271–280 of 404 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are foreign peoples entitled to US citizenship? Where is the obligation to make the process easy and open to everyone coming from?
Unless you are a native Indian I am going to assume if your grand parents immigrated to this country and become citizens here, yes?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I went through the same process as this man, so I am speaking from experience. Did you go through an EB2 application as an Indian/Chinese? If not, then it's not the same process. For every other national, you know your status in a couple of months, not decades. Children do not age out of the application as happens for Indians/Chinese.
No, I did not. But then, that aging you described happened while residing in the US where you were making money hand over fist same as a US national. And your US-born kids are citizens. So in the end the only difference is the inconvenience of the paperwork that you worked on very rarely. The rest of the time you were enjoying life in the US. So, this story of 18 years of suffering is really nonsense. The guy had a g…
I'd disagree with that assessment. The issue really isn't the amount or the effort of paperwork - for most people it's the uncertainty. There's the very real possibility that at the end of that very long process you do not get a green card. The making money hand over fist also only applies to a certain proportion of Indian applicants, especially in tech. There are plenty of other Indian applicants who make nowhere near as much money and face just as much (if not more) of an uphill task. For example, I'm an Indian working as a postdoctoral researcher in Developmental Biology & cancer and yet make probably less than a tenth of what this guy does. Nor does the US offer substantially better pay in this field as compared to say, Europe (worse in some ways). Yet for me it still feels worth it because the work here is just better in my field, but at some level the system feels incredibly unfair. My European colleagues are able to apply and get an EB3 green card in a few months that's very little paperwork while the only reasonable pathway for me is an EB1 petition that's exponentially harder and a lot more paperwork. My European colleagues could go directly from a J1 visa to an EB3 visa simply because their petition will be processed in a few months. For an Indian in my position that's not possible - I must first secure an H1B/O1 before I can think of an EB1/2 petition. All the Indians I know in my field who have green cards have had to make EB1 petitions while none of the Europeans have had to.
Here's the practical considerations - very few companies in my field offer immigration support. The Europeans tend to apply for an EB3 after about a year or two of postdoctoral experience and move into industry with their prompt green cards. For Indians and Chinese postdocs, they tend to work for an average of 6 years before they've accrued enough publications to wrangle an EB1 petition. That's 6 years of grueling work at very very low pay and a very uncertain future at the end of it - but only for the Indians/Chinese.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The commenter had done nothing wrong... Honestly, I'm not so sure about that, given the commenter. IIRC, in a couple of previous threads they've taken pretty strong positions that they'll do what they want regardless if the law says it's illegal and they're risking jail. Given that, I wouldn't be surprised if there was some suspicious or belligerent behavior on their part that they left out of the story.
You know it all don't you, even though you weren't there? Care to use your 'belligerence behavior' to embellish more tales? >they'll do what they want regardless if the law says it's illegal and they're risking jail So go ahead and quote that, assuming it was said, and go on and explain where it creates articulable probable cause for an x-ray. I honestly can't believe I'm even responding to this victim-blaming garbag…
The situation is this: I don't know what happened, but I also don't trust your account of what happened.
>> they'll do what they want regardless if the law says it's illegal and they're risking jail
> So go ahead and quote that, assuming it was said,
Here you are advocating that convicted felons should manufacture guns that would be illegal for them to possess: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29985376
Here you are claiming that you would continue to trade cryptocurrency from a prison ass-phone, in a hypothetical world were it was illegal: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29922956
> and go on and explain where it creates articulable probable cause for an x-ray.
Why? I never claimed that at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You know it all don't you, even though you weren't there? Care to use your 'belligerence behavior' to embellish more tales? >they'll do what they want regardless if the law says it's illegal and they're risking jail So go ahead and quote that, assuming it was said, and go on and explain where it creates articulable probable cause for an x-ray. I honestly can't believe I'm even responding to this victim-blaming garbag…
> You know it all don't you, even though you weren't there? Care to use your 'belligerence behavior' to embellish more tales? The situation is this: I don't know what happened, but I also don't trust your account of what happened. >> they'll do what they want regardless if the law says it's illegal and they're risking jail > So go ahead and quote that, assuming it was said, Here you are advocating that convicted felo…
2) I stand by my belief that felons ought to be able to protect themselves with firearms of any type.
3) My belief that felons have 2nd amendment rights is not probable cause of having drugs.
4) There's no nexus by which officers inventing an alert or falsifying evidence is justified by my exercising of my first amendment right regarding belief in second amendment right of felons.
>Here you are claiming that you would continue to trade cryptocurrency from prison, in a hypothetical world were it was illegal: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29922956
Again not probable cause of possessing drugs.
Your whole argument is a red herring. None of this is probable cause for possessing drugs.
>Why? I never claimed that at all.
So how is this even relevent? None of this first amendment protected activity and opinions provide any legitimacy to falsely accusing someone of having drugs up their ass.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So present-day immigration is a punishment for the founding sin of the USA?
Immigration is what is propping this country's economy up. It is a tremendous gift, not a punishment- unless you are alluding to some wierd racial monoculture thing. The idea is to not look at a gift horse in the mouth. And stop punishing the most productive people in your economy. You don't want brexit thinking if you want to have an economy.
That's debatable.
>It is a tremendous gift, not a punishment- unless you are alluding to some wierd racial monoculture thing.
Immigration is not free. There are social costs which are being dismissed with shallow accusations of bigotry as an alternative to engagement (as you are implicitly doing with your monoculture reference). All peoples are entitled to preserve their cultures, that a particular nation happens to have a predominantly white population does not erase this entitlement.
Cultures clash. Immigrants vote and potentially originate from countries with incompatible cultures, many of whom have no interest in assimilating, yet their votes influence the laws that natives are obligated to follow. If democracy is meant to represent the will of the people, then it is unfair to dilute representation with immigration from nations with totally different value systems. Case in point is the ubiquitous middle eastern treatment of women; how much influence do you want such beliefs to have over your laws and cultural norms? Not even getting to the statistically proven increase in sexual assaults that native women have to suffer on behalf of immigrants in certain European countries. Consider it the paradox of tolerance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You know it all don't you, even though you weren't there? Care to use your 'belligerence behavior' to embellish more tales? The situation is this: I don't know what happened, but I also don't trust your account of what happened. >> they'll do what they want regardless if the law says it's illegal and they're risking jail > So go ahead and quote that, assuming it was said, Here you are advocating that convicted felo…
1) A felon can in fact legally manufacture certain firearms, such as working replica black powder rifles and pistols. These are not covered under federal law. 2) I stand by my belief that felons ought to be able to protect themselves with firearms of any type. 3) My belief that felons have 2nd amendment rights is not probable cause of having drugs. 4) There's no nexus by which officers inventing an alert or falsifyin…
That thread was not discussing "replica black powder rifles." It was discussing stuff like the FGC-9 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FGC-9), under the assumption that guns like that were illegal for felons to possess.
> Your whole argument is a red herring. None of this is probable cause for possessing drugs.
I never said nor thought it was "probable cause for possessing drugs." It's evidence of an attitude, and attitude affects the probability of certain behaviors that you may not have reported in your account.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1) A felon can in fact legally manufacture certain firearms, such as working replica black powder rifles and pistols. These are not covered under federal law. 2) I stand by my belief that felons ought to be able to protect themselves with firearms of any type. 3) My belief that felons have 2nd amendment rights is not probable cause of having drugs. 4) There's no nexus by which officers inventing an alert or falsifyin…
> 1) A felon can in fact legally manufacture certain firearms, such as working replica black powder rifles and pistols. These are not covered under federal law. That thread was not discussing "replica black powder rifles." It was discussing stuff like the FGC-9 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FGC-9 ), under the assumption that guns like that were illegal for felons to possess. > Your whole argument is a red herring.…
2) Felons can in fact legally own and manufacture modern firearms after having their rights reinstated.
3) Felons can in fact own firearms legally by leaving the jurisdiction of the united states.
4) None of this first amendment protected opinions provide any justification at all for CBP officers faking a dog alert or manufacturing evidence during a strip search.
>It's evidence of an attitude, and attitude affects the probability of certain behaviors that you may have not reported in your account.
Ergo illegal detention and causeless strip searches (which even at border require PC) are justified? I take it Ms. Cervantes was also an HN poster? Did you even stop to think about whether you would like to live in a world where some low level podunk border patrol officers can fabricate evidence merely on the extremely unlikely chance they happen to read my HN and decide to target me because of my absolute stance on 2A and 1A?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My green card had my name correct but someone else's face printed on it! Unfortunately they didn't look at all like me, it took ages to get fixed. I wonder if someone else got my face on their card, or if they use a grumpy bald man as a placeholder in their card template. My name is also misspelt on my social security card. I didn't bother to have that corrected and so far there have been zero repercussions.
That's interesting that your card made it to you with the wrong photo on it. There was a visual inspection process that compared what the printed card looked like, to what it's supposed to look like, and cards were supposed to be ejected and reprinted if there was a mismatch. I worked on the machine/system that prints those cards in the late 90s. When was your card issued? I heard somewhere (and find it easy to belie…
My memory is a little hazy, but I remember having the photo taken at USCIS, walking over to a photo booth which asked to confirm some information like name or number and maybe a fingerprint too? Anyway, it wasn't a polaroid paperclipped to my forms: it seemed like a different system that would have to be linked to my application.
The images are very different: same gender, but different race, and off by about 30 years and 1 head of hair!
Note that India requires prospective citizens to live in the country for 12 years before applying for naturalization, and China doesn't allow non-ethnic Chinese immigration at all (only ~1500 naturalized citizens/10,000 permanent residents in the whole country of over a billion people). Something to keep in mind when people from those countries complain about the American immigration system (doesn't apply to the Sing…
Ok, but the article doesn't even talk about naturalization? It's talking about permanent residency.
Yeah, no. Even if you are current, it could be months away, or it could be years. 2 years is not uncommon these days, even if your country is theoretically 'current'. More if there are RFEs. If you are exceptionally unlucky they can even send a RFE _after_ approval, sometimes months after (these are called Notice of Intent to Revoke).
Even permanent residents can theoretically receive RFEs years after approval. Or site inspections. As of today, this is uncommon and only really done if fraud is suspected. However, if the administration changes again, you never know.
And getting the green card is never guaranteed. It's a 'privilege'.
If you change jobs you need to restart the whole green card process. But not if your Adjustment of Status has been pending for 180 days or more. Then there's some 'portability' clause. Still dangerous - there were lawsuits because USCIS sent RFEs to a previous employer. Which obviously they didn't respond to. People were unaware that anything was going wrong until their applications were denied, at which point it is too late (and, if your I-140 gets denied, and you have been using your EAD, you are retroactively out of status and have accrued unlawful presence, as well as your dependents). They did this because according to them, those applications are not related to the employee at all, they are done by the employer.
As a result of the lawsuits, they will notify the 'beneficiary' now, at least.
> Any secondary source of income, even if it’s from a business that you’ve built from the ground up, would violate the terms of your H1B visa
Interestingly, you are never given those 'terms'. You'll eventually learn about this. But it's very vague. Doing a garage sale? Might be ok, if you don't do it very often. How often is often? You can be a landlord (and bring in significant revenue), but you can't fix a tenant's clogged sink - because then you'd be working. Hiring someone else to do is is apparently A-OK. You definitely can't drive for Uber, or release an IOS app on your free time, or have an Youtube channel (again on your free time).