be enacting such stupid policy. Yet the voters keep voting for them.
Trump's platform was literally 24 bullet points in ALL CAPS: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/2024-republican-pa...
The first two items were:
"1. SEAL THE BORDER, AND STOP THE MIGRANT INVASION"
"2. CARRY OUT THE LARGEST DEPORTATION OPERATION IN AMERICAN HISTORY"
You're acting like Trump's immigration policy was buried in some "Project 2025" whitepaper nobody has ever read.
Also, his immigration policy remains popular. According to Harvard-Harris, "Deporting all immigrants who are here illegally" remains above water at 55% support (including 33% of Democrats), 45% oppose: https://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/HHP... (p. 26)
So he's sending Melania and the kids to Europe?
The implication for Trump and his constituency is that this only applies to brown people. White people are, naturally, not immigrants, even when they are. That's why 100% of the examples Trump would use would be of brown people.
> voters didn't want this
Yes they did. Of course they didn't want to be targeted themselves, but the rhetoric was very explicit about what would happen, and they already had a preview of it in 2016 and voted even more favorably for this regime this time around.
> The media silently accepted Trump's lie at face value when he said he knew nothing about Project 2025
Not true. The media was very vocal about it, and it was obvious that he was on board with it.
> Most Republican voters, when told about the actual policies being implemented by elected Republicans, don't believe the reports, and assume that nobody would be enacting such stupid policy.
This isn't true. The recent ouster of Thomas Massie is a clear example of this. However, even if that were true, Republican voters still overwhelmingly prefer this to the alternative (Democrats), and polls show this today.
> Yet the voters keep voting for them.
Indeed. Not sure how you can acknowledge this but somehow believe it's not what the voters want.
There is no contradiction between the points made so far. His base loves it and the majority of americans do not. He won by a marginal victory just like in 2016. The current system favors the Rs and the Rs have worked to gerrymander every state they've controlled since 2010, and they've used everything in their power since the obama years to make sure they control the courts. Poll after poll shows americans don't like Trump (or Biden for that matter or the Democrats) but because of the moment in 2024, Trump took a marginal victory and consolidated power, which Democrats never could do and never wanted to do.
The simple statement that none of this is what voters want if we're talking about a majority of them is just true. To say otherwise is to be ignorant of history since the 90s and the Rs under Newt Gingrich to this day, and how effectively as a party they've consolidated power in America. I'm not really saying it's evil or smart or anything (I do think it was smart and bold). But, polls do consistently show a majority of Americans have never been so pessimistic about the country and their leadership in both parties.
> The recent ouster of Thomas Massie is a clear example of this
How?
The outcome of his election was a referendum on Trump's performance among engaged Republican voters.
I don’t agree that even engaged republicans actually know what’s going on. In my experience some of them are the most hoodwinked - they literally believe that all the immigrants being detained are criminals, that everyone sent to CECOT was a terrorist, that DACA recipients have all been allowed to get green cards and just not bothered to, etc.
It was a referendum on all swing states and on black and Hispanic voters.
First, you're making a big logical error by replacing "voters" with "Republican voters" or the even more narrow, extreme, and unrepresentative group of "Republican primary voters".
If people knew they were voting for Project 2025, why would Trump disavow any connection to it during the campaign? It doesn't make any sense.
> Republican voters still overwhelmingly prefer this to the alternative (Democrats), and polls show this today.
Republican voters care less about policy than about the team. Take key Democratic policies, and present them in polls without the Democratic label, and Republicans support them. Add in the label and they don't support them.
It's not hard to understand that politics is mostly treated as sports-team affiliation these days.
Republicans don't vote for Republicans because of policies, they vote for Republicans because they identify as Republicans.
And, claiming that the Massie vote, of just the extreme primary voters, represents the public's will? That's ridiculous. Massie still got something like 45% of the vote, among that extreme and unrepresentative bloc of voters, after Trump going hard after Massie for trying to release the Epstein files.
The Massie vote is about extremist Republican's subservience to Trump, not about whether anybody actually likes policies. People despise Trump's Epstein coverup.
100 years?
In the 1920s and 1930s the US had:
- Forced labor
- Peonage
- Debt servitude
- Jim crow laws
The 19th amendment was ratified in 1920, so that barely missed the cutoff.
The US has not been some beacon of moral righteousness for the majority of its existence.
USA accepted more immigrants between 1900 and 1980 than every other western country combined.
A hundred years? Maybe after WW2. The Great Depression was pretty rough over there.
Far better than who?
DO you have a good reason why?
Because the industrialization of America is over, and has been for decades. USA doesn't need low-wage, immigrant workers anymore. The railroads have already been built, the fields have been plowed, and now that's all done by big automated machines. Everything that cheap workers used to do that was valuable is now automated.
Who does the farming? Who does the cleaning? Who builds the buildings? Who are the line cooks? That should be obvious.
But it should be just as obvious that there are plenty of immigrants who are also necessary because they bring new ideas, their education, their incredible work ethic, to fill in the gaps that the US clearly has.
There is one thing that unites all of us (and I do mean us, as I am one of them). We all dream of a society where our hard work can become prosperity for ourselves and for everyone else, a plot of fertile soil that is worth sowing. We all come here with a dream.
And I personally don't mind so much that I'm uplifting people that don't agree with my existence. I just wish that they could stay out of our way so we could all benefit.
I think there are many jobs Americans have decided the just don’t want to do - at a large scale. That said many do.
There is a completely different dynamic with job shops like wipro and others sponsoring “high skilled visas” which are only used to undercut certain labor markets.
I'm not against tightening up the constraints to prevent what becomes indentured servitude dressed up in red, white, and blue. That doesn't help the American people or those who carry within them the American dream. But fixing that is not everyone's actual intent, and that does really bother me.
And your point? The US has an issue where at a certain price point labor has no interest. Reality is that is multiplied if it actually requires real work in a field, rudimentary construction, etc.
This is not a visa issue, but one we solve with illegal labor and visas.
The real solution is visas and making those that done want to work and sponge off social services, actually work.
My kiddo graduates soon, her baby daddy owes $75k in back child support - say 7 years. He’s talented enough to make $150+ wood working. Refuses to do anything because the man/etc. Branch not far from tree.
I’d love to turn a POS like him in such that someone equally talented and wants to contribute can, take a percentage. The person gets a visa, the dead beat gets servitude. No take on the servitude just taxes maybe going off to pay the debt.
The US is a land of opportunity, but also a land of a bunch of idiots that are entitled.
I don't know anything about that situation, but it sounds difficult and I'm sorry that it's happening to your loved ones. I'm not sure you can make someone work if they don't care to, though. Like, take the common example of debtors having their driver's licenses suspended for their debt. Is that really helping anyone? They certainly won't be any closer to paying it off.
I can't disagree with your final assertion there, but there's really very little you can do besides offer greater incentives that get people to genuinely want to work. And I know there's not a market for that and that the rich are keeping the purse strings tight. So it goes.
> The US has an issue where at a certain price point labor has no interest.
That price is driven by the benefits system creating a price floor, not by intrinsic lack of interest.
Whoa there. What's wrong with "undercutting labor markets"? Last I heard, when a profession (e.g. doctors) decides to limit the number of practicioners in order to charge a higher price to the public, that's a bad thing. It benefits the people currently employed in that profession now, but it hurts others who wants to join, and it hurts the public who wants to get the service (e.g. healthcare). The sum of hurt is greater than the sum of help. Cartels are harmful; they don't stop being harmful just because there are borders involved.
I mean, it's one thing if you think immigrants commit more crimes or use more taxpayer money. These are both false, but at least the argument could hypothetically work. But if you say that even perfectly law-abiding, non-welfare-using, good-work-performing hypothetical immigrants shouldn't be allowed in because they would "undercut labor markets", that's plain nonsense. Such nice hypothetical immigrants should be invited in large numbers and everyone would win from it.
If someone has no specials skills beyond what a current citizen college grad has, why is there a need for that individual to have an H1 or related visa? Many visas get issued to people that take the equivalent of a University of Phoenix degree.
Well, not everyone.
Those having their labour under-cut aren’t going to directly benefit.
> Who does the farming? Who does the cleaning? Who builds the buildings? Who are the line cooks? That should be obvious.
Exclusively immigrants? Is that what you’re arguing?
Only green card holders in the US do those jobs?
I'm hoping you just misread my comment... Otherwise I've got a little more confidence about education in the US being a gap that needs filling :)
> Who does the farming? Who does the cleaning? Who builds the buildings? Who are the line cooks? That should be obvious.
I don't think "but who will pick the cotton?" is a good argument.
You don’t even have to think that hard about it.
Without immigration an imminent depopulation crisis is on its way to America.
We are actually blessed to be in demand as an immigration destination as well as a culture and infrastructure uniquely set up for it.
Squandering that advantage to satisfy xenophobic ideology is yet another demonstration of the Republican Party’s lack of fiscal responsibility. See also: completely random war in Iran, ICE budget increases spent on kicking out taxpayers/customers, tax cuts for billionaires, the current record high budget deficit, $1.8 billion fund for Trump brownshirts, etc.
<< Without immigration an imminent depopulation crisis is on its way to America.
You may not realize this, but it appears to be the goal in this case.
> Without immigration an imminent depopulation crisis is on its way to America.
Most countries have this same issue. Not all, but the global population rise, if current trends continue will reverse.
Can you explain to me your understanding of why that is?
And can you also explain your understanding of why Israel is the only Western country that has a fertility rate above replacement?
To be honest, the depopulation crisis is not something we are likely to be able to stop in the long term. But curtailing immigration certainly won't help, and the US would be uniquely positioned as an immigration destination to weather the storm of rapid depopulation better than other countries if it continued its status as an immigration center.
Recommended reading:
After the Spike: Population, Progress, and the Case for People
Or really any other book on the subject, I'm not married to that one, it's not a perfect book it's just one that's easy to find because of the distinctive cover.
I don't care to get into talking about Israel. It's a country with the population of Ohio, so if it's an anomaly, it's an anomaly. The only discussion I can get into that country is going to get distasteful.
You're putting the cart in front of the horse. If the US economy didn't need low-wage immigrant workers, we wouldn't be complaining about them in the first place, because they would've gone somewhere else where the jobs are.
The fact they're coming the US literally means its economy needs them.
Of course we could all wax philosophical and say "Nobody needs a Frappuccino every other day, we just want it," but then nobody needs to live in a prosperous economy anyway.
There's always work available if someone is asking for a low enough wage, that should be self-evident. How does this prove that the population at large benefits from more people being willing to work for low wages?
Classical economics would argue that higher population tends to increase productivity (economies of scale and specialization) while lowering wages, increasing land value, and improving returns on capital. Free trade has a very similar effect. You can find this analysis in all standard texts (Smith, Riccardo, etc) and even progressive works such as Progress and Poverty by Henry George.
Different groups are free to have different opinions of this tradeoff. Big landowners benefit immensely while working class renters only suffer.
> The fact they're coming the US literally means its economy needs them.
Not necessarily. As just one example, it could mean one of their family immigrated for a well paying job, and now they want their parents, or other family, to join them and they don’t have skills in a high paying industry.
The presence of low income wage earners does not, by force of nature nor economics, require them.
Having said that, I tend to against minimum wage policy.
I wish i could ill find the video, the farms in CA certainly do need labor. In the 90s when there was another - people south of the border are taking jobs bs - an interview er asked people waiting for for support at a welfare office in Salinas (lots of farms) offering jobs in the fields. Unanimous nope.
They are needed and often do more than those that are citizens.
Easy fix.
Remove, or at least tighten the requirements, for welfare.
Your argument seems to be the equivalent of: if the (illegal? surely some of them) immigrants could get welfare they also wouldn’t do those jobs.
As welfare increases to the point where it starts to competes with jobs, it seems sensible to expect welfare will compete with jobs. Especially when you take in to consideration the expenses welfare recipients don’t incur as a result of not having to attend the workplace nor dress for such.
[flagged]
> Vivek Ramaswamy
> Bobby Jindal
> Nikki Haley
All natural-born American citizens born in the US.
Why did you quietly remove these names from your sarcastic comment when confronted about it?
It was an honest mistake, I legitimately thought they weren’t born in this country.
We could easily extend this to second generation immigrants if we want to make xenophobes look even dumber.
Imagine the American tech industry without Steve Jobs, for example.
Melania Trump wasn't on "low wage immigrant worker" visa (H1B) but on a "exceptional ability" visa (O1).
Didn't check the others...
You’re getting close to understanding my point.
Low quality bait comment, cherry picking a few kids of well educated well-off immigrants who turned out to be rockstars growing up under the exceptional US economic conditions. It's called the exception, not the rule. If those kids were to grow up in some underdeveloped country, none of them would have achieved anything noteworthy which proves the US itself and the conditions it offers is the secret sauce, not immigrants alone by themselves.
Also, some people on your list are absolute red flags I would rather not have in my country, which is proving my point that good border controls and strict visas are essential.
It’s amazing how close and how far you are at understanding my point simultaneously.
Without committing to some wildly contradictory logic, the xenophobic political party in charge of this country cannot be simultaneously in favor of mass deportations, denaturalization, and generally closing the borders while being against denaturalizing and deporting Melania Trump and Elon Musk for obvious visa violations. There is also contradiction in the way the right wing has gotten cozy with big tech companies run by immigrants who entered the country on the H1B visa they demonize so fervently.
Just imagine the outcry if Obama was from South Africa and was standing behind the president's desk talking about how he's running a new illegal government agency.
Elon Musk was from a rich Canadian-South African family that owned mines.
Nah, there was just more economic activity to draw people in. By every other measure it’s been more hostile than average.
But you are right that it is ending, just wrong about what: it’s the high economic activity that attracted people which is disappearing thanks to the same people that hate migrants.
> By every other measure it’s been more hostile than average.
I'm not sure there's a "just" here: compared to peer countries, the US is either middle-of-the-pack[1] or significantly more accepting of immigrants[2] depending on which number you pick.
(This isn't to somehow imply that the US isn't hostile to its immigrants, because it is. But the question is whether it's more hostile.)
[1]: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/charted-the-share-of-foreig...
[2]: https://www.oecd.org/en/data/indicators/stocks-of-foreign-bo...
The parent post says it’s the high economic activity that attracted people even though the US has been more hostile than average by every other measure. So it's as if the US was a honeypot with a flyswatter.
By the way, your [2] is useless to prove your point: you can't compare absolute numbers (for instance Iceland vs the US).
I don’t think I agree that it’s hostile by every other measure. The US’s immigration system is cruel and capricious, but assimilating into the US seems to be a lot easier than, for example, France or Germany. The US is unusual among its peer countries in not requiring immigrants to speak the “official” language fluently, in accepting public displays of ethnic or religious background that aren’t ambiently European Christian, etc.
(Again, I must emphasize that this does not make the US good. Only that the bar is perhaps lower than people who are assimilated into any particular country may realize.)
I would suggest that the proper metric is not the number of immigrants, which after all the parent commentator implied would be the case because of higher economics drawing them in, but a combination of the following
1. the amount of violence directed against immigrants legally allowed in by governmental forces.
2. the chance of legally allowed in immigrants will have immigration status changed without due process.
3. what percentage of Immigrants fear that 1 or 2 will happen to them.
I believe these two conditions seem to exist in the United States currently, although not sure how many immigrants it affects.
I am unsure if there are other countries that have a similar situation, I would expect if there are they must be relatively few in number.
The closest type of situation would be, I suppose, racial oppression focused on particular groups that have become undesirable according to a country's government.
Sorry but this is just patently untrue. Are you American? Because in my experience, most Americans just don't realize how arbitrary and capricious the US immigration system is.
Pick any other developed country and the process is generally fairly simple. With some you can just apply for a temporary work visa (possibly without a job) or just apply to immigrate. If you stay in many places long enough on a temporary visa you pretty much get residency and ultimately citizenship.
Beyond what's possible, the time frames for doing anything with US immigration is ridiculously long. Like if you, as a US citizen marry someone overseas it can take upwards of 4 years to get a green card for your spouse and they won't be able to visit the US at all in that time. Why? Because filing a marriage petition means you've shown "immigrant intent" so you'll never get a visit visa (B1/B2) again. Also, the president may well just ban your country from getting any visa. 75 countries are currently on that list.
It's also incredibly easy to make a mistake at some point in the process and that may end up getting an approvable case denied or, worse, you end up with an improvidently granted benefit that cannot be repaired, even if it was an honest mistake.
Sweden is portrayed as beacon of human rights, let's use them as an example.
https://www.reuters.com/world/sweden-tighten-citizenship-rul...
The rules now are tougher than US rules for citizenship. Sweden (like e.g., Norway) has a 8 year wait vs US's 5 year wait.
Sweden has minimum income requirements, none in the US.
That is for a different scenario. It means that if you already have a residence permit, you have to wait 8 years before you can apply for citizenship. OP is talking about marriage green card. For 75% of cases in Sweden it is less than 15 months to get a residence permit.
[1] https://www.migrationsverket.se/en/you-want-to-apply/live-wi...
And for US green cards for marriage you can get them in 10 to 24 months (Before this change).
https://www.boundless.com/immigration-resources/how-long-doe...
Funnily, I had a German friend complain about this change and then I came across this Reddit thread.
https://old.reddit.com/r/immigration/comments/1tks87l/trump_...That’s not true. Germany explicitly allows you to stay in the country to transition from a temporary visa to long term.
> However, the law provides several exceptions where you can apply for the new residence title while staying in Germany with your current permit. These exceptions allow a switch from a temporary purpose (like studies) to a more permanent one
These timelines are wildly optimistic. Boundless is selling a service and I'd recommend nobody actually uses it because you're really paying for nothing. Things like "you are responsible for the information you provide". Part of the reason you get an immigration attorney is to identify likely issues, go with you for your interview, know when (or even if) to apply for an immigration benefit and to put their name as the preparer (ie putting their reputation and career on the line for their advice).
Boundless seems like knowing a guy in the neighbourhood who helps you fill out immigration forms, typically called "notarios". Some will call themselves "paralegals" without working for an actual lawyer. It's a scammy business.
So here's the general process.
1. Petitioner (US citizen or LPR) files an I130 and I130A for their overseas spouse. That requires a lot of documentation to prove your status, that it's a bona fide marriage, biographic information for your spouse, proof that you're both free to marry (ie evidence of previous marriages and that you're divorced/single);
2. USCIS spends 12-15 months processing this. It then gets sent to the National Visa Center ("NVC") who spend another 3+ months looking at the documents, after which you're "documentarily qualified" ("DQ");
3. At this point, your foreign spouse can now make an appointment with an embassy or consulate for an immigrant visa interview. Depending on their country this may be realtively quick (within 1-2 months) or really long (12+ months);
4. The foreign spouse will need to get a medical exam done to check for vaccines, communicable diseases (eg TB), etc. This has to be done within a certain period of the interview;
5. The interview happens and the officer asks whatever they want to ask. If it's approved, your pay the fee and your passport is stamped. You're given a packet to hand over to CBP when you enter the US. It can be denied. The officer may ask for more information, which can add months of delay. Or it can go into a limbo called "admin processing";
6. The spouse travels to the US and is now a permanent resident, assuming CBP lets them in (they have discretion not to btw). You may then have to wait for months for your green card and you're waiting for that to get your SSN so you can work, get a bank account, get on a lease, etc.
It's more realistic to say this will take 2-2.5 years and maybe take 4+. In that entire time the foreign spouse won't get any kind of visa to visit the US so if you want to be with your spouse, you need to live in another country or visit often for a very long time.
So how can go wrong? Lots of ways. Here's a non-exhaustive list:
1. The foreign spouse's entire immigration history is under scrutiny. If they visited their then partner(before getting married) and didn't tell the embassy or CBP about that, it can raise misrep[resentation] issues. and may just cause delays;
2. If they've ever applied for a visa and been denied, this too will be scrutinized;
3. Ideally you only need a police report for the country you live in (to prove no criminal history) and that's relatively easy to get. It might not be. Or you may need it for a bunch of countries if you've lived in multiple over the previous 5 years;
4. USCIS gets to decide where your interview is going to be. Prior to this administration, that could be where you were living. For example, if you were from Mali but living and working in the UK, then you could schedule it in the UK. Now the administration has decided you must be interviewed in your country of birth. If that country has no US embassy (eg Afghanistan) then maybe your country of residence can be used or it might be a country neighbouring your country of birth;
5. What if you applied for asylum from that country? Let's say you are from belarus but claimed (and received) asylum in the UK. You might spend a year trying to tell USCIS that you can't travel to Belarus for your interview;
6. How did the US citizen (or LPR) get their green card? Was it through marriage? This is what USCIS calls a "pivot case" and they view it harshly, particularly if, for example, a Ghana man was married in Ghana, travelled to the US, got divorced in the US, married a US citizen, got citizenship themselves, got divorced and then married somebody else from Ghana. USCIS is increasingly taking the position that this may well be immigration fraud, arguing the man had multiple wives, the divorce was a sham and the second spouse was their spouse all along. It's up to you to prove that's not the case. In this administration that can lead to revocation of their green card or even denaturalization;
7. Was the foreign spouse ever in a cultural or religious marriage? This gets real tricky because what counts as "married" and "divorced" varies by country and, depending on the country, can be hard to prove. Also, some countries have a lot of falsified divorce decrees (eg Nigeria). This can add months as you have to prove they were free to marry;
8. The president may come along and decide to ban visa issuance to your foreign spouse's country. USCIS seemingly takes the broadest definition of this. So if you were born in one of those countries OR have ever had citizen, you're covered by the ban. There's no judicial recourse for this, thanks to Trump v. Hawaii. If so, you're just in limbo probably until Trump leaves office;
9. The black hole after the interview can be "administrative processing". This can mean anything. It can mean something as simple as "we don't like this case". IIRC I heard that 85% of cases in admin processing ultimately get approved but the case may sit in limbo for years and may take a court challenge to resolve it;
10. If you end up taking too long after your interview, your medical exam may expire and you have to do it again. Hopefully the embassy officer asks you for an updated copy but they don't have to be that nice;
11. Between the interview and coming to the US things can happen that USCIS or CBP argue are of material interest. Maybe you get charged with something, even if it's just a traffic offense. You might not fill out the forms correctly. You might not even be aware of it. It might not stop USCIS or CBP making a big deal out of it; and
12. CBP can arbitrarily decide to deny you entry at a port-of-entry even with a valid immigrant visa stamp in your passport for pretty much any reason.
I dare you to find any marriage immigration benefit that's as capricious, arbitrary, time-consuming, restrictive and Byzantine as the US system.
Sweden is a white hegemony, the US is not and has never been. It's not a fair comparison when the US has literally always been composed of immigrants.
If you want a white hegemony, move to goddamn Sweden and leave us alone. That's not the US and to suggest otherwise is anti-American and ahistorical. If you clearly hate what this country stands for, then please do yourself and everyone else a favor and leave. Jesus Christ.
As I recall, we had to drive to the US border and turn around to "enter Canada" to process our landed immigrant letters. That was a while ago, so it's possible that there is more involved now... Was curious as they asked about our stuff and car(s), and we pointed out "at home, in Canada" which got a smile.
Canada requires you to (re)enter under your newly granted status in some circumstances, but that is entirely different from requiring you to leave the country before you can apply for a change of status, and to remain outside of the country while the application is processed. I was free to come and go from Canada as a temporary visitor while I waited to get my PR, and I had the option of applying from within the country as a non resident as well, with some caveats.
Think my European buddy had to go back home to renew his work permit. Could not do that within Canada.
Indeed, but there are counterexamples as well. In the UAE you enter as a tourist and get a resident visa while you're there. They take away your passport for at least a couple of weeks so you can't leave either.
This is how it has been in the US too. You have to go to an embassy abroad to get a new visa, renew, change status etc. (There are exceptions)
It is false. It is not the case for UK and several EU countries at the very least
is that normal? in UK you can extend a visa or apply for ILR without leaving the country.
Simila in Ireland: you are not allowed to seek work while in Ireland on a holiday visa, you can only apply for work permissions/visas from outside the country, and depending on the type of visa you get (general work vs critical skills), your spouse might have to wait a year before they can join you.
Sure, but AFAIK a green card is more like indefinate leave to remain: it's not a visa as such, but a thing you can apply for after you have already lived in the country for some amount of time (on a visa of some other form, generally one which allows you to legally stay for the required time in the country) which gives the right to stay permanently. So it doesn't make a lot of sense to require leaving the country to apply first.
I see, that is different indeed, and rather silly to force you to apply from abroad!
Seems like it's a ploy to get all the undesirables out of the country, then it's "oops your application was denied, or it takes years to be approved, you can't come back. Sorry not sorry!"
Green card is completely independent of whether you're in the US. You can get one without ever having set foot in the US, and you can live in the country for 15+ years and still not be able to get one.
Note - I immigrated to Ireland from the US and went through the visa process (including huddling in the cold in January at 4 AM at burgh quay, and years later, writing a scraper for their insanely bad appointment system that managed to actually be worse than huddling in the cold)
It's pretty normal not to be able to look for work on a tourist visa in most countries - are you suggesting this is unusual? As far as spouses, they used to have an incredibly asinine system where they told you your spouse _could_ work, without sponsorship, if they got a special form, but getting this form was de facto impossible. It was a very Irish approach, in retrospect. The campaign to fix this was, eventually, successful. (https://reformstamp3.wixsite.com/home)
Fwiw I’ve seen confused or misleading posters reply to this change with statements along the lines of ‘this only means that they don’t allow tourist to apply for greencards in the country’.
Which is nonsense, it applies to all non immigrant visas such as work visas. But it’s a line you’ll see various people try to claim as if this isn’t devastating to every spouse of a us citizen who now can’t get a greencard without leaving their us based job and family.
Do they have yo quit their job to leave the county?
If you’re on a work visa you can’t work from a foreign country.
That doesn’t answer my question.
How is this the same? You can't apply for a green card on a holiday/tourist/non-working visa. You have to be already in the country for many years before you can do that.
> Despite being able to show 10 years of consistent working history with income far exceeding the minimum, because I didn’t have a job lined up in the US (who would, or could, in that scenario?) we had to ask my wife's elderly parents to sign affidavits of support to prove I wouldn’t become a "public charge".
This seems entirely reasonable. You had as much time as you could have liked to apply for jobs after deciding to try the USA. Fortunately you were able to take advantage of an alternative that didn’t require that.
I’m not really sure what you were going for writing that. You think 10 years working in country A should entitle you to a work permit from country B?
> nor do they only come from white or european countries.
Why should that matter? If country B decides to only allow white and / or Europeans to apply to live and work in country B, that is entirely fair. It’s not people-from-outside-country-B’s privilege to decide what country B does or doesn’t do.
Discrimination is a human right.
> people who come here to contribute their skills and experience don't all come along on an H1-B/L1, nor do they only come from white or european countries.
But out of the pool of people who come from poor countries, who don't have jobs lined up in the U.S, and aren't here on a skilled worker visa, a large fraction of them will end up relying on welfare benefits.
Family-based visas are a huge loophole in U.S. If you look at most of the immigrant ghettos in the country, they're fueled by family reunification. In my own extended family we have several people, who came here based on my dad's sponsorship, who are a drain on the government. (The sponsorship commitment is basically never enforced.)
The uncertainty is one of the main reasons why I didn't bother to go the F1->H1B route and ended up leaving the US again.... but that was a decade ago.
The USA don't owe you citizenship. It's on you to prove that your presence there would be of benefit to the other citizens.
Given the opportunity, at the time, I would have happily taken steps to prove my presence would be of benefit. Instead, I had to spend my time asking family to give me their pension statements.
Later, I was recognized for that potential benefit. Last December, I became a citizen.
Green Cards aren't citizenship.
They're permanent residency, so other than voting rights effectively the same thing.
Lots of other differences.
1. Citizens have a right to enter at ports of entry, can refuse to hand over social media accounts, etc. Greencard holders are still at the discretion of border officials.
2. Citizens can wander the world and live abroad for however long they fancy and always be allowed to return to their country of citizenship when things go awry. Greencard holders can't do that.
3. Citizens get consular protection, greencard holders don't.
I suggest you go and try out an immigration system. You have no idea.
I lived in central Europe for two years. Had to wait in line for 20 hours halfway through my time there to renew my visa, otherwise it wasn't much of an issue.
Ok so you know what a visa is then.
So on your visa if you did anything bad, what would happen? Get your visa taken?
Here's one big difference. Do something bad, your green card might be taken. When you're a citizen? Nothing happens
And that's just one example...
Actually, if you do something bad enough, your citizenship can be removed. This is true in the US, UK, India, and maybe others. The exact procedures and criteria vary.
> Do something bad … When you're a citizen? Nothing happens.
Nothing?
No, you're wrong. You can lose their Green Card.
If you leave the country for more than 6 months, you need to seek prior approval, and you definitely can lose it. I was on Green Card and when I crossed the border, I was questioned by the customs officer as to why I didn't get my citizenship yet because it was 15 years I was on GC and the point of the GC wasn't to be literally permanent. I quickly got my citizenship after that just in case the same thing happened again.
If you get arrested for a major crime, you can lose your GC but you can only lose your citizenship if you lied or committed fraud at the time of your application, or if you committed treason against the government.
>No, you're wrong. You can lose their Green Card.
Didn't know that.
>If you leave the country for more than 6 months, you need to seek prior approval, and you definitely can lose it.
Doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
>If you get arrested for a major crime, you can lose your GC but you can only lose your citizenship if you lied or committed fraud at the time of your application, or if you committed treason against the government.
That sounds eminently reasonable to me.
It doesn't matter that it sounds reasonable to you.
The point wasn't that these difference are unreasonable.
It was that they are substantial, and absolutely exist, making your "green card is pretty much the same as citizenship" statement false.
>Didn't know that.
We know. This is why we're telling you these things.
Now you know.
And there's much more for you to find out.
First of all, not true, but second of all, thats a pretty important difference in a so called democracy.
Well, based on the state your in you can still vote citizenship or not.
Which state allows this?
California and New York are the most famous examples but asking perplexity I got:
As of the current 2026 rules, the states that do not require ID at the polls are: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin, plus Delaware has a special affidavit process if you do not have ID
https://www.usvotefoundation.org/2026-in-person-voter-id-pol...
We are not talking about voter ID laws. You have to be a citizen to register to vote. Do you want to answer the question in good faith?
In some of those locations non-citizens can vote in local elections, like Maryland and San Francisco. Also in some of those locations you get registered by the DMV, like California, and non citizens mistakenly have voted in Federal elections (which is a crime).
Note I am not endorsing the latter as it can come up in future citizenship applications.
There’s the answer I was actually expecting. Yes, in some LOCALITIES, (which “Maryland” is not) non-citizens can vote in things such as school board elections. Voting in any statewide or federal election as a non citizen in any state is still a crime.
this is not true.
... no. As someone who has had both, I can tell you there's _quite_ a difference.
Wish granted: You are no longer a citizen because you never "proved you were beneficial". Please remit $100,000 to the Citizenship Payment Service immediately to avoid being downgraded to serfdom. /s
Framing it that way is backwards and anti-democratic. Democratic citizenship is something the government "owes" you because it is imposing control on your life. It is not some kind of magnanimous gift of club membership, you already deserved to have a say in what's being done to you.
That's why most Americans (and their children) have never once been required to "prove" that they are "beneficial", and it's why people the government is controlling in jails are still citizens rather than objects.
They undid public charge from my memory. It doesn’t exist anymore.
I looked it up, and we were required to complete form I-864 "Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the INA". My wife, her grandmother, and her grandfather all needed to complete one, and when considered together, prove that they earned 125% of the HHS poverty guidelines. As my wife didn't have provable income (we were moving together), we needed to dig into their social security income and complete the forms. I remember feeling sad that I needed to ask for such personal information from them.
My salary in the UK was many multiples of this guideline, but _earning potential_ is not considered. Pragmatism is not really a service offered by USCIS, it's too political. To be on-topic: this move will disincentivize smart but not-yet-wealthy people from immigrating to the "land of opportunity". It was already harder than it had to be.
How recently? As of about 2010, it was very much still there. I understand that is 16 years ago.
It has always existed, but how strictly it’s interpreted (i.e., just cash welfare, or also Medicaid, SNAP, and other means-tested benefits) has shifted between administrations. If you applied during Biden’s administration, I could believe the public charge rule was applied very laxly, particularly because it’s rare to get direct cash welfare in the US these days, and even less for an extended period.
Under what administration was your process?
Trump, early 2017. I'm aware there was some attempt by the Trump admin to change "public charge" terminology in late 2018.
I am pretty sure you’re talking about the time when the doctor asks you to lift your dick to check that you don’t have an STD or something .
Best moment of the process.
Whoah. I never had that bit LOL. You got special treatment :) They did an eye test and made me get some vaccination records from when I was a kid.
The craziest bit I found was the GC interview where they test your spousal relationship. Expected questions like "What side of the bed do you sleep on?", "Who takes out the garbage?" -- instead they spent 30 minutes interrogating my wife about the military base she was born on and spent the first 6 months of her life at ("Who was the commanding officer at the time?"). It was like something out of a KGB script.
Yeah, I have yet to find someone else who had this.
Maybe it’s a New York thing.
This is complete nonsense. All other countries, including the UK, Australia and most of Europe has immigration systems that are just as stringent if not more so.
Notably, and very relevant, the UK recently made it substantially harder for UK citizens to bring over spouses to the point that even teachers don't meet the income thresholds necessary to qualify.
Australia is more expensive AND takes longer than the United States for the equivalent spousal visa.
Sorry, which part of my personal experiences was nonsense? Immigration is hard, and yes, I'm aware of challenges in the UK as I moved my spouse over there in 2014. Do you have an experience with immigration that you can speak to?
Your implication is that the US has an outsized level of difficulty in immigration. This is nonsense. The UK, Australia and Europe are harder.
Notably, the exact same UK visa you used has been made substantially harder to get since you applied.
I am very familiar with the US, UK and Australian immigration systems. The US is the easiest, cheapest and fastest of those 3.
I think you're responding to a comparison I didn't make. My point wasn't that the US is uniquely difficult compared with the UK or Australia. My point was that legal immigration is difficult, stressful and often misunderstood, including for people who are clearly trying to contribute and follow the rules. I'm aware the UK system has become much harder since I used it, and I'm not disputing that. But "other countries are harder" doesn’t make my experience nonsense.
Your experience wasn't nonsense. Your expectations are nonsense. If you think immigrating to another country should be straightforward and easy, then it's your expectations that are wrong. I also immigrated to the US and it was just as tough, even though I came well before Trump and from Canada.
It should be straightforward and easy to make the application. That doesn't mean that it has to be especially likely that it is approved. There is no reason for it to be so byzantine in any country.
Is the goal here to be the same as others or to be better than others? The US immigration system is far from great at the best of times, but it's becoming worse over time.
Did you just pick other generally racist countries with unfriendly immigration policies to prove that all other countries have such systems?
It's a two tier system where the best outcome appears to be to simply break the law completely and illegally.
It's not an ideal outcome it's a very non-enviable multi-decade process working menial jobs and being at risk of something benign like a traffic stop escalating to imprisonment at any time. This fantasy that illegals are living in luxury is how they boiled the frog on people who "did it the right way." They want to get rid of everyone.
To support your position the official DHS Twitter account tweeted a picture of an island paradise with the caption America after 100 million deportations. There are only an estimated 12M undocumented immigrants a 37M legal immigrants including 23M naturized citizens.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/07/22/what-we-k...
100M is closer to the Total number of nonwhites including citizens than the number of immigrants legal or illegal.
however, though, how about those people that are illegals just... dont?
There's too much demand for their labor. You'd have to go after the businesses that hire them in a way that would hurt certain constituents. TPTB have given themselves the Sisyphean task of rounding up enough of them to appease a nativist base that's been riled up with conspiracies about people invading them, but not so many that it would make economic number go down.
[dead]
Or you can simply move to a country that actually apreciates you and doesnt treat you like unwanted subhuman garbage. We have few in Europe, with QoL and happiness higher than US average, sometimes much higher. Just dont make the mistake of comparing salaries directly, US is massively more expensive if you plan to stay long term (ie healthcare) and/or have kids.
You would also have enough time to actually enjoy life, not just work till death/health issues come in some empty prestige rat race.
Most people come here for the economic and professional opportunities. I imagine that very few people move to the United States for the lifestyle.
Where else would people get opportunities that could match the United States? I can't think of any country that would even come close.
> Where else would people get opportunities that could match the United States? I can't think of any country that would even come close.
Isn’t that comparative?
If you are in the EU then the US seems like a holy grail because pay is higher. If you have dual citizenship you can probably avail of the EU safety nets if you had to go back.
If you’re in South East Asia, any EU choice is a huge improvement. Lately there has been strong immigration to Germany for example instead of coming to the US.
After naturalization and giving up my original citizenship, I am a little envious of people with dual citizenship of US + any EU country. It really doesn’t get better than that.
> If you are in the EU then the US seems like a holy grail because pay is higher. If you have dual citizenship you can probably avail of the EU safety nets if you had to go back.
One of the reasons pay in the US is higher is because the EU taxes ordinary people fairly heavily to pay for those social services. But also because of systematic cultural differences between the US and EU that lead to the US having a more dynamic economy that generally pays people more.
> If you’re in South East Asia, any EU choice is a huge improvement. Lately there has been strong immigration to Germany for example instead of coming to the US.
Lately Alternative für Deutschland has been getting a lot of votes in Germany; what kinds of rules (on top of the existing ones) do they think should be in place for people in southeast asia trying to immigrate to Germany?
> Lately Alternative für Deutschland has been getting a lot of votes in Germany; what kinds of rules (on top of the existing ones) do they think should be in place for people in southeast asia trying to immigrate to Germany?
The AfD is in no position to put legislation regarding immigration in place, that is federal law. Nevertheless, southeast asian immigrants are not particularly in the eyes of the public.
> After naturalization and giving up my original citizenship, I am a little envious of people with dual citizenship of US + any EU country. It really doesn’t get better than that.
Depends on whether you actually want to enter the US. If you don't, its citizenship is a burden like no other citizenship: Banks want nothing to do with you and you pay extra taxes that no other nation requires from you. Oh, and should you decide on giving it up - that's cumbersome and costs a bunch of dollars, from what I've heard.
So from someone that at a max would want to visit the US only as a tourist: Having only european citizenship is better than dual european/US citizenship to me.
Dunno man.. while there are nicer places, I used to live in EU country and, while I do have some fond memories, US lifestyle is soooo much more comfy.
What is it about the US you enjoy so? As someone who migrated to Europe from another country (and has never had the privilege of visiting the states) I can certainly think of ways I’d imagine America is better, and vice versa, but comfy is a surprising description. Genuinely curious
Well, while it does seem to be changing now, I will tell you the parts I learned to appreciate:
- Great food -- especially if you live anywhere near one of the major metropolitan areas, but holes in the wall are aplenty ( I still remember that one ridiculous medley in SD )
- It is huge -- it is hard to explain to people how big US is, which has its own benefits and drawbacks. The obvious benefit is that if you really don't like somewhere, you pick up your toys and move somewhere else. As an immigrant myself, I appreciate that. Doing route 66 properly will take you more than 2 weeks.
- Shit is designed for the lazy -- there is an obvious diclaimer that goes along with that. The design relies on the lazy to extract as much money as possible, but it is effectively designed to be convenient. I used to hate how wasteful dishwasher is until 1) I used it 2) read up on data supporting the approach
- Access -- Most of everything I possibly want ( though - without going into details - thanks to Trump that has changed somewhat ) as long as I can ship it here
- Vibe -- This may be the hardest to actually ingest unless you spent some time here. It is hard to explain the ability to be excessive should you so desire. I think the closest I can get to explain it is the 'merica meme, which is not so far from reality once you get to a certain point ( as in, if you are really into something, you can absolutely get into some crazy level stuff, which may include and I am just listing random encounters with people here: own a tank, have a pet alligator, ride a doom buggy to work, build an indoor range in your house ). I know it is changing in EU, but I think most excess/hobbies there are kinda.. not limited exactly, but they don't often seem to reach the same level of crazy.
All small things and there is plenty to complain about, but I stand by my comfy. I do not think I would be able to do half the stuff there I did here.
Great food is very relative, we are exposed a lot to French and Italian cuisine and US one... not up to the task to be polite. Quality of ingredients, taste, also portion size.
Its bigger but then there are bigger places. It takes cca 4 days to travel from one side to another, but thats rather meaningless quality. I can hop in a car and be in 30 minutes in France, in 1.5h in Italy (living in Switzerland). I can be in top notch ski resort like Verbier in 1.5h. Thats a positive to me anyhow I look at it. Massive exposition to properly different cultures rather than US mono culture.
I wouldn't call excess a positive, being lazy positive, being deep in comfy/comfort zone an achievement in life, in contrary. But that's up to everybody how they setup their lives.
<< Thats a positive to me anyhow I look at it.
Everything has a weakness. Everything can be a drawback depending on circumstances. If everything is close means you can never really "get away" from everything; it means everything is condensed and you are effectively forced in a mode of life most Americans instinctively avoid. Is it possible you convinced yourself it is a desired state?
<< Massive exposition to properly different cultures rather than US mono culture.
I personally see this as a severe misunderstanding of US or not having traveled here. Even moving between states, there are massive differences across multiple facets of social reality ( though admittedly, often shaped by local geographical reality ). Utah and New Jersey come to mind -- the is almost nothing about both that aligns beyond maybe existence of tollways there. About the only thing that I can kinda find to support your claim is McDonalds, which is a lone oasis of stability across the continental United States.
edit: FWIW, I wouldn't want to live in France or Italy these days. Maybe Spain. In other words, I think my preferences are showing.
[dead]
> Or you can simply move to a country that actually apreciates you and doesnt treat you like unwanted subhuman garbage. We have few in Europe, with QoL and happiness higher than US average.
Please don't. Europe has enough ethnic tensions. At least the US is built to be an ethnic melting pot. It's much better to go there.
Ehhhhhh I like Europe, a lot, but when you're in you're 20's or 30's and looking at $300k in SF or €80k in Paris (and better access to investment products and lower taxes in the US to boot), suddenly clocking off at 16:00 on Fridays doesn't seem as nice as being able to retire in your 40's.
300k in SF or NYC is FAR from early retirement unless you live 'frugally' - Manhattan average rents are 5K for 1 bed. You pay city, state and federal tax. Food and alcohol are 30-50 percent higher than Paris. And no one talks about property taxes.
In the US, local and federal taxes plus property taxes are easily 50-60 percent of your income.
Inflation runs higher in NYC than the rest of the country, as well.
> 300k in SF or NYC is FAR from early retirement unless you live 'frugally' - Manhattan average rents are 5K for 1 bed
You don’t have to retire in the US. As others have pointed out, nobody comes here for the lifestyle.
Immigrants like us are literally the holy grail of immigration. Come in during our most productive years, work hard for 10 to 20 years, go back home before you need any of the social and health care stuff you paid into.
Yeah, assuming you don't marry in the US, and don't have kids. But surely, you can think about it in your home country after working 20 of the best years of your life.
You can marry in the US and have kids and still move somewhere else 20 years later. Don’t Americans move to Florida or whatever to retire? If you’re moving that far you can just as well leave the country lol
Does the US allow duel citizenship in both counties? Does the other!
What exit taxes exist in the US if you cannot maintain citizenship in both?
$300k is also on the high end. Most devs have a very difficult time getting hired at companies that pay that much.
$300k is probably in the top 10-15% for software engineers if I had the guess. And I assume the top 10-15% in Paris is substantially more than 80k?
Edit: Okay, I guess $300k is near the median in SF if you’re including stock options. (Media base salary in SF is 150-160k)
>$300k is also on the high end.
Of course, but 80k is also on the high-end for Paris jobs as well and buying an apartment in or around Paris is not cheap at all. And most companies in France, even in tech, except maybe the few high-end international ones like FANGS or Mistral and Datadog, explicitly request French language for their workers, whereas English is enough for most US jobs.
I'm EU citizen and looked towards working in France even for the lower wages, but the French language mandates for most jobs are really off putting, even in European companies like Airbus.
Like I'm willing to learn the language, but I'd need at least 2-3 years to get remotely fluent, and it's just not worth the added effort, just for the opportunity to get the average Europoor wages that I can anyway get with just English and my mother tongue anywhere else in EU without any additional effort.
Even in my small Eastern European home town I hear more and more french speakers in the city center every year, and when I talk to them I understand they're all here to study medicine or get junior tech jobs, which is insane to me and speaks volumes on how bad the French jobs market must be for the youth when Eastern Europe is now an immigration hotspot for the french when 20 years ago it was the opposite.
So no, Paris/France is no European SV equivalent, not by a long shot, even by the low European standards. Amsterdam is probably the closest thing to SV the EU has, after London left, but housing and CoL there is insane and even that has significantly fewer VC funding than SV and even London, which highlight just how poor the EU is by comparison to the US at tech funding.
Like I want to get the EU to the top an catch up to the US, but I don't see how that's possible with such limited tech funding and glass ceilings based on having the right nationality and language requirements. EU will never beat the US, at least not in my lifetime.
> Even in my small Eastern European home town I hear more and more french speakers in the city center every year, and when I talk to them I understand they're all here to study medicine or get junior tech jobs, which is insane to me and speaks volumes on how bad the French jobs market must be for the youth when Eastern Europe is now an immigration hotspot for the french when 20 years ago it was the opposite.
It's often mere fiscal arbitrage. Look at the Belgians in Sofia for example. Euro zone, simpler and more stable administration, much cheaper, better climate, good food. Ridiculously lower taxes. Work remotely for Belgian customers. Pay 10% tax instead of 53.5% + 25+% employer social security contributions + 13.07% employee side. Even in a junior position, working for a Belgian client, you are so much cheaper to them while your net income is so much higher.
>It's often mere fiscal arbitrage Pay 10% tax instead of 53.5% + 25+% employer social security contributions + 13.07% employee side.
So why doesn't Belgium implement those perks too?
Observing the fact of individual geo-arbitrage is easy.
I'm not superbly well-placed to answer your follow-up question.
From personal experience, in Paris 80k would be a very good salary for a senior engineer at a startup with solid funding. AI startups/big tech would pay around 50% more, but those roles are very rare.
Most people would make way less, at big French companies you won't make 80k until late in your career as an IC (they don't have a staff+ track).
So 80k sounds like a decent guess for the top 10-15%.
Top graduates in France make 40-50k. This is the reality I have seen. Salaries are often tabulated with limited range.
>And I assume the top 10-15% in Paris is substantially more than 80k?
I don't think that's a good assumption. 80k is rather high for Paris. That's a Google salary at their small office there (or it was when I checked a few years ago). I think the OP's comparison was pretty reasonable.
It's definitely on the high end. Besides the fact that most startup equity ends up being worthless, you can't wait on a four year cliff to pay your rent.
Parisian rents are not exactly cheap either, maybe 1/3 of your Manhattan number.
I meant retiring in France actually.
Most American's don't have that opportunity either or don't want to make the sacrifice of living in soul crushing circumstances.
Nobody in my European country needs to work at 70.
But there are VERY few countries on this planet that actually saved for retirement.
The reality is many people come on temporary visas, as tourists, as students, etc., and overstay. This policy is some attempt to address flows of quasi-legal immigration.
It's unfortunate there's friction to the process, but it's by design. 15% of American citizens and permanent residents are foreign born, the highest it's been in 50+ years, so people are successfully making it through the process. Ideally we'd have better levers to (1) modulate the rate of immigration, (2) simplify the process of legal immigration, and (3) still somehow limiting illegal immigration, quasi-legal immigration, overstays, etc. This is not the ideal solution.
> it feels necessary to say: people who come here to contribute their skills and experience don't all come along on an H1-B/L1
Do people migrate to "contribute their skills" to a foreign country, or to improve their lives? Maybe I'm a cynic, but I suspect the vast majority of people throughout history have migrated to improve their lives, not to altruistically benefit a foreign country. And that's fine, that's normal. It's what motivates people, and the U.S. has a long history of being shaped by ambitious people, especially immigrants, who wanted to improve their lot in life.
> nor do they only come from white or european countries.
I don't know if that's necessary to be said, because who thinks that? In recent decades, 85%-90% of immigrants to the U.S. are not white. >90% if you include undocumented immigrants. The trajectory of America from a white majority to white minority country is fueling at least some of the immigration backlash today. But I think for most people, it's a feeling (right or wrong) that jobs becoming harder to find, houses are becoming harder to afford, and more and more people are competing for fewer resources.
> This policy is some attempt to address flows of quasi-legal immigration.
Is it though? This administration doesn't exactly have a track record of decisions based on carefully thought out policy implications.
> Do people migrate to "contribute their skills" to a foreign country, or to improve their lives?
I think the two are often linked.
> I don't know if that's necessary to be said, because who thinks that?
Effective January 21, 2026, the Department of State paused all visa issuance to immigrant visa applicants who are nationals of seventy-five countries. The overwhelming majority of the affected countries are not predominantly white and are not European.
You do realize that the overwhelming majority of countries in the world at not predominantly white, do you?
When Trump explicitly invites only white people from South Africa, a majority black nation, I think the intention is pretty clear.
Are you trying to claim that the white people in Zimbabwe and South Africa are responsible for wrecking those countries?
White people are, and have been, target and killed in those place.
Apparently there is no white genocide going on in SA [0], and in farm attacks the victims are quite often black.
Perhaps you can enlighten me on the Zimbabwe situation?
That said, I think the centuries of colonialism and slavery--of which whites in the US greatly benefited--makes this exclusion of immigrants from predominantly brown nations disgusting. Pulling up the ladder, even from some of those who built it for you.
[0] https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2025-03-19-we-must-b...
I never claimed ”genocide”.
I have friends from South Africa and Zimbabwe. They’re all lying to me?
“Kill the Borer! Kill the farmer!”
Would that make you want hang around and find out?
If there is no genocide then why special treatment for crime victims on such a small scale?
Plenty of brown people in the 75 paused countries face serious threats and crime too.
Trump asks why so few immigrants from northern European countries. I'm not sure how folks can miss the pattern.
> Do people migrate to "contribute their skills" to a foreign country, or to improve their lives?
People come to improve their lives.
Their employers hire them to improve their lives.
Both end up better off!
More people are impacted by mass immigration than immigrants and employers.
Correct, and it is overall a positive impact. There is marginal increased competition for a limited number of professions, and a meaningful boost to local economies
> overall a positive impact.
Wrong. Australia imports foreigners at a rate of 2:1 against local births.
That replacement.
Overall a positive impact so long as you’re not the group being replaced.
Are there any examples of white-minority countries that have worked well for white people?
It helps that I’m not racist and couldn’t care less about skin color leaderboards
I used to have a more naive libertarian view, but after the last decade, observing both my countries (US and Sweden), I agree that you need to keep the immigration at a level where they have to adapt to your existing culture, not the opposite.
That said, importing smart engineers and entrepreneurs from the world is so absurdly beneficial for the US that... I can't find words right now.
> have migrated to improve their lives, not to altruistically benefit a foreign country
These are not mutually exclusive. I want a better life, and I also have career ambition and skills that I'm willing to deploy in a place that will give me a better life in return.
Well…your motivation is not altruistic to the host country in that case, it’s selfish.
You want a better life, the country providing it is arbitrary as long as it accepts the currency that you can provide for that better life by your skill set.
If it was altruistic you would emigrate because you believe in the country you are emigrating to even if it meant your life was worse.
> your motivation is not altruistic to the host country in that case, it’s selfish
There is nothing wrong with that. I'm selfish, you're selfish, the government is selfish, everyone in the host country is selfish. It's human nature. We all want good lives. That's the reason a transactional economy exists. It's good for the country's GDP and overall economy to welcome outside talent, and that outside talent enjoys being rewarded for their contributions, and over time, their new place of residence becomes a part of their cultural identity. That's how things usually work.
Not everyone is a saint.
> If it was altruistic you would emigrate because you believe in the country you are emigrating to even if it meant your life was worse.
Reality check: 99% of people would take a better life over a worse life. And there's nothing wrong with that. The entire world is built with this as a base assumption.
Also, reality check: Life in the US kinda sucks unless you have a well-paying skilled job or a lot of money. In either case you'll be contributing to the economy.
I made no claim that selfishness is wrong or altruism is right. Nor did i make any claims as to what life is like in the US—so I don't need any “reality checks” about what your personal beliefs are about life in the US at specific income levels, it’s not relative here. Being poor in the US probably sucks compared to being rich in the US. I am also sure that you can say that about literally every country on this planet.
My comment was about why this was not a “it’s both” type of situation. So just own your motivation for what it is—you emigrate so you can get a better life in a new country than you can get in your old country. That’s honorable enough.
Fine. No one’s likely to argue you’re wrong.
And it seems you agree: people don’t move to a new place to contribute their skills.
They move because of the potential upsides for themselves.
I'm saying most people are motivated by self interest, not that you have nothing to offer in return.
This policy is a further extension of this administration’s public, explicit and frequently repeated goal of ethnic cleansing. Acting like this is a rational policy response to any real problem is ridiculous.
Both the far right and far left throw around accusations of "ethnic cleansing." Both are ridiculous, but considering the U.S. population shifted from 85% white to 55% white in the last few decades, and even today most immigrants come from Mexico, India, China, etc., there really doesn't seem to be much evidence that we're actively trying to limit the flow of non-white people into America. Besides that, there are valid reasons why people want to limit or increase immigration that don't justify hysterical accusations of ethnic cleansing.
Ethic cleansing is something much worse when that race you are "cleansing" is already living there (Israel removing Palestinian from Gaza)
The accusations is just racism. The fact that Trump gave extra fast visas to white South Afrikaans makes you think that there were some racial reasoning there.
In the last decades the whole world is more global.
What now?
White South Africans, white Zimbabweans too, have been executed.
It’s like the dark skinned people in South Africa looked at what happened in Zimbabwe and decided they wanted to live in shit too.
Now the rest of the Western world seems to want to follow suit.
> The accusations is just racism. The fact that Trump gave extra fast visas to white South Afrikaans makes you think that there were some racial reasoning there.
What is wrong if white people want to help other white people escape persecution?
Nothing wrong in their to help.
But if you only help based on the colour of the skin... That's a little bit racist.
Also, as far as I know there is not persecution in South Africa. Trump used photos from the wrong conflict. And there are really bad things happening in Africa... but not to white people
One issue (apparently a feature) that may arise is that, if application is rejected in consular proceeding, the applicant is locked out from usa. AFAIK, if someone applies for an immigration visa in usa, they will not be able to obtain non-immigration visas in the future. A refused green card application might be the end of being ever in usa. The person may have to truely exit USA since there may be no way back (close bank account, sell property and assets, etc).
If the person adjusts status in usa, there are more possibilities for appeal etc.
The end result is the same though. If your application is rejected in the US, you could stay while you appeal, but if you're ultimately rejected then you have no choice but to re-apply through consular processing anyway once your status runs out. Good if you have a job in the US, but you're kicking the can down the road.
> A refused green card application might be the end of being ever in usa.
Do you have evidence for your other claim? The main thing you need to prove for a non immigrant visa or VWP is that you won't overstay or have intent to immigrate at the time of application and upon entry. Otherwise it's up to the consular officer like usual. You would need to declare the refusal/denial of course.
What will get you denied is "inadmissibility" if you don't submit a waiver. If you're inadmissible that usually means some serious violation and you've got other problems.
As far as I know, people have been successful in re-applying for EB green cards after being rejected when they've assembled a better packet.
If you apply for immigration status and are rejected, sure you can apply for immigration again if you gain much better qualifications. I haven’t seen many successful examples though.
People are deemed to have immigration intent for small things like they don’t have enough ties to their country of residence. An application for immigration is definite proof you had intent to immigrate. You can wait like ten years, but time doesn’t work in your favor (immigration gets harder every year, people get older and handcuffed elsewhere…).
I mean this in the kindest possible way while still being critical: I really wish people would stop making definitive statements about things that, I'm sorry to say, they don't understand. This is just wrong. The end result is absolutely not the same, for multiple reasons:
1. Decisions by consular officials largely can't be challenged (with some exceptions). Decisions by USCIS can be challenged in immigration court and/or federal court, depending on your case;
2. Thanks to Trump v. Hawaii, the president has the broad power to ban the granting of visas to people overseas. There's currently a ban on 39 countries. That cannot be challenged. It can be challenged in the US;
3. When you apply for an immigration benefit in the US, the USCIS field office that deals with it is determined by where you live. It used to be the case that if you were outside the US, you could get an embassy appointment in the country you were residing in. This administration changed that such that you can only use the embassy in your country of birth/citizenship. So, if you're a Kenyan citizen living and working in France, you have to go back to Kenya for your consular interview. That might take wait times for getting an interview from 1-2 months to 1-2 years, depending on the embassy. It's also a huge hassle and expensive, possibly;
4. The GP is correct here. When you apply for any immigrant visa, meaning you or a spouse, sibling, parent, child or employer files an I130/I140 for you, you've demonstrated what's called "immigrant intent". That means that for people from many countries they are unlikely to ever get a nonimmigrant visa ever again. USCIS thinks you're tryign to sneak into the US to adjust status rather than consular processing. They also think if you enter the US, you won't leave. Obviously citizens of Norway are treated differently to citizens of Nigeria. I'll let you ponder why;
5. If you accrue unlawful presence in the US (for which the rules are complicated), you may get a 3 or 10 year bar on returning to the US. In addition, because you have overstayed a visa (or have entered without inspection), you may simply not ever get another visa again anyway. It's unclear from this memo if the 3/10 year bars will apply here. We won't know until we see how it's implemented;
6. Certain people may be in limbo because they don't have the option to leave to consular process. I'm mainly thinking of people who have made an asylum claim. There are people who have filed for asylum in 2015 who don't have a ruling on that case yet. 11 years is a long time. They might meet someone and get married and then seek to adjust. This is a complicated process that comes with its own perils but generally they adjust status and then withdraw their asylum case or, in some cases, seek cancellation of removal from immigration court. Do they have to leave? They may not have travel documents. They can't really go back to their home country. This may create a situation where they can't adjust and they can't leave so they're in limbo. Also, if the asylum office decides your asylum case was "frivolous", you may have a permanent bar on ever receiving an immigration benefit. That's much more difficult if not impossible to challenge overseas;
7. What makes you inadmissibile isn't necessarily serious. It can be a simple mistake. For example, if you marry a US citizen then working without authorization is forgiven (mostly; it's complicated) but you have to be really careful how you answer questions on the forms and to officers. So you might answer "no" the I485 question about working without authorization even though you did a few Ubers 7 years ago, which is forgiven, but you've now made a false claim and that may make you inadmissible needing a waiver. A good lawyer will argue that it wasn't "material" but this USCIS much more than any previouis is having a stricter interpretation of any of this;
8. As another example, "crimes", particularly "aggravated" crimes or crimes of "moral terpitude" can make you inadmissible. But what are those? There are guidelines but there's some grey areas where USCIS has discretion. For example, being convicted of a crime with a potential sentence of more than 365 days will make you inadmissible. But sentencing guidelines can be whack such that if you speed as a 16 year old, you might get charged with something and, not knowing any better, get offered a deal for probation on a crime of reckless driving that can technically be up to 2 years of jail time by the sentencing guidelines. Well, guess what? You're now guilty of an aggravated crime and can not only have your green card denied, you can be denaturalized and deported. No, this isn't a made up example.
IANAL but I know what I know and, more importantly, I know what I don't know, which is a lot. But what's particularly frustrating to me is the people who have no idea what they don't know. The above just scratches the surface.
Yes, this is a feature. I don't think non-immigration visas actually exist, or can in principle actually exist until there are massive legal and constitutional changes in the US up to and including ganking the birthright citizenship clause of the 14th amendment. Anyone who sets foot on US soil for any reason - even illegal immigrants, let alone people on a legal, ostensibly non-immigrant visa - can try to adjust their status, and has lots of "possibilities for appeal".
The US government should not give permission to anyone at all to set foot on US soil, unless the mass of existing citizens of the US are comfortable with that person eventually voting as a citizen on what the composition of the government should actually be. And as a US citizen, I am not comfortable with letting the vast majority of people in the world - many of whom are scrambling for any legal opportunity at all that will let them legally reside in the US - vote for the government that passes laws that affect me.
> they will not be able to obtain non-immigration visas in the future
Why? Aren't L1 and H1B "dual intent" visas?
I should have been more precise, yes. But the majority of non-immigrant visas are single intent. H1B requires 100K and if you can’t first enter to see people and attend interviews, chances seem slim in these circumstances, if H1B program is not altogether scrapped.
I love the US; I’ve lived there and held an H-1B visa. Moving there permanently was a teenage dream of mine.
Unfortunately the country in that dream no longer exists. I now avoid jobs that require travel to the US. As a non-American it makes a lot more sense to focus on building up the tech centres closer to home.
Not American here, what did you like about it that is no longer?
It was once an open, free country that fought fascism and respected the rule of law?
Arguably it was never perfect and the ugly bits where there, so a lot of that is about an image it projected to the outside world.
You know it is the land of the free when you have to give them access to all your social media accounts at the border. I have heard stories of fellow countrymen being held for weeks without hearing any cause. So yeah, no thanks.
Maybe if you restore the rule of law and have the current, president, supreme court justices and representatives removed in 20 years or so.
Bigotry and xenophobia has brought the downfall of the US empire, for real. It was always more about who believed in it than it was for real. The US had an ugly history that it tried to ignore for the passt hundred years and at some point unsurprisingly it comes back to haunt you.
I don't understand your question. Are you asking or saying that it was once an open, free country that fought fascism and respected the rule of law? When?
I said is was seen as such. The US has derived great value of being seen as a country that fought fascism and respected the rule of law (in their own weird way at least) by many countries around the world.
When is a good question but can't be answered without an additional "Where".
A lot of the good is still there -- e.g. the nature, the unusually high level of drive/determination/spirit/openness. At least compared to northern Europe where I'm from.
Unfortunately tilting towards fascism outweighs those.
Thank you for answering!
White supremacists on the rise in the US. Never forget, there were people already in the US when they first arrived. White supremacists stole their lands.
Come to the EU instead, we want more STEM people.
White supremacy never left. There are a whole bunch of people in the US that never got over the abolition of chattel slavery and arguably we're in this mess because not enough slaveowners were strung up after the Civil War. And by "not enough" I really mean "anything less than all of them".
That may sound harsh, even hyperbolic, but we teach a really whitewashed version of slavery in schools, like these were just laborers who worked the fields but just happened to be owned by people. That couldn't be further from the truth. Conditions were normally horrible. The conditions captured people were kept in in Africa, the Middle Passage, the slave auctions, the living conditions, the physical violence, the loss of language and culture, the destruction of family units and, last but certainly not least, the industrial-scale, systematic rape of enslaved people for centuries, easily numbering in the tens of millions of victims.
But I have to object to the implication that the EU is somehow free of any of this. Like the UK, France and Germany (in particular) don't have far-right to neo-Nazi movements threatening to take over government.
Also, ask any average European about Romany, Syrians, Turks, North Africans, Arabs, Muslims in general, Polish people or Russians and there's a decent chance you won't get American-style racism, you'll get almost "scientific racism". I'd posit that a decent number of Europeans are only 1-2 steps away from taking phrenology seriously.
You will hear arguments like "they don't assimilate" or "it's cultural not racism", just as you would in the US.
I was in high school in the 90s in the deep south and was taught about the horrors of slavery. Has that changed? Not disagreeing about reconstruction. It established a pattern of letting conservatives get away with their malfeasance and “let’s just get along” politically instead of extracting a real price for crime and destructive behavior.
Ah yes, the EU, which has no problems with white nationalism.
I don't think the US or the EU has specific problems with "white nationalism" more than any other country.
You can't migrate to Arab countries easily if you come from sub-Saharan Africa. Is that "Arab nationalism"? No, it's just countries enforcing their borders and immigration policy. Effectively what pretty much every country does. You can't immigrate easily to most countries, it's the norm, not the exception.
For those not very familiar with the US immigration system: it can be very confusing and the naming of things is rarely related to their function due to a very thick layer of legal fiction in how it works.
The system sorely lacks reform to align the legal fiction with reality, which is precisely why this news release may sound entirely sensible for the uninitiated.
[flagged]
Police have been killing Americans since at least the 1900s
Not on high res, widely distributed video. Not, immediately after that video, telling us we didn’t see what we saw.
The game has changed.
There are plenty of police killings fitting that criteria since 2020.
ICE aren't police.
I’m sure the people killed appreciate the distinction.
It's in the interest of their dignity and our safety to clarify it.
What's new is that we have the deeds captured under multiple angles in full HD, and still around 30% of the country believes the victims were actually the aggressors and deserved to die. They're so indoctrinated that they're able to rationalize away their own eyes' evidence. And they feel comfortable enough in the current environment to try and gaslight you about it.
No, this isn't new. Everything you’re saying happened with police killing too.
Much longer ago than that.
[flagged]
Sometimes I hate being proven right so easily.
It very obviously was not self defense. People will always lie in these situations and claim self defense. But, driving near an ICE officer and saying mean things is not life threatening.
Maybe ICE are more cowardly than we should expect, and maybe that's something you're okay with. That still doesn't make it self defense, though. No reasonable person would kill in those circumstances.
[flagged]
[flagged]
The opinion polls cited here show people thought the force was unjustified/inappropriate at about 2x the rate of those who thought it was justified/appropriate.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/14/politics/minneapolis-ice-shoo...
Most of the country actually is capable of watching a video and seeing what in fact happened. Seek help, you need it.
[flagged]
If you are referring to Renee Nicole Good, then the video evidence contradicts that entirely. I am not going to discuss that further, I am just pointing out that your assertion is not a known fact and much of ICE's narrative on that killing has been shown to be untrue or incomplete.
He walked away unharmed after he murdered her
And called her a b*tch after shooting her in the face multiple times
[flagged]
Curious to know how this will affect immigrants who arrived on a student visa, receive OPT to stay while working, and then subsequently get married. I know many top performers at my company who are in that boat, especially from India, who have built lives here during their OPT + STEM. It would be a shame to lose them if they have to go back to India and wait years (if not decades) for a green card or H-1B.
No. This is the last stage of the Green Card process. When you do Consular processing you make an appointment at the US embassy or consulate in your country, go do the interview and then you are granted the GC on the spot. Then you fly back. You don't need to fly back for years, it's only for the purpose of the interview at the consulate.
US consulates have halted green card processing in 75 countries.
IANAL. If you adjust status in the US you can also apply for AP/EAD if your original visa/legal status expires. You can't do that if you opt for consular processing.
Nothing new there, but under the new rules the former is no longer an option and you'd need to leave immediately. On the plus side consular processing tends to be cheaper and often faster (AOS and all the approvals vs the consular processing fee and a plane ticket).
What is the typical wait time for appointments when going to consular processing route? My brief searches say anywhere from 2-9 months. 60-90 day NVC review phase, 60-120 day interview scheduling, and then 1-2 weeks once you have the interview. Are you saying that the 120-210 day wait time can happen while you're still in the US?
Yes, the wait time is in the US. You just leave the country for the appointment.
All this FUD in this entire post is disheartening.
A crazy number of people adjusting status, most notably DACA recipients, are adjusting in the USA (despite the much longer wait) because leaving the country may trigger a very long re-entry ban. This can be avoided through advance parole, but turns out, there are a limited number of things for which that's granted like employment and education and US consular visits don't appear to be on the list. So "just leaving the country" is a guarantee of your own banishment. In fact that's probably part of the reason why they picked this policy in the first place.
For F-1/OPT there is no 'pending immigrant visa case' status that lets them remain in-country after OPT expires.
F-1/OPT are not eligible for Green Card in the first place so it doesn't matter.
My H1B coworker has paid $180k more in taxes than I have. We are the same age. He has fewer years working in USA than I have as a citizen. We calculated this by the data exposed by the mySocialSecurity website.
I get to vote and he does not.
Edit: s/green card/H1B/
Well the fundamental question is does one see the US as a nation or some economic zone/factory where your worth is determined by how much you produce.
In the first case the paid taxes argument is pointless.
Is that the same line you take with people who argue that immigrants are a net drain on society and live off welfare?
Uncle Sam likes tax payers.
I believe the current administration, in general, appreciates those with $$.
https://www.trumpcard.gov/
So you want voting status to be determined by how much you pay in taxes? Fascinating, surely that would go well
Well, that’s the main talking point when it comes to immigrants, isn’t it?
My colleague organizes workshops for gifted teenagers interested in tech/science in Europe. He often asks them if they want to go study abroad. A few years back, most of them would say they want to go to the US. Now none of them do. This is not hyperbole - he said literally 0 wanted to go to the US.
Maybe that country still has some prestige somewhere else and people still want to apply but definitely not here. We've been watching the country sabotage itself and take a nosedive for a while now. The latest president is just the cherry on top.
I hope the rest of the world learns from this but I doubt it actually will.
One thing with this policy, its not all green card seekers, its those deemed to be under temporary visas (student, tourist, etc). Apparently these comprise the majority of applicants, but not nesc. the majority of those granted green cards (family, longer term workers, etc).
I'm not defending the policy, but I think that's one nuance being lost.
This is probably for the best in the long term. They've added enough friction, insanity and disdain for foreigners that no sane person will immigrate and we can start to build stronger industries and trade relationships outside the US.
From what I could understand from the 6-page memorandum, (my paraphrase) "the law allows us to be nice and convenient, but doesn't require us to be nice and convenient, so we decided to make things hard and cruel going forward"
The current administration is sending a pretty clear message to immigrants.
How is this good in any way?
How could this ever help to build stronger industries or trade relationships?
If somebody hands you a shit sandwich you don't need to pretend it tastes good.
It will help would-be immigrants understand that the US does not want them and that it would be a mistake to invest time and energy trying to build a future in a country that hates them and can nuke their lives at the drop of a hat. It will help other countries that are not the US retain their talent and build up their own industries. A greater diversity in distribution of talent and industry across the world is a more resilient system.
It’s not a more resilient system. It creates geographic isolation and friction. It dilutes the talent pool instead of concentrating it which limits cross pollination. It also reduces specialization that drives efficiency and lets each country focus on what it does best and then trade with others.
Specialization is for insects. And on the contrary of what you say the real world show plenty of reasons to diversify: For example, the success of China with renewables and EVs shows exactly that:
Every single EV company in the US wanted to be like Tesla, it was like an idée fixe, most of them failed miserably compared to BYD.
There are decades of economic research based on hundreds of years of economic activity that contradicts your analysis.
EV and solar investments in the United States were on par with and exceeding china, they were gutted after republicans attacked the solindra investment for political reasons.
China is itself moving up the value chain and specializing.
That being said, I do think we have learned the hard way that outsourcing manufacturing destroys the ecosystem and supply chain that drives innovation. Simply put, invention happens where the work is being done
I think that’s a bit dramatic saying the US hates them, but yes to your other point. The US is taking the position that it has more to gain from having strong and prosperous trading partners than it does from exploiting those nations and draining them of talent.
If you read "US as a whole", then sure. I've met many a lot of very friendly people in the US, some of whome I'd love to visit again.
If you read "the current US administration and their voter base" it sure feels like hate.
I used to visit the US a lot. I haven't been for a long time and as long as the current regime remains in place I'll spend my time and money in places where I can be sure not to be mistreated.
That's not because I fear I would be hated in the places I would actually visit, but because I have no interest in being at the mercy of US immigration. It doesn't matter that the risk isn't great - it is high enough and the potential consequences severe enough that it's put the US in the same category as high crime third world countries for me in terms of risk.
Already 20 years ago it was more stressful to go through immigration in the US, even as a white man from a rich country, than in dictatorships like China. As it stands now, I wouldn't hesitate to visit China, but I would hesitate to even transit the US.
Except the US isn't trying to make strong trading partners, its a side effect of the xenophobia and racism. If anything they are alienating anyone who would ever trade because every trade deal for something benign like, steel or whatever will include some random unrelated bull shit like "also if you want to trade you have to round up your trans people."
Yeah look at like any one of the 10,000 things this administration, Trump, Miller, republicans have said about immigrants. Look at ICE detention centres, how many hundreds or thousands of people have literally died, denied basic medical care or humane conditions, ICE agents who executed US citizens facing 0 consequences. ICE agents on camera ramming a car, radioing in to say that the car rammed them, and then shooting the driver. Cold-blooded execution. I could go on forever. Tell me again how stating that they hate immigrants is being dramatic.
It’s just facts but they’ve been boiling the frog and doing so many idiotic and horrific things at once that people have completely checked out.
It could be good for anyone country that's not the US (despite our hubris, we're not actually the center of the universe). But for the US, a country built on immigrants ands immigration, probably not so much. We fucked around, we found out.
Well, we're continuing to find out. We haven't exactly scraped rocked bottom yet.
They mean good for everyone NOT the US. Because now say, Germany or France, or where ever, come off as a better place to immigrate, so other countries can build stronger more competitice businesses.
This move, like everything the MAGA administration does, will only weaken the US.
Even better for other countries, anyone the US produces who isn't a raging idiot, also are more likely to want to immigrate from the US.
Sorry but "France" and "build businesses" in the same sentence is insane.
I think the parent is saying it's good because immigrants will go elsewhere and the US will continue to decline. Which will be good for humanity.
I think it's sarcasm
Isn’t it better for the smart people in India to stay there and make India richer, instead of coming to the U.S. to make billionaires here richer? These countries absolutely suffer from the brain drain.
In many cases a talented/smart person will bring little to zero value to a country with ossified institutions, but huge value to one with the right systems in place to build value.
This is a really good way of stating it. Thank you.
Yes exactly. One country sucking up all the best talent is not good for the world, its a single point of failure.
That's not really how it works. Immigrants also benefit from coming to the US.
Skilled labor immigration is great for everyone involved, and bad only for the countries that suffer the brain drain.
But it's not zero-sum. The damage to those countries from losing talent is smaller than the benefits to the immigrant, their new country, and ultimately all of humanity.
>bad only for the countries that suffer the brain drain
Except those countries continue to decline and eventually become a global issue. India is on the cusp of a water crisis which is going to turn into a massive refugee crisis - how different would the situation and institutions be if the top 10% of the population hadn't been siphoned off?
It likely wouldn't be meaningfully different, and we don't set immigration policy in the US to help countries abroad.
Or would you rather condemn me to life in a corrupt, dangerous country even though I have everything it takes to build great things and make the lives of other humans better?
That moral argument against immigration, especially coming from an American, is DOA.
And from the perspective of the home countries, you're basically telling whoever happened to be born in a shithole that their only choice is to fix it themselves.
> and bad only for the countries that suffer the brain drain.
That's a pretty big qualifier!
> The damage to those countries from losing talent is smaller than the benefits to the immigrant, their new country, and ultimately all of humanity
Isn't it the opposite? Creating wealth and technology in India helps a billion quite poor people. Creating wealth in the U.S. helps 300 million already rich people.
Except you can't create Google in India. Google isn't minted by divine inspiration hitting a couple of smart guys in a garage.
It's created by an entire ecosystem that allows a project like that to be conceived and executed in such a way that has benefited the entire world, including the poor in India.
It's a big qualifier, but like I said, it's not zero-sum.
No economist will argue that limiting skilled labor immigration (or any immigration, really!) is an optimal policy for improving the lives of the poor elsewhere. It just doesn't work that way.
That's why I said long term. This logic might as well argue it would be better for China to have had huge immigration to the US 50 years ago and contribute to the manufacturing or automobile industries there. But they didn't, and now they've built up their own ecosystems instead that are more efficient and ahead of the US' ecosystems. You can create Google in India or BYD in China, it just takes time for the ecosystem to build. It has helped China at least, and maybe the world more than if they had immigrated en masse.
The other line of argument is again the fault-tolerance I mentioned above, maybe see Taleb or distributed systems. Maximizing efficiency has trade-offs in resiliency. Yes it might be less efficient for there to be 3 ecosystems in 3 countries instead of 1, but its more resilient to shocks. We saw the risks of highly efficient but single point of failure supply chains materialize just a few years ago during the pandemic.
It's also pretty obvious that the tech companies being in the US benefits the US more than other countries. The big salaries are in the bay area, the tax revenue goes to the US, all the ex-Googlers founding new companies found them in the US etc.. So of course Google being founded in country X would benefit country X more than it being founded in the US.
> So of course Google being founded in country X would benefit country X more than it being founded in the US.
Exactly. Obviously it’s better for China that BYD and Huawei were founded in China rather than the US. It’s better for Korea that Samsung and LG were founded there instead of the U.S.
China created those ecosystems because of Western companies who offshored their manufacturing, with the ultimate goal of having cheaper goods and services.
It wouldn't have been able to do it without US companies, and it's not particularly a model that can be replicated that easily, though in general, economic policy that focus on exporting goods indeed tend to be the most successful.
Still doesn't mean the US should be preventing Chinese from immigrating here, so it's just utterly besides the point.
The U.S. built an industrial economy by itself, without any developed country offshoring work to it. Why do you think China couldn’t?
Because context matters, obviously. Global supply chains did not exist yet when the US industrialized.
The United States was a British colony where demand for raw supplies led to an organic development of railroads, coupled with technological transfer from businessmen in the UK hoping to capitalize on this nascent market.
Textile manufacturing was still a thing and we were in the very early innings of the global Industrial Revolution. The two world wars that destroyed Europe were also immensely helpful to the insulated US.
Why are you asking me questions for which there are easily available answers? Honestly, you might as well have asked an LLM.
Stop looking for evidence that only confirms your biases and start trying to disprove your hypothesis. Only when there's nothing left to disprove can you claim your hypothesis _may_ be right, though you can't ever know for sure.
By the way, immigrant labor was a massive force behind US industrialization so you're just totally lost at this point. Industrialization has always depended on interaction with rich economies. From capital flows to technology transfer, export markets, immigration, empire, or trade networks. No major industrial power developed in total isolation.
I doubt its better for India to have Indians making Google richer than to have them staying in India to make something even a fraction of the size of Google in India. How is India going to create that ecosystem if all the smart people leave?
It's better to not frame this in terms of a specific country, lest it come across as if we're picking on India specifically.
Developing countries have structural reasons for why they are underdeveloped. This is a very complicated topic, and one for which there is no shortage of academic interest. I suggest starting from William Easterly's "The Elusive Quest for Growth".
I quote here from the book review MIT Press:
> What is necessary for growth is that government incentives induce investment in collective goods like education, health, and the rule of law
> This is a very complicated topic, and one for which there is no shortage of academic interest. I suggest starting from William Easterly's "The Elusive Quest for Growth
What's Easterly's qualifications? Has he ever successfully improved the economy of a developing country? I'd rather learn what LKY or Park Chung Hee or heck even Deng Xiaoping or Pinochet had to say.
At this point it's hard to take your opinion seriously if you think we should model economic policy after Pinochet.
If you want to know Easterly's qualifications, just read his Wikipedia page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Easterly
Being ignorant is a choice.
> you think we should model economic policy after Pinochet.
Pinochet is one of several autocratic rulers who put in place frameworks that resulted in economic miracles in their countries.
Especially in Asia and Latin America, I don’t think there’s a single country that tried democracy before economic development that didn’t end up a failure. I’d rather be a Chinese living under effective authoritarian capitalism than an Indian living under dysfunctional social democracy.
> If you want to know Easterly's qualifications, just read his Wikipedia page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Easterly
So he’s never done anything? He’s never built an economy or part of an economy?
> Being ignorant is a choice.
Indeed. And confusing credentials for knowledge is a choice too.
You've got a lot of hot takes, but this is an astounding statement that underscores you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about when it comes to economic development.
This is the correct answer. Concentration of talent creates cross pollination and collaborative learning. The innovation is then exported.
The innovations immigrants created in the UK during the Industrial Revolution made everyone wealthier. The innovations made by Immigrants in in Silicon Valley have made the world more wealthy. And it was in part due to the concentrated talent pool that made it possible.
[flagged]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Isambard_Brunel, who constructed the first underwater tunnel (but had a productive career in England before that).
I could probably find other French engineers fleeing the revolution, if need be.
[flagged]
My goal here isn’t to argue any position. Don’t impute random motives to me. You made an improbable claim and now you’re sore about it.
Often when a comment is made in response to your comment, the intended audience won't be you. For example, I am much more interested in whether the example of the industrial revolution in the UK is an evidence for the value of immigration or evidence against the value of immigration than in anything you wrote, so even though you did not commit to a position on it, it remained my main goal when writing my second comment to continue arguing my position on it -- to anyone that might be reading.
The words beginning, "The French-born engineer Marc Isambard Brunel," in my previous (second) comment I already had waiting on my hard drive when I posted my first comment (the challenge). It would have made my first comment longer and harder to follow if I had included the fact that already knew about MI Brunel.
It was more important for me to write in such a way that people would have the patience to keep on reading than to avoid any situation in which I might come out looking like I don't know everything. Really! It is OK with me that you came out of this exchange looking like you knew something I did not.
The way it works is that the origin country is worse off when people leave, but in general immigrants are much better off for moving, and it's not even close.
A big argument for letting people emigrate is that they owe no real debt to the county where they are born, or the city, or anything like that. They aren't selfs owned by a nobleman. If moving increases their personal lot, why should we stop them?
The problem with this thinking is assuming that countries are equivalent in terms of opportunity and life.
India does not have the same opportunities that America does to have a good and successful life. This isn’t just due to the country being relatively poor but due to structural issues along with corruption. Then there are other issues too. Environmental issues. Too many issues to list.
It’s disingenuous to suggest that a families or individuals should stay behind to change this. Also isnt it a loss for everyone? If smart people come to America and take advantage of opportunities and accomplish things that help many people what good is it to say no to this. That they must stay in the home country and inevitably not accomplish as much due to all these issues. Even if Elon Musk and Jensen Huang had stayed in their home countries they certainly could not have accomplished the same amount they did in America. Both South Africa and Taiwan in that period lacked the opportunities.
Also what is the rationale behind an American saying to people not to come to America and improve it but to stay back? Individual Indians aren’t any different from individual Americans beyond their accent. The children of these immigrants are indistinguishable from Americans who have been here for generations (aside from skin color). I really don’t understand why Americans wouldn’t want the brain gain from having smart people come here. Also if a surgeon is operating on you would you care what skin color or accent they had? Doesn’t make sense to me.
> Also isnt it a loss for everyone?
No, it’s a win for the people who remain in India. Imagine if the Samsung founder had moved to the U.S. instead of founding Samsung in Korea.
> Individual Indians aren’t any different from individual Americans beyond their accent. The children of these immigrants are indistinguishable from Americans who have been here for generations
Maybe some, but on average no. My family is Bangladeshi and my wife’s family is pre-Revolutionary War American and the cultural gap is vast. Basic attitudes towards justice, freedom, order, civic responsibilities, time, family relations, money, government, food, etc., are completely different.
Concrete example: Bangladeshis places tremendous emphasis on formal education and credentials. Americans have a tradition of skepticism of those things. This difference persists even among American born Desis.
There is evidence to back this up. Cultural differences persist for generations in immigrants: https://www.sup.org/books/economics-and-finance/culture-tran...
> Isn’t it better for the smart people in India to stay there and make India richer, instead of coming to the U.S. to make billionaires here richer?
An Indian’s greatest accomplishment in life is leaving India.
I don’t know how this will play out for employment based categories. You need to be have a job and be on a valid visa to even apply for a green card. How do you then go outside the country, apply for a green card, all the while maintaining your job and a visa while you wait for the application to be processed? As far as I know not being in the US for extended periods of time, voids your work visa in the first place.
IANAL. My understanding is that you can do consular processing even if you are in the US, it's just that you need to leave to do the interview (and things like biometrics) and get the actual visa.
Now I'm not sure if you are allowed to re-enter after your interview before your case is decided/you get the visa but I would imagine so (if have valid visa), you would just need to exit again to get the visa later.
Also not a lawyer.
I believe the issue with what you're describing is that if you're on a temporary visa, like a student visa, applying for a green card shows intent of immigration so you cannot return to the US on a student visa.
If you have an H-1B already you may be able to do what you're describing. If you're a recent grad in the US this basically locks you out of trying to get a green card until you've already secured an H-1B.
If that’s true, things may be slightly better, but I’m also reading this move will take away substantial funding from uscis since it is funded purely based on fees collected with immigration applications. Processing times are already pretty large in a lot of countries. So even with the flexibility, you carry a substantial risk.
> You need to be have a job and be on a valid visa to even apply for a green card.
False
You don’t need a job to apply for green card.
Valid visa, yes. But that’s easy.
If you read my full comment:
> don’t know how this will play out for employment based categories
I am only talking about employment based categories if you refer to my original comment. I’d be curious to know what visa categories allow you to file for an employment based greencard without a job?
My understanding is that the EB green cards are for a job offer, and not the current job.
In practice, though, almost all employers file EB GC petitions for only their current employees, not future ones.
EB1-A and EB2 NIW are the usual categories. Both allow you to self petition without an offer of employment.
May the world extend Americans the hospitality that the US has extended to the world in the last year.
As a naturalized American citizen, I hope the world extends Americans who leave the same hospitality the US extended for decades before the last year.
When you say world, do you also include the Middle East and South America and various Asian countries that were invaded, bombed, or couped by America?
As a non-American who has to live in a world that's deeply affected by the schizophrenic convulsions of your current government, I hope you stay in the USA and work on fixing your mess.
Does it occur to you that we too are deeply affected? Stop piously telling a whole country of people how to live their lives.
You're a USA citizen, I'm not. It is your responsibility to clean up this mess, not mine.
That is an absolutely fascinating worldview. I don't know what country you're from and what pain and suffering you've been through that was caused by the US govt., but you've managed to get me to stop caring. Sparkling incompetence. While we're exchanging unenforceable opinions about what random people on the internet should do, you should go help your own country -- by leaving it.
Me, I'll continue doing what I want kthxbai.
That would be amazing.
The US is an extreme outlier in accepting migrants. The current situation is effectively what the vast majority of countries already do. Some go beyond that, and gun down people with machine guns at their border.
The idea that the US is not a country that belongs to its citizens, but some sort of abstract global entity that everyone in the world is entitled to is farcical, and it's coming to an end. The US owes absolutely nothing to non-US people.
If people don't like it that can go anywhere else (keeping in mind that other Western countries are starting to do the same) or, you know, stay in their own country? (Crazy, I know)
> The US is an extreme outlier in accepting migrants.
The US is currently at a recent peak of approx 15% immigrants, much as it was in the 1860-1920 period.
This is less extreme than, say, Australia at 25% population born overseas.
Congrats, you found a more extreme outlier. You can bring up Canada too, but that doesn't change my point.
The US is more or less the same as France per capita.
Your "extreme" is commonplace.
Does adding Spain, Germany, Belgium, Sweden, Austria, Switzerland, Singapore, Qatar, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Israel, etc. change your point?
I’d be fine with America not wanting the world to feel “entitled to” it, if at the same time they’d stop feeling entitled to the rest of the world themselves.
Vietnam. Middle America. Afghanistan. Iraq. Greenland. Venezuela. Iran. Now Cuba.
Stop it.
Oh I agree so much.
Other countries paying $10,000's to educate people who then want to apply this knowledge in the US. US reaction: "Nah." Besides, we are talking about legal immigration here.
I don't get it.
As a US citizen I am confused. H1-B and similar are supposed to be non-immigrant visas for temporary workers. Why was it allowed to permanently immigrate under those visas to begin with? We have immigrant visas like the E-1 for routes to permanent immigration.
H1B is considered “dual intent”
As an American, I just want to say that I'm very dismayed by the discourse around this topic over the past 24 hours in particular. The polarization of politics has become so intense, that the bipartisan mainstream position of just a couple of decades ago – that immigrants are a net positive to this country – feels like a distant dream.
We've gone from perpetually punting the football on comprehensive immigration reform, to people saying, "Good, go back home, we don't want you here."
The same people who want to paint the Statue of Liberty gold seem to have no clue what it represents.
Immigrants are the low hanging fruit to attack, and the best to blame all your suffering on, meanwhile, the real issue is wealth distribution. Since covid, the very few people got mega wealthier while the majority suffered, do you just leave it as is for people to find out? No, you push other distractions like immigrants, race rage baits, and other nonsense to keep people busy fighting each other.
This ^ If it is secularism and religion in some countries, it is language and ethinicity in some other, and immigration and racism in America. Depends on the timing, and the need for it, politicians use it to their advantage.
> meanwhile, the real issue is wealth distribution
This is so mind-boggling to me. Why do the poor keep defending the billionaires?
Oh they have a clue. They just want to rub it in.
"Look how prosperous we got off your backs, suckers!" is the intended message.
It's taunting.
Ya, because we never got immigration reform
The evidence for the need of immigration reform was always weak and, frankly, basically non-existent.
What happened was white people saw brown people coming in and got uncomfortable. That's it. The rest was just "fill in the blank" reasoning. Something something medicare, something something housing... eh yeah that's good enough we need immigration reform!
But that's been happening in the US for many generations now. That's just how the US works; we get a lot of immigrants and they become US citizens. If not them, then their kids. Yeah, welcome to America.
> The same people who want to paint the Statue of Liberty gold seem to have no clue what it represents.
Well, yes. The current administration and the republican party as a whole are composed of fascists and thieves who steal from hardworking citizens like you and I to fund vanity projects like a ballroom and "Arc de Triomphe but bigger and gold".
They're shitting on the history of our country and all the people who have sacrificed to make this place what it is today, and they're doing it just to enrich themselves.
Frankly they are traitors and I hope that in time the wheel of history will deal with them as traitors deserve.
> The polarization of politics has become so intense
> The same people who want to paint the Statue of Liberty gold seem to have no clue what it represents
You seem to be lamenting political polarization and in the same breath making character attacks on one side of the isle. Pick one.
can we not call a spade a spade anymore? what part of cruelly cancelling green card applications fits with “give me your tired, your poor?”
> cruelly cancelling
This is assigning intent without evidence, as is common in tribal politics. A non-charged assessment might use the phrase "abrupt cancelling."
We cannot create a better republic without constructive discourse, and we cannot have constructive discourse when we default to characterizing the views, concerns, and actions of those we disagree with as rooted in moral failure. Even if it is true from time to time.
This chiding from you would be better received if there was a shred of evidence that the other tribe is even slightly receptive to this kind of discourse.
Unfortunately, the norms of discourse are pretty much gone. This is terrifying in the long-term.
posted 7 years ago but applies far more broadly now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAbab8aP4_A
If you were to try to convince me a 2:1 immigrant to local birth ratio here in Australia is a net good for the country, you’re first going to have to convince me your a reasonable person to have a conversation with.
If you jump straight in with claims against me that I’m -ist and -ic that’s going to be more difficult.
Huh? So more nonwhite people is a net negative for Australia? How isn't this just bald faced racism?
Here you are again [0], unable to represent comments in good faith.
Nobody said "non-white" and it isn't even implied because a significant proportion -- 35-40% of Australian Permanent Residents (US green card equivalent) -- come from EU/"White" countries.
The suggestions above are consistent with my request for you to review the HN comment guidelines.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48252227
Complaining about 2:1 immigrant to local birth rate has absolutely nothing to do with long-time permanent residents (who are locals). It's clearly a fear that white culture is being overrun by brown/chinese people.
Your comments degrade the discourse at least as much as you think mine do.
> Complaining about 2:1 immigrant to local birth rate has absolutely nothing to do with long-time permanent residents (who are locals)
Wrong again. They're locals and overseas-born immigrants.
You’re really not doing great at convincing me you are a reasonable person to have a conversation with.
Would you try this constructive-criticism on an ICE agent pointing a gun to your head with no regard to your constitutional rights?
> This is assigning intent without evidence, as is common in tribal politics
You are calling for constructive discourse and yet your response is an accusation of dishonesty. A non-charged assessment might use the phrase "without presenting evidence".
This is why we can’t have serious discourse with the Left.
Not because we aren’t open to it, but because they insist that if you don’t utter the correct shibboleth you’re not worth talking to.
“Without evidence” vs “without presenting evidence”.
Batshitcrazy.
I find the amount of people chiming in on something they do not understand to be disheartening.
Anyone is entitled an opinion, even when they're wrong.
But perhaps before posting, engage with intellectual curiosity and get informed.
Otherwise you're just posting a layman view that could easily be rebutted.
It’s amazing to see someone do literally all of the opposite things to create a successful business, country, economy and world.
Which is so puzzling to me given Trump's impeccable record as a successful and prudent businessman.
The dude bankrupted a casino.
The dude didn't bankrupt a casino. It made itself bankrupt. That was its choice.
It's shocking, actually. Horrifying, and again I say: They do all of the things one would expect them to do if their stated goal was the absolute destruction of the United States of America. They are traitors, no more, no less.
Got this email (!) from an immigration attorney friend that basically says green card applicants need to leave the country in order to file.
That’s really unfair, sorry this is happening to you.
> Nonimmigrants, like students, temporary workers, or people on tourist visas, come to the U.S. for a short time and for a specific purpose. Our system is designed for them to leave when their visit is over. Their visit should not function as the first step in the Green Card process.
Do they consider H1B workers to be “temporary” for this purpose? It seems broken and cruel to force them to go back to apply when they’re here legally and could easily just apply here (assuming their visa is still valid).
Yes, it looks like H1B workers will have to do this as well. It sounds like it applies to "dreamers" as well even if they have never visited their "home" country before.
Xenophobia driven policies are intentionally cruel.
The whole immigration argument basically boils down to two schools of thought.
1) Those who believe that every human born on this planet has a basic right to move to and live in, any country that they want.
2) Those who believe that the people who are currently citizens of countries around the world, have the right to set strict restrictions on who is allowed to move there.
These two schools are fundamentally at odds with each other. Some members of both camps will go to the extreme to enforce their position and demonize anyone in the other camp.
That's a huge oversimplification though. Group 1 would mostly consist of some of the most ardent social progressives and some hippies, and the Group 2 is most everyone else and basically the policy in every country currently in existence.
In reality most people are somewhere in the spectrum of group 2:
* There are those who believe everyone economically net positive should be allowed.
* There are those who believe everyone who are a good cultural fit (for their personal criteria and biases) should be allowed.
* There are those who believe only exceptional people with rare talents should be allowed.
* There are those who believe people should only be allowed if they meet some definition of greater good.
* There are those who believe partner visas should be allowed/disallowed.
* There are those who believe only the wealthy people who'll spend or invest their wealth in the country should be allowed. (=various kinds of golden visas)
* There are those who believe no one except for certain race(s), nationality(es) or religion(s) should be allowed.
* There are those who believe no one should be allowed.
* ..Different combinations of above options..
* ?? (Many other possibilities)
> 1) Those who believe that every human born on this planet has a basic right to move to and live in, any country that they want.
This is an extremely small group of people.
Most of them pretend to be in the group to virtue-signal.
Same with homeless problem. We must not move/clear homeless camps (as long as those camps aren't next to my house, of course).
I don't see why someone should have say what happens on others land. If I want to allow someone in my land or kick someone out of my land it should be, within some restrictions completely my own decision. Do you have legal ownership deeds over all the land in your entire country? I just think it's very strange.
The tricky part is that these are public lands owned by the city/government e.g. homeless camping close to my house on a public street.
But yeah people who don't live close to that specific spot should have 0 say.
Everybody who has a different moral opinion than yours holds that opinion for the sole reason that they believe it will make them look better to their peers.
This simplification is very small. #2 is almost literally self evidently true.
Most of the disagreement is where a given country should be on the spectrum of zero immigration and fully open immigration.
You can know we have the right to set strict regulations, and also object to driving smart hardworking people away from your country for no reason.
I would say that #1 is almost self evidently true (I mean, obviously it's not because so many people disagree).
It seems obvious to me that there is no moral reason that some people should only be allowed to live in certain places.
It’s not about morality. It’s about human nature and economy. It’s like saying everybody should have the same amount of money. The result of such thinking would destroy the coin, and alternate forms of money would be created by the people.
Having all countries open the borders to anyone (ignoring security risks for the sake of the argument) would mean all poor people would emigrate to rich countries and strain the economy, while their home country would collapse from lack of workforce.
[flagged]
I’ve never said blacks. That’s your own bias creeping into my explanation.
And it really doesn’t matter why some countries got poorer, this is the fact right now so my point still stands.
Regardless if you find all bad luck immoral it just isn’t practical for every country to support every person. It’s immoral to have borders in the same way it’s immoral everyone doesn’t have a private driver, a personal chef, and a mansion.
>You can know we have the right to set strict regulations, and also object to driving smart hardworking people away from your country for no reason.
But the crux of the problem is this - many of the immigrants we've been sold on as being "smart hardworking people" have not been that and often been the opposite. Your side seems incapable of grappling with the fact that it has fundamentally lost the trust of the electorate on this issue and seems entirely uninterested in doing anything to regain this trust by overhauling the way we filter prospective immigrants.
the reality is that there a very wide spectrum of opinions about what immigration policy should like, and really not so many people in the (1) category
There are apparently 20+ million of them who entered the U.S. illegally, along with millions more who think it is a crime to deport them (even the criminals).
I am genuenly curious what do you think would happen if every country were to apply 1.
I've written several replies and deleted them all. I really can't speculate. its never really occurred to me that that would be a good idea, and everything I wrote was just the kind of unsubstantiated bullshit that I hate reading here.
People have a right to join and quit any company they want. I don't see why it should be so much different for countries. Especially so when it's karens making decisions on behalf of land they don't own. Do you own the entire land in your country? You definitely don't.
Thanks, i appreciate your message. When I look at the US or EU were internal migration is allowed, I am hopeful. I just don't know if this is generalizable.
if we look at governments as the local administrative function, then certainly, it shouldn't really matter to the government who its citizens are as long as they contribute to public kitty for the mutual benefit of the residents. and from that perspective we can see migration as enabling a kind of healthy competition between governments. one that's very empowering to the citizens. its a nice picture.
but governments apparently have roles which are not directly related to collecting taxes to lay sewers, and I think we should maybe be questioning those. and of course there are economic consequences to the population varying, and things start to unravel at both extremes of density.
from this perspective the US was a very good competitor in the attraction of talented citizens. sadly we won't really have a good accounting of what was lost.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
Accepting your dichotomy for the sake of argument, I'm in camp 1, but camp 2 could still be humane and comprehensible. Many countries have strict immigration rules, and while I disagree with that philosophy, it's not necessarily objectionable in the same way.
The Trump administration is not in camp 2.
The Trump administration, as this rule clearly illustrates, is in camp 3: Those who believe that the people who are not currently citizens of your country should never be able to become so, and should be punished for even trying.
The problem is not that the system is "strict" in the sense of holding an incredibly high bar. The problem is that the system is arbitrary - there is no process you can follow that will give you a high degree of confidence that you'll be allowed to enter, or even that a decision _will be made at all_ in a fair manner, no matter who you are (unless you're a personal friend of the administration) - as opposed to you being randomly arrested by ICE halfway through waiting for a decision. And even if there were such a process, you would have no confidence that it wouldn't change retroactively in another week.
It is laughably naive to believe that they are doing this in good faith out of any sense of strictly filtering immigrants. There's exactly one explanation that isn't transparently pretextual, and you and I both know what it is.
> Those who believe that the people who are not currently citizens of your country should never be able to become so.
This is basically the longtime practice of countries like UAE, and historically it is categorized under camp 2; no need to create a third camp here. It’s not as if no foreigners ever in such countries become citizens – while most immigrants are meant to be guestworkers who eventually return to their own countries, there are still laws to confer citizenship on exemplary foreigners.
Non-western immigrants in the UAE are essentially enslaved. It is clearly in a camp which is separate from mere "strict immigration laws."
The UAE and the US (as of the last year and a half) don't (just) have strict immigration laws. Instead, they have corrupt and abusive immigration systems which operate outside of national and international laws.
I don’t see why you single out non-western immigrants in the UAE and try to depict this as an outcome of corruption or abuse. Most non-western immigrants are subject to the kafala system, but even if they weren’t, their eligibility for citizenship (or not) would remain the same. After all, citizenship is off the table for even the highly privileged Western expat population that is not subject to the kafala system.
Again, the local laws allow for conferring citizenship on exemplary foreigners, which does happen, and so such countries fit easily into camp 2 by which a country has the right to choose who and who not it wishes to make citizens.
That makes sense to me. If you come on a non-immigrant visa, you can’t become a permanent resident easily. it’s a privilege, not a right. Other countries like the UAE also take a lot of foreign workers but do not want them become PRs or citizens and there are tons of people moving there for opportunities. The labor is needed but they don’t want these people permanently. You made your money, now leave
That doesn't make any sense. The US enjoys its position of economic power because it has the reputation and wealth to attract skilled people and keep them here.
Skilled people have O visas. The H1Bs are the ones you don’t want long-term.
This is my thought too. The intent of the law is for it to be temporary, and creating the citizenship loophole has caused a lot of issues. I think the expectation H1B may lead to citizenship causes a lot of disress and forces people into roles that take advantage of them, and closing the loophole seems strictly good.
Nice way to destroy the US economy over the next few decades, if you consider who made the country rich since WW2.
H1-B wasn't invented until 1990...
H1-B isnt what made the US economy rich, it’s what made Silicon Valley richer.
The US had one of the most restrictive immigration systems in the world up until 1965 and it did not see significant immigration until the 1980s.
European scientists?
Looks like this means if a US Citizen marries someone who visited on a non-immigrant visa without the intention of getting married, the US government will now force the family apart for an unknown amount of time, potentially forever, instead of allowing the spouse to stay while the I-485 is processed.
I wonder how this would work with a K-1 "Fiancé" Visa. Typically a K-1 holder can enter the country as long as they get married within 90 days, and then the family stays together while the I-485 is processed. Now what? Come to the USA, marry the US Citizen, and then you're banished back to your home country?
There's also the K-3 which lets the foreign spouse enter as a non-immigrant to keep the family together while the I-485 is processed. Are they getting rid of that entirely?
This is all totally bonkers, likely not well thought out, and pretty cruel to families, which is completely on-point for this Administration.
> likely not well thought out
Or it has been, and cruelty is the point
I wonder how this would have applied to Melania
The reason why you allow married people to adjust status is because it's absurd to actually expect a spouse not to just break the law and harbor their illegal immigrant spouse. They are going to choose to break the law rather than kick their spouse out and have them apply from overseas. Maybe they deserve to be punished when inevitably that happens en masse, but one has to consider the societal effects of creating a bunch of criminals over what amounts to an administrative fuck-fuck game over a spouse who was already determined to be admissible to the US.
This government is run on mafioso leadership principles.
Thats why they’re appointed a whole bunch of unqualified people at high positions. This is what happens in the mafia. Those people know that the only reason they’re there is because of the dear leader and not because of their competence, so purely out of self preservation, they will put loyalty to dear leader above every other principle.
Similarly gangs will get even low level people to commit completely unnecessary crimes. Because once you’ve committed a crime, they own you. You’re at their mercy, since you can’t run to the police anymore, without risking jail time yourself.
So you make a whole bunch of your residents criminals, so they’re unable to exercise their rights effectively without threat of being punished for a completely different reason that the government now holds against them.
They’ve started with immigrants because making them criminals is as easy as writing administrative memos, but the same incentives will lead them to start making criminals out of American citizens too. You can already see some of it with the way they’ve criminalized protest against Israel. The next step will be to redefine whatever acts they can as terrorism since Congress granted the executive tremendous power when it comes to terrorism. But they won’t stop there.
>who was already determined to be admissible to the US
If that was true why even go through a whole process. To me it sounds like there is still an approval required meaning the person is not determined to be admissible yet.
The process as it relates to a K1 Visa is a multi-step series of approval gates designed to state that someone is “admissible” based on certain conditions, which change as you move through the process.
The general logic has been that it’s really easy for people to say they want to marry a U.S. citizen, get approved to emigrate, and then change their mind after (the common term for this is visa fraud). So the government grants a series of visas for increasing lengths as you move through that process and prove that it is a bona-fide relationship.
A K1 visa is the last step before getting married, and stipulates that you get married within a short time after entering the country, after which you have to remain married for several years, prove you’re doing things normal married couples do (like live together), and then you can get your permanent residency.
So, in short, it’s not as clear cut as a one-time yes/no decision. You very much live within a prescribed framework for several years until the government is satisfied that your relationship is real.
(Source: personal experience)
If they were here on a non-immigrant visa then they were already found admissible to the US. Some of them were just straight up illegals (like dreamers). I've met dreamers from time to time and all of them regularized their status after marrying (I assume the ones that didn't though weren't eager to tell me about their status so I simply never found out).
One interesting note here is the case of DACA recipients. If they leave the country to adjust status it should triggers a re-entry ban unless they're granted parole (DACA are quasi-illegal but granted a form of amnesty as long as they remain in US). AFAIK parole isn't granted for US consular visits, so it's effectively banishment as punishment for trying to adjust their status to reflect their marriage.
I responded similarly in another article. This policy punishes American citizens who pursue relationships with people they met in USA who were foreign born. At a time when marriage rates are rapidly declining.
FWIW K1s were never a great visa category. Doing an engagement party with a white dress and posting it on instagram could lead to a "go apply for CR1 instead" rejection.
I think if you enter on a B1/B2 tourist visa, you should not be allowed to adjust status to a green card except in extraordinary circumstances. I’m not so sure about other non-immigrant visas.
K1 will obviously be an exception as substantial steps are generally taken at a home consulate.
There is no carve out in this memo that says it’s only for B1/B2. Or that K-1 is excluded.
An entire visa class is not “obviously an exception”, or it would be clear.
I’m also pretty sure you cannot apply for an AOS from a B1/B2 to a green card.
I think you can apply for an AOS to a different dual intent visa which could then allow you to apply for a green card if you meet the requirements for that visa.
Maybe something like if you get married while visiting, but even then I believe you need to apply for an adjustment of status to a marriage visa and then apply for a green card.
No. Before you could enter on a tourist visa and there was an automatic presumption of fraud if you got married, etc within the first 90 days, but you could get married after 90 days, but before 6 months of maximum tourist stay and they may investigate a little bit, but it was generally not difficult.
The IR-1/CR-1 that you describe is how a spouse would apply from outside the country.
What if you obtain a B2 visa to attend a conference in the US, and a year later receive and employment opportunity?
Do tourists stay in the country for a year?
I'm so happy for my friends that got green cards before this insanity.
The government has completely abandoned any pretense of following the rule of law. Don't be shocked when they start revoking green cards. Don't be shocked when they start revoking natural citizenship. "But they can't do that!", you say. But who's going to stop them?
For those who're in the US, the courts can stop the government. The ones more at risk are non-citizens who are abroad.
Can they though? Hasn’t the government already ignored plenty of injunctions against them?
And will they? This administration has appointed a significant fraction of judges.
Do you have some examples?
https://apnews.com/article/trump-courts-defiance-judges-laws...
If you have enough money to hire lawyers or can figure out how to get in contact with a law firm willing to work with you for the exposure, sure.
If you aren’t lucky enough, you’re just screwed.
It's not that bad because once the court ultimately makes a general ruling, not merely in favor of an individual, but against a federal policy, the ruling can apply to everyone, not just to that one individual. Granted, the government could still ignore the court's order.
no. the supreme Court got rid of that last year
[citation needed]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._CASA
This government and its supporters would say - Due process isn't applicable to everyone in the US especially who they perceive as being "illegal immigrant".
The strategy for many folks will likely be to wait it out until the next administration when hopefully some amount of sanity returns.
The question buried in much of the detail: there is an indication this doesn't apply for H1B's and similar who work in the national interest or provide economic benefit (presumably substantial). Perhaps this allows an opening for at least some people.
Perhaps the people initiating this -- that is to say, almost universally either immigrants or the descendants of immigrants to the US -- would prefer something like the following version:
With silent lips. "Keep your poor, your tired, your teeming masses, too!
We’ve rewritten the laws, reframed the view,
To raise a middle finger straight at you.
Send your huddled refuse back to your own shore,
I lift my lamp beside the dead-bolted door!"
This is how it works for legal immigrants for many countries.
Can you name some of these countries please?
Almost every single European country requires you to leave the country in order to apply for a new visa status, which is what is happening here in the USA.
In SE Asia there's a whole cottage travel industry taking business and tourist visa holders on a quick trip out of the border in order to return to renew their visa (of course you can also pay for this service under the table).
> Almost every single European country requires you to leave the country in order to apply for a new visa status.
This is not the case for transitioning from a temporary residence permit to a permanent residence permit, which is the best analogue to the USA’s Green Card. In most European countries, one does that within the country (and often within the same province one lives, at a regional office).
Your second paragraph is about visa runs, which are a totally different beast. These don't involve any changes of status, it's simply resetting your tourist stay.
Sure seems like we as a country are heading further down the isolationist, nationalist road. I expect we won't be the last western country to batten down the hatches as it were, for better or worse it seems like most countries are preparing for something much larger.
So throw the baby out with the boat. I'd say no matter how you do the numbers nowadays the number of people unknown to the government applying for a green card legally would be in the minority. So is this really a matter of national security that this needs to be done this way who knows. Given that most people have been here forever paid taxes paid Medicaid social security are being treated like fugitives. I am certain at some point the world will reject the choice of coming to the USA over other choices they have.
This government has a really bad reputation for taking one or two cases and making an example of them and then telling the other 98% they deserve it. I hope at some point this stops and someone rationalizes whatever is going on in my country
The base of the issue is weaponizing fear and anger in the citizenry to better control them. Immigration has been an evergreen topic for that for the entire history of the US.
In recent years, they've combined yet another favorite, racism, to get that tasty peanut butter chocolatey goodness to get the base angry enough to go to the polls to vote based on that.
I hold on to hope that somehow, someday, we can overcome this nonsense. I have nothing to support this so I get in this sense it makes me a man of faith.
> From now on, an alien who is in the US temporarily and wants a Green Card must return to their home country to apply, except in extraordinary circumstances
Whats the equivalent policy for other countries? Can you stay like you could prior to this?
In other countries (Germany, France, Canada etc) - there are spelled out paths for getting the permanent residency. I would be a permanent residency by now or maybe even a citizen if I had decided to go to any other developed country. But here, after 10 years, with a clean record, I worry I will be picked up by ICE someday.
In European Union countries, transitioning from a temporary residence permit to a permanent residence permit is typically done inside the country: once one meets the eligibility based on length of stay or whatever, one files an application with the local immigration office. No need to leave and apply from outside.
Many other countries including UK enforce a similar rule. It's very inconvenient in those countries, but there's a significant difference: in most other countries that have this kind of policy, visas can typically be processed in a timely fashion (and are actually processed at all). It's insanely expensive and very arduous administratively to get a visa for the UK as the spouse of a British citizen, but the process will typically only take a month or so.
Isn't the Uk the opposite? There are many visas in which you have to be in the UK to apply. This is why we have people coming on boats, and why they are not illegal immigrants. They technically have to travel here to apply for aslyum, and since they do not have a visa cannot take conventional transport, but it is entirely legal for them to come here on a small boat as long as they present themselves to the authorities to claim aslyum upon arrival.
Graduate visa's are the same for example, where you cannot apply abroad, so you must be careful not to leave the country between graduating and getting that visa.
The asylum system and immigration system are surprisingly disconnected from each other in the UK.
Pretty much all forms of permission to stay in the UK other than asylum can only be granted from within the country if you hold an existing long term status. So if you're visiting as a tourist you can't then decide to apply for a spouse visa or even a working holiday or student visa without leaving the country first. If you're already on a student visa or a work visa or similar you can change categories without having to leave.
The graduate visa is essentially an extension to the student visa with slightly different permissions - it makes sense that you can only apply to extend if you're in country and you view it from that lens.
The historic reason behind all this is that there used to be a substantial difference between being granted "leave to enter" and "leave to remain" (out of country vs in country applications). Leave to enter used to be granted by embassies etc and the foreign office, but leave to remain was granted by the home office. Now the home office handles everything in the UK centrally so the distinction is not significant.
Asylum is an international concept negotiated by treaty. You apply when you arrive - that's true everywhere.
> It's insanely expensive and very arduous administratively to get a visa for the UK as the spouse of a British citizen
How expensive is it?
From initial application to permanent residency it costs around £6k in visa fees and around £5k in health surcharges over the course of 5 years. Citizenship is another ~£2k all in.
You make three applications with those fees divided slightly differently each time.
That’s without any legal fees if you need someone to help you prepare your application which will be ~£2k per application.
If you have non-British children or stepchildren (which is generally quite rare) it’s approx those fees per kid as well.
For most other European countries including Ireland the fee is <€500.
I first entered Canada with my spouse as a visitor, then got a work permit as a NAFTA intra-company transfer, then became a permanent resident – all without having to return stateside for immigration reasons.
On a related topic, the number of H1Bs brought in by big tech has been insane. Have you seen mtn view castro lately?
The biggest industry in the world is importing top talent from around the world? Who’d have guessed?
Lately as compared to when? Mountain View is in the heart of the tech world, it's right next door to Palo Alto and Menlo Park.
Is America an economic zone for people (who might be highly educated) to just come and make money, or is it a place for them to call home and be American?
I'll be honest as a naturalized citizen, I am shocked at how many people treat America as just a economic zone. They don't really consider this country to be their roots and don't assimilate into the broader culture. And I'm not talking about H1b, I'm talking about the O1s and L1s. They are so entitled and they are usually super well off in whatever country they come from.
It doesn't matter if they're a PhD or whatever, they might contribute via their employer or their own startup on a monetary basis, but I have also dealt with enough people who try to maintain one foot here and another foot wherever they're from.
We moved to the USA because the system of governance here and all the things it stood for were what motivated us to become Americans. It is our home and we have only our American passport.
Most of the so-called "highly educated" immigrant workers I meet have a spouse who won't become a US citizen so they can double dip in their origin country's low cost of living. It is kind of gross.
Just food for thought. I don't really like people who only seek to extract, if that makes sense. Doesn't matter if your TC is 1.2M or you raised 40M.
This is to close the common loophole where people would fly into the US on an ESTA, B-2 or another temporary visa "without immigration intent" (fraud) and then marry a US Citizen and adjust status.
On visa forums this method is commonly discussed. By entering on an ESTA/B-2 with the intent to marry a US Citizen, they're committing immigration fraud, inherently. You would be denied entry at the border if you admitted to your plans.
The correct way to do this is to file a K-1 visa outside the United States, or marry outside then file a IR-1/CR-1.
Maybe it does close that loophole, but the effects are much, much broader and more harmful: https://www.cato.org/blog/dhs-quits-granting-green-cards-alm...
This article is intentionally misleading.
Department of Homeland Security is no longer processing Green Cards via AOS. That included UCSIS.
However the STATE DEPARTMENT is still processing it via Consular Processing.
The article makes it sounds like the US is no longer offering Green Cards which is false.
The article you linked is patently incorrect. It claims "Now, every legal immigrant must leave the country—that is, self-deport—even if they are qualified for a green card and even if leaving would disqualify them.". This is false according to USCIS' memo.
It very specifically lays out common exceptions to this, including for legal immigrants on dual intent visas and those whose only pathway to permanent residency is via adjustment of status.
It also wildly misinterprets the news to claim that the K-1 visa has been effectively ended, even though the memo specifically excludes it.
https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/memos/PM-...
No the memo specifically says:
> However, maintaining lawful status in a dual intent nonimmigrant category is not sufficient, on its own, to warrant a favorable exercise of discretion.
Which basically means that, applying AOS while being in dual-intent category is not favorable and you will have to prove extraordinary circumstance for a simple i-485 AOS on H1B. Lacking the extraordinary circumstance, your application may be denied.
What this basically means for millions of people on H1B (especially from countries like India is), they have to go for consular processing. And given the lack of appointments in India and delays they are facing - you could be stuck for months to years and no company is going to wait for you while you go through the process. So leaving would definitely disqualify them.
Why should H1Bs be exempt from consular processing when nobody else is? K and IR/CR categories MUST do consular processing, which takes 3 years in some cases.
H1Bs should jump the queue why? You're arguing that the family of US Citizens should be considered behind temporary immigrant workers with no family ties to the United States, and you should be exempt from the requirements they face.
You are moving the goal posts. You said this memo does not apply to dual intent visa holders and I proved it does. I am not saying if an exception should be made ffor H1B visa holders or not.
I am just pointing out this affects all employment visa types.for countries with long delays in counselor processing this effectively kills any chance of getting Green card because no employer will wait that long.
So, it's exactly as I said.
https://www.businessinsider.com/new-green-card-rule-wont-aff...
No, this also affects anyone under employment based immigration petitions unrelated to marrying a US citizen.
Only if they do not maintain lawful status, which is what the law says anyway. In fact, it specifically mentions this: "USCIS acknowledges exceptions including nonimmigrant categories with dual intent and immigrant categories where only adjustment of status provides a pathway to permanent resident status"
https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/memos/PM-...
Footnote 20 on page 4:
Footnote 20: However, maintaining lawful status in a dual intent nonimmigrant category is not sufficient, on its own, to warrant a favorable exercise of discretion
Where in the memo does it say "only if they do not maintain lawful status"? there are plenty of people adjusting under employment based petitions who have non-immigrant visas (eg O-1) which are not dual intent.
O-1 is a dual intent visa, as is L-1, as is H-1B, so I have no idea what you're talking about?
No, the O-1 is not officially dual intent: https://www.wegreened.com/o1-visa
Complete nonsense. It is.
https://fam.state.gov/fam/09FAM/09FAM040213.html#M402_13_5_B
Do you know why many sources state that it is not dual intent or that it is "quasi dual intent"?
"The noncitizen may legitimately come to the United States for a temporary period as an O-1 or O-3 dependent nonimmigrant and depart voluntarily at the end of their authorized stay and, at the same time, lawfully seek to become an LPR of the United States."
Seems extremely clear to me.
Given our population problems, I can't think of a single rational reason why we'd want to stop this from happening.
Our population problems, in that we need immigration to avoid population decline? Our total fertility rate is 1.6.
Exactly that. And really, it's still not going to be enough.
Which is, notably, well under replacement.
It is absolutely NOT specific to the very limited situation you are describing, which is already a big red flag when processing applications.
"USCIS acknowledges exceptions including nonimmigrant categories with dual intent and immigrant categories where only adjustment of status provides a pathway to permanent resident status"
https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/memos/PM-...
The literal next line after your quote is:
> While aliens who were inspected and admitted or paroled may request adjustment of status, as a general matter the discretionary approval of such a request is extraordinary given Congress’s intent that aliens should depart once the purpose for which they sought parole or nonimmigrant admission from DHS has been accomplished.
Slight correction here. It is fraud if you intend to stay after getting married. Nobody cares if you get married on a tourist visa and leave the country after.
Holy shit why is this comment buried?! This is exactly the purpose.
Whenever stuff like this happens, the chuds, both inside and outside the WH, start searching for ancient texts that would support their positions. Invariably, there will be the "actually, the INA says ..." crowd in the comments. To these people, I would like to point out laws that have been passed in this century that speak precisely to this issue. The law is appropriately called "American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000", for which USCIS maintains this page https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-7-part-e-chapter-....
One of my hardest working coworkers at the big box retail store was here on a perpetually extended U visa (reserved for witnesses to crimes of federal interest) after being sold to a sex trafficker at a young age back in the 90's.
Under Trump 1 she was fired because they wouldn't renew it and she lost work authorization. Her kids are citizens and she speaks better English than Spanish, she was educated here and is effectively fully integrated. But she's slightly brown, and Stephen Miller says we can't have that.
That's right. Many people obtain visas with the clear intention of changing their status, which is illegal, and so far, authorities have turned a blind eye to it. The typical progression is: people come on a J-1 visa, join a language cours to get an F1 visa, then drag it for as long as possible, graduate, which gives them the opportunity to work on campus for a short period of time, meanwhile, try to get married, or pay somebody to marry them fictitiously, or try to get an H-1B, which is almost impossible, or, in most cases, stay illegally, but now they have an SSN, and a driver's license, which nobody checks if they are authorized to work, so, there millions of people with SSNs and DLs, whose stay is completely illegal, and it's not too hard to identify them, but so far this illegal situation has been silently tolerated. Okay, if you knowingly allow violation of the law, then change the law so that people don't live with the sense of being unlawful residents! Oh, I forgot that illegal residents can have legal children and later on get green cards as parents of U.S. Citizens. All these scenarios are well known, including the abuse of L-1 visas by outsourcing companies, but, as I said, it's been tolerated.
I do not endorse this change in anyway, as it means breaking promises and assumptions which drove thousands to the shores of USA in the recent past.
Having said that, most commentators here, including me, might not have the full picture of the situation - the scale of influx of current immigration, quality, tactics and loopholes used, and goals (universities as visa machines) etc. USCIS might have a different picture they are looking at, than most of us here. They also might have better visibility of the future needs of the businesses here.
You're in the minority if you still assume that anything out of this administration is driven by competence rather than malevolence.
This swill split entire families, more likely forcing those in the US to follow those who need to leave. Of course this has nothing to do with immigration. They're indeed feeding their racist voters some candy, but the goal is rather to reduce population among the poor to counter the inevitable unrest that is happening soon, when tens millions of families will be left with nothing to put on the table because of recent technological advancements that happened too fast before society could adapt.
The president isn't a king. If Congress weren't cowards this would be trivially preventable.
Forget the French, the new meme for cowards who retreat at the first opportunity should be the American Congress.
> doctrine of consular nonreviewability protects any denial from judicial review, and there is no administrative appeals process.
I personally think this is the big secondary benefit that the administration is going for.
This is going to worsen healthcare in the United States.
Many critical roles are filled with doctors who are here on visas because there simply aren’t American graduates who want those jobs. I’m talking about jobs being doctors in hospitals and towns and cities that are not the most desirable.
Many of those doctors filling these positions today are immigrants who are on visas. They want to get green cards and stay here. They end up living long term in those communities caring for patients in them over the years.
If this policy goes into effect it will hurt all of that. And actually many of these hospitals and less desirable areas are placed with lots of Trump voters too.
In general if someone has spent years working hard with a visa and is law abiding and contributes to the community I don’t understand the purpose of making immigration harder. And I especially don’t understand why you would make it harder for doctors and engineers and other educated people who are here on visas to get a green card.
Can someone explain the rationale?
the number of doctors on j1 extensions the us is going to lose over this is going to seriously impact us healthcare. it's also not uncommon for doctors to practice on an o1 and they'll be impacted also
> because there simply aren’t American graduates who want those jobs.
Facts are just invented in these debates. Here is an actual fact: in the 2026 residency match cycle, about 6.5% of U.S. MD seniors went unmatched, resulting in approximately 1,300 to 1,400 U.S. MD students failing to secure a position initially.
No need to say “ Facts are just invented in these debates.” Especially when what you are talking about is different from what I’m talking about.
I’m not talking about residency. I’m talking about jobs post residency. There are hospitalist jobs in areas that are in desperate need of doctors. And these jobs are staffed with doctors who are on visas. Outpatient jobs too. These jobs are in locations or hospital systems that are important and that American graduates do not want to go to.
This is an absurd change that will have catastrophic consequences in both academia and the private sector. Even if you're a US citizen who is "America First", you will feel the impact, and it will be net negative.
I doubt it. We've seen time and time again that what the USCIS considers "extraordinary" are actually very, very ordinary circumstances. Anybody with proof of employment will qualify.
Only after losing in court, time and time again. This will take expensive lawyers and a lot of heartache to get any clear answers.
You don't know what you're talking about. This is the very last stage of the GC process. Before everyone had the choice to do AOS or CP. I personally chose CP. Now there's only the choice of CP. But nothing else has changed. It means you need to fly back to your home country for a few days for the interview and then you get your GC on the spot.
The US consulate is currently not hearing cases in 75 countries.
This is only true in the cases for folks on longer visas. If you meet the love of your life and marry them on a tourist visa, you'll be forced to leave your spouse and head back to your country of origin for probably about a year while you wait for USCIS to process I-130.
>If you meet the love of your life and marry them on a tourist visa
As others have said, someone entering the US on a tourist or other nonimmigrant visa, then marrying a US citizen, is inherently committing fraud because the marriage demonstrates intent to stay. In the past, the US was nice about it and let people apply to adjust their status without leaving. This loophole is now closed.
You can enter the US on a tourist visa, without any intent to date or meet someone, commiting no fraud, but then encounter someone in the USA, get to know them, and decide to marry that person, and then marry that person. That can happen in 6 months, the length of a tourist visa.
Are you saying that in such cases, the US rules here are and should be that the married couple should live apart for years due to the bylaws of the USCIS?
>and then marry that person. That can happen in 6 months, the length of a tourist visa
As I said, this is inherently a violation of the commitment the visitor made when entering the US on a non-immigrant visa, as much as (say) exceeding the limit on the hours per week an international student can work.
>Are you saying that in such cases, the US rules here are and should be that the married couple should live apart for years due to the bylaws of the USCIS?
First, this is what the law has always said; there is a reason why non-immigrant, immigrant, and dual-intent visa types exist. The USCIS memo reiterates this, while clarifying that the agency will no longer grant the contrary-to-the-law leeway it has heretofore done regarding non-immigrant, non dual-intent visas.
Second, the alternatives of 1) K-1 (fiancee) visa or 2) CR-1 (spousal) visa exist, and have always been the intended means for the person you mentioned in your situation.
The leeway meant that pretty much anyone, including illegal aliens, could obtain a green card (and be exempt from removal during the application process) by marrying a US citizen.
A US citizen is free to marry anyone, regardless of citizenship. There is no automatic guarantee, however, that the couple can both live in the US.
> As I said, this is inherently a violation of the commitment the visitor made when entering the US on a non-immigrant visa, as much as (say) exceeding the limit on the hours per week an international student can work.
Your concept of "commitment" doesn't match the legal structure here. A visa is not a contract with the government. What is relevant legally is whether the information presented was truthful at the time of entry and of visa application.
So, love and families, none of that counts for shit beneath the boots of bureaucracy? Send the kids away from their mother, she didn't navigate the Kafkaesque trap correctly so now we must ruin their lives. Nothing about that seems... Wrong? Because up until yesterday, the policy of the United States was that such a thing WAS wrong.
> A US citizen is free to marry anyone, regardless of citizenship. There is no automatic guarantee, however, that the couple can both live in the US.
While you, like USCIS, may be correct that technically the de-jure rules state that there is no automatic guarantee that spouses cannot both live together in the US, the de-facto reality up until yesterday, for all of living memory is that YES, spouses are guaranteed to be able to live together.
That's such low effort nonsense.
>> You don't know what you're talking about.
I can assure you I am intimately familiar with the entire process.
>> It means you need to fly back to your home country for a few days for the interview and then you get your GC on the spot.
Not necessarily. That's the best and most optimistic scenario. I know of people who have waited weeks, even months. It depends on a lot of factors. And now there will be a lot more people booking interviews at every consulate so expect wait times to skyrocket.
[flagged]
It is just ironic - there are other countries who want talent that goes to US but does not have industry to support them. I guess this is how monopoly looks like.
This does not seem to target NIWs but rather those who use change of status as a way of extending their stay.
Change of status was never meant for those without status in the first place or for tourists.
I would love be to hear an immigration lawyer's perspective on this.
Here's the memo directly:
https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/memos/PM-...
That’s crazy. If someone is already living and working here, and is legally here (like on a work visa), why shouldn’t they be allowed to apply here? Why require them to lose time and money by traveling somewhere else?
It is to disincentive those on a temporary visa to apply for permanent residency, without eliminating the visa path entirely. What your mental model is optimizing for (easy, efficient) is different than what they are optimizing for (hard, inefficient).
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-05-22/trump-to-...
> The policy change could impact hundreds of thousands of people a year and potentially reduce legal immigration further amid a sweeping government crackdown, according to immigration-law experts. President Donald Trump’s administration has introduced a series of restrictions affecting everyone from asylum seekers to students and highly skilled workers.
> The new rules generally apply to any foreigner who came to the US on a temporary non-immigrant visa, including students, employees on H-1B or L visas and visitors. The US awards about 1 million green cards a year, though roughly half of those are for foreign relatives being sponsored by an American citizen. Those applications are generally already processed outside of the US.
(POSIWID [The Purpose of a System Is What It Does])
[dead]
I'm dumb, can someone give me an objective take as to why leaving the country is a good thing for applying a green card? In Australia usually you apply when you already have an existing visa, and if that's going to expire you usually apply for what is known as a bridging visa while your PR application is being processed.
It's not. The US green card process takes years, and being forced to be outside the country while the process is ongoing makes it very hard to continue working for a US employer, which is how most people are actually sponsored for a GC in the first place.
If you're looking for some objective rationale for this change, you're not going to find one. This is simply designed to make GCs much, much harder to get and dissuade prospective immigrants. That's the only goal.
I think others are saying you just need to apply outside the country but you can return while the process is ongoing. So it seems to be some kind of clerical thing.
I imagine this will continue being walked back into nothingness. It's probably not even legal.
This is the will of people who voted the current administration into power. Its a democratic country, politicians have to respect what the people want, a recent video which reflects the thoughts of majority: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3FcCTXRiKo
The will of the country is also expressed in who is elected to Congress. And they make laws, the President implements them.
So yes what you say is true, if what the President is doing actually is within the legal authority set out by the law.
They don't want legal immigration except in cases where it is in the national interest i.e a Deepseek AI researcher wanting to move to the US - bet your bottom that person ain't waiting for a green card.
I have never regretted abandoning my Green card and giving up US PR. Honestly every day I feel I lucked out by not being stuck there. Especially now in the NewUSA
Is this just for when applying for I-485 that you have to make a quick entry/exit trip,
or is it effective all the way back at I-140 time where people would then need to spend years away from the US?
Quick exit/entry trip unless you're from one of 75 countries in which the US consulate is literally not hearing cases.
Doesn't it take a few months to process a green card application?
There are many different kinds of green card and many can take much longer. Moreover, US consulates currently aren't processing them in 75 countries.
This is such an insanely unpopular move even among some of trump’s supporters. I really think this will be this version of the republican party’s suicide note.
It's an insanely stupid move, but from what I'm seeing on Twitter, it's somehow not that unpopular among the less bright.
> it's somehow not that unpopular among the less bright.
politics aside, do you realistically believe that you can view twitter and actually mentally carve out the opinion of a group of people in real life?
that's exactly the issue with twitter.
for one : you're polling twitter users (a TINY subsect of humanity), two : you're extracting opinion from those that seek to broadcast it (an outlier) , and three: twitter never self-exposes the world to a user, it selectively curates and amplifies, and fourth : it's one of the most gamed communications arenas in existence.
you're viewing the world through an itty-bitty twitter-colored monocle and making sweeping accusations across large cohorts, it's not an accurate portrayal of actual human opinion.
I don't think it's a perfectly representative sample of people in real life, so I always view it as an anthropological experiment, as if I'm visiting wild tribes... but still am finding the proportion of people in favor of this decision to be surprisingly high.
Why insanely stupid? No, I don't mean you might not be right but it's nice to hear arguments rather than a pointless slight against people you assume fit your category.
Because immigration is a net positive for economies, as any economist will explain to you. Especially high-skilled immigration, but it's not even limited to that. An increasing population is already a net positive.
Twitter is mostly bots (take almost any response and look at the account history).
Don’t make the mistake of thinking that Twitter / X noise is consensus.
[flagged]
Or we could build more houses, and schools and hospitals. When did we become a country of scarcity instead of builders? Half of downtown down San Francisco is built on the abandoned boats from migrants that were building too fast to bother moving the boats that brought them to the gold rush so they just built a city on top.
We could create special economic zones like china, allow 200 million immigrants into the country with a goal of a billion people to match the population of china and India. Make it a condition of citizenship that they help build ten homes or similar infrastructure. Immigrants could be the solution to all the problems you cite and they certainly aren’t the reason those problems exist.
Be careful pulling the ladder up, you might hurt your hands.
If you think this is going to immunize you from the worst of what the MAGA movement has to offer I think you're in for a rude awakening.
It’s sad you don’t realize who you’re getting in bed with. H1Bs and their families are only 0.4% of the population and yet they’re being blamed for -all of americas problems. Must be your first rodeo around the american political system if you actually think they will no longer blame you even if that number shrinks to 0.1%. The economic considerations have always been a pretense. Some of them hate you because you’re brown but not the kind of exploitable cheap labour brown that serves them food and cleans their houses. Politicians see an easy scapegoat to blame for their mismanagement of the country and lean on the narrative. Indians keep leaning republican and learning this lesson over and over again.
Will this actually fix anything though, or will it just make it so we can't "blame immigrants for America's problems"?
Because if that's the only reason we're doing it, then frankly that's a very stupid reason. I'd like real reasons, please.
Or evidence that they are confident their takeover and transition to single party rule was successful a they are not subject to further accountability.
If something seems irrational it’s usually a sign that you don’t understand the underlying logic. This behavior is totally logical if they aren’t worried about losing power.
From the USCIS policy directive.
>> admitted into the United States as nonimmigrants to depart rather than pursue adjustment of status. Such aliens are generally expected to pursue an immigrant visa and admission from outside the United States if they wish to reside permanently in this country.
H1-B was already a dual intent visa. Are they trying to create a new visa category?
Whatever they are trying to get to this is a big concern for all H1B employees.
> Whatever they are trying to get to this is a big concern for all H1B employees.
Thankfully H1B is a small visa category.
I see lots of comments about the legal minutiae around this -- but as a non-US person I'd like to understand the motivation.
Straight-up nativist discrimination? This kind of technical measure would seem to be hard to sell to the MAGA base, compared to something more blatant? Or is this somehow a favour for their corporate clients?
This appears to close off the method by which all the "dreamers" I'm familiar with got GC/citizenship, which is by marriage.
Legal immigration was already hard. Just went through that green card process with my wife from China, glad we already got it done. But, even before Trump admin 2nd term, it's been difficult. Further, even my wife has the green card, my Chinese mother-in-law has been rejected twice for a simple visitors visa, and I'm an American that has been with my wife for 16 years. She was rejected before Trumps latest term while Democrats were in power. She owns like 3 houses in China and has plenty of assets and would not move here permanently even if there were zero friction. We just want her to be able to visit us a few months per year instead of me being forced to fly my entire family of four back to China each year just to visit my wife's mother. These stupid barriers are totally ridiculous. I promise, Grandma from China isn't taking anyone's job and she has plenty of money to spend while she's here to help the economy and then she wants to return home.
All that said, as a data point, when I got my working permit and working visa to legally work in China, I first had to fly back to America and get a "landing" visa issued, then fly back to China, where they then finally issued me the China working visa and China resident permit. So, I think globally, this is pretty common for process.
Is this intended to ensure that students and H1-Bs will not have a path to residency unless they disrupt their lives here?
It is intended to disrupt immigration full stop and especially brown immigration.
I notice India being omitted from the list of affected countries though. That’s the major contributor to “brown immigration”
[flagged]
Isn't this about applying for a green card directly from a non-immigrant visa, e.g. student? H1-B is an immigrant visa.
H1-B is defined as “non-immigrant.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-1B_visa
> H1-B is an immigrant visa.
I don't believe that's correct. H1-B is formally a temporary, nonimmigrant work visa/status which permits "dual-intent" (meaning a holder can be openly seeking permanent residence when applying for [or when on] such a visa without that dual intent being immigration fraud).
Ah you're right, I mixed up immigrant and dual intent.
Companies don’t want their H1s getting a green card and the freedom that comes with it.
I don’t see this as that significant of a change.
The way I read the new policy is that it will be applied to people who have violated immigration law in some way.
An alien’s failure to comply with the conditions of their nonimmigrant admission or parole and an alien’s failure to depart as expected are highly relevant to this analysis
And those on dual-intent visa are fine…
USCIS reminds its officers that applying for adjustment of status is not inconsistent with simultaneously maintaining nonimmigrant status in a category with dual intent.
It’s basically adhering to the laws on the books. If you’ve violated immigration law a high hurdle will be in place to use this special pathway.
However, if you’re in the US on a dual-intent visa (e.g. H1-B) then you can continue to use the AOS pathway. This includes temporary works on L or H visas. And includes those sponsoring their spouses on K visas.
The most insane thing to me is that legal (non-asylum) immigration is somehow framed as a “moral” thing that nations do out of charity.
Its not: you get to directly address a shortage in your country without the burden of raising and training the person. Arguably, if you don’t mind morality, the immigrants are also easier to exploit. And all that + you get a free tax payer!
My reading is that Americans (but also other parts of the world) are 1) uneducated on this topic 2) racist and or xenophobic to the point of self sabotage.
Quite literally if county building was a video game where the xenophobia of the masses could be ignored, I would brain drain the shit out of every country, leaving myself stronger and the rest weaker.
Switzerland does this well. In Switzerland, immigrants are mostly permanent residents. Achieving Swiss citizenship is very difficult. They have a bunch of immigrants in their country, yet immigration is much less divisive than in other countries, since they have such a well-designed system.
The US has a naturalization-driven model of immigration, which is being tested by fast jet travel. It worked OK in the days when you had to pay a bunch to cross the Atlantic and you couldn't easily communicate with your relatives back home. But things are different now.
The citizenship model or naturalization model creates policy implications for accepting immigrants. New voters, new policies. Of course the people on the losing end of this policy shift become upset: https://arctotherium.substack.com/p/increasing-skilled-immig...
Looks like a recipe for a brain drain, but out of US for a change.
I am under the impression this does not apply to for example o-1 visas. Possibly not for h1-b. Is everyone clear about what they are commenting on here? Is the news coverage clear?
So if someone is here in the US on an H1B and they want to become a permanent Resident/ Green Card holder, they will have to go back to their country of origin to apply? Otherwise they just stay on their H1B VISA and work.
Is that right?
Aren’t h1b’s time limited? 1-2 renewals?
Yes - the rule is that the application for Adjustment of Status can't happen while you're already in the US.
This must be rolled back this is so hella disruptive. But it’s very much in line with this administration. One part stupid another part callous and 3 parts bad for the economy.
What about a spouse visa? It's insane. I just got married to my girlfriend, and she needs to go back to her home country and wait for years before getting a green card? It's crazy.
Yes, and if you move there, you lose “domicile” and no longer qualify to sponsor her but if you don’t visit her regularly, she’ll get RFE’d for “bonafide relationship proof” (since your name appears Indian just be aware they’re very quick to RFE at Mumbai immigrant dept)
They obviously know how unpopular this is, or else they wouldn't be releasing on a Friday night. This is so unimaginably disruptive, I wonder who inside the administration is suggesting this.
To make sure this opinion is here:
The fact that they get to make this announcement is probably the biggest upside. Their base loves it. It makes people think they are doing something. There is an asymmetry in that if they quietly roll this back or it's blocked in court, it will generate only a tiny fraction of the publicity.
Probably not too controversial here to say that the economy wants these immigrants so good bet they'll keep getting hired.
It's a cruel strategy, but I think it's fair to say that it's far from certain it'll be a consistent one.
Don't let them troll you too much, stay strong.
Its the same model china has? Was one of the reasons the enclaves flourished (like hong kong).
And i dont get it, no actually i get cognitive dissonance whiplashfrom all that contradicting messaging. Millions of jobs will go due to AI, but millions of those unemployed must stay in addition?
In a country thats constantly portrayed as the worst on earth but constantly attracts the wretched of the earth. Who want the opportunities but not the melting pot. The recipe that produced the economy that allowed such luxuries must go, but those who detest that system must stay. If a set of opinions has no intersect why does it make a sound ?
This seems like it could have some ramifications.
Let's saying you're dating somebody on a work visa, if you wanted to marry and sponsor their residency, would they now need to return to their home country to wait for the embassy?
The embassies reviewing applications put a LOT of weight on time spent in person, BUT they also require the US applicant to have domicile. So effectively, the only way to proceed is a long-distance marriage that could take years to process a visa for (remember: move abroad, and you could lose the domicile required to sponsor the green card).
So with our shrinking birthrates, our regularly documented & growing "will never marry" population, immigration effectively cut off, what does the future of this country even look like anymore?
yea, i’d say this is rather ridiculous. it places an undue financial burden on someone to uproot their life after they’ve already made community connections just to stay permanently. this seems very much obviously designed to discourage and halt immigration by making it more painful
I think you articulated the administration's intentions well.
next headline: trump closes consulates in nonwhite countries
I've read through many comments. Like true HN-ers, they are trying to understand this change in terms of logic, reasoning, cost / benefit, and so on.
This is missing the point. The arbitrariness, cruelty, racism, xenophobia, etc. is A DESIGN FEATURE, NOT A BUG.
I hope this may help youngsters in this terrible situation understand what is happening. Since at least the 1980's, if not earlier, one American political party has been using racism as a part of their platform. They used to do this in coded "dog whistles" before. The earlier targets were mostly Black Americans (they still are, if you look at what the Supreme Court just did with their voting rights).
Now it is all out in the open. The racist beast needs to be fed continually with fresh targets. Gay Americans were another target group. More recently it is undocumented South Americans. The most recent target is .. foreigners (especially non-white non- Christian).
Don't look for logic and reasoning in all this, in the abominations. Take a deep breath, and a long walk. Evaluate if it is worth dedicating your life and career contributing to the beast, and living in constant uncertainty of your legal status, unable to travel, and so on. You are worth way way more than that.
Anecdote time:
My Eastern European wife and I recently faced the decision of how to go about getting her a green card. At the time we lived outside the US.
One option was to enter the US on her B1 visa pretending to have no “immigration intent” and then “change our mind” a respectable number of days later and apply for AOS. The process for this was 1.5 to 2 years. I didn’t want to do it for that reason and because I wasn’t comfortable with what amounts to visa fraud, but our attorney presented it as a pretty standard option.
The other option was consular processing. This wasn’t automatic. Our attorney contacted a few consulates in the region where we lived to see if any would accept our case (due to war the consulate in her home country wasn’t handling routine cases). We got approved for consular processing in Budapest.
I had to go once as the US citizen spouse to submit our application packet and do a pro forma interview. Then a few months later it was my wife’s turn to go to the interview.
The process, like any immigration process, was paperwork heavy and nerve wracking. The final interview was very simple and felt like a formality.
In that case once approved she received a visa that would be stamped upon entry to the US and this would count as a temporary green card pending receipt of the physical card.
All of this happened during the second Trump administration so I was expecting a hostile or at least adversarial process. But it was quite the opposite. Total elapsed time was about six months from initial attorney consult to entry into the US as an LPR. It would have been faster if our attorney was more on the ball getting our final interview appointment.
If I were to find myself in need of a green card for a foreign spouse again I would opt for consular processing if given the choice. Now that it’s required I imagine there will be a longer backlog.
Obviously if you need to do this at one of the consulates that no longer offers consular processing that’s a different story. I was fortunate that the Budapest consulate agreed to take our case.
I don't feel scared of or concerned about immigration. That's it. I don't know where that's coming from.
Curious how the tech lobby will react. You would hope Musk and Huang might take their own personal experience into account.
The tech industry and general business lobby is extremely pro H1b/immigration. They're probably the only thing holding back a total ban on h1b immigration right now.
In some ways that industry is losing a tool. Sponsoring a green card used to be the prize they dangle in front of the h1b to keep their nose to the grindstone.
Absolutely. I don't think they will be happy.
So many great students will be off the market. This will affect to the whole tech space. No way they will be happy with this decision.
Not from the US, but is a green card actually necessary to work there after studying? afaik student visa is different from green card right?
Most countries, you get a visa of some kind but you have no way to permanent residency at all unless you marry but you can keep staying there somewhat permanently.
most countries actually let you apply for permanent residency once you've hit a set number of years, usually around 5 or 10, on work visas
You think either of them care about other human beings? They have continuously demonstrated they only care about themselves.
Musk has no problem "pulling the ladder behind him", and Huang's only duty is to shareholders - which means kissing Trump's ring to avoid retaliation.
Americans voted for this.
You can apply for GC from within the US. The only time you need to leave for Consular Processing is for the interview, after which you immediately receive your GC. Everyone is saying that the entire GC process needs to be done outside the US but that's wrong. You can have an H1B and apply for GC from within the US without leaving and you only need to leave for the CP interview which is a couple of days max.
All this means is that I485 is no longer allowed and everyone needs to do Consular processing. It doesn't mean that Green Cards are no longer being processed.
I did consular processing when I got my Green Card. It's the FINAL step fo the GC process. You don't need to be outside the US for all the other stages, in fact I think if you leave during some parts, it would be considered abandoning your application. It just means that while you're in the US, you need to schedule an appointment at the US embassy/consulate in your home country, and fly back. Then you go through the appointment and there on the spot you're approved or rejected. It's a big nerve wracking but unless you lied you will be fine. Then you fly back to the US.
For me CP was much much faster, on the order of months.
I think in specific visa circumstances, an i485 will still be required such as K1 visa which is granted outside the country and then by nature of a K1 visa, adjustment to green card must happen within the United States.
> but unless you lied you will be fine.
That’s a huge unsubstantiated claim.
This is a good thing. Adjustment of status for those within the USA is backlogged- by years for people from certain countries. Going to the home consulate for the final stamp will save years for many people.
F1 and h1 are non-immigrant visa.
American law only allows a person to reside in the country with one Visa type.
The green card is an immigrant visa - and the new visa is issued through an adjustment of status for those inside the USA (backlogged) or by consulates (nearly immediately).
So this is a good thing. It’s easy to get alarmed.
Why is it "nearly immediately" at a consulate but "backlogged" in the US? Why can't that be fixed?
This is not true. It is not nearly immediate at US consulate and backlogged in US. The parent doesn't know what they are talking about.
I went thru CP myself. It saved me 3 years
"Didn't happen to me so therefore it won't happen to anyone."
Because America only has a few processing centers in within the US where is that literally hundreds and hundreds of consulates that can now take on this activity they have always been doing this activity but the vast majority of the backlog is caused by the slow processing of the US processing centers.
So why not… expand the processing centers?
Maybe consulates are idling
USCIS serializes it and they have a limited number of workers. CP shards it based on country so it will be much faster for many people.
That's a what, not a why.
Why can't USCIS shard it based on country within the US in a similar fashion?
The whole immigration system could easily be reformed and modernized if efficiency and speeding up the legal route to citizenship were the goal.
Each country can only get 8500 gc’s per year. My numbers are probably incorrect, but some countries have literally hundreds and thousands of people in the pipeline while some other countries only have perhaps thousand. The ones with long waiting periods will clearly benefit. Edit. Via OpenAI
2025, the cap was about 26,323 per country because the total visa pool was larger.
Important details:
1. The cap applies to: * Employment-based green cards * Family preference green cards 2. The cap does NOT apply to: * Immediate relatives of U.S. citizens * spouses * parents * unmarried children under 21 Those categories are uncapped. 3. The cap is based on: * Country of birth (“chargeability”) * Not citizenship. 4. In practice, countries like: * India * China * Mexico * Philippines hit the cap constantly, causing very large backlogs.
Simple example:
If 500,000 Indians qualify for employment-based green cards, but only ~25k–30k can be allocated annually under the cap system, the remainder wait in line. That is why Indian EB-2 and EB-3 wait times can stretch into decades.
Because it’s literally not better than the DmV
My county's DMV is fast and helpful.
Demand better from your government.
(And this still raises the question of why the consulates supposedly don't have this issue.)
DMV (at-least in Bay Area) is exponentially better and straighforward than any of processes around immigration / visa renewals.
The Oakland CA DMV, which is the one I live closest to, is quite nice. I've never had a bad time there.
Exactly. An extra points for using HN lingo.:)
From what I've gathered, the consular route is nowhere near immediate, especially if they are from one of the countries typically backlogged (e.g. India). You're saying that someone who gets married while on F1 + OPT/STEM should leave with their partner, potentially for months if not years, while pursuing the consular route.
No. All it leans that you go to the consulate on your appt and get your immigrant visa stamped - you get an appointment date and that’s it’s. It was a 3 hour process for me. I flew into Frankfurt and flew out the same evening.
Consulates are not nearly immediately. You have to wait months-years for appointments at some.
The performative cruelty is the intent, I guess. At this point, seems like the only practical thing to do is to wait the lunatic out.
However, the big question this will leave for future immigrants is 'What if this current administration is the prototype for future Republican administrations?'
My wife already has her green card through our marriage - but it expired under the Biden admin and we were given a 4 year “non-renewal extension” because USCIS was unable to process its renewal in time due to the post-COVID backlog. We’ve got about a year left on that extension and are absolutely terrified we are going to be forced to uproot our entire life by this evil administration and its pointlessly cruel policies.
It's shocking to me that the gov is allowed to claim "backlog" to defer one of the functions the gov is actually supposed to do. They print the money. They can hire enough to fulfill their obligation with almost zero effort.
A very good deep analysis of this:
https://x.com/providence_eye0/status/2058577102321131755
This definitely has "cruelty is the point" vibes
The DHS has made many communications that were openly white supremacist. It's not just an unfair situation with legal technicalities. Their views and plans are more extreme and dangerous than our society is able to accept as reality, so many are in denial. There are obvious historical parallels.
There need to be thorough weekly video walkthroughs of all of the detention centers. Otherwise you can expect actual starvation at some point.
> The DHS has made many communications that were openly white supremacist
Just dropping this here: https://x.com/DHSgov/status/1970251208322621530
If the perpetrators are not dragged in chains in front of a nationally televised tribunal at some point in the future, we will have failed as a country.
I support this. The United States is too crowded. I don't want to compete with all these new people for housing. American citizens really need to begin advocating for themselves. For their material interests.
As a European, I also support this. Natives should not have to compete with all these new people for housing. Real Americans really need to begin advocating for themselves. For their material interests.
Come back where you belong.
Apparently you haven't travelled much in the US. Outside the major cities it can be pretty desolate.
I don't want every square inch of my country to be city; and if you look on google maps, most of the land in the US is already either used for farming, cities, or not suitable for either.
I don't think we're too crowded, but it definitely doesn't make sense in the era of AI and tech layoffs to continue the H1B/green card status quo.
Guess what? America's homebuilding is powered by immigrant workers.
https://www.businessinsider.com/immigration-crackdown-housin...
Ah, the argument, "who will clean our toilets and make our tacos?"
That's a reasonable opinion for one to have, but it can coexist with humane timeframes for changing laws over time. Not grandfathering people already here for a change in policy of this magnitude -- this is inhumane.
Also consider that these "new people" are assets to our economy. They're tax payers, many are highly educated, and their presence over the last hundred years is the exact reason you have the privilege of being in a wealthy country. Seriously, how do people think the US became what it is?
Will sending these people away improve our economy? Because I doubt it. I mean, we've been doing mass deportations right?
Well... has the economy improved for you? Has your life gotten better after we dumped a few tens of billions into ICE? Because I'm still waiting.
When will that chicken come home to roost, do you think? I'd like to know so I can make a note of it and inevitably tell you "I told you so" when that day rolls around.
Maybe it'll be around the same time we get those tax refund checks from all the money DOGE saved.
"They're tax payers, many are highly educated," yes they have more purchasing power the day they arrive than I do after 4 generations.
That's not right and toxic for social cohesion. Your immigrant class should not be wealthier or have superior earning power to the native population. That's like a sociological time bomb.
your life in your home country must be really terrible to decide to come to the USA to jump through all of these hoops now.
When I renewed my H1B visa (I think after three years), I had to leave the US to do it. I couldn't renew it from inside. The permission to work got renewed just fine - I could just keep on working for another three years - but if I left after the first visa expired, and wanted to come back, I would need a new _visa_ (thing stuck into my passport) to come back, and I could only apply for that while outside the country.
I read that it used to not be like this, that it used to be possible to renew the _visa_ itself from inside the US, but that got changed before my time. I can only imagine that the reason for that was that non-citizens inside the US are entitled to due process, but non-citizens outside the US are not. And denying a visa to somebody outside the US is therefore a lot easier than denying it to somebody inside the US, and essentially cannot be appealed.
When I applied for AOS form H1B to Green Card, I didn't have to leave the US. With this change, I would have had to. The only reason I can think for this change is that denials of AOS would now become unappealable. I hate this.
> I read that it used to not be like this, that it used to be possible to renew the _visa_ itself from inside the US, but that got changed before my time. I can only imagine that the reason for that was that non-citizens inside the US are entitled to due process, but non-citizens outside the US are not. And denying a visa to somebody outside the US is therefore a lot easier than denying it to somebody inside the US, and essentially cannot be appealed
No, after 9/11 they passed a rule to always collect biometrics before issuing visas and validating them at border entry. The DoS facilities in the US did not have fingerprinting facilities but the consulates and embassies did, so they forced the change. Recently there was a pilot to allow it in the US itself.
But then why change the renewal process for the people who were already fingerprinted for the original visa?
This is just Trump trying to torture immigrants likely due to the psychopath Steven Miller.
In general the law applies equally to everyone associated with the US in any respect so you get due process (in theory) regardless. Specific laws may apply to different classes of people though (see 'enemy combatants').
it is way easier to immigrate to China, no kidding.
Hong Kong introduced new self-sponsored visas, Mainland introduced new high-tech visas couple months ago
Easier to get a temporary talent visa? Maybe, for some profiles. Easier to get permanent residence? Almost certainly not. The U.S. green card system is backlogged and maddening, but it is still a mass immigration system. China’s green card is closer to an exceptional-status program (it's 100x harder to get a green card in China than a green card in USA).
Also if you really want to immigrate to a country you eventually probably want to become a citizen of said country right? USA has pathways for this (albeit getting harder with this new admin). However in China it's nearly impossible.
This thread has a lot of comments that seem to associate labor regulations and concern for the poor underclass, and immigrants themselves, with racism. Effective, but not in the intended way.
Does the American Dream myth still exist?
This is them working their way up through "purges" of undesireables. Remember it first started with illegal immigrants. Now it's expanding the classes of who counts as illegal. First forcing green card holders to become illegal. Next they'll make it illegal to speak out against the government, be a union organizer, trans person, non-Christian, anyone who gets or helps someone get an abortion (actually that's already illegal), socialists/social democrats, anyone who supports Palestine.
By 2029 the gloves will come off. The internment camps of today will be dwarfed by what comes next. If you think I'm crazy, look at what they've already said in the past. They are not kidding anymore.
This administration has made it clear in no uncertain words or actions. They don’t want immigrants. And if you think this is bad policy, please stop voting for them. Please vote for the alternative candidates. This is the easiest way to fix this nonsense.
I will vote in midterms. Enough is enough.
I don't think voting is going to make a very meaningful dent in the issue.
Why not?
I have participated in democracy exactly once. It was the only time in my life I was eligible to vote. My vote made no difference and the course the United States took is now irreversible.
Prior to being able to vote, I watched one unsatisfactory candidate after another get elected to the US Presidency despite the obvious presence of a much preferable and more qualified candidate.
Still, even if I had voted and my preferred candidates had won, it's not clear to me that this would have changed anything. Our world is not run in public.
That's how it works for legal immigrants, yes.
[dead]
We live on a prison planet. The borders are the cell walls. Some of us have more privileges and freedom to travel, but we're all restricted. This doesn't help anyone other than the few parasitic slave masters.
It’s an overly upsetting policy, but comparing me to a slave because of my US citizenship seems… distasteful.
The are other nits to pick with the analogy, but I’ll leave it at that
I'm talking about the whole world. The immigration systems are like controlling which pastures different herds are allowed to graze.
What barns you can live in, perhaps, but not what pastures you can graze in.
A lot of immigrant doctors and nurses have to go. Natives should get those jobs first
What the Trump administration has done, and is doing, to people wildly obscene — and I think evil.
Let's not mince words. My heart goes out to everyone impacted by all this.
"The Cruelty Is the Point President Trump and his supporters find community by rejoicing in the suffering of those they hate and fear"
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/the-cruelt...
I was under the impression that this is roughly how it works (assume equivalency) in most European countries is it not?
No, it is not. And if you fall in love and want to get married to someone on a student visa, your fiancée should not need to leave the country for a year or two to wait for paperwork to process. Which is one of the real world impacts of this change.
Why wouldn’t your spouse just stay on the student visa? From what I gather it’s purely the processing that is overseas.
Stay on whatever visa you’re on -> apply for consular processing -> travel for interview -> enter on green card
The green card process can take 9 to 20 months and applying for a green card demonstrates an intent to immigrate so it's highly likely attempts to return on other temporary visas like a student visa will be denied.
So they likely have to wait out the green card process abroad unless they secure a dual-intent visa like an H-1B.
There's also 75 countries that the US has shut down consular processing for so those people may be locked out getting a green card entirely.
Right. But logically it makes sense - unless you have a valid visa you’re not allowed to stay.
You could go the fiancé visa route and stay in status while waiting for the green card.
I think what this policy is trying to avoid is the blanket “you can stay while processing even if you’re not in the country legally”
Absolutely not. My wife could apply for German permanent residency as well as now German citizenship from within Germany. She has been living in Germany for 10 years now and at no point in the process did she have to go through a German consulate (she is a US citizen).
For many immigration statuses in Sweden, you must leave and apply outside of the country (outside of Schengen for non EU-citizens) to change status. This was even the case before the current right wing government was elected.
Except for the part about requiring you to leave to process your application.
Wait times to process applications depend on your country of origin and visa type. If you are an H1B from India that was already decades approaching never. Same for Brazil and elsewhere.
And that was before Trump. All that was practically halted.
Objectively terrible policy for ethics, public safety, and, selfishly, the American economy. Immigrants contribute to economic growth and are less likely to commit crimes are well established facts. It’s the 21st century, we have the internet and education is accessible, but instead of recognizing and championing the vital role of immigrants in America’s rise to power, here the nation moves to hurt itself for some misguided anti immigrant ideology.
This is common practice in many countries, although I don't quite understand why
Silicon Valley bigwigs supported this administration vocally. I am starting to doubt that their interests and morality align with mine.
Their interests and morality have been evident for a long time.
The number of people commenting who are grossly misinformed yet feel very confident is very very high.
Many comments are calling legitimate facts as “wrong”.
People don’t event know the difference between a visa and a permanent resident status and yet feel compelled to talk about foreign born people coming to America, “non- western” or “non-European” immigrants.
Do better HN audience. This is very disappointing.
Hey friend, you don't come here for reasoned discussion, do ya? On a Saturday?
Another case of this administration just doing what it wants and ignoring legislation - ignoring the will of Congress. And Congress abdicating its responsibility to even make its will clear.
I am no longer surprised, but still don’t understand why almost all members of Congress are wiling to just let their power slip away like this.
It's just sparkling xenophobia. Forcing a return to one's home country to apply for a Green Card can frequently remove the very qualifiers one has to getting said Green Card.
Just take a look at the categories of Green Cards available on USCIS' website[0], and think about how many of them will be unavailable if you're back in your home country.
* Green Card via Family? 18 months, minimum, for approval.
* Green Card via Employment? Well, self-deporting likely means the loss of said job opportunity, thus your ability to convert to LPR status
* via Special Worker? Here's hoping you're not an Iraq of Afghani national that might be persecuted back in said home country for cooperating with the US Government.
* via Refugee or Asylee Status, or as Victims of Abuse? Are we fucking kidding, here? Forcing refugees/asylum seekers/abuse victims back to their home countries is deliberately cruel, and I'm going to be looking for statistics on changes in approvals pre- and post- this policy change to make sure "special circumstances" are actually recognized as such
It's just a despicably cruel policy change that's so overtly xenophobic, it actually reveals the alignment of those reporting on it when it's not called out as such. It's the antithesis to legal immigration in that it all but destroys the process entirely, promoting more illicit behavior (dangerous and clandestine border crossings, exploitation of migrant workers, human trafficking, etc) in the process.
Fuck this regime.
[0]: https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/green-card-eligibility-cate...
My buddy married someone he met in grad school abroad, then got a job in the US when he graduated. She had to move in with her parents in Japan while waiting for the green card. It took at least a year.
I'd disagree on nuance. Xenophobia is anti-foreigner. This targets people of color. They target people of color who are US citizens, too.
It is gutter racism.
edit: I wish I could be surprised by the downvotes, but it's gutter racism and I'm proud to point this out! I would be never be quiet about a matter of ethics and conscience just because of startup accelerator social media popularity points. This directly influences many of our friends and colleagues in this field. It is vile, evil racism and directly topical for software startups.
edit 2: the list of immigrants and children of immigrants who have founded software companies that are the absolute backbone of US information infrastructure is embarrassing to write down. Anyone can search for the information, but it's harder to list companies not founded by immigrants or children of immigrants.
What a strange comment. Foreigners are not inherently people of color…
More than 80% of people applying for US Green Cards are not white.
Argentina is orders of magnitude more white than the US and yet, argentinians face the same issues as morocans in the US migration system.
We will take all of the white South Africans
Why not both?
Just FYI, some of us down vote for complaining about down votes.
Trump is still trying to distract from the magnitude of the Epstein network.
Not long ago, new accusations came about, involving more superrich - see here https://wsvn.com/news/us-world/former-miami-beach-mayor-accu... and elsewhere, really just a few hours ago; and from the last few days. So here I am wondering ... how can there be an investigation in the USA, but even many weeks afterwards, they keep on finding more and more people that MAY have been involved here? Of course it is guilty-unless-proven-otherwise-in-court, but the key question here is why the investigation "reveals" more and more victims? Should this not already be revealed? Or is the investigation deliberately crippled?
Something no longer works in the USA here. The "we are against immigration" is just the carrot on the stick before the donkey. Or the "let's bomb Iran ... oh wait, inflation now goes up". This is literally an administration that worships chaos and executes pillaging while implementing chaos.
So what does this do to the K-1 fiancée visa? Your partner gets the visa, they come over, you get married, and then they have to leave and submit an application to get status changed from their origin country? Seriously? WTF is this crap?
K-1 visa is immigrant intent, you are basically applying for temporary 90 day pass to get married and one of two things will happen: Get married and adjust your status or leave.
What this screws over is there was plenty of people from US visa waiver countries who decided K-1 was too hard and just flew over to US and got married. They would then apply for Adjustment of Status. That is big door being shut close because B-1 is non immigrant intent visa.
My room mate from college did this with UK foreign exchange student 20 years ago. She came over on visitor visa, got married and they got a lawyer to fix it all up.
What about for people who do want follow the K-1 process "by the book"? It sounds like they would they now need to come over, get married, go back to their origin country to apply for status adjustment, and then come back over again? Or am I misreading this?
You are misreading this. K-1 can come and stay since it’s considered an immigrant visa.
This screws over anyone who enters the country on visitor/temp work or student visa since those visas are not immigrant visa. You would be expected to leave the country and apply for GC overseas if you got married on one of those.
Makes sense and this is how we do it in Australia.
There really is no rhyme or reason to this insanity. Even someone who wants less immigration shouldn't be able to see this as anything other than insanity. The current administration is pathetic beyond belief.
Is there now a path to retain a fresh PhD / postDoc in the US?
If all of these folks are pushed out of the country right after their student visa expires, likely they are not coming back.
I think it is hard for citizens to understand how precarious it feels to be an immigrant in the present political climate in the US and Europe. I'm a permanent resident in France, I'm white, I have a EU passport, I have a job, I'm OK. But, my naturalization request has already been denied twice, because I couldn't provide some arbitrary document the government demands, and they keep changing the rules, just for the fun of it or so it seems, it's quite insulting.
I really feel for immigrants that are less fortunate than me. we all just want to have dignity, find a job (anyway the low-paying jobs are done by immigrants) and provide for our kids. What's wrong with that? How is this taking advantage of our host country?
Frankly, the present discourse around African/Arab immigration seems to me to resemble a lot the kind of rhetoric around the millions of Jewish Russian immigrants who fled pogroms to Poland and western Europe a 120 years ago. I find the similarities quite striking. The blatant racism, the conspiracy theories, the fascist propaganda, all in order to whitewash (pun intended) a corrupt regime of thieves and sycophants. Absolutely disgusting!
Don't worry, the are letting in white South Africans
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/18/us/politics/trump-afrikan...
the wildly corrupt double-standard is breathtaking
There is well documented historical evidence Elon Musk not only illegally overstayed a student visa, he also illegally worked while on that visa AND did illegal drugs publicly while on that visa
Destroyed USAID murdering millions, highlights the President is in the Epstein Files extensively, then six months later is flying on Air Force One, it's all a cruel joke against humanity
Right - this is the natural extension of the dichotomy "There are those the law protects but does not bind and those the law binds but does not protect". The law doesn't bind Musk - those visa infractions are enforced on peasants, not Epstein Class Nobles like him.
[flagged]
Well, no, it's just that people with basic empathy can see the racism and judge it accordingly.
Yes. We all hate how South Africa treats differing races. It's evil. Right? Right....?
I think the point being made may have passed you by.
Basic empathy would be OK with letting the White refugees entry to the US. But because of the anti-White/Europhobic racism from the left, they lack empathy.
Basic empathy would be not bullying, terrorizing and detailing anyone who isn't white, nor supporting such vile behavior.
Basic empathy would be not bullying, terrorizing and detailing anyone who is white, nor supporting such vile behavior.
[dead]
[flagged]
Not shocked you're quoting an anti-White/Europhobic neo-segregationist. White hatred is a hell of a thing.
There's no hatred against white people, not widespread enough to be notable at least - the book White Fragility talks about this imagined persecution though, I recommend it. I know you need to have the last word, and as I don't wish to engage further with people that have your ultimately hateful views, please go ahead so we can be done. At some point, I hope you get cured of your fear of imagined threats ultimately, at least in part, driving your hate. Take care.
There's no hatred against Jewish people, not widespread enough to be notable at least - the book Mein Kampf talks about this imagined persecution though, I recommend it. I know you need to have the last word, and as I don't wish to engage further with people that have your ultimately hateful views, please go ahead so we can be done. At some point, I hope you get cured of your fear of imagined threats ultimately, at least in part, driving your hate.
"Let me quote this washed up anti-White neo-segregationist that was caught using antisemitic tropes as proof that I don't hate White people" is such a hilarious take only a leftist could make it. Imagine taking lines and tactics from know racists and segregationist and delusionally believing you have the high ground. Take care.
[dead]
Basic empathy would be letting in refugees from any race or background.
Exactly, which is clearly not what leftists want.
Whos blocking refugees? Trumps government is trying to make immigration harder. How does the left get blamed?
Not to speak on the anguish that this would undoubtedly cause but economically? This is like shooting yourself in the kneecap. America doesn’t nearly have the social security net of European countries and ours is already overburdened. Without younger, immigrant workers paying into our social security net the US govt will either need to print money (double digit inflation) or start raiding the evil tech bros RSUs for Medicare money.
Being a natvist is an expensive proposition. Expect your retirement to decrease in real value and struggle to find acceptable healthcare as you age (healthcare in the US is increasingly staffed by immigrants, especially nursing).
This is confusing. If someone is already here on a valid visa, it's stupid that they should have to go anywhere else.
If they simply showed up or overstayed a visa illegally, then it's actually totally reasonable that before they can be given permanent resident status, they should be demonstrating compliance with immigration laws by not being here illegally.
Yet again with Trump's bizarre mixture of a nugget of a reasonable (and popular) idea with a barrel of nonsense and chaos. It's the same as with tariffs. Tariff things produced by adversaries, that we are well-positioned to make here ourselves and stimulate a good domestic industry with good-paying jobs? Yeah, but also let's tariff a ton of things we need that we don't even freaking make or grow here, and against our geopolitical allies to boot.
Step 324 of how to make Russia great again.
Another immigration policy that would have negatively effected Trump's own wife. Oh well, she got hers.
This could be a big deal for Big Tech. I wonder how personal experience of Musk and Huang will play into how they react.
So the racists in the Trump administration - my guess is Stephen Miller types - are literally making it so that LEGAL immigrants have to spend thousands of dollars and time to go submit a form in another country, when they can do it here? Or online? Why?
The cruelty is the point. They want the economic benefit of immigrants but also want them to live in uncertainty and without any easy path to settling down. Complete and utterly stupid.
Again worth asking VC Bros if the light touch on their crypto bags was worth all this ethnonationalism?
If you recall, Andreesen said he’s not into introspection. Don’t think this is a thing they’d think about.
Also, a lot of these guys are simply straight-up ignoring the news today. They got their bag and they believe it will keep them safe.
I will say, there are a non-zero number of people who were rooting for Trump and the American right wing in general who are now surprised the fascists are turning on them. I don't know, it's hard to have sympathy for some of you.
Did you really think the whites saw you as one of them? Were you so naive? Because you were "educated"? Because you worked in Silicon Valley or SF (you know California, the same places that Trump ranted against for years because they never voted for him)?
[flagged]
[dead]
[flagged]
[dead]
TBH I think that is fair.
Have you been through an immigration process?
[dead]
Who are you?
[dead]
[dead]
[flagged]
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
[flagged]
We've banned this account. Stop registering accounts to post inflammatory comments about race. It's all clearly against the guidelines and a waste of everyone's time.
[flagged]
So people from other countries also have to suffer ?
No
https://infogram.com/figure-3-employment-based-green-card-pe...
Your curt ‘no’ is ignoring backed by your own source, hundreds of thousands of people a year.
Okay, not as much. Point still stands.
[flagged]
[flagged]
We've banned this account.
We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48253685 and marked it off topic.
[flagged]
Well, I for one hope we can send all the foreigners home.
How to destroy the greatest country on earth.
There's no THE greatest country; every country can be great.
US&A has been the escape hatch for oppressive regime in China/Russia/... for many years, young people from there seek freedom in US, instead of fight for freedom in their own.
Individual freedom is great but collectively they made people who can't migrate have less and less freedom. Some expected US&A compensate that with trade, military and twitter, which all turned out to be disasters.
I'm sorry for anyone stuck in those processes, but for long term US&A giving up on Green card / dual citizenship is not necessarily a bad thing for the world.
> Individual freedom is great but collectively they made people who can't migrate have less and less freedom
Damned if we don’t allow people in and, apparently, damned also if we do allow some in
Your strange argument would actually support this policy: stop letting these people into the USA so that they stay in their own repressive countries and are forced to reform them.
> the greatest country on earth.
Hundreds of millions of people from abroad shared that belief up until 2 decades ago or so. I don't think they believe it anymore. It's been like watching your awesome high school friend throw away their lives over time.
Step 1: tell ourselves we are the greatest on earth?
... by what metric is/was the us 'the greatest country on earth'?
We just dropped three points to 81% on the Freedom House freedom index, so it's certainly not that.
[flagged]
It will destroy the United States as a leading economy and superpower.
Think about it: China draws mainly on the talents of the best of its billion+ population. But America has had its pick of the best of the world's 8 billion people. Until now.
There are a lot of people in the USA that put identity like race and culture above how well the economy is doing.
The US is best understood as a land of opportunity: a country with a strong economy and a population that is diverse in race, culture, and background. Wouldn't those people be better off moving back to the country of their immigrant ancestors?
There are a lot of people in many countries that do that: Palestine, Japan, China, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Poland, etc.
The US is already a declining power, I'd say since some time late last century so by the end of the Clinton presidency at least.
Yep, skimming the cream of the world is the engine of US dominance. We generally got some of the most highly motivated people, because it takes a lot of work and determination to uproot your life.
There used to be a bipartisan agreement that a US advanced degree should come with a green card stapled to it. Even Trump: “You graduate from a college, I think you should get, automatically as part of your diploma, a green card to be able to stay in this country."
> China draws mainly on the talents of the best of its billion+ population.
And China is notoriously xenophobic when it comes to immigration policy - they have a clear “best race” as far as the CCP is concerned and are doubling down on it. If you want to hold China up as a model I don’t think it’s the winning argument that you think it is relative to a pro-immigration argument. White nationalists would agree with you and say to only allow whites in and be more homogenous like China is.
Separately you’re also arguing in favor of only high-skilled immigration which seems kind of suspect don’t you think? No more refugees from Haiti or Syria, for example. Otherwise the US can’t be drawing on the pick of the world’s best.
> But America has had its pick of the best of the world's 8 billion people.
You also aren’t accounting for the concept of brain drain which has historically been difficult for origin countries to deal with. It’s a little amusing to see folks positively arguing in favor of what would otherwise be considered a colonialist tactic of resource extraction.
I’m critiquing these two points however and not necessarily suggesting a policy, but I think it would be wise to think a little more deeply about these two points.
I’d also add, we are totally fine and the rhetoric around the US no longer being a leading economy and superpower is false. The strength of the country isn’t solely because of immigration. In fact, that may not even be a major factor. Geography for example plays a much greater role, our system of government and laws, our markets and culture of enterprise are far more important. I’d argue tablet kids and the introduction of technology into classrooms is, for example, a much greater problem for American talent than lower rates of skilled immigration.
Immigration is just another policy choice we make, like our system of laws or others. It doesn’t need this moral component to it. Increase the rate of people immigrating in some years, decrease it in others. No big deal. If you want to suggest it’s worthy of a moral crusade then you are barking up the wrong tree because the United States has and is certainly more friendly toward immigrants both now and historically than probably any other country on the planet. You should aim your outrage at countries such as China which severely restrict this moral good.
[flagged]
In itself, no, of course not. But it's part of a much larger pattern which together blow apart that whole "great American melting pot" thing that seemed fundamental to the country's prosperity.
It's not a dumb thing to say. The US is built on immigration. Making immigration harder will lead to the next big industries not having a focal point in the US. It's also not as simple as letting college grads get green cards. It's often second or third generation immigrants creating more economic prosperity. Attacking higher education and now immigration is basically destroying the US a decade to a generation from now.
Death by a thousand cuts.
Petrodollar is gone now. Only ships paying in Yuan can exit the Strait.
Wow. As someone who just went through this process myself (leaving the US to get a green card via consular processing), I can only hope they hire more people to handle the increased case load. You need a medical exam and there were only 2 people available in my country to do that, which added 2 months to my application time (where I could not return to the US)
If anything they are reducing staffing for these posts. Last I heard foreign service staff morale was at an all time low