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

471–479 of 479 posts

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

#471

Post by komali2 »

Nesco wrote: post #469
komali2 wrote: post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Unfortunately I consider one’s opinion meaningful only if one has skin in the game related to it. When it comes to a woman's right to bodily autonomy (right to abort a pregnancy), I'm pro-women's right to choose. Considering I'm a man it's impossible for me to have skin in the game. So, my support is meaningless? My calls and letters to my representatives, invalid? Very curious viewpoint. I would imagine the angle…

That’s not what I meant. What I meant is that if you want to convince others of opening borders and if you want to engage in political activities to promote policies that fit your moral compass but in which your fellow citizens will also share the consequences you should first live by them. I had my share of colleagues in STEMS who are cynically pro-open borders and pro-immigration only because they are wealthy white…

Ideally we could discuss a topic without needing to take eachother's personal situations into account. The discussion space is large enough that drilling down to me as an individual seems a pointless distraction.

For what it's worth, I wasn't always a rich programmer. There may be a very specific reason I empathize very well with the plight of the proletariat ;)

That sexual advantage bit is really interesting to hear about. It drove me from Taiwan the first time I was there. Too many 40 year old white dudes preying on foreign women in the bars. Didn't want to become that, stuck as an English teacher. I'll chew on this new analysis.

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

#472

Post by enronmusk »

kotxig wrote: post #470
enronmusk wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A 100k GBP London salary can be as efficient as a $170k Salary in SF The marginal tax on a £100-125k London salary is 62%. Also, VAT there is much higher than sales tax in CA. The savings from your ISA accounts will be negligible until your portfolio grows significantly. Just move to TX/FL/etc before realizing any gains and you'll end up paying just 15% long-term federal CGT. > Stock options for employees are often…

> The marginal tax on a £100-125k London salary is 62% This is why you should reduce a 100 - 125k salary by 40k through salary sacrifice, paying into a self directed pension. Taxable income is reduced to £60 - 85k. > Also, VAT there is much higher than sales tax in CA. Yes but there are no property taxes in the UK, which I'm sure far outweighs the difference in sales tax on a yearly basis. Also VAT isn't applied to e…

> pension

If you're OK with locking up your money for 30+ years, sure.

> no property taxes in the UK

That's a bug, not a feature. There's little incentive for people to downsize, which leads to suboptimal use of resources on a societal level. Even if you leave the question of fairness aside ("eight of England's 10 cheapest areas for council tax are in the capital including Kensington & Chelsea, Hammersmith & Fulham, Southwark, Lambeth and Tower Hamlets"), this leads to higher property prices, which negatively impacts you as a first-time buyer.

> I'm looking at $1.8m-2m minimum in SF

You don't have to retire in the Bay Area.

> Most startups in the UK are offering EMI share options

Most startups in the UK pay poorly, so I'm not sure this is a good point. Thanks for letting me know about EMI share options though, I didn't know that!

> you can draw nearly 97.5k in income and pay only 3750 in tax

You can top that. People who have bought property in London 15+ years ago can easily realize a profit of £500-1500k, all tax free -- https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-residence... .

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

#473

Post by kotxig »

enronmusk wrote: post #472
kotxig wrote: post #470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The marginal tax on a £100-125k London salary is 62% This is why you should reduce a 100 - 125k salary by 40k through salary sacrifice, paying into a self directed pension. Taxable income is reduced to £60 - 85k. > Also, VAT there is much higher than sales tax in CA. Yes but there are no property taxes in the UK, which I'm sure far outweighs the difference in sales tax on a yearly basis. Also VAT isn't applied to e…

> pension If you're OK with locking up your money for 30+ years, sure. > no property taxes in the UK That's a bug, not a feature. There's little incentive for people to downsize, which leads to suboptimal use of resources on a societal level. Even if you leave the question of fairness aside ("eight of England's 10 cheapest areas for council tax are in the capital including Kensington & Chelsea, Hammersmith & Fulham,…

> If you're OK with locking up your money for 30+ years, sure.

55 isn't 30+ years away for me.

> this leads to higher property prices, which negatively impacts you as a first-time buyer.

And yet it still looks more affordable than SF.

> You don't have to retire in the Bay Area.

In which case, I have to account for housing expenses when looking at the salary in real terms, and deal with all of the problems related to rent i.e. rising costs, being kicked out, not worth investing in improving the property (from a quality of life perspective, not ROI).

> Most startups in the UK pay poorly, so I'm not sure this is a good point.

The one I am working at currently doesn't pay poorly. It's not my top SF salary but it's better than what I started on in SF. It's not FAANG.

> You can top that.

I just meant for an average person with a typical diversified investment portfolio and private pension, and in a way that you can actually plan for (private residence relief is not something that you could have reasonably planned for at the time of buying the house).

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

#474

Post by amf12 »

winter_blue wrote: post #443
amf12 wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> These Americans who hate immigrants vote. You can guess what party they vote. Their votes are the reason our immigration system is broken beyond measure. I am not sure if that's really the case. Case in point, the Obama administration. They had 8 years to fix this, but they didn't. Now Obama did do some small changes that were a net positive to the immigrant community (Work Permit for spouses who are waiting for GC…

> They had 8 years to fix this, but they didn't. I'm not sure if you're being facetious here, or if you simply are ignorant of how the U.S. Constitution / government works. There are two types/levels of federal laws: (1) statutory laws - made by Congress ("U.S.C."/US Code), and (2) regulatory laws ("C.F.R.") - made by the Executive Branch. For a statutory law to pass in the US, the House + Senate + President has to a…

> I'm not sure if you're being facetious here, or if you simply are ignorant of how the U.S. Constitution / government works.

I do understand that. The thing though is, "trifecta" is difficult in practice and shouldn't really be a barrier to passing laws.

My observation was mainly about fixing and overhauling the immigration system (combating fraud, streamlining it, etc - and not really about increasing or decreasing immigration). I am not sure Republicans were a barrier to such efforts.

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

#475

Post by enronmusk »

kotxig wrote: post #473
enronmusk wrote: post #472

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> pension If you're OK with locking up your money for 30+ years, sure. > no property taxes in the UK That's a bug, not a feature. There's little incentive for people to downsize, which leads to suboptimal use of resources on a societal level. Even if you leave the question of fairness aside ("eight of England's 10 cheapest areas for council tax are in the capital including Kensington & Chelsea, Hammersmith & Fulham,…

> If you're OK with locking up your money for 30+ years, sure. 55 isn't 30+ years away for me. > this leads to higher property prices, which negatively impacts you as a first-time buyer. And yet it still looks more affordable than SF. > You don't have to retire in the Bay Area. In which case, I have to account for housing expenses when looking at the salary in real terms, and deal with all of the problems related to…

Makes sense. Thanks for elaborating and apologies for derailing your green card question.

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

#476

Post by winter_blue »

amf12 wrote: post #474
winter_blue wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They had 8 years to fix this, but they didn't. I'm not sure if you're being facetious here, or if you simply are ignorant of how the U.S. Constitution / government works. There are two types/levels of federal laws: (1) statutory laws - made by Congress ("U.S.C."/US Code), and (2) regulatory laws ("C.F.R.") - made by the Executive Branch. For a statutory law to pass in the US, the House + Senate + President has to a…

> I'm not sure if you're being facetious here, or if you simply are ignorant of how the U.S. Constitution / government works. I do understand that. The thing though is, "trifecta" is difficult in practice and shouldn't really be a barrier to passing laws. My observation was mainly about fixing and overhauling the immigration system (combating fraud, streamlining it, etc - and not really about increasing or decreasing…

> The thing though is, "trifecta" is difficult in practice and shouldn't really be a barrier to passing laws.

This is an illogical sentence. What are you trying to say here. That the US Constitution "shouldn't really be a barrier to passing laws"? Is this a joke? You seem to be utterly unfamiliar with how most constitutional legal systems work. It's not just a Western country. Even countries like India have a similar system. Imagine I go to India and say "the Parliament shouldn't really be a barrier to passing laws". People would laugh at you. You're making a really dumb and nonsensical statement. (And you sound facetious.)

> My observation was mainly about ...

You "observation" was an accusatory statement that the Obama administration "had 8 years to fix this, but they didn't" -- which I pointed out and explained was completely and flat-out wrong.

As I explained in my parent comment, the Obama administration made extensive and substantive changes to the immigration system, within the scope of the Executive Branch's powers. A lot of changes to the CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) affecting immigration, many EOs, memorandas. DACA is a famous example of a positive change they brought about.

More substantive immigration law overhauls are outside the ability of the President to affect. Congress must do it. And Republicans in Congress blocked nearly every bill that was in any way pro-immigrant.

And, no, in the US, you can't say Congress "shouldn't really be a barrier to passing laws". You'll be laughed out the room.

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

#477

Post by amf12 »

winter_blue wrote: post #476
amf12 wrote: post #474

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm not sure if you're being facetious here, or if you simply are ignorant of how the U.S. Constitution / government works. I do understand that. The thing though is, "trifecta" is difficult in practice and shouldn't really be a barrier to passing laws. My observation was mainly about fixing and overhauling the immigration system (combating fraud, streamlining it, etc - and not really about increasing or decreasing…

> The thing though is, "trifecta" is difficult in practice and shouldn't really be a barrier to passing laws. This is an illogical sentence. What are you trying to say here. That the US Constitution "shouldn't really be a barrier to passing laws" ? Is this a joke? You seem to be utterly unfamiliar with how most constitutional legal systems work. It's not just a Western country. Even countries like India have a simila…

> The thing though is, "trifecta" is difficult in practice and shouldn't really be a barrier to passing laws.

> This is an illogical sentence.

You said Democrats had "trifecta" only two years (2009-10) during the Obama admin. I am assuming you mean they had the executive, house and senate.

I am saying, not controlling all three should not be a barrier to passing laws. You are completely misunderstanding me. I said "trifecta" should not be a barrier because you mentioned Democrats only had it for two years. Does the US constitution say the two chambers AND executive should be controlled by either Republicans or Democrats to enact laws?

> People would laugh at you. You're making a really dumb and nonsensical statement. (And you sound facetious.)

Well, I am glad the people I know would try to understand my point better than just laugh at me or call me dumb :)

> You "observation" was an accusatory statement that the Obama administration "had 8 years to fix this, but they didn't"

And I still stand by it - while supporting the said admin. I did mention they 'made extensive and substantive changes to the immigration system'. However, I still believe there are some changes they could have done (which Republicans would have supported) that would have made the system much better.

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

#478

Post by caduceus »

Hi Peter, I know I'm commenting a bit late but just wanted a bit of advice. I'm a Canadian employed by a US company, living in NYC at the moment. Since the pandemic hit I've been working remotely and will be for the foreseeable future.

I wanted to move back to Canada until we're back at the office so I can be closer to my family as it's been incredibly lonely working here in isolation, however my employer is saying I can only visit for up to 6 weeks. I'm just wondering what grounds do they have for enforcing this? And also, what is the worst that can happen if I just stayed in Canada for a few months?

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

#479

Post by winter_blue »

amf12 wrote: post #477
winter_blue wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The thing though is, "trifecta" is difficult in practice and shouldn't really be a barrier to passing laws. This is an illogical sentence. What are you trying to say here. That the US Constitution "shouldn't really be a barrier to passing laws" ? Is this a joke? You seem to be utterly unfamiliar with how most constitutional legal systems work. It's not just a Western country. Even countries like India have a simila…

> The thing though is, "trifecta" is difficult in practice and shouldn't really be a barrier to passing laws. > This is an illogical sentence. You said Democrats had "trifecta" only two years (2009-10) during the Obama admin. I am assuming you mean they had the executive, house and senate. I am saying, not controlling all three should not be a barrier to passing laws. You are completely misunderstanding me. I said "t…

You're right in that there were some things that could have been achieved with bipartisan support.

One example would be eliminating the per-country limit on employment-based immigrants, which has resulted in 100+ years of wait time for India-born EB2/EB3 aspirants. There's bipartisan support for it, and it might have passed in isolation, but it wasn't high enough of a priority for either party. (Note though: the provision eliminating the per-country limit was included in the S. 744 bill.)

For the most part though, Republicans opposed nearly every bill that Democrats brought up. The likelihood of anything meaningful / highly-impactful / substantive through Congress, in the face of adamant Republican opposition, was unfortunately fairly low.

Post reply on HN