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

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

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 418 posts

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

#291

Post by klipt »

zombiwoof wrote: post #259

Are there really not enough qualified American born engineers? Do you see exponentially better talent from H1b engineers?

America is only 5% of the world's population. Do you want Silicon Valley to hire the best of the world, or only the best of America?

Without immigration, an American only Silicon Valley would surely lose out to places like China and India that can source talent from over a billion citizens. Or lose to a more immigrant friendly country that can source talent from the whole world (which is what America currently does).

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

#292

Post by dang »

for1nner wrote: post #8
fertrevino wrote: post #3

I heard russian citizens were having troubles getting any kind of U.S. visa due to the political situation in the world. Does this situation still persists? Asking for a friend who still hasn't heard back for his tourist visa.

[flagged]

Crossing into personal attack will get you banned here, and taking threads into offtopic flamewar is not cool either.

If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.

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

#293

Post by rayiner »

anigbrowl wrote: post #162
willmadden wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same is true for people born into war zones not fully under US control. I still wouldn't write this off. All it takes is a compelling argument for a new interpretation of "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". It's pretty easy to make a compelling argument. The 14th Amendment was intended to address the citizenship status of freed slaves and their descendants post-Civil War. It was not meant to apply to the c…

Are you seriously suggesting that undocumented immigrants are immune from US jurisdiction in some respect? This sounds like a reverse version of the odd legal theories proffered by sovereign citizens as to why they should not be subject to judgements in US courts.

What does “subject to the jurisdiction of” mean? Everyone seems to be equating that with diplomatic immunity, but that seems to arise from the state department’s historical interpretation of the term in determining citizenship of children of foreign diplomats.

Wong Kim Ark doesn’t answer the question, because it doesn’t even try to interpret the term. Instead it assumes that the framers of the 14th amendment meant to incorporate English common law of citizenship. Maybe that’s true, but that’s not what the Court thought the term meant in the Slaughterhouse Cases two decades before that.

Justice Harlan also had a well reasoned dissent in that case, noting that English common law on citizenship arose out of feudalism and wasn’t necessarily an appropriate source on the question.

I think it’s unlikely this will get overturned, but it’s not a frivolous argument.

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

#295

Post by gnkyfrg »

willmadden wrote: post #90
proberts wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's in the Constitution (14th Amendment) I would say extremely unlikely.

I wouldn't. The wording of the 14th Amendment is ambiguous and was arguably misinterpreted by the courts. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, AND (capitalized for emphasis) subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." If they can get the SCOTUS to reconsider United States v. Wong Kim Ark from 1898 it could go either way - the court is…

[dead]

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

#296

Post by gnkyfrg »

anigbrowl wrote: post #162
willmadden wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same is true for people born into war zones not fully under US control. I still wouldn't write this off. All it takes is a compelling argument for a new interpretation of "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". It's pretty easy to make a compelling argument. The 14th Amendment was intended to address the citizenship status of freed slaves and their descendants post-Civil War. It was not meant to apply to the c…

Are you seriously suggesting that undocumented immigrants are immune from US jurisdiction in some respect? This sounds like a reverse version of the odd legal theories proffered by sovereign citizens as to why they should not be subject to judgements in US courts.

[dead]

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

#297

Post by gnkyfrg »

tacostakohashi wrote: post #193
anigbrowl wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not an immigration lawyer, but I am very interested in immigration law and the effort to overturn this precedent in particular, an interest whch goes back more than 15 years; so I have done a lot of reading on this argument. The whole phrase about 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' refers to the fact that foreign diplomats (and often, their families) are not subject to the jurisdiction of their countries of r…

Yep, it's pretty nonsensical. Presumably those that hold the view that children of undocumented immigrants born in the United States are not citizens also hold they view that they are immune to prosecution for crimes by the United States for the same reason, but they don't seem to talk about that much.

[dead]

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

#298

Post by Detrytus »

southernplaces7 wrote: post #275
moshegramovsky wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The original comment talked about anti-immigrant sentiment of the new administration. Trump said that immigrants are poisoning the blood of our country. How many citations of Trump and his aides would it take to make you believe that they're anti-immigrant? https://youtu.be/RKPFjAhd3KQ?si=xiHIFBUfsK6DgQos

It's like you read my response and failed to understand a thing.. I specifically mentioned concrete figures because politicians say all kinds of random shit and Trump is particularly prone to hyperbole, but if you're going to measure the actual deeds and trends behind words, you need to look at metrics, and for all Obama's soft words on immigrants, his admin actually deported more of them than Trump's, it's a notewor…

It’s almost like Trump knew that the actions he proposes are controversial at least, illegal possibly, so he tries to scare the illegals so that they leave of their own free will, saving him a trouble.,,

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

#299

Post by gnkyfrg »

throwaway111119 wrote: post #244
blindriver wrote: post #15

How viable is the effort to overturn birthright citizenship?

I've read a few different standards for revoking birthright: 1. Probably the weakest notion is to revoke birthright going forward on children born in US to parents without legal status. 2. A stronger notion seems to be the revocation of birthright going forward on children born in the US to parents with green cards but not yet US citizenship. This seems to be a popular form of jus sanguinis in some EU countries. 3. I…

[dead]
Post reply on HN