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

311–320 of 418 posts

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

#311

Post by deeg »

dragonwriter wrote: post #116
willmadden wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> The wording of the 14th Amendment is ambiguous? It is only ambiguous read in a vacuum. Read in the comtext of the US legal tradition in which it was written and the way the prior English common law tradition was incorporated into that tradition, it is...rather unambiguous. (Most notably, its exactly how the Supreme Court had applied the principles of English common law involved in multiple citizenship cases before…

Before the bonkers immunity decision I would have agreed with this. Since then, though, I don't trust SCOTUS on any decision that involves conservative policy. This may come up sooner than expected; Trump has issued an EO attempting to nullify it: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/prot...

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

#312

Post by 77pt77 »

proberts wrote: post #118
pockmarked19 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you saying aliens are not subject to US jurisdiction while here? Like "sovereign citizens"? That's what it seems like you're saying.

Diplomats (not all foreign nationals) and their families who remain subject to the laws of their own country.

Those also have diplomatic immunity.

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

#313

Post by tptacek »

rayiner wrote: post #293
anigbrowl wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Wong Kim Ark cites, at length, Marshall's discourse on jurisdiction in Schooner Exchange v McFaddon, which turns entirely on this question. It also notes the language change between the Civil Rights Act and the 14th Amendment, where the revision clarified precisely this issue. It's a frivolous argument. Would you like to put some money on this? I'd give you favorable odds at 7-2, assuming the court composition remains as it is now.

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

#314

Post by ahussain »

kevinfinnerty34 wrote: post #273
pclmulqdq wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't the O-1 visa (in tech fields) mostly for PhDs with a strong research track record? I would assume you can get one if you have a bunch of publications and citations without a PhD, but isn't that the usual path?

I guess you're right. I was under the impression that you can apply for the O-1 solely based on a successful career in tech, not necessarily academic success.

You can definitely apply for an O-1 based on a successful career in tech: https://blog.awais.io/o1-visa

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

#316

Post by alwaysanoob »

yello_downunder wrote: post #290
alwaysanoob wrote: post #270

Hi Peter, Thanks for doing this. I am a Canadian citizen born in India and recently moved to work for a FAANG company on a TN visa from Canada. The company is asking if I want to apply for a H1B visa this year. Are there any obvious advantages of H1B other than eligibility for green card. Given the current political climate, is there any projections on how work visas might change going forward.

I'm not a lawyer, but worked in the US for 6 years as a Canadian TN. The green card eligibility is the big differentiator between TN and H1B. Other than that, there isn't much difference that I could tell. One difference between Mexican and Canadian TNs is that Mexican TNs can switch employers without renewing TN, whereas with a Canadian TN you have to reenter the country when you switch employers. When I was switchi…

Thanks for the insight.

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

#317

Post by davidf18 »

mtnGoat wrote: post #269
pclmulqdq wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where did you get that from? Federal laws usually do override state laws. Whether the states have to help enforce federal law is a different question, though, and seems to be a "no" given the examples of marijuana and immigration.

Look up “The Cole memo”, that is why the cannabis stuff is happening the way it is currently.

[dead]

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

#319

Post by joshuamorton »

willmadden wrote: post #136
proberts wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I still think it's extremely unlikely. In other immigration contexts, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" has been interpreted to exclude only diplomats and those not subject to the laws of the U.S. even though they are in the U.S. So children born in the U.S. to diplomats aren't considered citizens at birth.

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…

> A stricter interpretation of "subject to the jurisdiction." means it should require complete, exclusive allegiance to the U.S., which might not apply to children of undocumented immigrants due to their parents' legal status or nationality.

This would imply that neither jus soli nor jus sanguinis citizenship would be applied to the children of US citizens who hold dual citizenship, that wouldn't fly at all, given that it would leave such folks entirely stateless.

> The socio-political context has changed.

This does not matter to a textualist reading of the constitution, which the majority of members of the current court claim to apply.

> The fact that children of diplomats do not automatically gain citizenship due to not being "subject to the jurisdiction" in the fullest sense could be expanded to include children of undocumented immigrants, arguing that these parents, too, are outside full U.S. jurisdiction.

The counter to this is that undocumented immigrants would be totally outside of the jurisdiction of any US legal enforcement except for deportation. The local police cannot arrest or detain someone who is outside of their jurisdiction. If a parent is outside of the US jurisdiction, they have some equivalent of diplomatic immunity. You can't say "you're under jurisdiction of the US for law enforcement purposes, but not for immigration purposes".

Post reply on HN