Live data from Hacker News

I'm Peter Roberts, immigration attorney who does work for YC and startups. AMA

news.ycombinator.com

161–170 of 345 posts

Re: I'm Peter Roberts, immigration attorney who does work for YC and startups. AMA

#161
post #137

How has the Section 174 elimination of 5-year amortization for domestic SWE salaries impacted decisionmaking on whether to hire overseas? Since overseas workers are still subject to 15-year amortizations I'm wondering if people are getting pulled in from Canada.

Those are excellent questions but really more directed to those hiring at tech companies. From my limited perspective, I haven't an impact on hiring.

Re: I'm Peter Roberts, immigration attorney who does work for YC and startups. AMA

#162
post #158

I've got friends who tell me they'd never consider applying for YC because they are on a classic H1B with a tech company. What typically happens with folks on a H1B who make it into YC?

That's hard to respond to other than to say that there are multiple visas that allow participation in accelerators and training programs.

Re: I'm Peter Roberts, immigration attorney who does work for YC and startups. AMA

#163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As explained upthread, > You are within your rights to say no Given that you don't have a right to enter, if you say no (which you are within your rights to do), and you are denied entry, then nothing wrong has happened. If you believe that they shouldn't make entry conditional on something, then you are asserting a right to enter. That's what "right" means.

This argument is absurd. If someone comes up to me and asks for food, I am not obliged to give it to them. If I say to them, "I will give you food, on the condition that I can punch you in the face", and they decline to be punched in the face, do you really believe "nothing wrong has happened"? That I, applying an unethical condition, did nothing wrong? If someone else says "You must not make punching someone in the…

I'm not who you're arguing with, but I'd also take the opposite side of that argument.

Your analogy does seem workable, though - let's examine:

> If someone comes up to me and asks for food, I am not obliged to give it to them.

Yes! 100% agree. They probably have a right to ask for food in countries that protect free speech, but they have no right to have requests fulfilled.

> If I say to them, "I will give you food, on the condition that I can punch you in the face", and they decline to be punched in the face,

Sounds great. You have the right to say no. You did say no basically, but you did make a counteroffer. (This is arguably also especially true due to free speech, though that's unrelated to our points.) Your exact counteroffer doesn't seem relevant to me, it could also just be that you'll give it for $50, or $1,000,000 and nothing changes.

He thinks it's a bad offer and gets none of your food.

> "nothing wrong has happened"?

I do think nothing wrong has happened! Is it only because you used food, which a necessity, that you think it's wrong? What if it's a PS5? Would this be ok if the asker is seeking a free PS5? Visiting a foreign country is much more like a PS5 than it is a potato.

> If someone else says "You must not make punching someone in the face a precondition of giving them food", does that create a "right to food"? Of course not.

That is the worst policy I could imagine since it's vague and undefined. Can one ask for a kick to the groin? An elbow to the funny bone? If you did the policymaker's job correctly you'd need to make the policy like "No one may deny a request for food/PS5s" -- that exactly creates a right to food/PS5s. Or you could make the policy "No one may deny a request for food/PS5s but one may require compensation, which may only be less than $50 in US Currency. Compensation in the form of a service or a trade may not be required."

That creates a right to pay $50 or less for food/PS5s.

Re: I'm Peter Roberts, immigration attorney who does work for YC and startups. AMA

#164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As explained upthread, > You are within your rights to say no Given that you don't have a right to enter, if you say no (which you are within your rights to do), and you are denied entry, then nothing wrong has happened. If you believe that they shouldn't make entry conditional on something, then you are asserting a right to enter. That's what "right" means.

This argument is absurd. If someone comes up to me and asks for food, I am not obliged to give it to them. If I say to them, "I will give you food, on the condition that I can punch you in the face", and they decline to be punched in the face, do you really believe "nothing wrong has happened"? That I, applying an unethical condition, did nothing wrong? If someone else says "You must not make punching someone in the…

Well, by offering food for punch in the face you changed it from charity to free market transaction. Basically you gave them a chance to earn their food instead of just giving it to them. If they deem the price too high and refuse your offer then again, nothing bad happened.

Re: I'm Peter Roberts, immigration attorney who does work for YC and startups. AMA

#165
post #158

I've got friends who tell me they'd never consider applying for YC because they are on a classic H1B with a tech company. What typically happens with folks on a H1B who make it into YC?

That's hard to respond to other than to say that there are multiple visas that allow participation in accelerators and training programs.

That makes sense ... is there a typical path? Basically - are they right in thinking it's a high risk thing for them or should I encourage them to take a shot?

My understanding is that their time spent on the company before YC accepts them is the biggest risk factor?

Re: I'm Peter Roberts, immigration attorney who does work for YC and startups. AMA

#166
This question arises from the current regime's efforts to reverse naturalization.

For anyone who has one US citizen parent and one non-citizen parent, where the citizen parent has passed before the child applicant for naturalization reaches 18 years of age, resulting in the applicant applying for and receiving naturalization as an adult, can that same currently naturalized citizen also obtain natural born citizenship status through the deceased citizen parent and would it be advisable?

Re: I'm Peter Roberts, immigration attorney who does work for YC and startups. AMA

#167

Hi Peter, thanks for the AMA! I'm currently living in the US on TN status and am married to an American. Have you heard of anyone on TN status having difficulty applying for a green card? And do you have any sense of what the wait times currently are, particularly how long until you can get a travel authorization?

We've obtained lots of marriage-based green cards for those in TN status. The issue is intent at the time of the most recent entry prior to filing a green card application since the intent at that time cannot be to apply for a green card. Generally speaking, if there's a gap of at least 90 days between entry and filing, USCIS's concern about intent goes away or is at least greatly lessened.

Re: I'm Peter Roberts, immigration attorney who does work for YC and startups. AMA

#168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This argument is absurd. If someone comes up to me and asks for food, I am not obliged to give it to them. If I say to them, "I will give you food, on the condition that I can punch you in the face", and they decline to be punched in the face, do you really believe "nothing wrong has happened"? That I, applying an unethical condition, did nothing wrong? If someone else says "You must not make punching someone in the…

Well, by offering food for punch in the face you changed it from charity to free market transaction. Basically you gave them a chance to earn their food instead of just giving it to them. If they deem the price too high and refuse your offer then again, nothing bad happened.

Not all free market transactions are reasonable. Selling yourself into slavery is a "free market transaction" I hope you would not consider legitimate.

Re: I'm Peter Roberts, immigration attorney who does work for YC and startups. AMA

#169
post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This argument is absurd. If someone comes up to me and asks for food, I am not obliged to give it to them. If I say to them, "I will give you food, on the condition that I can punch you in the face", and they decline to be punched in the face, do you really believe "nothing wrong has happened"? That I, applying an unethical condition, did nothing wrong? If someone else says "You must not make punching someone in the…

I'm not who you're arguing with, but I'd also take the opposite side of that argument. Your analogy does seem workable, though - let's examine: > If someone comes up to me and asks for food, I am not obliged to give it to them. Yes! 100% agree. They probably have a right to ask for food in countries that protect free speech, but they have no right to have requests fulfilled. > If I say to them, "I will give you food,…

[flagged]

Re: I'm Peter Roberts, immigration attorney who does work for YC and startups. AMA

#170

This question arises from the current regime's efforts to reverse naturalization. For anyone who has one US citizen parent and one non-citizen parent, where the citizen parent has passed before the child applicant for naturalization reaches 18 years of age, resulting in the applicant applying for and receiving naturalization as an adult, can that same currently naturalized citizen also obtain natural born citizenship…

If I understand you correctly, you are asking whether the naturalized citizen was a citizen at birth based on his or her father's citizenship. To answer that question, we would need to know when the naturalized citizen was born and the countries where the naturalized citizen's U.S. citizen parent lived from birth until the birth of the naturalized citizen.
Post reply on HN