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

511–520 of 527 posts

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

#511

Post by mmustapic »

tome wrote: post #504
mmustapic wrote: post #503

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 "internationall…

Maybe they don't like Israeli occupation which has been going on for 58 years, while their access to land has been reduced more and more.

And besides, I'm not even talking about statehood, my main point is Israel's awful treatment of Palestinians in the West Bank, based only on ethnicity.

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

#512

Post by tome »

mmustapic wrote: post #511
tome wrote: post #504

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 "internationall…

Maybe they don't like Israeli occupation which has been going on for 58 years, while their access to land has been reduced more and more. And besides, I'm not even talking about statehood, my main point is Israel's awful treatment of Palestinians in the West Bank, based only on ethnicity.

Maybe they don't like it, but if so then I would have thought they would have chosen statehood when they were offered it in 2000 or 2008. Moreover, they never even had any land to begin with! No country of Palestine has ever existed. To reiterate, it was previously Jordanian-occupied, British-governed, Ottoman-ruled. Something else is clearly going on, beyond what you're saying.

I don't like the word "treat" in this context. I don't believe Israel "treats" Palestinians in any way. Rather, the state of Israel has a particular policy on the Palestinian issue because of their shared history, no small part of which is the Palestinians repeatedly attempting to eliminate Israel.

But if you insist on using the word "treat", then I'll add that I don't like the way Palestine treats the Israelis either.

Israel's policy is not based on ethnicity, it's based on citizenship, as is usual in a western democracy. Arab citizens of Israel have the same relationship to the state as any other citizens of Israel, for example.

I agree that many Palestinians are in an awful situation. I disagree that Israel bears the blame or the responsibility to resolve the issue.

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

#513

Post by blindriver »

mindslight wrote: post #510
blindriver wrote: post #509

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ah, so you don’t understand how the judicial branch works. Okay. Regardless of what you want to believe, non-citizens do not enjoy first amendment rights when it comes to deportation. Period. End of story. You can be against this all you want, but Khalil will be lawfully deported and so will any other non-citizens that engage in endorsing terrorism. This is established case law.

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

#514

Post by mindslight »

blindriver wrote: post #513
mindslight wrote: post #510

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ah, so you don’t understand how the judicial branch works. Okay. Regardless of what you want to believe, non-citizens do not enjoy first amendment rights when it comes to deportation. Period. End of story. You can be against this all you want, but Khalil will be lawfully deported and so will any other non-citizens that engage in endorsing terrorism. This is established case law.

I don't know why you keep jumping to characterize disagreement as misunderstanding. Your apparent belief that the courts somehow represent infallible logic rather than merely a different type of policymaking is exactly why I'm making my point. Like, it's a big deal when a new justice gets appointed, right? They're not just interchangeable cogs.

Pragmatically, yes, Khalil will likely be deported due to having exercised his freedom of speech. This, along with many other current affairs, should be abhorrent to anybody who actually believes in the ideals of individual liberty - regardless of the justifications crafted by the judicial, executive, and fourth estate. And I really don't know what you gain by cheerleading authoritarianism, besides some feeling of smugness of being on the winning team.

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

#515

Post by kyawzazaw »

proberts wrote: post #97
kyawzazaw wrote: post #31

does H-1B transfer need valid passport? Would pending asylum documents would suffice?

Not necessarily. Other documents can satisfy this requirements. What asylum documents are you referring to?

Receipt of filing or EAD

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

#516

Post by soupbowl »

walrus01 wrote: post #41
canucktrash669 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She crossed overland. Imagine you do pre-clearance out of a Canadian airport. Can they kidnap you out of country and ship you to a US detention center?

Canadians may be often unprepared and shocked how aggressive and militarized the southern border is, compared to crossing at northern border land entry points.

I am Canadian and I have always had an easier time crossing Into the US. I have been detained multiple times from the Canadian side.

I took an espresso repair course just across the boarder in Washington and on my way back I was detained for hours and questioned very aggressively because "there is no such thing as an espresso machine repair course".

That being said, I don't doubt the American side can be tough too, though I have never experienced it.

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

#518

Post by mmustapic »

tome wrote: post #512
mmustapic wrote: post #511

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe they don't like Israeli occupation which has been going on for 58 years, while their access to land has been reduced more and more. And besides, I'm not even talking about statehood, my main point is Israel's awful treatment of Palestinians in the West Bank, based only on ethnicity.

Maybe they don't like it, but if so then I would have thought they would have chosen statehood when they were offered it in 2000 or 2008. Moreover, they never even had any land to begin with! No country of Palestine has ever existed. To reiterate, it was previously Jordanian-occupied, British-governed, Ottoman-ruled. Something else is clearly going on, beyond what you're saying. I don't like the word "treat" in this…

So the country that military occupies the territory where the Palestinian live, jails them, shoots them, restricts their movement, restricts their ability to build, restricts their airspace and borders, and they bear no responsibility? Israel’s primary policy is ethnicity, just check the “ Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People” enacted in 2018.

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

#519

Post by lazyasciiart »

mzayatz wrote: post #390
light_hue_1 wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

States can give out enhanced driver's licenses to people who are non citizens. The only requirement is that they are here legally at the time.

That’s not correct. An enhanced driver’s license requires US citizenship. https://www.dhs.gov/enhanced-drivers-licenses-what-are-they

You're right, I was confusing REAL ID with "enhanced drivers licenses"

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

#520

Post by chitreshd »

proberts wrote: post #229
chitreshd wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if I have an H1B, but want to pursue starting my own Startup. What are the actions that I can undertake without jeopardizing my status or relationship with my current employer? One of the main hurdle is I cant go an seek customers, as my profile would show an employee with my current employer?

The real issue in establishing a company while employed by another is that your current employer could have claims over the IP that you develop through your startup so while there are lots that one can do vis-a-vis a startup while currently employed by another company (or in the U.S. as a visitor) as noted in my comment above, I think the bigger issue is putting the company's IP and other assets in jeopardy by incorp…

Thanks for the response!
Post reply on HN