Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tech companies are telling immigrant employees on visas not to leave the U.S.

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 200 posts

Re: Tech companies are telling immigrant employees on visas not to leave the U.S.

#111

Post by tgma »

cjbgkagh wrote: post #100
tgma wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your point in hypocrisy of appeal to Freedom of Speech (cultural, not constitutional) is well-taken, but I would argue it is a red-herring: unless you have studied their intelligence files, it is not at all clear to the general public whether the deportees are merely selected because of a speech concern or some more nefarious intent or association.

Keeping secrets from the public is a good way to lose the public trust which they’ll need to stay in power. Otherwise their replacements will have their own secret reasons to be deporting people. I’ve already resigned myself to the reality that freedom of speech no longer exists and hasn’t existed for some time. I think only the times when we thought we had freedom of speech was when information was very tightly cont…

I believe they stated that for at least a few of the cases: dude came to the US to dismantle western civilization and acted upon it.

Good riddance. They are free to exercise their Freedom of Speech and Due Process under Sharia Law in their home country (or the UK).

Re: Tech companies are telling immigrant employees on visas not to leave the U.S.

#112

Post by dragonwriter »

riffraff wrote: post #99
jmye wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> both sides were too scared to test or even acknowledge I think that’s harsh. I think the folks in government generally believed that the opposition was there in good faith and with the intent of strengthening the nation, even if they disagreed on how. I don’t think that’s the case any longer and institutions based on good faith don’t work when the group in power is willing to light everything on fire.

I recall McCain in 2008 telling a republican supporter that Obama was a decent person and they shouldn't be afraid if he won. Things have escalated quickly and recently.

2008 was a long time ago, and it was notable at the time because it was already contrary to the overall trend of partisan polarization, which had been consistently escalating since the end of the long period of overlapping realignments that started in the 1930s and settled out in the 1990s. (Political polarization had been high in much of that realignment period, but because the major parties weren't coherently aligned around the high-salience issues that divided the public, that polarization was not strongly partisan.)

Re: Tech companies are telling immigrant employees on visas not to leave the U.S.

#113

Post by mlinhares »

em-bee wrote: post #104
jmye wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> both sides were too scared to test or even acknowledge I think that’s harsh. I think the folks in government generally believed that the opposition was there in good faith and with the intent of strengthening the nation, even if they disagreed on how. I don’t think that’s the case any longer and institutions based on good faith don’t work when the group in power is willing to light everything on fire.

i think this is a key point, and this is why this problem will remain until we make some drastic changes. to look at a completely different example: the internet was designed on good faith. year after year more things have been put into place to protect against those not operating in good faith. proof of work against AI bots is just the latest example. what is really needed is a change in education. we need to teach…

not to be harsh but let me tell you, this is bullshit, there's only rule of law if most people accept it. its all ink in paper, the moment someone tries to subvert or pretend it doesn't exist and there are no consequences the "law" is irrelevant.

the laws only exist to the extent that the people that "control" it are willing to exert it. for instance, at any other point in time, everyone involved in the signal-gate scandal would have been fired (and i bet if you were an actual army officer you would still be fired) but the people that enforce the rules can just pretend this isn't a problem and move on.

there is no crime if no one is interested in sending you to jail.

Re: Tech companies are telling immigrant employees on visas not to leave the U.S.

#114

Post by BrenBarn »

jmye wrote: post #46
BrenBarn wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The law is unfortunately very vague and thus open to interpretation (which is ultimately subject to the commander in chief, the current clown) That is it exactly. The US legal/governmental system is a house of cards that has been running for at least 150 years on a bunch of wink-wink-nudge-nudge assumptions that both sides were too scared to test or even acknowledge. An ounce of prevention might have been worth a p…

> both sides were too scared to test or even acknowledge I think that’s harsh. I think the folks in government generally believed that the opposition was there in good faith and with the intent of strengthening the nation, even if they disagreed on how. I don’t think that’s the case any longer and institutions based on good faith don’t work when the group in power is willing to light everything on fire.

To an extent that's true, but those good-faith assumptions are sort of what I mean by wink-wink-nudge-nudge. It's like a bunch of people working in an office with a bunch of high explosives lying around. Having "good faith" that no one will set them off is another way of saying you'd rather not actually acknowledge or fix the problem.

Also, it's harder to believe it was all good faith unless you ignore some quite egregious earlier situations that pretty clearly showed that festering issues were being swept under the rug.

Most obviously, after the Civil War the South was placed under military occupation. In 1877 it was ended as part of a political bargain, whereupon the South resumed the racist policies it had previously had in place, and which had been supposedly banned by the reconstruction amendments and laws. It should have been obvious to people at the time that many people in the South had not learned their lesson, and perhaps military occupation and strict enforcement of reconstruction would have been necessary for decades more.

The willingness of both parties to condone outrageous gerrymanders over decades also indicates a shared desire to look the other way rather than face the dangerous implications head-on.

Re: Tech companies are telling immigrant employees on visas not to leave the U.S.

#115

Post by tgma »

FireBeyond wrote: post #102
nxhxgs wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its not like immigrants have had wonderful, controllable and predictable paths to residency in the past. For those who arent Einstein or belong to the over rated HN crowd, the system has always be exploitative. Anyone who isnt born rich and has been through the process has had to live with constant fear, doubt and uncertainty.

I emigrated to the US as a fiancée. It was not necessarily easy or cheap (I'm agreeing with you) and I came from a "low visa fraud risk country" (Australia). Some of the challenges faced: It probably cost around $30,000 all up. Every visit to a consular office or USCIS cost about $100 in biometrics alone (each time). Fees for applying, fees for adjustments. My partner and I had an issue where I was supporting her (sh…

Actually USCIS pretty much has blessed your VWP "loophole"

> "INA section 245(c)(4) renders aliens admitted under the VWP ineligible to adjust status to that of a person admitted for permanent residence. This provision, however, includes an exception for immediate relatives of U.S. citizens. Thus, an individual admitted under the VWP who is also an immediate relative is not precluded from seeking adjustment of status, even after the VWP period has expired."[1]

https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/memos/201...

Re: Tech companies are telling immigrant employees on visas not to leave the U.S.

#116

Post by foogazi »

MPSFounder wrote: post #44
BrenBarn wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The law is unfortunately very vague and thus open to interpretation (which is ultimately subject to the commander in chief, the current clown) That is it exactly. The US legal/governmental system is a house of cards that has been running for at least 150 years on a bunch of wink-wink-nudge-nudge assumptions that both sides were too scared to test or even acknowledge. An ounce of prevention might have been worth a p…

The truth is much of it could have been prevented (court packing was one idea that might have been unpopular, but there are many other ideas that could have been acted upon). We live with consequences of failures of the Democratic party for the last decade. Had Ruth Ginsberg been pressured to retire after her numerous health issues, Roe v Wade would never have been overturned (it was a 1 vote swing). Had primaries oc…

> We live with consequences of failures of the Democratic party for the last decade.

Yeah, why would the Democrats do this ? /s

Please let’s blame the actor

This is the same as blaming the people that don’t vote or the people that vote for that matter

The buck stops at the Resolute desk

Re: Tech companies are telling immigrant employees on visas not to leave the U.S.

#117

Post by BrenBarn »

em-bee wrote: post #104
jmye wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> both sides were too scared to test or even acknowledge I think that’s harsh. I think the folks in government generally believed that the opposition was there in good faith and with the intent of strengthening the nation, even if they disagreed on how. I don’t think that’s the case any longer and institutions based on good faith don’t work when the group in power is willing to light everything on fire.

i think this is a key point, and this is why this problem will remain until we make some drastic changes. to look at a completely different example: the internet was designed on good faith. year after year more things have been put into place to protect against those not operating in good faith. proof of work against AI bots is just the latest example. what is really needed is a change in education. we need to teach…

I tend to think that, unfortunately, it's the other way around. What we need to teach the next generation is that good faith, while still to be treasured, cannot be relied on, and we must be prepared to unflinchingly root out bad actors and forcibly prevent them from making things worse for people.

Re: Tech companies are telling immigrant employees on visas not to leave the U.S.

#118

Post by pacomerh »

lurk2 wrote: post #101
Teever wrote: post #10

I'm super interested to see what the next HN thread with that proberts lawyer dude is like. I found the commentary in the last post from him to be pretty meagre, whether it was because people were afraid to talk about this kind of stuff or they just didn't know, I'm not sure, but it seems like reality is quickly setting in for a lot of people in the US. Things are changing and they're changing fast. You won't be able…

> Things are changing and they're changing fast. What has changed?

Immigration policies are way stricter now, and they're leaving people out. Also related, some countries are issuing warnings for people traveling to the US. https://travelnoire.com/europe-us-travel-advisory

Re: Tech companies are telling immigrant employees on visas not to leave the U.S.

#120

Post by lurk2 »

foogazi wrote: post #108
lurk2 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Things are changing and they're changing fast. What has changed?

> What has changed? From the freaking title: “Tech companies are telling immigrant employees on visas not to leave the U.S.”

Can you point to any specific policy changes or case studies?
Post reply on HN