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

381–390 of 418 posts

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

#381

Post by epiifounder »

Hey Peter! Thank you for doing this!

I’m seeking advice on the optimal path for immigration to the U.S., as I see significant opportunities there, both in research and the startup ecosystem.

A bit about my background: I am Ukrainian and currently finishing my PhD in the EU. I have several first-author publications in tier-one conferences, although I once had a visa rejected to attend a U.S. conference to present a paper. In addition, I have contributed to non-first-author papers and workshops. Previously, I co-founded a startup in the EU focused on improving the educational system, which is still in operation. Currently, I am completing an internship at a FAANG company in the EU and planning to launch another startup in the near future.

Thanks in advance!

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

#382

Post by 1oooqooq »

proberts wrote: post #149
akktor wrote: post #111

Hi Peter! Thank you for doing this. I'm a software engineer with 3 years of experience and a MSc degree in computer science. I'm currently working in a big tech company in the UK and I would like to move to the US in the near future. At the moment I'm more leaning toward an L1 because I don't have to go through the lottery but I'm exploring other scenarios. Would you recommend trying to move to the US with an L1 or a…

The main advantage of the L-1 relative to the H-1B is that there's no lottery so the U.S. company can sponsor you for an L-1 at any time. The main advantages of the H-1B relative to the L-1 is that it's transferable from one company to another and can be renewed indefinitely if you are in the green card process. Regarding which one is better from a green card perspective, the response is that your underlying status h…

purely from anecdotal evidence from a dozen cases I managed at top50 company: L visas are processed faster than H for gc steps.

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

#383

Post by gaoshan »

epiifounder wrote: post #381

Hey Peter! Thank you for doing this! I’m seeking advice on the optimal path for immigration to the U.S., as I see significant opportunities there, both in research and the startup ecosystem. A bit about my background: I am Ukrainian and currently finishing my PhD in the EU. I have several first-author publications in tier-one conferences, although I once had a visa rejected to attend a U.S. conference to present a pa…

This identical comment was posted with three different, newly created, accounts in the span of a few seconds. You have since deleted two of them but the fact remains... need to work on your bot functionality.

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

#384

Post by ddtaylor »

rayiner wrote: post #287
proberts wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good question and I don't know the answer but this is sure to be a battleground in the coming years, states refusing to enforce federal law or to act as agents of the federal government.

It’s well established that the federal government can’t press state officials and employees into the service of enforcing federal law. The upcoming conflict, however, is going to be about a different issue: state and local governments actually interfering with and hindering the enforcement of federal law. I suspect that is going to get smacked down hard on supremacy clause grounds.

My concern is that for blue states, like Oregon, the funding is tied up in federal money. They will withhold and play games and I don't know if Oregon has the "willpower" to avoid mutating their ideals in an effort to keep their kids in school and keep renting houses.

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

#385

Post by ddtaylor »

spondylosaurus wrote: post #250
proberts wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good question and I don't know the answer but this is sure to be a battleground in the coming years, states refusing to enforce federal law or to act as agents of the federal government.

Well, since "federal law can't impose on state law" has been the SCOTUS party line for the last X years, we might as well use that line of reasoning here...

That's not a new party line or anything that is the 10th amendment:

> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

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

#386

Post by ddtaylor »

pclmulqdq wrote: post #260
spondylosaurus wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, since "federal law can't impose on state law" has been the SCOTUS party line for the last X years, we might as well use that line of reasoning here...

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.

My understanding is the federal laws only "override" state laws in the context of the "enumerated powers" in the constitution, which are supposed to be few and narrow. This is why no State can pass a "law" that would allow you to enslave others or violate their other rights granted by those "enumerated powers" of the federal government.

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

#387

Post by rayiner »

dctoedt wrote: post #369
rayiner wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The contrary view is based on dicta in the Slaughterhouse Cases, decided less than a decade after the 14th amendment: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/83/36/ > All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." > The first observation we have to make on this clause is that it puts at rest bo…

As has been noted in other responses to you: Dicta are just that, dicta. Moreover, the Reconstruction-era Slaughterhouse Cases arose in the context of the defeated South's often-violent, century-long attempts to preserve "states' rights" (read: white supremacy). Limiting the reach of the 14th Amendment was one facet of that project; Louisiana's lawyer in the case was a prominent opponent of Reconstruction. The Court'…

The Slaughterhouse Cases were decided just five years after the enactment of the 14th amendment, and the judgment is obviously correct and has never been overruled. And the dissent was obviously nuts in suggesting that the 14th amendment protected butchers from state economic regulation.

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

#388

Post by zamalek »

akktor wrote: post #111

Hi Peter! Thank you for doing this. I'm a software engineer with 3 years of experience and a MSc degree in computer science. I'm currently working in a big tech company in the UK and I would like to move to the US in the near future. At the moment I'm more leaning toward an L1 because I don't have to go through the lottery but I'm exploring other scenarios. Would you recommend trying to move to the US with an L1 or a…

I originally entered on an L1B and was affected by an acquisition layoff. I wasn't able to work until my EAD came through, which took forever due to a certain president who is currently back in power. The single employer limitation carries risks.

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

#389

Post by ddtaylor »

pclmulqdq wrote: post #280
mtnGoat wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Oh, I see. That's a memorandum explicitly stating that marijuana is an exception to this rule - the federal government basically ceded authority on this issue during the Obama era. The exception proves the rule, however.

An interesting note about the history here. We can all spend some time talking about the reasons why the federal government has no reason regulating that plant and other things, but from a legal perspective I think this precedent was terrible.

My understanding is that cannabis regulation in the United States is mostly predicated on a case where a farmer grew his own non-cannabis, I believe it was wheat, and then the government compelled everyone to sell their wheat at a specific price, which he did not want to do. He protested and I believe turned the wheat into other products, which caused this court case.

The result of the case was that the government was able to justify use of the Interstate Commerce clause because the actions of NOT selling the wheat could cause economic disruption.

The case is Wickard v. Filburn (1942)

This was essentially re-upped in 2005 with Gonzales v. Raich (2005)

Wickard v. Filburn established "activities local in nature can still be regulated by Congress if, in the aggregate, they could substantially affect interstate commerce."

The effects of this ruling are broad. Like all things there are plenty of things that as it stands right now are built on top of that legal "system" like bills that enforce clean drinking water, but those can be done a different and correct way and we don't need the government using this method to accomplish that.

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

#390

Post by mjmsmith »

rayiner wrote: post #364
mjmsmith wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKPFjAhd3KQ The meaning of what he said is clear in the phrase "poisoning the blood of our country".

No, because you’re pointing to a phrase with a verb and object but no subject. What’s the subject in the actual sentence he said? To whom is he referring?

This sophistry is delicious.
Post reply on HN