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

401–410 of 418 posts

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

#401

Post by erehweb »

rayiner wrote: post #288
erehweb wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with other commenters that the meaning is clear. But I think they underestimate how far the Supreme Court is willing to go to torture the meaning of the Constitution. Hopefully I am wrong.

Are you talking about the current Supreme Court, or the folks who think “emanations from penumbras” is valid constitutional law?

It sounds like you think the SC was wrong in 1965 in saying you couldn't ban contraceptive use. https://time.com/archive/6833872/the-law-emanations-from-a-p... Not a stance I happen to agree with.

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

#402

Post by _iafj »

mkim383 wrote: post #192
_iafj wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've heard good things about LighthouseHQ from friends. The founder agreed to look my case over but then ghosted me. Unclear why, but I followed up and didn't hear back so

Hi Mark — Minn here. So sorry for my miss here. Drop me a line at minn@lighthouseh[dot]com to reconnect. We've worked with hundreds of applicants, many in the YC community and happy to see how we can help!

Hi Minn–thanks for reaching out! I emailed you yesterday and will wait to hear back.

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

#403

Post by rayiner »

erehweb wrote: post #401
rayiner wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you talking about the current Supreme Court, or the folks who think “emanations from penumbras” is valid constitutional law?

It sounds like you think the SC was wrong in 1965 in saying you couldn't ban contraceptive use. https://time.com/archive/6833872/the-law-emanations-from-a-p... Not a stance I happen to agree with.

I think if you want to defend Griswold you are forced to defend Lochner. If “emanations from penumbras” is a legitimate source of constitutional authority that can override democratically enacted laws, that has sweeping implications. Clearly the constitution has an overriding focus on property rights and economic liberty. What freedoms can you find in the “emanations from penumbras” of the contract clause or the takings clause?

I don’t think Griswold is wrong per se. Rather, I think it’s based on a libertarian view of the Constitution that almost none of Griswold’s proponents actually support.

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

#404

Post by willmadden »

anigbrowl wrote: post #337
willmadden wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, of course they are. Just one example is conscription.

Men under the age of 26, documented or not, are required to sign up after being in the US for 30 days, unless they are on a valid visa. https://www.sss.gov/register/immigrants/

That's murky and it's not enforced. In practice, immigrants aren't conscripted during a draft.

If you want some more examples:

Voting, Jury Service, Employment Authorization, and Driver's licenses.

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

#405

Post by epiifounder »

gaoshan wrote: post #383
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.

Not sure if this is helpful information, but yeah, I did that, because ycombinator is very buggy.

Try posting without having an account from mobile. Website asks you to type login and password, then says that such account already exists and you need to create a new one. What I did not know, it was creating accounts and posting without my knowledge.

Have a good day.

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

#406

Post by tptacek »

rayiner wrote: post #363
anigbrowl wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel we could usefully keep in mind another observation of Marshall's quoted in Wong Kim Ark , seperate from his writings in Schooner Exchange mentioned above: "It is a maxim not to be disregarded that general expressions in every opinion are to be taken in connection with the case in which those expressions are used. If they go beyond the case, they may be respected, but ought not to control the judgment in a subs…

Sure, maybe the Slaughterhouse Cases dicta was just wrong. But maybe there is something in the historical use of “jurisdiction” that sheds more light on what “subject to the jurisdiction” means. I haven’t done the deep dive myself, I’m just unpersuaded by the common law argument in Wong Kim Ark unless that really is all the historical record leaves us to go on.

Excepting the Chief Justice, the Slaughter-house justices endorsed the mainstream citizenship opinion just a couple years later.

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

#407

Post by blindriver »

dragonwriter wrote: post #395
blindriver wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is nothing bonkers about it. Should Obama be subject to prosecution for murder for allowing the bombing of a US citizen in the Middle East? Or should he be immune because he was engaging in an official act as President to protect the US?

Neither, he should not be criminally liable for that, not because he has immunity invented by a Court in clear defiance of the Constitution, but because the act is, in fact, legal pursuant to the 9/11 AUMF. That the decision is wrong is pretty clear from the Constitution itself: where it intends there to be a Constitutional legal immunity for official acts for Constitutional officers, it explicitly states it (e.g., t…

No, you're wrong. No law from Congress can supersede the Constitution and Obama is not criminally liable because of the Constitution, not because of the law you state. You can't create a law that deprives an individual of his constitutional rights.

However, presidential immunity did give Obama the ability to launch a drone strike against him in the name of national security. He could basically execute the individual and was protected because of his presidential immunity.

Immunity is implied by the Constitution because of separation of powers, and it's been a long-held policy that the president has immunity so that he can do his duties without fear of criminal or civil prosecution, and this is a perfect example of this.

The only thing SCOTUS did was make it clear that the President does have immunity when conducting official acts. This was something that was long-held policy but never officially declared until last year.

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

#409

Post by desibanda »

alsodumb wrote: post #203
bhasi wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If EB1A is approved, my understanding is that the applicant becomes "current" and eligible for the green card at once without any waiting in the queue regardless of country of birth. Is that not correct?

There’s a cap on how many EB1 green cards they give out per year, and there’s also a per country cap within that cap (no country cannot cross 7% of total cap) Unfortunately, there are a lot of EB1C greencard applicants from my country (India) as the bar for L1 and EB1C is pretty low. Since all EB1 visas (EB1A, EB1B, and EB1C) are counted together towards the cap, that means that even though I required a muncher highe…

Don’t say unfortunately. With all due respect India needs such talent desperately and you don’t have to worry about 6 years!

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

#410

Post by rayiner »

dctoedt wrote: post #391
rayiner wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'll confess error in my wording above (and it's too late to edit it): The judgment (outcome) was arguably correct, as you say — state governments should indeed be able to do reasonable public-safety regulation. (Whether Louisiana's action in granting a private monopoly on meat processing was a reasonable way to promote public safety was another question: The Court's opinion focused on the 14th Amendment and federal…

Here’s an article addressing what the framers of the amendment meant: https://static.heritage.org/legal-and-judicial/birthright-ci...

Haven’t had a chance to dig into it in detail, but it addresses evidence from the drafting process that isn’t addressed in Wong Kim Ark.

Post reply on HN