Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Green card seekers must leave U.S. to apply, Trump administration says

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

911–920 of 1001 posts

Re: Green card seekers must leave U.S. to apply, Trump administration says

#911

Post by testing22321 »

zaptheimpaler wrote: post #852
testing22321 wrote: post #655

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t want to defend the cure administration, but it’s very common and normal for a country to require a person to leave to change status. Every time my Canadian work visa expired I had to drive over the border, enter the US, turn around and drive back to start the new one. The border guards call it “flag-poling” because you do a U turn around the flag pole. When I went from work visa to permanent resident I had to…

Even if it is common (i don't think this is required any more anyways), just why? Why do we need to make someone run back and forth across the border for the immigration department to do some paperwork? It seems purely designed to inconvenience people for absolutely no gain to anyone.

Because the people and computer systems and processes to admit people into the country and start a visa or PR or whatever are located at the borders.

It’s just how things are done.

Re: Green card seekers must leave U.S. to apply, Trump administration says

#912

Post by Saline9515 »

atoav wrote: post #844
pixelatedindex wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and paid over $100,000 in taxes last year alone Genuinely curious, what does taxes have to do with it? Everyone pays taxes, legal or illegal in some form. I don’t think paying your dues should make you more likely to get through the pipeline. After all, you paid those taxes because you made good money, which is what people come here for.

A very common xenophobic narrative is that foreigners do two things at the same time (1) steal your jobs and (2) drain your social systems. Another even more vile one one would be anything to do with coming for your daughters and women, but for this you will have to favtor in race. Because a rich white Frenchman coming your daughter doesn't have the same ring to it for bigots. If the US, a country with a too low birt…

It's not just a narrative and has been proven true, at least for (2).[0]

For (1), I think that a good discussion with any business owner in a migrant-dominated field will tell you that hiring foreigners is done to keep costs low and avoid Baumol's law. As a result, locals don't want to work in such fields, reinforcing the need for migrants.

[0] https://scanalyst.fourmilab.ch/uploads/default/original/2X/9...

Re: Green card seekers must leave U.S. to apply, Trump administration says

#913

Post by yoble »

Calavar wrote: post #890
drstewart wrote: post #863

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>So with how ugly the US is being right now, what is holding back the remote worker from turning truly remote, at least in tech? Because money and taxes, both of which are unchanged due to this policy And boy wait til you find out how other countries treat immigration and visas. You'll be shocked to learn they're also super racist and don't give everyone citizenship at birth just because of being there! They are, in…

If you're looking for international precedent, this is an old vs. new world issue. Birthright citizenship is rare in the old world, but it is the default for the Americas. Canada, most of Latin America, and a decent part of the Caribbean have birthright citizenship.

I thought France had it. It turns out France, Italy, Netherlands, UK, and Belgium have a conditional deferred version: you can become a citizen at 18 if you're born and have been living there (plus a few caveats).

Re: Green card seekers must leave U.S. to apply, Trump administration says

#914

Post by gottorf »

xg15 wrote: post #831
jmyeet wrote: post #748

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So this is an example of being careful what you wish for. Neil Gorsuch's mother had to resign in disgrace as the EPA administrator under Reagan in a case that ultimately became what was called "Chevron deference" [1]. Chevron deference meant that when Congress wrote ambiguous statutes, courts would defer to the interpretation of the agencies responsible for enforcing them. Almost 40 years of laws were written with th…

> There are people who cannot or should not leave the US to consular process. They may have incurred unlawful presence that will then get them a 3 or 10 year bar from returning. This bar may well apply if they have to consular process instead of do an AoS. Some people may not be able to leave (eg asylees). This feels like it might be the actual motivation of the Trump admin to do this change. The cruelty is indeed th…

> They may have incurred unlawful presence

> The cruelty is indeed the point

What's the difference between this and just outright saying that enforcing the law is cruelty? After all, nobody enjoys being punished, even if it's for breaking the law.

I don't want people to be unlawfully present in my country. Enough people desired that same outcome that, through the democratic process, we have laws controlling immigration. There has to be consequences for breaking that law. It absolutely cannot be the case that anyone can break the law and then have it not matter on the grounds that to make it matter would be cruel. What even is the point of the rule of law?

Re: Green card seekers must leave U.S. to apply, Trump administration says

#915

Post by Majromax »

zaptheimpaler wrote: post #852
testing22321 wrote: post #655

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t want to defend the cure administration, but it’s very common and normal for a country to require a person to leave to change status. Every time my Canadian work visa expired I had to drive over the border, enter the US, turn around and drive back to start the new one. The border guards call it “flag-poling” because you do a U turn around the flag pole. When I went from work visa to permanent resident I had to…

Even if it is common (i don't think this is required any more anyways), just why? Why do we need to make someone run back and forth across the border for the immigration department to do some paperwork? It seems purely designed to inconvenience people for absolutely no gain to anyone.

> Even if it is common (i don't think this is required any more anyways), just why?

As far as Canadian law goes, there are two factors at play in the parent's events;

* NAFTA work permits are applied for at the border, on entry; they operate differently from the 'normal' work permit streams.

* Permanent residence is conferred at the border, but the application process can happen either inside or outside the country depending on the stream. There are also limited 'inland' options which evidently have expanded (https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/se...) in recent years.

In neither case does Canada have a blanket rule that an applicant must leave the country during the whole of an extended application process, and even 'abroad' processes can often be carried out while an applicant is living in the country on other status. (It can get awkward if a consular interview is required, though.)

Unlike the US, Canada is generally comfortable with 'dual intent', where intent to apply for permanent residence through legal channels is not disqualifying for other sorts of statuses.

Re: Green card seekers must leave U.S. to apply, Trump administration says

#916

Post by rayiner »

airstrike wrote: post #898
jmyeet wrote: post #748

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So this is an example of being careful what you wish for. Neil Gorsuch's mother had to resign in disgrace as the EPA administrator under Reagan in a case that ultimately became what was called "Chevron deference" [1]. Chevron deference meant that when Congress wrote ambiguous statutes, courts would defer to the interpretation of the agencies responsible for enforcing them. Almost 40 years of laws were written with th…

Thank you for this fantastically informative comment.

No, the comment is complete misinformation. In particular:

> A consequence of that was that the Supreme Court accepted an interpretation that executive agencies should be government by the Administrative Procedures Act ("APA") instead.

Executive agencies were always governed by the Administrative Procedures Act. The law was created in 1946 for the purpose of governing executive agencies.

OP is completely wrong about what Chevron and Loper Bright were about. Agencies have always had to do rulemakings with notice and comment to promulgate regulations. Those rules obviously have to follow the statutory law.

Chevron was about what happens when an agency action is challenged in court and the statute is ambiguous. Chevron says the agency gets deference from the court in deciding what the law means. The court has to accept ghr agency’s interpretation as long as it’s reasonable.

Loper Bright says the court has to decide what the law means itself, just like it does for any other law.

More broadly, this isn’t even a “conservative” versus “liberal” issue. Scalia was the biggest champion of Chevron and Gorsuch authored Loper Bright. Both were/are Federalist Society guys. This is an internal disagreement among conservatives about whether agencies or courts have the last word on what statutes mean.

Re: Green card seekers must leave U.S. to apply, Trump administration says

#917

Post by protortyp »

jmward01 wrote: post #752

I personally can't understand anyone wanting to move to the US anymore except for extreme reasons. And, yes, I have actually lived in several other countries so I know how green the grass can be in different places. So with how ugly the US is being right now, what is holding back the remote worker from turning truly remote, at least in tech? For clarity here, I don't think this is a great direction. A massive strengt…

> I personally can't understand anyone wanting to move to the US anymore except for extreme reasons.

I am German and honestly can't wait to move to the US once I get a suitable H-1B offer. I already spent 8 months in Boston for a research stay, and back then the doomer mentality among natives was wild to me. From an outsider's perspective it’s crazy to watch. Life, and especially the ceiling for what you can achieve, is still 10x higher in the US than anywhere else.

I think people in the US severely underestimate how stagnant it feels in Europe and other continents right now. We are basically just stumbling from one crisis to the next, without any strong leadership (the US two-party system definitely has its advantages here, as you're able to charge fullspeed into one direction instead of not moving at all).

If you actually want to build ambitious things, the friction here is exhausting. And instead of being rewarded for high output you get taxed to death to prop up a system favored towards an aging/declining population. It's essentially a massive boomer tax. Younger workers have zero political leverage to change it because our demographic is just too small to matter at the ballot box.

Sure, the US definitely has its ugly sides, but if you want to work hard and actually capture the upside of what you build, it's still the only game in town. Even if that means jumping through all the hoops the current gov throws in your way.

I hope I can call myself an American one day.

Re: Green card seekers must leave U.S. to apply, Trump administration says

#918

Post by addedGone »

callmeal wrote: post #905
aucisson_masque wrote: post #834

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Immigrating to the usa is not a right. It is granted. I don't see the problem, and I'm not even American or Trump supporter. It just makes sense.

>Immigrating to the usa is not a right. It is granted. It's not about rights, it's about keeping your promises. "Join the army and get a green card" -- oops did we say that? But then we have only been fair weather friends (see how we treated pretty much any one who put their lives on the line) so I'm not very surprised at what's happening.

I don't know, some Americans are earning a ton of money in their 30s post-millitary and are retired for life and can even live abroad and keep getting their pension, do you have statistics to back it up?

Re: Green card seekers must leave U.S. to apply, Trump administration says

#920

Post by rayiner »

jmyeet wrote: post #748
varenc wrote: post #443

The internal memo on this is interesting: https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/memos/PM-... Essentially they're trying to change the rules by aggressive re-interpretation of the existing legal framework, and not actually changing any laws or regulations. I don't follow all of it, but it seems to be arguing that the "ordinary consular process", leaving the country and applying for a visa from abroad, is…

So this is an example of being careful what you wish for. Neil Gorsuch's mother had to resign in disgrace as the EPA administrator under Reagan in a case that ultimately became what was called "Chevron deference" [1]. Chevron deference meant that when Congress wrote ambiguous statutes, courts would defer to the interpretation of the agencies responsible for enforcing them. Almost 40 years of laws were written with th…

Your comment is completely wrong:

For example:

> Overturning Chevron became a mission of the conservative movement

Chevron’s biggest proponent was Justice Scalia!

> A consequence of that was that the Supreme Court accepted an interpretation that executive agencies should be government by the Administrative Procedures Act ("APA") instead. So that's been the law of the land since Loper Bright.

Executive agencies have always been governed by the APA. That’s why it’s called the “Administrative” Procedures Act.

> To change an agency rule now requires a complicated process unde rthe APA of proposing a rule change, getting public comment and generally following a statutory procedure

That’s been true since 1946. That was the whole point of the APA. Chevron itself arose out of an EPA rule making under the APA.

You’re completely mistaken about what Chevron was about. It was just about whether courts must defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes, or whether they get to decide the interpretation themselves.

Post reply on HN