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

501–510 of 527 posts

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

#501

Post by tome »

mmustapic wrote: post #499
tome wrote: post #487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not all of them were already there. Many immigrated there from Jordan (and to the Gaza Strip from Egypt) post 1948. In the West Bank they are former Jordanian citizens who had their citizenship revoked post 1967. Egypt never offered residents of Gaza citizenship, so I suppose they are former Ottoman Empire subjects without any new state to become citizens of. Remember that they rejected the creation of an Arab state…

Israel owes them something because they control the territory where they live. If you are fine with countries anexing territories and then discriminating people based on ethnicity, then no, they don’t owe them anything.

Then why didn't Jordan and Egypt give them a country when they controlled the territory where they live? The answer is because they didn't want a country there, they wanted the land that is called "Israel". Egypt never gave them citizenship, but that didn't seem to be a problem to them. They tried to attack Israel, not Egypt. There's more to this story than you're telling.

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

#502

Post by blindriver »

mindslight wrote: post #498
blindriver wrote: post #491

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are completely wrong. Supreme Court found that aliens do not have full first amendment protection, especially around terrorism.

s/Supreme Court found/Subservient Council declared/g Our Constitution and Bill of Rights is framed in terms of recognizing independent-existing natural inalienable rights. Citizenship is a complete red herring. The SC has been writing justifications for blatant infringement of natural rights for decades, even before the current neofascist takeover. Take the Bill of Rights as a list of test cases, run down them, and t…

Wrong.

Reno v. American-Arab Antidiscrimination Committee made it clear that there are no First amendment protections from deportation. This is well established case law for decades now.

https://www.aclu.org/documents/reno-v-adc

This is why talking confidently about things you have absolutely no idea about makes you look foolish.

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

#503

Post by mmustapic »

tome wrote: post #501
mmustapic wrote: post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Israel owes them something because they control the territory where they live. If you are fine with countries anexing territories and then discriminating people based on ethnicity, then no, they don’t owe them anything.

Then why didn't Jordan and Egypt give them a country when they controlled the territory where they live? The answer is because they didn't want a country there, they wanted the land that is called "Israel". Egypt never gave them citizenship, but that didn't seem to be a problem to them. They tried to attack Israel, not Egypt. There's more to this story than you're telling.

So because in 1966 Egypt didn’t give them citizenship, Israel can do the same in 2025 plus occupying then military, displace them, jail them and kill them? Until when? 10 years more? 100? 1000?

Here’s more to this story https://conquer-and-divide.btselem.org/map-en.html

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

#504

Post by tome »

mmustapic wrote: post #503
tome wrote: post #501

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then why didn't Jordan and Egypt give them a country when they controlled the territory where they live? The answer is because they didn't want a country there, they wanted the land that is called "Israel". Egypt never gave them citizenship, but that didn't seem to be a problem to them. They tried to attack Israel, not Egypt. There's more to this story than you're telling.

So because in 1966 Egypt didn’t give them citizenship, Israel can do the same in 2025 plus occupying then military, displace them, jail them and kill them? Until when? 10 years more? 100? 1000? Here’s more to this story https://conquer-and-divide.btselem.org/map-en.html

The point is if they wanted a state they would have agitated for one during the UN Resolution 181 vote. But they didn't. Or they would have agitated for it between 1948 and 1967, when they were occupied by Egypt and Jordan. But they didn't. They didn't attack Egypt and Jordan to try to force their hand to give them a state. They attacked Israel, when Israel didn't occupy any land outside its currently "internationally recognised borders"! And now they supposedly want a state on the land that they already had? They only decided they wanted a state on that land once Israel occupied it.

Here's Hasan Zomlot, Palestinian ambassador to the UK, claiming yesterday that "We will leave back to our homes inside the '48 areas, we will go back to our land, we will go back to Yaffa and Haifa!".

https://x.com/koshercockney/status/1901248223580160056

I'm not surprised Israel is being cautious.

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

#505

Post by acdha »

pandaman wrote: post #496
acdha wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you were right, they could easily clear the record by actually charging her. In several of the cases, they held people for extended periods rather than letting them leave the country which they really shouldn’t be doing if they don’t have enough evidence for at least one charge.

Immigration proceedings are usually administrative, this is why people often proclaim that visa violations are as same as parking violations. So there is no need to charge as there is no trial and there is administrative detention among the punishments. On the same note, "immigration judge" is not a member of the Judiciary but an officer of the Executive branch and "immigration court" is an Executive office as same a…

Again, my point is simply that if there were some more serious offenses as the person I responded to alluded they could easily respond to reporters saying this isn’t a simple administrative mistake.

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

#506

Post by mindslight »

blindriver wrote: post #502
mindslight wrote: post #498

Earlier quoted context omitted.

s/Supreme Court found/Subservient Council declared/g Our Constitution and Bill of Rights is framed in terms of recognizing independent-existing natural inalienable rights. Citizenship is a complete red herring. The SC has been writing justifications for blatant infringement of natural rights for decades, even before the current neofascist takeover. Take the Bill of Rights as a list of test cases, run down them, and t…

Wrong. Reno v. American-Arab Antidiscrimination Committee made it clear that there are no First amendment protections from deportation. This is well established case law for decades now. https://www.aclu.org/documents/reno-v-adc This is why talking confidently about things you have absolutely no idea about makes you look foolish.

Nothing in your comment is a logical response to anything in mine. Perhaps you need to take your own advice, especially with text that's right above where you're typing?

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

#507

Post by pandaman »

acdha wrote: post #505
pandaman wrote: post #496

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Immigration proceedings are usually administrative, this is why people often proclaim that visa violations are as same as parking violations. So there is no need to charge as there is no trial and there is administrative detention among the punishments. On the same note, "immigration judge" is not a member of the Judiciary but an officer of the Executive branch and "immigration court" is an Executive office as same a…

Again, my point is simply that if there were some more serious offenses as the person I responded to alluded they could easily respond to reporters saying this isn’t a simple administrative mistake.

You seem to be confused over the meaning of word "administrative". In this context it means that the matter is entirely in the hands of the executive power so there is no charging and no trial.

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

#508

Post by roncesvalles »

rectangleguru wrote: post #127

Hi Peter, thanks for doing this over the years, when going through my own immigration journey reading through your past AMAs was a huge help. For reference, I'm a Canadian who just moved to the US on a TN Visa and I've got a few questions: - What would you say the percentage likelihood range is that the TN Visa is no longer an option for Software Engineers in 3 years time. - With the news of USMCA talks reopening, is…

In my experience, big tech companies ask their TNs to start participating in every H1B lottery as soon as they join, and switch them over as soon as they bag a spot.

TN renewals are risky because you can be arbitrarily judged as having immigrant intent and get rejected, especially the more times you keep renewing them. H1B in contrast is dual-intent so this risk isn't there. Just my IANAL understanding of things.

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

#509

Post by blindriver »

mindslight wrote: post #506
blindriver wrote: post #502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wrong. Reno v. American-Arab Antidiscrimination Committee made it clear that there are no First amendment protections from deportation. This is well established case law for decades now. https://www.aclu.org/documents/reno-v-adc This is why talking confidently about things you have absolutely no idea about makes you look foolish.

Nothing in your comment is a logical response to anything in mine. Perhaps you need to take your own advice, especially with text that's right above where you're typing?

Probably because you don't understand what I posted. It clearly states that non-citizens do not enjoy First Amendment protections when it comes to deportation, which is exactly what Khalil is going through right now. If you don't understand how this relates, then you need some deep education on what you were posting about.

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

#510

Post by mindslight »

blindriver wrote: post #509
mindslight wrote: post #506

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing in your comment is a logical response to anything in mine. Perhaps you need to take your own advice, especially with text that's right above where you're typing?

Probably because you don't understand what I posted. It clearly states that non-citizens do not enjoy First Amendment protections when it comes to deportation, which is exactly what Khalil is going through right now. If you don't understand how this relates, then you need some deep education on what you were posting about.

I understand your comments just fine. Rather it seems that you have a comprehension problem. Your link may state that the Supreme Court has declared that non-citizens [etc]. Pointing out that you're holding up this declaration as if it's some unassailable logical conclusion rather than an arguable policy decree is the crux of my comment.
Post reply on HN