Green card interviews end in handcuffs for spouses of U.S. citizens(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Green card interviews end in handcuffs for spouses of U.S. citizens
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/26/us/trump-green-card-interview-arrests.html
190 comments
A note that it's easy to "overstay" a visa when waiting for a green card interview - the wait times are often in the 6-16 month range, and if you leave the country you'll be considered to have abandoned your "petition to adjust status". It's a catch-22, and it looks like the only recourse is for an immigration lawyer to file a habeas corpus petition in federal court.
It's also worth pointing out that the nature of the green card interview is largely up to how the interviewer feels about you. It's a terrifyingly subjective experience.
There was an error in my wife's green card application that many people (including myself and our lawyer) should have caught. Our lawyer promised us that during the final interview this could be trivially corrected on the spot. Despite many smiles and laughs during the interview it's clear the interviewer didn't approve of how my current wife and I met (it involved a divorce) and so he decided that he couldn't possibly correct the error during the interview, and that while we passed, we would need to wait nearly a year for the correction.
While this was frustrating the interviewer could have just as easily decided, at his discretion, that our marriage was not "real" (despite the fact that the reason for his objection was ample evidence that it was quite real), so it was a pain we had to suffer. I've spent enough time working with petty bureaucrats to know it's better to accept whatever means they try to prove their own power than to fight it.
There was an error in my wife's green card application that many people (including myself and our lawyer) should have caught. Our lawyer promised us that during the final interview this could be trivially corrected on the spot. Despite many smiles and laughs during the interview it's clear the interviewer didn't approve of how my current wife and I met (it involved a divorce) and so he decided that he couldn't possibly correct the error during the interview, and that while we passed, we would need to wait nearly a year for the correction.
While this was frustrating the interviewer could have just as easily decided, at his discretion, that our marriage was not "real" (despite the fact that the reason for his objection was ample evidence that it was quite real), so it was a pain we had to suffer. I've spent enough time working with petty bureaucrats to know it's better to accept whatever means they try to prove their own power than to fight it.
Is it possible your lawyer was just wrong when he told you that?
Like the interpretation of the situation seems to hinge on that, because if we didn’t know that it was usually fixed on the spot, then it could very well just be protocol to go through a correction process that takes awhile (for other dumb reasons but not because someone was wronging you personally).
Like the interpretation of the situation seems to hinge on that, because if we didn’t know that it was usually fixed on the spot, then it could very well just be protocol to go through a correction process that takes awhile (for other dumb reasons but not because someone was wronging you personally).
Errors happens on immigration forms all the time. Many of them aren't a big deal and can be corrected but there's a right and wrong way to do it. Fixable errors include things like failing to mention all your employers that you worked unauthorized or your name having a different spelling in certain cases. Since unauthorized work is forgiven if marrying a US citizen, the omission of employment is a correctable error.
The right way to fix this is to type out the questions you want to correct into a document (called an errata sheet) with the corrected answers and to hand that to the visa officer with your ID at the start of the interview. The reason you want to do this is you want a paper record that you volunteered this information. Anything verbal can be argued that you only revealed such information when confronted and that's a problem.
So I don't know what your issue was. Errors with a divorce could be as serious as you weren't free to marry because at the time you got married your divorce wasn't finalized and that invalidates your entire petition and there's no correcting that.
Another big one is USCIS not believing your divorce is real. this happens if you get divorced in certain countries (eg Ghana, Nigeria) where apparently fradulent divorce decrees are a real problem.
The right way to fix this is to type out the questions you want to correct into a document (called an errata sheet) with the corrected answers and to hand that to the visa officer with your ID at the start of the interview. The reason you want to do this is you want a paper record that you volunteered this information. Anything verbal can be argued that you only revealed such information when confronted and that's a problem.
So I don't know what your issue was. Errors with a divorce could be as serious as you weren't free to marry because at the time you got married your divorce wasn't finalized and that invalidates your entire petition and there's no correcting that.
Another big one is USCIS not believing your divorce is real. this happens if you get divorced in certain countries (eg Ghana, Nigeria) where apparently fradulent divorce decrees are a real problem.
It had nothing whatsoever to do with the divorce itself, I'm a US citizen and was (legally) divorced for several years before the interview (and my marriage). The error was a typo that the interviewer was informed about well in advance of our interview, and could have been corrected by changing a value in a field which our lawyer informed us had been done many times in the past for other couples.
Nah surely this guy on HN knows more than you and you lawyer, right?
It's required to overstay, and for the case of student visas, you must abandon the visa when petitioning to adjust status. The terms of the student visa are that you cannot have immigration intentions.
When this happens, you're present without a visa, but it's not illegal. You're on a "stay authorized by the attorney general".
I'm not sure if that has changed, but the " authorized stay" thing is the defense to being present without a visa.
It does make a lot of paperwork more difficult, like getting a drivers license, when as you can't prove status.
When this happens, you're present without a visa, but it's not illegal. You're on a "stay authorized by the attorney general".
I'm not sure if that has changed, but the " authorized stay" thing is the defense to being present without a visa.
It does make a lot of paperwork more difficult, like getting a drivers license, when as you can't prove status.
This is false.
If you get married as an F1 student, it's completely fine (and encouraged) to continue your studies under your F1 visa while your I130 and I485 are pending.
There are differences here if you're marrying a US citizen vs a green card holder. If you marry a green card holder, you must maintain your status until you adjust status with your I485. If you marry a US citizen, being out of status is forgiven.
If you discontinue your studies, USCIS (particularly under this administration) might try and argue you obtained your student visa fraudulently to deny your marriage petition. The best thing you can do is complete your studies and then, if applicable, obtain OPT to further maintain status.
Any marriage where the immigrant spouse is out of status will be treated with more scrutiny by USCIS.
If you get married as an F1 student, it's completely fine (and encouraged) to continue your studies under your F1 visa while your I130 and I485 are pending.
There are differences here if you're marrying a US citizen vs a green card holder. If you marry a green card holder, you must maintain your status until you adjust status with your I485. If you marry a US citizen, being out of status is forgiven.
If you discontinue your studies, USCIS (particularly under this administration) might try and argue you obtained your student visa fraudulently to deny your marriage petition. The best thing you can do is complete your studies and then, if applicable, obtain OPT to further maintain status.
Any marriage where the immigrant spouse is out of status will be treated with more scrutiny by USCIS.
> If you discontinue your studies, USCIS (particularly under this administration) might try and argue you obtained your student visa fraudulently to deny your marriage petition. The best thing you can do is complete your studies and then, if applicable, obtain OPT to further maintain status.
There are two things that I'm not sure about:
– Is the distinction between studying (regardless of status), vs. being in status vs. having a visa? Because the three are different: you can enter as a student and study, and have your F-1 expire, and still maintain status per SEVIS.
– IANAL, but you get an EAD upon petitioning for an AOS – does that prevent you from applying for OPT?
There are two things that I'm not sure about:
– Is the distinction between studying (regardless of status), vs. being in status vs. having a visa? Because the three are different: you can enter as a student and study, and have your F-1 expire, and still maintain status per SEVIS.
– IANAL, but you get an EAD upon petitioning for an AOS – does that prevent you from applying for OPT?
You can have two (or more) separate petitions with USCIS.
For example, if you get sponsored by an employer for a green card and you marry a US citizen, you might ask which green card should you pursue? The answer is both. This is fine and encouraged.
This also comes up with people who apply for asylum. This can take years to adjudicate. What if they get married to a US citizen in the meantime? Generally, the advice is to maintain your asylum application AND apply for your marriage-based green card.
This doesn't just apply to green cards either. If you work on an H1B, it's completely fine to apply for a green card (through employment and/or marriage) at the same time. Some will point out that the H1B is a so-called dual intent visa that doesn't preclude immigrant intent but that's not really what that means because you can adjust status to a green card on a non-immigrant intent visa too.
"Immigrant intent" here really means if a consulate will issue you the visa overseas and if CBP will let you into the country if you've shown immigrant intent (which usually means filing an I130 or similar). Once someone files an I130 for you, you'll not be granted a student or visitor's visa from outside the US and if you have either, you might be denied entry at the border. Because those aren't dual intent visas.
A red flag for USCIS for visa fraud is applying for an F1 visa, coming to the US, stopping studying and getting married. To them it looks like you committed immigration fraud just to come to the US.
That's why I say you should continue your studies (and also not get married in the first few months upon entering the US on a student visa).
So there's really no studying out of status per se. If you continue your studies, your F1 is still valid. When you get your EAD or green card, you can study with that and terminate your F1 status.
If you fall out of status on an F1 for a certain period of time it might be difficult or even impossible to resume student status to study at the same or another institution. I'm honestly not familiar with the rules around this.
But you're just not really going to be studying in the US without any status.
For example, if you get sponsored by an employer for a green card and you marry a US citizen, you might ask which green card should you pursue? The answer is both. This is fine and encouraged.
This also comes up with people who apply for asylum. This can take years to adjudicate. What if they get married to a US citizen in the meantime? Generally, the advice is to maintain your asylum application AND apply for your marriage-based green card.
This doesn't just apply to green cards either. If you work on an H1B, it's completely fine to apply for a green card (through employment and/or marriage) at the same time. Some will point out that the H1B is a so-called dual intent visa that doesn't preclude immigrant intent but that's not really what that means because you can adjust status to a green card on a non-immigrant intent visa too.
"Immigrant intent" here really means if a consulate will issue you the visa overseas and if CBP will let you into the country if you've shown immigrant intent (which usually means filing an I130 or similar). Once someone files an I130 for you, you'll not be granted a student or visitor's visa from outside the US and if you have either, you might be denied entry at the border. Because those aren't dual intent visas.
A red flag for USCIS for visa fraud is applying for an F1 visa, coming to the US, stopping studying and getting married. To them it looks like you committed immigration fraud just to come to the US.
That's why I say you should continue your studies (and also not get married in the first few months upon entering the US on a student visa).
So there's really no studying out of status per se. If you continue your studies, your F1 is still valid. When you get your EAD or green card, you can study with that and terminate your F1 status.
If you fall out of status on an F1 for a certain period of time it might be difficult or even impossible to resume student status to study at the same or another institution. I'm honestly not familiar with the rules around this.
But you're just not really going to be studying in the US without any status.
Just for the record I went through this process this year with my spouse and a lawyer. My spouse did continue studying and had their i-130, i-485, and i-131, however the immigration office told our lawyer and said their F1 was no longer valid and that my spouse was under “authorized stay” not a visa any longer, especially for i-131.
I see what you mean now – thanks for clarifying for me.
This happened to someone I know. He was working on a TN visa, had his green card approved, and was waiting for an interview. He was not allowed to leave the country, but he lost his job, and had to leave the country because of the 60 days grace period of the visa. Because he left, he lost his green card application.
You both:
1. Can't leave the country because of immigration laws.
2. Have to leave the country because of immigration laws.
You both:
1. Can't leave the country because of immigration laws.
2. Have to leave the country because of immigration laws.
A TN visa is explicitly a "non-immigrant visa", there isn't supposed to be a pathway to permanent residency.
It's still possible to through an adjustment of status but the hoops around not leaving the country are much more awkward.
Because permanent immigration is not the intent of a TN visa, it's a loophole.
It's still possible to through an adjustment of status but the hoops around not leaving the country are much more awkward.
Because permanent immigration is not the intent of a TN visa, it's a loophole.
[deleted]
So there are three paths to getting a marriage-based green card:
1. You do what's called consular processing out of the country;
2. You adjust status in the country; and
3. A fiance visa (K1). I'm going to ignore this.
For (1), your US citizen or green card holder spouse will wil an I130 visa petition to show that you're legally married. USCIS will confirm that you are legally married (including both of you being free to marry) and then it gets sent to NVC (National Visa Center) and you get documentarily qualified. This whole thing can take 6-9 months. It can take substantially longer if there are certain risk factors as far as USCIS is concerned for fraud. Large age gap, certain countries of origins (particularly the Phillipines), etc.
Once you are documentarily qualified, the foreign spouse will apply for an interview at a foreign consulate. This used to be anywhere but as per a recent rule change by this administration, now has to be the country of origin, meaning if you're Canadian you have to do it in Canada not the UK or Italy or whatever.
This may not seem like a big deal but the wait in some countries can be years long, just for the interview.
While this is all pending, you likely will be unable to visit the US because you've shown immigreant intent so you'll be denied ESTA or a visitor's visa most likely. Or, if you have a visitor's visa, you may be denied entry at the border.
For a standard case, this whole thing will take about 2 years. There are a whole bunch of steps like biometrics, police checks, etc and there are cases where you may need waivers of inadmissibility (eg if you have a 3 year bar or have a felony conviction). Those waivers can add years.
For (2), the process differs if you're marrying a green card holder or a US citizen.
If you have a marry a green card holder, they file an I130 petition and you'll get a priority date. There is a quota for these green cards. When your priority date becomes current, you the file an I485 for your spouse. Your immigrant spouse must've remained in status for this entire time up to and including when the I485 is approved. Because of the quota, this can take years and people will often become US citizens before the process is complete.
There is no quota for immediate relatives of US citizens (including spouses, parents and children under 18). If you marry a US citizen, you generally file the I130 and I485 concurrently. You can optionally also apply for advance parole, which will allow you to travel (more on that below), and an EAD, which will allow you to work until you get your green card. At this time people often get their green cards before their EADs so many don't even apply for them currently.
So, traveling. If you have a pending I485 and you leave the US you have in the eyes of USCIS abandoned that I485. You are now out of the country and most likely will be barred from re-entering the US, forcing you to consular process. You might be able to return if you have an immigrant intent visa like an H1B but it's generally recommended not to travel at all while you have a pending I485 application if you can possibly avoid it.
If you marry a US citizen, being out of status and working without authorization are both forgiven. This isn't the case for a marriage to a green card holder I believe. But if you marry a green card holder and while your application is pending they become a US citizen (as often happens), then the US citizen rules apply anyway.
So, if you are on a TN visa and have a pending I130 and I485, you have two choices:
1. You can leave the country and go back to Canada. This will abandon your I485 (but not the I130) and will force you to consular process. You'll be gone for 1-2 years most likely and likely unable to visit. This is the safest option however but obviously most people don't want to be separate from their spouse for so long, understanbly; or
2. You accept that you will be out of status and you stay. Any overstay of less than 6 months generally isn't an issue although working unauthorized is if, for some reason, your marriage petition is withdrawn or denied. If you overstay 6-12 months, you have an automatic 3 year bar on returning should you leave. If you overstay more than 1 year, it's a 10 year bar.
In the current administration, I think there are zero marriage petitions that should be done yourself. You should have a lawyer. Any decent lawyer who will be able to lay out the options as I've described.
Assuming your case is fairly straightforward and you've already filed the I130 and I485, I'd generally suggest people just accept the overstay and adjust in the US although I can certainly understand the "cleaner" (but longer) approach of choosing consular processing instead, particularly if you are still in status and don't have any automatic bar due to a 6+ month overstay.
1. You do what's called consular processing out of the country;
2. You adjust status in the country; and
3. A fiance visa (K1). I'm going to ignore this.
For (1), your US citizen or green card holder spouse will wil an I130 visa petition to show that you're legally married. USCIS will confirm that you are legally married (including both of you being free to marry) and then it gets sent to NVC (National Visa Center) and you get documentarily qualified. This whole thing can take 6-9 months. It can take substantially longer if there are certain risk factors as far as USCIS is concerned for fraud. Large age gap, certain countries of origins (particularly the Phillipines), etc.
Once you are documentarily qualified, the foreign spouse will apply for an interview at a foreign consulate. This used to be anywhere but as per a recent rule change by this administration, now has to be the country of origin, meaning if you're Canadian you have to do it in Canada not the UK or Italy or whatever.
This may not seem like a big deal but the wait in some countries can be years long, just for the interview.
While this is all pending, you likely will be unable to visit the US because you've shown immigreant intent so you'll be denied ESTA or a visitor's visa most likely. Or, if you have a visitor's visa, you may be denied entry at the border.
For a standard case, this whole thing will take about 2 years. There are a whole bunch of steps like biometrics, police checks, etc and there are cases where you may need waivers of inadmissibility (eg if you have a 3 year bar or have a felony conviction). Those waivers can add years.
For (2), the process differs if you're marrying a green card holder or a US citizen.
If you have a marry a green card holder, they file an I130 petition and you'll get a priority date. There is a quota for these green cards. When your priority date becomes current, you the file an I485 for your spouse. Your immigrant spouse must've remained in status for this entire time up to and including when the I485 is approved. Because of the quota, this can take years and people will often become US citizens before the process is complete.
There is no quota for immediate relatives of US citizens (including spouses, parents and children under 18). If you marry a US citizen, you generally file the I130 and I485 concurrently. You can optionally also apply for advance parole, which will allow you to travel (more on that below), and an EAD, which will allow you to work until you get your green card. At this time people often get their green cards before their EADs so many don't even apply for them currently.
So, traveling. If you have a pending I485 and you leave the US you have in the eyes of USCIS abandoned that I485. You are now out of the country and most likely will be barred from re-entering the US, forcing you to consular process. You might be able to return if you have an immigrant intent visa like an H1B but it's generally recommended not to travel at all while you have a pending I485 application if you can possibly avoid it.
If you marry a US citizen, being out of status and working without authorization are both forgiven. This isn't the case for a marriage to a green card holder I believe. But if you marry a green card holder and while your application is pending they become a US citizen (as often happens), then the US citizen rules apply anyway.
So, if you are on a TN visa and have a pending I130 and I485, you have two choices:
1. You can leave the country and go back to Canada. This will abandon your I485 (but not the I130) and will force you to consular process. You'll be gone for 1-2 years most likely and likely unable to visit. This is the safest option however but obviously most people don't want to be separate from their spouse for so long, understanbly; or
2. You accept that you will be out of status and you stay. Any overstay of less than 6 months generally isn't an issue although working unauthorized is if, for some reason, your marriage petition is withdrawn or denied. If you overstay 6-12 months, you have an automatic 3 year bar on returning should you leave. If you overstay more than 1 year, it's a 10 year bar.
In the current administration, I think there are zero marriage petitions that should be done yourself. You should have a lawyer. Any decent lawyer who will be able to lay out the options as I've described.
Assuming your case is fairly straightforward and you've already filed the I130 and I485, I'd generally suggest people just accept the overstay and adjust in the US although I can certainly understand the "cleaner" (but longer) approach of choosing consular processing instead, particularly if you are still in status and don't have any automatic bar due to a 6+ month overstay.
You're phrasing this a bit oddly. There isn't any immigration law saying he cannot leave the country.
There is a law saying that if you leave the country you abandon your green card application.
Combined with losing his visa and having to leave the country, this just means that the law says if you lose your visa, you lose your green card application too.
But you can always legally leave the country forever.
There is a law saying that if you leave the country you abandon your green card application.
Combined with losing his visa and having to leave the country, this just means that the law says if you lose your visa, you lose your green card application too.
But you can always legally leave the country forever.
> It's a catch-22
What do immigration attorneys recommend in this scenario?
I don’t get the catch-22, time’s up & you leave
Happens to H1Bs all the time
What do immigration attorneys recommend in this scenario?
I don’t get the catch-22, time’s up & you leave
Happens to H1Bs all the time
Your immigration attorney will advise that you overstay. If you do not, your application will be abandoned.
The "overstay" was scare quotes – you're allowed to stay.
But TFA says that it was people exactly in this situation who were apprehended by ICE and then set for deportation proceedings. According to the current administration you are NOT allowed to stay, and that's where the Catch-22 is.
The whole thing just further exemplifies the "cruelty is the point" ideal.
The whole thing just further exemplifies the "cruelty is the point" ideal.
Do you know what the “overstay” status is called ?
I remember reading that depending on which country you’re from, the waiting time can be years or even decades. Is that true? If so that’s crazy and cruel.
Country of birth does determine the "priority date" waiting list. Specifically for Philippines, Mexico, India and China. Due to demand. Everyone else is in the rest of the world bucket.
For those countries (especially India) the wait can be more than a decade.
Moving to a points based immigration system without country of birth consideration may one day happen.
Depending on what contributes to points it would encourage better English language abilities and skill sets from immigrants (eg winners being China and India, losers being Mexico)
For those countries (especially India) the wait can be more than a decade.
Moving to a points based immigration system without country of birth consideration may one day happen.
Depending on what contributes to points it would encourage better English language abilities and skill sets from immigrants (eg winners being China and India, losers being Mexico)
> Moving to a points based immigration system without country of birth consideration may one day happen.
Anything, honestly, to end the need for informal lawyering that even immigrants with straightforward situations still have to do.
Anything, honestly, to end the need for informal lawyering that even immigrants with straightforward situations still have to do.
Even if the system is simple enough to not need a lawyer, you should always use one.
Depends on the visa category. Family preference visas for siblings can have waiting lists in the decades. But family preference visas for spouses of citizens have no wait list. It's just the system is slow. We went through some of it long ago, her time here threw us into proximity, proximity turned to love. That meant an adjustment of status, her old visa became invalid when we applied, but you have permission to stay while such an application is being processed. A hair under 6 months from application to first interview, a hair under two years before she got conditional permanent residency. (And I think that timing was not a coincidence, they stretched it out to just below the point it wouldn't have been conditional.) I would be terrified to do that under the current administration.
This really depends on your relationship with the other person and your status (e.g. US citizen, permanent resident, etc). Long story short, if you are the spouse or immediate family of an US citizen, there isn't any queue to get permanent resident status aside from whatever time it takes the US government to process the various forms. That time can be substantial, e.g. 2-3 years but it's nothing like the multi-year wait that a spouse of a permanent resident needs to go through just to apply for permanent resident status.
Only if you think it is crazy and cruel to disallow someone from another country to become a legal resident and then eventually a citizen of the US.
In many circumstances - including when that person is married to a US citizen, or when they'll likely be killed on return to their country of birth - it is indeed crazy and cruel.
(In more ordinary circumstances it's merely arbitrary and unjust.)
(In more ordinary circumstances it's merely arbitrary and unjust.)
I wanted to be a citizen of Singapore and was never approved.
I agree it was arbitrary and unjust. I deserved to be a citizen.
I agree it was arbitrary and unjust. I deserved to be a citizen.
Yes, this is by no means only a U.S. problem. Some countries are worse, even where birth rate trends seem like they should make it more obviously self-destructive. A tendency towards xenophobia seems to be an unfortunate human universal, although one we can sometimes overcome.
When they're married to an American? When they have kids that are American? It's not crazy nor cruel, to you, to separate a mother from her infant?
You are demanding that their American spouse either divorce them or spend the rest of their life in another country. Of course it’s crazy and cruel.
The issue is spousal visas. I did not seek to marry a foreigner, our relationship was proximity turning into a whole lot more. We consider it cruel to tear apart couples.
As ever, the craziness and the cruelty is the point.
This is a misrepresentation. Some of these people entered on the K1 which REQUIRES marriage within 3 months. They get married 18 months later and wonder why they're getting deported for a giant visa overstay. It's fraudulent, you enter on a visa, explicitly promise to marry quickly, do not do so and expect no repercussions.
I am surprised people are willing to put up with this sort inhumane treatment. A person I know has been waiting for 16+ years for his green card. They've very rarely traveled out of the USA together as a family because they were afraid they might be a problem getting back in. The people I know are not even desperate migrants where this sort of treatment is still better than the lives they are living - yet they still normalise it. When I ask them why they tolerate such draconian conditions, I get answers such as "well, we didn't realise it would take this long" or "this doesn't happen to people like us".
Everyone back home in Texas wondered why my husband (a German) wouldn’t “let” us move to the US.
He was open to doing at least a few years over there; he’d enjoyed his exchange during university back in the 90s.
I was the one who said no, having seen the hell my colleagues married to Germans and other western Europeans were going through with US immigration.
Instead, I got a German residence permit without much fuss, and converted to a permanent one (Green Card equivalent) at a renewal when the clerk pointed out I was past the minimum time needed on my renewable one and encouraged me to apply.
Everyone complains about German bureaucracy, and I did have to bring in a fair bit of paperwork, but they do a prep appointment where they give you a list of exactly what they want to see from you specifically when you file your application.
He was open to doing at least a few years over there; he’d enjoyed his exchange during university back in the 90s.
I was the one who said no, having seen the hell my colleagues married to Germans and other western Europeans were going through with US immigration.
Instead, I got a German residence permit without much fuss, and converted to a permanent one (Green Card equivalent) at a renewal when the clerk pointed out I was past the minimum time needed on my renewable one and encouraged me to apply.
Everyone complains about German bureaucracy, and I did have to bring in a fair bit of paperwork, but they do a prep appointment where they give you a list of exactly what they want to see from you specifically when you file your application.
For every anecdote here about a (very) bad experience with US immigration policy, there are 1000s daily that go on fine. It is a very large complex system that has issues, but for the majority it is working.
Find the specific issues and fix them.
Counter Anecdote: My wife won the Diversity Immigrant Visa Program, aka Green Card lottery. Came here with close to nothing and not speaking more than a sentence or two of English.
Find the specific issues and fix them.
Counter Anecdote: My wife won the Diversity Immigrant Visa Program, aka Green Card lottery. Came here with close to nothing and not speaking more than a sentence or two of English.
And that's about the only type of visa where that happens.
Makes sense - and I have interacted with bureaucracy in a lot of countries. The FUD that US immigration seem to install in immigrants seems uncalled for.
The Republicans have never liked immigrants. They have succeeded in keeping things underfunded so the bureaucracy stretches out far longer than needed in a sane system.
And underfunded to the point of delaying things despite fees for comparable activities being far more expensive on the US side than in Germany, and even before this year.
It's certainly less FUD now that we have secret police and a psuedo-monarch dedicated to ruining the lives of immigrants.
If I were an immigrant, or someone wanting to immigrate to the US, I would consider it carefully.
If I were an immigrant, or someone wanting to immigrate to the US, I would consider it carefully.
Supply and demand. The US is by far the top place people want to be, so however poorly they treat applicants, there will still be an infinite supply of people willing to put up with it.
And sometimes there isn't really a choice. Life threw us together, our hearts had their own ideas about the situation. The only choices were put up with the process or separate.
I get that, but the kind of white collar workers who are putting up with this have options all over the world. Why would even such people put up with it?
Depends on the work? Software salaries in the US are so far beyond anywhere else in the world that it puts you in a significantly different lifestyle.
One year of a kafkaesque process to make $500k/year instead of 70k Euros is a trade worth it to tons of people to make the go at it. And that’s for stable corporate jobs, it gets even more favorable if you want to start a company.
One year of a kafkaesque process to make $500k/year instead of 70k Euros is a trade worth it to tons of people to make the go at it. And that’s for stable corporate jobs, it gets even more favorable if you want to start a company.
Professional opportunity or quality of life, most likely. Nowhere else even comes close to the US in terms of professional and economic opportunity.
In terms of professional and economic opportunity, sure, but in terms of quality of life half of the European countries eclipse the US.
That's entirely subjective for sure. The USA is a continent sized country and not a one-size-fits-all like most European countries. Each state should be viewed as its own European sized country with its own warts and all. You will have some backwater, inbred states like AL, MS and GA but places like CA or New England or NY are just eons above anything Europe has to offer. Again, it's all subjective.
What I'm hearing about CA and NY is 10hr work days if you're lucky, 2/3 jobs to make ends meet if you're not, and absurd rents.
It is true that it is probably better in the US if you're privileged, but then again it's good everywhere if you're privileged. The difference is in the quality of life of the average person.
It is true that it is probably better in the US if you're privileged, but then again it's good everywhere if you're privileged. The difference is in the quality of life of the average person.
> What I'm hearing about CA and NY is 10hr work days if you're lucky, 2/3 jobs to make ends meet if you're not, and absurd rents.
All these things can be said about most countries you'd want to live in nowadays.
All these things can be said about most countries you'd want to live in nowadays.
Healthcare in USA is a nightmare, from almost every perspective.
But a lot of countries like Canada, EU nations and other developed countries (and even in developing nations like India) have free or affordable healthcare systems.
So, at least from a healthcare metric, most of these nations trump USA (pun intended, since Trump scrapped or crippled Obamacare, which itself wasn't a full-fledged solution to the healthcare crisis prevalent in USA).
But a lot of countries like Canada, EU nations and other developed countries (and even in developing nations like India) have free or affordable healthcare systems.
So, at least from a healthcare metric, most of these nations trump USA (pun intended, since Trump scrapped or crippled Obamacare, which itself wasn't a full-fledged solution to the healthcare crisis prevalent in USA).
Most of the countries with free healthcare are dying at the seams. Look at the NHS in England, you can't even get appointments as there are so few doctors. Operations take years to be done. In the USA you get ops real fast and doctors can be seen same day. Obamacare has only reset back to pre-COVID subsidies so it was always temporary the COVID subsidies, per the Inflation Reduction Act 2021.
> In the USA you get ops real fast and doctors can be seen same day.
IF the patient has Medical Insurance.
Only in the USA, medical insurance seems to be tied to employment. Non-employment driven medicare is unaffordable except for the filthy rich.
If someone is unemployed or poor, they won't be able to afford or get healthcare (not even for a toothache!) in the USA.
EU nations are struggling with state-sponsored Medicare because those are old systems that weren't improved with growing populations and the needs of modern times, and there are concerted efforts by Big Pharma to cripple and dismantle such free or affordable healthcare. NHS is under attack by Big Pharma is you read the news closely.
EU nations also made tne mistake of intaking thousands of "refugees" many of whom are still jobless and a constant drain on the nation's fragile Medicare system and social service subsidies.
Contrast this to countries like India which has lots of expert doctors and excellent hospitals, and free clinics and free healthcare for the poor. India also has state-sponsored pharmacies selling generics medicines that are extremely affordable substitutes for Big-Pharma-branded medicines.
e.g., A metal stent for a heart surgery in India costs a pittance compared to rest of the world. A dental root canal treatment costs around 5000 rupees (around $55). Foreigners visit India to get cheap (but high quality) Medicare (especially surgeries). One diabetic American I personally know gets his Insulin from India, because it is cheaper despite the shipping cost involved. There's a growing industry for "medical tourism" in India, as catered packages, wherein a foreigner needing surgery arrives with family to stay at a nice hotel, then gets timely appointment and surgery at a reputed hospital by skilled doctors, and then patient and family can recuperate at a nice holiday resort and partake in some local sightseeing as guided tours as part of the whole package.
I am not trying to belittle USA here, but even the staunchest American patriot will agree their healthcare system is under the crippling grip of Big Pharma and bad policies, and is anti-poor by design, and desperately needs an overhaul to become at par with the best healthcare systems in other developed nations. A closer look at America's neighbor Canada's healthcare system will be an eye opener on how to do healthcare better.
IF the patient has Medical Insurance.
Only in the USA, medical insurance seems to be tied to employment. Non-employment driven medicare is unaffordable except for the filthy rich.
If someone is unemployed or poor, they won't be able to afford or get healthcare (not even for a toothache!) in the USA.
EU nations are struggling with state-sponsored Medicare because those are old systems that weren't improved with growing populations and the needs of modern times, and there are concerted efforts by Big Pharma to cripple and dismantle such free or affordable healthcare. NHS is under attack by Big Pharma is you read the news closely.
EU nations also made tne mistake of intaking thousands of "refugees" many of whom are still jobless and a constant drain on the nation's fragile Medicare system and social service subsidies.
Contrast this to countries like India which has lots of expert doctors and excellent hospitals, and free clinics and free healthcare for the poor. India also has state-sponsored pharmacies selling generics medicines that are extremely affordable substitutes for Big-Pharma-branded medicines.
e.g., A metal stent for a heart surgery in India costs a pittance compared to rest of the world. A dental root canal treatment costs around 5000 rupees (around $55). Foreigners visit India to get cheap (but high quality) Medicare (especially surgeries). One diabetic American I personally know gets his Insulin from India, because it is cheaper despite the shipping cost involved. There's a growing industry for "medical tourism" in India, as catered packages, wherein a foreigner needing surgery arrives with family to stay at a nice hotel, then gets timely appointment and surgery at a reputed hospital by skilled doctors, and then patient and family can recuperate at a nice holiday resort and partake in some local sightseeing as guided tours as part of the whole package.
I am not trying to belittle USA here, but even the staunchest American patriot will agree their healthcare system is under the crippling grip of Big Pharma and bad policies, and is anti-poor by design, and desperately needs an overhaul to become at par with the best healthcare systems in other developed nations. A closer look at America's neighbor Canada's healthcare system will be an eye opener on how to do healthcare better.
>even the staunchest American patriot will agree their healthcare system is under the crippling grip of Big Pharma and bad policies, and is anti-poor by design
Sadly you are drastically overestimating American patriots
Sadly you are drastically overestimating American patriots
Lol I've been hearing this nonsense since i was in kindergarten. Those countries all have better health outcomes than the US.
Nope, not for half of Europe and that's my entire point.
California and New York are actually among the most inbred states, because they have the largest populations of recent Muslim immigrants, and cousin marriage is more prevalent in the Muslim world than it is in other places: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_marriage#/media/File:Gl... . There's not all that many Muslims in Alabama or Mississippi; Georgia has somewhat more, probably because of Atlanta's status as a major city that attracts sizeable numbers of immigrants.
This is frankly somewhat ludicrous. Federal law applies everywhere. The national economy affects everyone.
I've lived in many states, the differences are minor.
I've lived in many states, the differences are minor.
Countries like Denmark, Switzerland or Netherlands indeed offer very good quality of life but the language barrier is substantial. Tons of people know English as a second language and almost no one knows, say, Danish as a second language.
Oh I didn't mean americans should come over. Please don't. Deal with your mess instead of extending it here.
> Deal with your mess instead of extending it here.
This is exactly the justification for all the anti-immigration policies, the idea that immigrants from foreign countries have extended the mess that is in their home countries to the United States, and the only way to prevent it is to prevent those people from having the right to settle permanently in the United States.
This is exactly the justification for all the anti-immigration policies, the idea that immigrants from foreign countries have extended the mess that is in their home countries to the United States, and the only way to prevent it is to prevent those people from having the right to settle permanently in the United States.
Oh I didn't mean [Mexicans] should come over. Please don't. Deal with your mess instead of extending it here [US].
And there is the fact that countries like Denmark are tightening up immigration even tighter than the US. The EU countries that tried a more open boarder quickly realized how it can spiral out of control.
[deleted]
Then why don't EU countries have the same demand for citizenship as the US? (I don't have numbers, maybe there is?)
[deleted]
I think you answer your own question:
> "this doesn't happen to people like us".
Up until now wasn't this the case that generally white collar workers would only face issues in very narrow set of conditions? And even now, are all irregular migrants experience the same worsening prospects?
> "this doesn't happen to people like us".
Up until now wasn't this the case that generally white collar workers would only face issues in very narrow set of conditions? And even now, are all irregular migrants experience the same worsening prospects?
Propaganda
a) money make up for a lot of systemic deficiencies, adding here taxes, which are insanely high all across EU, salaries are several times lower here too
b) English language as a first class language. For example, while there are many job offers promising English only requirement, in reality a significant part of these unofficially presume you will speak local language at proficient level in the team, and hiring process filters for that.
c) EU countries have a lot of their own bureaucracy hell regarding immigration. For example I'm now on a Blue Card status in EU, that's a high skilled immigration program. I need to renew my card for the next 1 to 3 year period, I've started process in Sep 2025 and best case scenario will get card around next winter 26/27. Worst case scenario, add half a year more to that. If I want to get a passport, originally I had to dance through these hoops for at minimum 9 years. Just recently it increased to 11 year. And right now there is a law proposal in the parliament, increasing this term to minimum 17 years (among other inane requirements). If that passes, they may increase it even more in the future, making all immigrants live on the flimsy status for decades. USA at least makes the process faster, even if unpredictable.
tl;dr - EU is nice, just like USA is nice in it's own way, but in both countries immigrants have to put up with a lot of legal BS.
b) English language as a first class language. For example, while there are many job offers promising English only requirement, in reality a significant part of these unofficially presume you will speak local language at proficient level in the team, and hiring process filters for that.
c) EU countries have a lot of their own bureaucracy hell regarding immigration. For example I'm now on a Blue Card status in EU, that's a high skilled immigration program. I need to renew my card for the next 1 to 3 year period, I've started process in Sep 2025 and best case scenario will get card around next winter 26/27. Worst case scenario, add half a year more to that. If I want to get a passport, originally I had to dance through these hoops for at minimum 9 years. Just recently it increased to 11 year. And right now there is a law proposal in the parliament, increasing this term to minimum 17 years (among other inane requirements). If that passes, they may increase it even more in the future, making all immigrants live on the flimsy status for decades. USA at least makes the process faster, even if unpredictable.
tl;dr - EU is nice, just like USA is nice in it's own way, but in both countries immigrants have to put up with a lot of legal BS.
The delusion that they're a temporarily embarrassed millionaire is not limited to American citizens.
Once you see it one sees low grade to high grade affinity fraud everywhere.
People would rather align with wealth and power and pretend they are part of the club than align with the other schmucks like them.
People would rather align with wealth and power and pretend they are part of the club than align with the other schmucks like them.
Despite the challenges with current government, the USA is still the best country in the world for most things. Some will disagree but they are in a minority. People who have never been or lived in the USA likely won't understand why this is. I stopped bothering to explain it to others a long time ago as their views are mostly influenced by biased media in their home country.
> their views are mostly influenced by biased media in their home country.
Mirror, mirror on the wall...
(As you've already concluded, don't bother...)
Mirror, mirror on the wall...
(As you've already concluded, don't bother...)
Your parent comment is probably satire, but given current situations, one can never be sure.
No satire intended. It's more a simple reflection on reality.
As a US citizen with plenty of travel experience, there are actually scant few things the USA is best at, especially when it comes to quality of life for ordinary people.
US residents who rarely leave their borders likely won't understand why this is.
US residents who rarely leave their borders likely won't understand why this is.
Replying as this is not satire, it is 100% true. Social media amplifies this, news regurgitates it and we fight online while advertisers get their clicks.
Truly brave feat of public service getting those criminals off the street.
Enter on visa that requires marriage within 3 months, don't do it despite promising the government you would, then cry victim when you're deported for overstaying an entire year?
Why can't they just do what their visa REQUIRES by law?
Why can't they just do what their visa REQUIRES by law?
How easy it is to get married? Get the various birth certificates, get eligibility papers, get an appointment, oops, you are over the 3 months. Beep, 6 months in some DHS warehouse, have fun, try again later.
Friendly reminder that it's often not possible to differentiate snark or sarcasm from cruel indifference towards fellow human beings on Hacker News.
I don’t know that this reply was warranted, it’s clearly sarcasm.
any lay-up for that Poe's Law reference is probably welcome ;) Much more fun context than just /s
Obligatory XKCD comic reference:
https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1984:_Misinterpre...
Obviously sarcasm
Why does the spouse of an American citizen not automatically gain permanent residence permit?
Green card marriages. Aka two-legged visa.
The reality is most applications are deemed fraudulent. We had to do the life trivia interview--separate us, ask the same questions, compare the answers. Talking with my wife later I found some flaws in their questions (things like "what does she usually wear at night" vs "what did you wear last night"--oops, we had stayed over at my parent's place the night before, she wore more than usual) but even then I could see how their attitude changed--apparently most "couples" bomb that interview. (And he would not accept that the question about brand of TV, I said she will say she doesn't know. He didn't believe that was possible--the TV predated the relationship, this was from when TVs started being just the tube with a minimum of frame, thus the name was small. It would have surprised me if she knew.)
The reality is most applications are deemed fraudulent. We had to do the life trivia interview--separate us, ask the same questions, compare the answers. Talking with my wife later I found some flaws in their questions (things like "what does she usually wear at night" vs "what did you wear last night"--oops, we had stayed over at my parent's place the night before, she wore more than usual) but even then I could see how their attitude changed--apparently most "couples" bomb that interview. (And he would not accept that the question about brand of TV, I said she will say she doesn't know. He didn't believe that was possible--the TV predated the relationship, this was from when TVs started being just the tube with a minimum of frame, thus the name was small. It would have surprised me if she knew.)
Probably because the government wants to make sure the spouse does not have an extensive criminal record and is not currently being sanctioned by the government.
Yeah this is a dont come to USA to set roots advert basically. It is impossible to get PR without prison time.
Yup. Live elsewhere in a Schengen country and have the spouse get citizenship there. At least they'll have proper healthcare and not be treated arbitrarily like criminals.
US has descended into a banana Republic. And I'm surprised how many people are cheering it along the way.
As an American with a foreign-spouse who went through the green card application long before Trump, these stories are heart-breaking but also what I expected. I guess these couples and lawyers were just counting on lax enforcement? But this was never allowed.
The article is very light on details, but implies all of these spouses travelled to the US on a visa waiver (or similar) and then applied for a green card. Entering the US on most visas includes the assertion that you have no intent to immigrate. If you happen to already be in the US when you fall in love, get married, and apply to stay, that's when you're allowed to overstay during your pending application.
As far as I can tell from the article, it appears all of these people committed immigration fraud by entering on non-immigrant visas with clear intent to immigrate. Given that they're almost certainly upstanding people who intended to do the right thing, I think they could safely be asked to leave and apply correctly without the forceful detention, but they are technically in the wrong. What they did is specifically something I knew not to do and went through great pains to avoid.
The immigration processes for legitimate foreign spouses are Kafkaesque and absolutely need to be overhauled. It shouldn't be easier to come in illegally than through legitimate marriage. But in the meantime, people also can't circumvent the existing laws and then act flabbergasted when called on it.
I really do feel terrible for these couples caught up in it, especially since it seems their lawyers misled them.
The article is very light on details, but implies all of these spouses travelled to the US on a visa waiver (or similar) and then applied for a green card. Entering the US on most visas includes the assertion that you have no intent to immigrate. If you happen to already be in the US when you fall in love, get married, and apply to stay, that's when you're allowed to overstay during your pending application.
As far as I can tell from the article, it appears all of these people committed immigration fraud by entering on non-immigrant visas with clear intent to immigrate. Given that they're almost certainly upstanding people who intended to do the right thing, I think they could safely be asked to leave and apply correctly without the forceful detention, but they are technically in the wrong. What they did is specifically something I knew not to do and went through great pains to avoid.
The immigration processes for legitimate foreign spouses are Kafkaesque and absolutely need to be overhauled. It shouldn't be easier to come in illegally than through legitimate marriage. But in the meantime, people also can't circumvent the existing laws and then act flabbergasted when called on it.
I really do feel terrible for these couples caught up in it, especially since it seems their lawyers misled them.
The article says "temporary visas", not visa waivers. It also says "They had already been granted employment authorization". But I agree more details would be helpful.
It's extremely unlikely a journalist this haphazard is going to differentiate between a visa waiver and a temporary visa. Obviously some came on other visa if they could work, but it doesn't matter anyway; any non-immigrant visa you enter with will include the requirement that you have no intent to immigrate.
The only options are to be lucky enough to have decided to get married and immigrate after you were already in the US, or to do the application from overseas.
The only options are to be lucky enough to have decided to get married and immigrate after you were already in the US, or to do the application from overseas.
So the right process is to request for a K1 fiancé visa which takes over a year?!
I can see why people were tempted to cut corners, especially given past tolerance…
I can see why people were tempted to cut corners, especially given past tolerance…
Yes, exactly. Your legal options are to either remain separated for one or two years while you wait, or the American can immigrate to the spouse’s country and wait there (since almost every other country is easier to immigrate to).
It's an inhumane system, but as someone heavily impacted by US immigration policy, I'd much prefer they enforce the laws evenly and then fix them where they're broken rather than disadvantaging everyone going through the legal process while those that cheat get to jump ahead.
It's an inhumane system, but as someone heavily impacted by US immigration policy, I'd much prefer they enforce the laws evenly and then fix them where they're broken rather than disadvantaging everyone going through the legal process while those that cheat get to jump ahead.
> I'd much prefer they enforce the laws evenly and then fix them where they're broken rather than disadvantaging everyone going through the legal process while those that cheat get to jump ahead.
That is incredibly optimistic to believe that any legislation reforming immigration will be passed in the next decade.
There is a reason ICE was neutralized until now. Life is short. We don't have time for congress to play politics while Americans and their spouses suffer. Let people live their lives.
That is incredibly optimistic to believe that any legislation reforming immigration will be passed in the next decade.
There is a reason ICE was neutralized until now. Life is short. We don't have time for congress to play politics while Americans and their spouses suffer. Let people live their lives.
Maybe I'm too stiff, but even if they don't get around to updating the laws, I'd still prefer they enforce the ones that exist so it's clear, fair, and safe. And so upstanding citizens aren't spending years separated from their spouses while they keep getting skipped by people willing to cheat the system.
It's not even a law that results in the years-long wait; it's just because the system is clogged up with other junk and understaffed. As other's have mentioned; there's no formal waiting for citizen spouses—it's supposed to be immediate—it's just that they don't even get to look at your application for years.
It's not even a law that results in the years-long wait; it's just because the system is clogged up with other junk and understaffed. As other's have mentioned; there's no formal waiting for citizen spouses—it's supposed to be immediate—it's just that they don't even get to look at your application for years.
What would be your definition of “upstanding citizens”.
I’ve found that people tend to respond as you have until the laws impact themselves or their friends. Then it’s very much a case of - I didn’t think this applied to us…
I’ve found that people tend to respond as you have until the laws impact themselves or their friends. Then it’s very much a case of - I didn’t think this applied to us…
People following the actual immigration law, like I did. This very much impacts me and has determined my family's country of residence for many years. The process is horrible, but we still aren't cheating and I don't appreciate being skipped by people that are cheating.
I've spent hours on immigrations forums trying to understand the law and have filed many US Federal forms (and have mad mistakes) taken years to get action done while following the law.
It really feels like a slap in the face to the people who do the "right thing" to allow others to be allowed in freely not following the law.
Fix the issues first.
It really feels like a slap in the face to the people who do the "right thing" to allow others to be allowed in freely not following the law.
Fix the issues first.
danenania(2)
As somebody also directly impacted by the US immigration system, yes please do enforce the laws on the books universally and impartially.
Immigration reform will happen, but regardless no queue cutting.
Immigration reform will happen, but regardless no queue cutting.
Yeah, we married in California but then left when my wife finished her Ph.D. and used up her optional practical training period on her student visa. After about four years of being an expat, I realized it wasn't for me and we started planning a return.
So, we filed the spousal petition with USCIS overseas. It was a lot of paperwork, interviews for her, and some process delays. Eventually she got her immigrant visa issued. Upon arrival in the US on that visa, it was endorsed to reflect immigration status.
This was about fifteen years ago, and as I recall the process delays were pretty much as advertised at the time. We were able to time our filing so that the visa was issued around when she would be ready to relocate.
Most of the time we spent apart was due to our conflicting career opportunities and obligations. I think the petition could have been pipelined better if I'd been willing to stick with my expat job until she also wrapped up her work there.
So, we filed the spousal petition with USCIS overseas. It was a lot of paperwork, interviews for her, and some process delays. Eventually she got her immigrant visa issued. Upon arrival in the US on that visa, it was endorsed to reflect immigration status.
This was about fifteen years ago, and as I recall the process delays were pretty much as advertised at the time. We were able to time our filing so that the visa was issued around when she would be ready to relocate.
Most of the time we spent apart was due to our conflicting career opportunities and obligations. I think the petition could have been pipelined better if I'd been willing to stick with my expat job until she also wrapped up her work there.
> I can see why people were tempted to cut corners, especially given past tolerance…
Which is one of the reasons that the pre-trump executive orders that granted leniency and amnesty at times were all terrible terrible things to do. We really have a problem in this country where we've decided that the laws suck, but we don't want to do the hard part of changing the law, so we just decide to ignore it. Until at some point someone comes along and decides to enforce the law and now a whole bunch of people who were acting on the de facto state of the law now have to deal with the consequences of the de jure state of the law.
Immigration is a place we've done this a lot, but things like the status of marijuana across the country is also predicated on this sort of arbitrary non-enforcement of the law. Obviously the states are not obligated to enforce federal law, but the feds absolutely can. The feds could raid every marijuana dispensary in the country and take them all down with barely a hiccup, at least from a legality standpoint. Yet they don't because we have decided to arbitrarily not enforce the law, even if we haven't changed the law.
I had really hoped after Trump's first term, we would have seen a real awakening to the amount of things that are allowed only because we don't actually enforce the laws that are on the books, and a real push to both fix the laws and roll back the abuses of executive power like this. But we didn't seem to learn that lesson, and sadly it doesn't look like that lesson is going to be learned this time either.
Which is one of the reasons that the pre-trump executive orders that granted leniency and amnesty at times were all terrible terrible things to do. We really have a problem in this country where we've decided that the laws suck, but we don't want to do the hard part of changing the law, so we just decide to ignore it. Until at some point someone comes along and decides to enforce the law and now a whole bunch of people who were acting on the de facto state of the law now have to deal with the consequences of the de jure state of the law.
Immigration is a place we've done this a lot, but things like the status of marijuana across the country is also predicated on this sort of arbitrary non-enforcement of the law. Obviously the states are not obligated to enforce federal law, but the feds absolutely can. The feds could raid every marijuana dispensary in the country and take them all down with barely a hiccup, at least from a legality standpoint. Yet they don't because we have decided to arbitrarily not enforce the law, even if we haven't changed the law.
I had really hoped after Trump's first term, we would have seen a real awakening to the amount of things that are allowed only because we don't actually enforce the laws that are on the books, and a real push to both fix the laws and roll back the abuses of executive power like this. But we didn't seem to learn that lesson, and sadly it doesn't look like that lesson is going to be learned this time either.
> The feds could raid every marijuana dispensary in the country
This is not a realistic scenario, but does seem to present the argument, that Federal law and the power to enforce it is inherently and legally superior to individual State laws?
> fix the laws and roll back the abuses of executive power
Perhaps we could start with the federal law that made marijuana a Schedule One controlled substance: so that ordinary residents of responsible and responsive states would not have to rely on "arbitrary non-enforcement of the law" in order to get their smoke on.
Think about it! Every one of those citizen-puffers are in violation of federal law! Send in the troops!
The argument seems to be that federal laws overrule states', and that underlying idea justifies sending military forces into cities, because, you know, federal laws are being violated, everywhere, like, all the time, man.
Sheesh.
This is not a realistic scenario, but does seem to present the argument, that Federal law and the power to enforce it is inherently and legally superior to individual State laws?
> fix the laws and roll back the abuses of executive power
Perhaps we could start with the federal law that made marijuana a Schedule One controlled substance: so that ordinary residents of responsible and responsive states would not have to rely on "arbitrary non-enforcement of the law" in order to get their smoke on.
Think about it! Every one of those citizen-puffers are in violation of federal law! Send in the troops!
The argument seems to be that federal laws overrule states', and that underlying idea justifies sending military forces into cities, because, you know, federal laws are being violated, everywhere, like, all the time, man.
Sheesh.
> This is not a realistic scenario, but does seem to present the argument, that Federal law and the power to enforce it is inherently and legally superior to individual State laws?
That's the current state of US law yes. That's why California needs explicit permission from the federal government to have more restrictive air quality laws than the federal standards. It's also quite literally baked into the constitution:
>This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in >Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the >Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the >Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or >Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Subsequent rulings and case law have largely established that the states and their law enforcement agencies are not inherently bound to enforce federal law, but that is a very grey area with lots of edge cases, and can change substantially depending on the "incorporation" status of the underlying constitutional basis for the law. This is why the drinking age is controlled by highway funding rather than direct legislative imposition, but it's also why the feds can and will send the military in to ensure your schools are integrated. The interplay between the supremacy clause and the 9th and 10th amendments is a very complex part of the legal system but this has been the state of the country for a very long time.
> Perhaps we could start with the federal law that made marijuana a Schedule One controlled substance
You'll get no argument from me on this front. Especially since there is a federally legal synthetic form of THC that is actively prescribed by doctors for cancer patients. It's called Dronabinol and it's a Schedule III substance. Yes you're reading that right. Psychoactive THC can be obtained via prescription in the US from any pharmacy and that synthetic version is a lower control level than xanax. And all of this in the face of the fact that the plant source of the THC is a Schedule I substance which in theory is supposed to mean there is no known or accepted medical use for the substance. Which seems like a lie.
> The argument seems to be that federal laws overrule states', and that underlying idea justifies sending military forces into cities, because, you know, federal laws are being violated, everywhere, like, all the time, man.
It's not "the argument", it's the actual law of the land. The fact that the feds can't send in the military is that we explicitly disallow the use of military forces for domestic law enforcement. But that restriction doesn't apply to non-military federal LEOs and even with the military, it's a grey area (see aforementioned use of the National Guard to enforce racial integration). And it's one of the reasons why we should have been concerned about the ever expanding federal powers in general and executive powers LOOONG before Trump had ever considered running the first time. It's part of what makes "legislating" via the courts so dangerous, and what makes the impulse some people seem to have to respond to the Trump administration by way of things like court packing and other attempts to simultaneously empower the federal government without also empowering Trump a dangerous impulse.
That's the current state of US law yes. That's why California needs explicit permission from the federal government to have more restrictive air quality laws than the federal standards. It's also quite literally baked into the constitution:
>This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in >Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the >Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the >Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or >Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Subsequent rulings and case law have largely established that the states and their law enforcement agencies are not inherently bound to enforce federal law, but that is a very grey area with lots of edge cases, and can change substantially depending on the "incorporation" status of the underlying constitutional basis for the law. This is why the drinking age is controlled by highway funding rather than direct legislative imposition, but it's also why the feds can and will send the military in to ensure your schools are integrated. The interplay between the supremacy clause and the 9th and 10th amendments is a very complex part of the legal system but this has been the state of the country for a very long time.
> Perhaps we could start with the federal law that made marijuana a Schedule One controlled substance
You'll get no argument from me on this front. Especially since there is a federally legal synthetic form of THC that is actively prescribed by doctors for cancer patients. It's called Dronabinol and it's a Schedule III substance. Yes you're reading that right. Psychoactive THC can be obtained via prescription in the US from any pharmacy and that synthetic version is a lower control level than xanax. And all of this in the face of the fact that the plant source of the THC is a Schedule I substance which in theory is supposed to mean there is no known or accepted medical use for the substance. Which seems like a lie.
> The argument seems to be that federal laws overrule states', and that underlying idea justifies sending military forces into cities, because, you know, federal laws are being violated, everywhere, like, all the time, man.
It's not "the argument", it's the actual law of the land. The fact that the feds can't send in the military is that we explicitly disallow the use of military forces for domestic law enforcement. But that restriction doesn't apply to non-military federal LEOs and even with the military, it's a grey area (see aforementioned use of the National Guard to enforce racial integration). And it's one of the reasons why we should have been concerned about the ever expanding federal powers in general and executive powers LOOONG before Trump had ever considered running the first time. It's part of what makes "legislating" via the courts so dangerous, and what makes the impulse some people seem to have to respond to the Trump administration by way of things like court packing and other attempts to simultaneously empower the federal government without also empowering Trump a dangerous impulse.
Congrats, Trump voters, you’re getting exactly what you specifically voted for. Revel in it. Hardened criminals, here, while ICE refuses to go after anyone vaguely dangerous.
Well done. Peter Thiel is proud of you.
Well done. Peter Thiel is proud of you.
So this is a topic I follow and I could speak at length to all the anti-immigrant actions taken by this administration. It's every aspect of the immigration process. This isn't only a stricter enforcement policy or a stricter interpretation of certain rules but things that are arguably illegal.
For example, one of the requirements for naturalization is "good moral chracter". Well, what does that mean? Up until this year, that's simply been the absence of any disqualifying criteria, such as unpaid taxes, unpaid child support, most felony convictions, etc. This administration has reinterpreted "good moral chracter" to be affirmative, something you need to provide proof of, rather than the absence of anything negative. This is arguably illegal.
Anyway, back to this article, one example here is from San Diego. This article doesn't mention it but there was a leaked memo where USCIS and ICE are trialling a new process in the San Diego field office of having the interviewing visa officer call in ICE to detain applicants in cases they never did before.
For context, overstaying a visa isn't a crime (unless you get deported then do it again, basically). It's a civil infraction. There are lots of immigration benefits you can't get if you're out of status however but marriage to a US citizen is an exception. Visa overstays and unauthorized work are generally forgiven in those cases, by law. So such people were never detained because their overstays were forgiven so what's the point?
There are also people who did not enter through a regular port of entry. Legally, this is called "entering without inspection". This includes people who sneak across the border. It also includes a bunch of people who were infants or children at the time so never made a choice. This was the basis for the DACA ("Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals") program under Obama. There are people who are now adults who have lived here since they were a few months old who have never known anywhere else. Deporting them to a country they've never known is cruel and unusual.
So another thing this administration has done has created a policy whereby all those who entered without inspection can be detained and should be denied bond.
Here's a partial list of other sins of the administration just off the top of my head:
1. Most visibly, the ICEstapo raids;
2. Skin color can now be used as a factor for an immigration stop thanks to an "emergency" ruling by this Supreme Court, granting a petition by the government. Location can be another factor so it's now completely legal to do an immigration stop on someone who looks Hispanic in the vicinity of a Home Depot, for example.
3. Ended TPS ("Temporary Protected Status") for a bunch of countries, putting refugees and asylum seekers out of status;
3. Immigration judges, unlike Federal judges, are not ARticle 3 judges (by the Constitution). ARticle 3 judges are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate and cannot be fired. They have to be impeached. Immigration judges are simply employees of the executive branch. This administration has started firing immigreation judges if they approve too many cases;
4. People such as Kilmer Abrego Garcia were deported to El Salvador, a country he feared returning to, in defiance of a Federal court order blocking his deportation to El Salvador. When taken there he was put in a maximum security prison (ie CECOT);
5. The government then for the longest time refused to fix their error, including openly defying Federal judges;
6. Revoking the lawful permanent residence status of Mahmoud Khalil for hurting Israel's feelings by saying factually accurate things about Israel's war crimes and organizing peaceful protests at Columbia;
7. Black bagging detainees and moving them interstate before their families know so a local judge can't block their detention and order them released. In fact, they take them to the jurisdictions of friendly judges in places like Louisiana. This is the ultimate in judge shopping;
8. For visa applicants outside the US, this administration has begun forcing people to go to the consulate in their home country rather than the country they live in. This puts in limbo people who come from countries with which the US currently has no consulate. This is an intentional delay tactic as a person may study or work in the UK but be a citizen of Ghana or Nigeria where there is a 2-4 year wait for a visa interview. This is intentional.
9. Arbitrarily decided that humanitarian parolees under Biden were "illegally" paroled into the US and are now seeking to detain and deport these people;
10. Deporting people to so-called third countries ie not to that person's country of origin or even a country they might otherwise choose under voluntary departure;
I'm sure there's more. It's a shame only the ICEstapo raids really get any media attention.
For example, one of the requirements for naturalization is "good moral chracter". Well, what does that mean? Up until this year, that's simply been the absence of any disqualifying criteria, such as unpaid taxes, unpaid child support, most felony convictions, etc. This administration has reinterpreted "good moral chracter" to be affirmative, something you need to provide proof of, rather than the absence of anything negative. This is arguably illegal.
Anyway, back to this article, one example here is from San Diego. This article doesn't mention it but there was a leaked memo where USCIS and ICE are trialling a new process in the San Diego field office of having the interviewing visa officer call in ICE to detain applicants in cases they never did before.
For context, overstaying a visa isn't a crime (unless you get deported then do it again, basically). It's a civil infraction. There are lots of immigration benefits you can't get if you're out of status however but marriage to a US citizen is an exception. Visa overstays and unauthorized work are generally forgiven in those cases, by law. So such people were never detained because their overstays were forgiven so what's the point?
There are also people who did not enter through a regular port of entry. Legally, this is called "entering without inspection". This includes people who sneak across the border. It also includes a bunch of people who were infants or children at the time so never made a choice. This was the basis for the DACA ("Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals") program under Obama. There are people who are now adults who have lived here since they were a few months old who have never known anywhere else. Deporting them to a country they've never known is cruel and unusual.
So another thing this administration has done has created a policy whereby all those who entered without inspection can be detained and should be denied bond.
Here's a partial list of other sins of the administration just off the top of my head:
1. Most visibly, the ICEstapo raids;
2. Skin color can now be used as a factor for an immigration stop thanks to an "emergency" ruling by this Supreme Court, granting a petition by the government. Location can be another factor so it's now completely legal to do an immigration stop on someone who looks Hispanic in the vicinity of a Home Depot, for example.
3. Ended TPS ("Temporary Protected Status") for a bunch of countries, putting refugees and asylum seekers out of status;
3. Immigration judges, unlike Federal judges, are not ARticle 3 judges (by the Constitution). ARticle 3 judges are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate and cannot be fired. They have to be impeached. Immigration judges are simply employees of the executive branch. This administration has started firing immigreation judges if they approve too many cases;
4. People such as Kilmer Abrego Garcia were deported to El Salvador, a country he feared returning to, in defiance of a Federal court order blocking his deportation to El Salvador. When taken there he was put in a maximum security prison (ie CECOT);
5. The government then for the longest time refused to fix their error, including openly defying Federal judges;
6. Revoking the lawful permanent residence status of Mahmoud Khalil for hurting Israel's feelings by saying factually accurate things about Israel's war crimes and organizing peaceful protests at Columbia;
7. Black bagging detainees and moving them interstate before their families know so a local judge can't block their detention and order them released. In fact, they take them to the jurisdictions of friendly judges in places like Louisiana. This is the ultimate in judge shopping;
8. For visa applicants outside the US, this administration has begun forcing people to go to the consulate in their home country rather than the country they live in. This puts in limbo people who come from countries with which the US currently has no consulate. This is an intentional delay tactic as a person may study or work in the UK but be a citizen of Ghana or Nigeria where there is a 2-4 year wait for a visa interview. This is intentional.
9. Arbitrarily decided that humanitarian parolees under Biden were "illegally" paroled into the US and are now seeking to detain and deport these people;
10. Deporting people to so-called third countries ie not to that person's country of origin or even a country they might otherwise choose under voluntary departure;
I'm sure there's more. It's a shame only the ICEstapo raids really get any media attention.
> For context, overstaying a visa isn't a crime (unless you get deported then do it again, basically). It's a civil infraction.
How else will Republicons lie and manufacture an excuse to behave self-righteously and make some people suffer since certain scapegoats are no longer acceptable except in the Nick Fuentes / mass shooter crowd?
How else will Republicons lie and manufacture an excuse to behave self-righteously and make some people suffer since certain scapegoats are no longer acceptable except in the Nick Fuentes / mass shooter crowd?
#6 is false. His claims were not accurate, nor has there been any realistic demonstration of Israeli war crimes. The "proof" is always underwear gnome logic. Something bad happened, thus it must be an Israeli war crime.
Doesn't matter, it's just speech. If you want to say free speech doesn't apply to certain classes of persons then this should be made very loud and clear so these persons can avoid coming to the USA.
It has been said loud and clear.
the supreme court in Harisiades v. Shaughnessy (1952) said communist party affiliation (even past membership) was reason to deport non citizens.
This is well known in legal circles. This isn't something hidden. A US Citizen can be a member of the communist party (same first amendment, right of assembly), while a non citizen doesn't have the same right.
One can argue that this decision was wrong. One can argue that it is immoral, but its well known, and any immigration lawyer should know this decision, and know the risks their clients are taking on by some actions of theirs.
the supreme court in Harisiades v. Shaughnessy (1952) said communist party affiliation (even past membership) was reason to deport non citizens.
This is well known in legal circles. This isn't something hidden. A US Citizen can be a member of the communist party (same first amendment, right of assembly), while a non citizen doesn't have the same right.
One can argue that this decision was wrong. One can argue that it is immoral, but its well known, and any immigration lawyer should know this decision, and know the risks their clients are taking on by some actions of theirs.
Yeah, that part is not acceptable. I'm just saying the argument against it had a problem.
DrierCycle(3)
Any attempt to fix this would immediately used for outright immigration fraud, and any attempt to ban immigration fraud will always be used as a cudgel for bureaucrats to keep out normal, tax-paying Europeans, until low-level bureaucrats have term limits.
I think people, Republicans and Democrats, should really write their members of congress about making the system resemble something reasonable.
“ charging them with visa violations that could result in deportation”
And did they violate the Visa? Don’t break the law.
And did they violate the Visa? Don’t break the law.
While I personally find no objection to these spouses remaining here, I don't see what is really supposed to concern me from a legal perspective. There is no right to residency of migration in general. I do agree we ought to change the law to be make it easier for spouses of citizens, but if you overstay a visa you should expect detention.
However from a moral standpoint I find the infant child separation abhorrent and think that we should generally defer to American citizen spouses as a pretty good indicator that we should show some mercy in enforcement. Moreover, the law should be changed that foreign spouses without criminal records and not taking public benefit ought to be allowed to stay and work honestly. Make it easy.
However from a moral standpoint I find the infant child separation abhorrent and think that we should generally defer to American citizen spouses as a pretty good indicator that we should show some mercy in enforcement. Moreover, the law should be changed that foreign spouses without criminal records and not taking public benefit ought to be allowed to stay and work honestly. Make it easy.
I think this was explained before. But basically the processing takes so long (over a year) that you are guaranteed to overstay most visas and leaving the US is considered as abandoning your petition for a green card.
So you are in this limbo state where you are given some kind of status while the application is pending and you absolutely can’t leave the country.
But that’s not the issue here nor why people are being detained.
People came to the US with intend to marry and apply for a green card on non immigrant visa. For instance British citizens on a visa waiver can just show up and get married. That’s legal.
But it turns into immigration fraud if you always intended to apply for a green card afterwards.
What you are supposed to do is apply for a K1 fiancé visa which takes another year.
So you are in this limbo state where you are given some kind of status while the application is pending and you absolutely can’t leave the country.
But that’s not the issue here nor why people are being detained.
People came to the US with intend to marry and apply for a green card on non immigrant visa. For instance British citizens on a visa waiver can just show up and get married. That’s legal.
But it turns into immigration fraud if you always intended to apply for a green card afterwards.
What you are supposed to do is apply for a K1 fiancé visa which takes another year.
Green cards are not rights. If your date is set a year out and you don't have a visa for a year, you got unlucky. This is how migration works.
Yes the point is that sucks. Saying "well that's how it is" is true, but also not useful.
It was a choice to design it this way, and a poor choice. We should demand better. Since when have Americans become so spineless?
It was a choice to design it this way, and a poor choice. We should demand better. Since when have Americans become so spineless?
>but if you overstay a visa you should expect detention.
I really dont get this view.
Like you could substitute detention with a 1 dollar a day fine, or community service. Why does the punishment for this particular crime, have to be detention. Why is it worse than making your local council mad for not taking out the bins. The severity of the punishment is just ludicrous compared to the crime of participating in a community, and the US isnt the only place with this brainrot.
The community isn't harmed by an overstay as it is with say, shooting people or stabbing people. In fact it seems widely recognised that these people contribute in the net positive.
It also seems like there's an overwhelming consensus that its easier to sort out immigration issues from inside the target country, outside of detention with access to legal representation.
I really dont get this view.
Like you could substitute detention with a 1 dollar a day fine, or community service. Why does the punishment for this particular crime, have to be detention. Why is it worse than making your local council mad for not taking out the bins. The severity of the punishment is just ludicrous compared to the crime of participating in a community, and the US isnt the only place with this brainrot.
The community isn't harmed by an overstay as it is with say, shooting people or stabbing people. In fact it seems widely recognised that these people contribute in the net positive.
It also seems like there's an overwhelming consensus that its easier to sort out immigration issues from inside the target country, outside of detention with access to legal representation.
Because this is immigration and there is no right to be in another country. I've been detained for irregularities in other countries while just doing tourism. This is a normal and expected part of travelling to foreign countries.
Theres no right to speed in your car or drop litter on the ground, but they attract less severe penalties.
Immigration is different because it needs to be addressed. For example, a tail light being out shouldn't result in jail time but it does need to result in the light being fixed.
With immigration, the issue that needs fixing is your presence in a country.
Look, I respect people who actually believe in free movement globally but most people claiming there's something wrong here don't believe in open borders.
With immigration, the issue that needs fixing is your presence in a country.
Look, I respect people who actually believe in free movement globally but most people claiming there's something wrong here don't believe in open borders.
Why does it need to be addressed? Whats the pressing concern that makes immigration worse than a tail light?
Detaining people based on their skin color is not normal anywhere except US
As an actual brown person, I was concerned about these laws being used to target people by skin color. However if you read the article, it's all about white European migrants being detained, so I think it's pretty clear that the law is not about brown people bad. Nice try though
Americans have the right to marry and thereby grant status to foreigners.
A rational relief for being in the country illegally is a removal of such an individual from the country. Same as if somebody enters your house and you don't want them there, you don't ask for a dollar a day or to clean up the dishes, do you? You ask them to leave and call police if they refuse. This is where detention comes into play: people who don't want to leave the country need to be detained before forcibly transported outside the country's border, maybe in the future, when we invent instant teleportation, we will be able to just send them home without detention but the current realities do not allow for that.
>A rational relief for being in the country illegally is a removal of such an individual from the country.
Right, but immigration detention isnt that.
>Same as if somebody enters your house and you don't want them there, you don't ask for a dollar a day or to clean up the dishes, do you? You ask them to leave and call police if they refuse.
The house analogy is really weird and does not at all fit the realities of a nation.
>This is where detention comes into play: people who don't want to leave the country need to be detained before forcibly transported outside the country's border, maybe in the future, when we invent instant teleportation, we will be able to just send them home without detention but the current realities do not allow for that.
They dont need to be detained. Theres no process that cant be completed before deportation without detention. It is arbitrary punishment. Your own tortured analogy of the house, does not detain prisoners in the basement while awaiting court in the I don't know Laundry to see if their marriage to someone in the master bedroom is valid. Theres no reason someone cant live working in the living room? (who comes up with these terrible seppoisms?) and sleeping in their room that they can somehow afford to pay for in your house somehow while the laundry judge rules on their case before taking them to the roof airport?
Feeling a bit like the house thing is forced to come to some predetermined conclusion but its not as obvious as made out nor is it any good.
Anyway to blow that whole thing open I looked at the silly seppo website and:
"Most aliens ICE arrests are detained and eventually removed. In some cases, these people remain in ICE detention for months while they wait for a final decision from an immigration judge."
https://www.ice.gov/self-deportation
Theres nothing wrong with:
> Complete legal process while living in situ > If determination is, deportation, fine X and escort person to airport/border.
You would probably spend less money giving people 2 further weeks to deal with their affairs beforehand but w/e not required.
Detention, especially before trial, being a necessary component is a ghost that lives entirely in your head that you can evict at any time.
Right, but immigration detention isnt that.
>Same as if somebody enters your house and you don't want them there, you don't ask for a dollar a day or to clean up the dishes, do you? You ask them to leave and call police if they refuse.
The house analogy is really weird and does not at all fit the realities of a nation.
>This is where detention comes into play: people who don't want to leave the country need to be detained before forcibly transported outside the country's border, maybe in the future, when we invent instant teleportation, we will be able to just send them home without detention but the current realities do not allow for that.
They dont need to be detained. Theres no process that cant be completed before deportation without detention. It is arbitrary punishment. Your own tortured analogy of the house, does not detain prisoners in the basement while awaiting court in the I don't know Laundry to see if their marriage to someone in the master bedroom is valid. Theres no reason someone cant live working in the living room? (who comes up with these terrible seppoisms?) and sleeping in their room that they can somehow afford to pay for in your house somehow while the laundry judge rules on their case before taking them to the roof airport?
Feeling a bit like the house thing is forced to come to some predetermined conclusion but its not as obvious as made out nor is it any good.
Anyway to blow that whole thing open I looked at the silly seppo website and:
"Most aliens ICE arrests are detained and eventually removed. In some cases, these people remain in ICE detention for months while they wait for a final decision from an immigration judge."
https://www.ice.gov/self-deportation
Theres nothing wrong with:
> Complete legal process while living in situ > If determination is, deportation, fine X and escort person to airport/border.
You would probably spend less money giving people 2 further weeks to deal with their affairs beforehand but w/e not required.
Detention, especially before trial, being a necessary component is a ghost that lives entirely in your head that you can evict at any time.
It feels like you have some unique model of detention in your head (or mean something else than the common meaning of the word). The process is very simple - you are detained and then, when enough people are accumulated, they get loaded onto a bus/plane and removed from the country. Even if there was an abundance of buses and planes and every illegal alien would be loaded onto one immediately there would be still a detention to move him or her from the place where they were found to the bus or plane.
What you wrote only makes a faint sense in assumption that detention is given as a punishment for immigration violations as same as prison term. This does not happen in reality, detention is a necessary part of removing an alien who has no right to be in the country and not some kind of punishment, which you could serve and come out as a legal alien.
What you wrote only makes a faint sense in assumption that detention is given as a punishment for immigration violations as same as prison term. This does not happen in reality, detention is a necessary part of removing an alien who has no right to be in the country and not some kind of punishment, which you could serve and come out as a legal alien.
Detention is literally being used arbitrarily, before the decision is made to even determine the person is an alien. If something is uneccesary its usually being used as punishment.
>there would be still a detention to move him or her from the place where they were found to the bus or plane.
Whats wrong with a court order and a plane ticket? Other than nothing at all. (The usual response from the border brainrot is that either they need to be prevented from escaping, which they could have done earlier instead of choosing to remain a part of society. Then when that ones knocked down its as a "Deterrent" which is where we wrap back around to this being a punishment)
>What you wrote only makes a faint sense in assumption that detention is given as a punishment for immigration violations as same as prison term.
No I have not made that mistake at all.
>detention is a necessary part of removing an alien
Nope. No reason for it at all.
>which you could serve and come out as a legal alien.
Never said that at all. Just that theres no reason for someone to go into arbitrary detention before attending court/airport/border when they pose no risk to society. To do otherwise is a punishment.
>there would be still a detention to move him or her from the place where they were found to the bus or plane.
Whats wrong with a court order and a plane ticket? Other than nothing at all. (The usual response from the border brainrot is that either they need to be prevented from escaping, which they could have done earlier instead of choosing to remain a part of society. Then when that ones knocked down its as a "Deterrent" which is where we wrap back around to this being a punishment)
>What you wrote only makes a faint sense in assumption that detention is given as a punishment for immigration violations as same as prison term.
No I have not made that mistake at all.
>detention is a necessary part of removing an alien
Nope. No reason for it at all.
>which you could serve and come out as a legal alien.
Never said that at all. Just that theres no reason for someone to go into arbitrary detention before attending court/airport/border when they pose no risk to society. To do otherwise is a punishment.
>Detention is literally being used arbitrarily, before the decision is made to even determine the person is an alien. If something is uneccesary its usually being used as punishment.
It is not. There has to be a reason to believe the person is an illegal alien. In this article, for example, all detainees presented documentation of their illegal presence and identified themselves with photo ID.
>Whats wrong with a court order and a plane ticket?
Someone already broke the law and is in the country illegally. What are the reasons for them to listen and follow a court order? Also, the immigration being a civil matter, how do you even obtain such an order? Sue them and go through a trial? There are already laws that allow removal of these aliens so this looks just like some redittor's wish-list in lieu of knowing the law.
>Nope. No reason for it at all.
Yeah, it seems that you don't see the reason. Can't explain something to somebody who is unwilling to understand.
It is not. There has to be a reason to believe the person is an illegal alien. In this article, for example, all detainees presented documentation of their illegal presence and identified themselves with photo ID.
>Whats wrong with a court order and a plane ticket?
Someone already broke the law and is in the country illegally. What are the reasons for them to listen and follow a court order? Also, the immigration being a civil matter, how do you even obtain such an order? Sue them and go through a trial? There are already laws that allow removal of these aliens so this looks just like some redittor's wish-list in lieu of knowing the law.
>Nope. No reason for it at all.
Yeah, it seems that you don't see the reason. Can't explain something to somebody who is unwilling to understand.
>It is not. There has to be a reason to believe the person is an illegal alien. In this article, for example, all detainees presented documentation of their illegal presence and identified themselves with photo ID.
So, give them a court order to board a flight? Like if they are willing to prove their illegal status why is detention needed?
>Someone already broke the law and is in the country illegally. What are the reasons for them to listen and follow a court order? Also, the immigration being a civil matter, how do you even obtain such an order? Sue them and go through a trial? There are already laws that allow removal of these aliens so this looks just like some redittor's wish-list in lieu of knowing the law.
Yeah its a civil matter, so there shouldn't be detention. Great point.
Also, have you considered that the arbitrary detention is the reason someone might refuse to attend?
>how do you even obtain such an order?
Whoever is sending ICE to detain people raises the case on behalf of the government? >What are the reasons for them to listen and follow a court order?
Why are they renting a house, paying taxes and following every other law? Just off the top of my head, criminal contempt, due to violation of the court order, would prevent almost any attempt at legal reentry?
>There are already laws that allow removal of these aliens so this looks just like some redittor's wish-list in lieu of knowing the law.
Invoking reddit is the most reddit thing you can do.
>There are already laws that permit the removal of aliens
Yeah, but the system is clearly deranged and we are discussing that obvious derangement.
>Yeah, it seems that you don't see the reason. Can't explain something to somebody who is unwilling to understand.
You are doing the classic "I will outline the rules as justification for the rules". You have done nothing to establish your position from first principles. What you have written might be enough to convince yourself, but you haven't provided anything like a justification. "Oh they might try and escape" well ignoring a court order is actually justification to lock someone up. There's no justification for the assumption that someone might commit a crime, even if we were to agree that a misdemeanor makes someones soul black and marked as a criminal forever and a day (Which we dont agree, thats another weird seppoism).
So, give them a court order to board a flight? Like if they are willing to prove their illegal status why is detention needed?
>Someone already broke the law and is in the country illegally. What are the reasons for them to listen and follow a court order? Also, the immigration being a civil matter, how do you even obtain such an order? Sue them and go through a trial? There are already laws that allow removal of these aliens so this looks just like some redittor's wish-list in lieu of knowing the law.
Yeah its a civil matter, so there shouldn't be detention. Great point.
Also, have you considered that the arbitrary detention is the reason someone might refuse to attend?
>how do you even obtain such an order?
Whoever is sending ICE to detain people raises the case on behalf of the government? >What are the reasons for them to listen and follow a court order?
Why are they renting a house, paying taxes and following every other law? Just off the top of my head, criminal contempt, due to violation of the court order, would prevent almost any attempt at legal reentry?
>There are already laws that allow removal of these aliens so this looks just like some redittor's wish-list in lieu of knowing the law.
Invoking reddit is the most reddit thing you can do.
>There are already laws that permit the removal of aliens
Yeah, but the system is clearly deranged and we are discussing that obvious derangement.
>Yeah, it seems that you don't see the reason. Can't explain something to somebody who is unwilling to understand.
You are doing the classic "I will outline the rules as justification for the rules". You have done nothing to establish your position from first principles. What you have written might be enough to convince yourself, but you haven't provided anything like a justification. "Oh they might try and escape" well ignoring a court order is actually justification to lock someone up. There's no justification for the assumption that someone might commit a crime, even if we were to agree that a misdemeanor makes someones soul black and marked as a criminal forever and a day (Which we dont agree, thats another weird seppoism).
>So, give them a court order to board a flight? Like if they are willing to prove their illegal status why is detention needed?
You either don't read what I wrote or it does not get through. These people were already given the order to leave the country by a date and they disobeyed it. Now they are in the removal proceedings, which consists of detaining them and transporting them out of the country. Detention is needed because to remove somebody from the country you need to detain them so you could transport them over the border. As I said, we don't have a teleport ray which we could point and make them to disappear and reappear in their home.
>Yeah its a civil matter, so there shouldn't be detention. Great point.
Why there should not be detention? I don't see how it follows. Are you unaware of civil detention/arrest? Can't you just read the Wikipedia or anything other than reddit/twitter before making absurd statements?
>Also, have you considered that the arbitrary detention is the reason someone might refuse to attend?
Attend what? I am sure they have many reasons to stay in my country so what?
>Whoever is sending ICE to detain people raises the case on behalf of the government?
Case of what? Of applying the existing law? "Your Honor, the law tells us to deport these aliens and we are able to do that but, just for shit and giggles, we want you to give them an order to leave and see what happens. Yes, we do respect the law and the court. No, we are not drunk or high. Just do this, please!"
> Just off the top of my head, criminal contempt, due to violation of the court order, would prevent almost any attempt at legal reentry?
And? There literally tens of millions of illegal immigrants who don't care about any of this.
>Invoking reddit is the most reddit thing you can do.
I trust you, I don't use reddit and can only indirectly observe redditors on HN.
>Yeah, but the system is clearly deranged and we are discussing that obvious derangement.
Okay. Here is my argument: the system is not deranged. I win.
You either don't read what I wrote or it does not get through. These people were already given the order to leave the country by a date and they disobeyed it. Now they are in the removal proceedings, which consists of detaining them and transporting them out of the country. Detention is needed because to remove somebody from the country you need to detain them so you could transport them over the border. As I said, we don't have a teleport ray which we could point and make them to disappear and reappear in their home.
>Yeah its a civil matter, so there shouldn't be detention. Great point.
Why there should not be detention? I don't see how it follows. Are you unaware of civil detention/arrest? Can't you just read the Wikipedia or anything other than reddit/twitter before making absurd statements?
>Also, have you considered that the arbitrary detention is the reason someone might refuse to attend?
Attend what? I am sure they have many reasons to stay in my country so what?
>Whoever is sending ICE to detain people raises the case on behalf of the government?
Case of what? Of applying the existing law? "Your Honor, the law tells us to deport these aliens and we are able to do that but, just for shit and giggles, we want you to give them an order to leave and see what happens. Yes, we do respect the law and the court. No, we are not drunk or high. Just do this, please!"
> Just off the top of my head, criminal contempt, due to violation of the court order, would prevent almost any attempt at legal reentry?
And? There literally tens of millions of illegal immigrants who don't care about any of this.
>Invoking reddit is the most reddit thing you can do.
I trust you, I don't use reddit and can only indirectly observe redditors on HN.
>Yeah, but the system is clearly deranged and we are discussing that obvious derangement.
Okay. Here is my argument: the system is not deranged. I win.
> if you overstay a visa you should expect detention
Again, though, there's a catch-22. Wait times until you're even notified about your interview appointment date are long and unpredictable.
Again, though, there's a catch-22. Wait times until you're even notified about your interview appointment date are long and unpredictable.
The article strongly misrepresents this, and they were almost certainly not detained for over-staying, but likely for fraudulent entry. See my other comment.
I don't think fraudulent entry makes sense, because that would have to be the case at the time of entry.
Read my other comment. It’s fraudulent based on intent, which they don’t know until you apply for change of status.
I read your other comment; it just doesn't stand muster.
Fraudulent entry can only happen on entry. If they had no intent to be married on entry, then there's no fraud on entry, and therefore it doesn't apply.
Fraudulent entry can only happen on entry. If they had no intent to be married on entry, then there's no fraud on entry, and therefore it doesn't apply.
"You let me in at the time, therefore you can never deem the past entry fraudulent" is not how the law works. It was fraudulent at the time of entry, but the government doesn't know that until true intent is revealed when the foreigner applies for a change of status.
The timeline is:
1. Foreigner is married to or intends to marry a US citizen and live in the US (they know this; the government doesn't). 2. Foreigner enters the US with the assertion they have no intent to immigrate (they know this is false; US doesn't). 3. Couple applies for change of status to immigrate → This reveals the foreigner's original intent to immigrate even at the time of entry (the US now knows the entry was fraudulent)
I'm not defending the law; I believe it's haphazard and inhumane. Why do you get to apply while together inside the US only if you decided to marry and immigrate after entering the US, but if the foreigner is outside the US at the time you make the decision, you're now locked out for years? But that is what it is, and these people are getting burned trying to skirt the law.
The timeline is:
1. Foreigner is married to or intends to marry a US citizen and live in the US (they know this; the government doesn't). 2. Foreigner enters the US with the assertion they have no intent to immigrate (they know this is false; US doesn't). 3. Couple applies for change of status to immigrate → This reveals the foreigner's original intent to immigrate even at the time of entry (the US now knows the entry was fraudulent)
I'm not defending the law; I believe it's haphazard and inhumane. Why do you get to apply while together inside the US only if you decided to marry and immigrate after entering the US, but if the foreigner is outside the US at the time you make the decision, you're now locked out for years? But that is what it is, and these people are getting burned trying to skirt the law.
> "You let me in at the time, therefore you can never deem the past entry fraudulent" is not how the law works. It was fraudulent at the time of entry, but the government doesn't know that until true intent is revealed when the foreigner applies for a change of status.
That's not my argument. My argument is that there are cases where the intent literally changes. There was no intent to immigrate when entering, but that intent did change after entry.
> Foreigner is married to
We're talking right now about people met who their spouse after entry.
> or intends to marry a US citizen and live in the US (they know this; the government doesn't).
This requires mens rea and is next to impossible to prove without some documentation.
> 2. Foreigner enters the US with the assertion they have no intent to immigrate (they know this is false; US doesn't).
Or foreigner intends to enter with no intent to immigrate, but that intent changes after entry when they decide to get married to whoever they're dating. This intent change happens after entry.
> 3. Couple applies for change of status to immigrate → This reveals the foreigner's original intent to immigrate even at the time of entry (the US now knows the entry was fraudulent)
The mere change of status request here proves nothing about any intent at entry.
> I'm not defending the law; I believe it's haphazard and inhumane. Why do you get to apply while together inside the US only if you decided to marry and immigrate after entering the US, but if the foreigner is outside the US at the time you make the decision, you're now locked out for years? But that is what it is, and these people are getting burned trying to skirt the law.
It sounds like this is the part that you're salty about.
That's not my argument. My argument is that there are cases where the intent literally changes. There was no intent to immigrate when entering, but that intent did change after entry.
> Foreigner is married to
We're talking right now about people met who their spouse after entry.
> or intends to marry a US citizen and live in the US (they know this; the government doesn't).
This requires mens rea and is next to impossible to prove without some documentation.
> 2. Foreigner enters the US with the assertion they have no intent to immigrate (they know this is false; US doesn't).
Or foreigner intends to enter with no intent to immigrate, but that intent changes after entry when they decide to get married to whoever they're dating. This intent change happens after entry.
> 3. Couple applies for change of status to immigrate → This reveals the foreigner's original intent to immigrate even at the time of entry (the US now knows the entry was fraudulent)
The mere change of status request here proves nothing about any intent at entry.
> I'm not defending the law; I believe it's haphazard and inhumane. Why do you get to apply while together inside the US only if you decided to marry and immigrate after entering the US, but if the foreigner is outside the US at the time you make the decision, you're now locked out for years? But that is what it is, and these people are getting burned trying to skirt the law.
It sounds like this is the part that you're salty about.
Except there has been no determination of a fraudulent entry. This is skipping directly from accusation to punishment.
And it is definitely possible to have entered without an intent to marry. The day the woman I married entered the US she did not know of my existence. We met here.
And it is definitely possible to have entered without an intent to marry. The day the woman I married entered the US she did not know of my existence. We met here.
In many cases regarding immigration, any single agent can act as judge, jury, and (deportation) executioner. Again something I learned many years ago and have kept top of mind for my own family.
If you are already married, then you enter the country with an assertion that you have no intent to immigrate, then you soon after apply to immigrate, chances you were not lying are vanishingly slim.
Yes, if you meet after you enter the country, then that doesn't apply to you. That's exactly when it is appropriate to apply from inside the country and stay while your application is pending. That's not what these couples are doing.
If you are already married, then you enter the country with an assertion that you have no intent to immigrate, then you soon after apply to immigrate, chances you were not lying are vanishingly slim.
Yes, if you meet after you enter the country, then that doesn't apply to you. That's exactly when it is appropriate to apply from inside the country and stay while your application is pending. That's not what these couples are doing.
A capricious, arbitrary, hard to satisfy legal system that's filled with catch-22s doesn't concern you?
Is it because only immigrants and their families are subjected to an unfair legal system, so it doesn't seem to be your concern? In a democracy, the actions of a government are collective. We all bear responsibility for injustice and a corresponding responsibility to pursue a more just system.
Is it because only immigrants and their families are subjected to an unfair legal system, so it doesn't seem to be your concern? In a democracy, the actions of a government are collective. We all bear responsibility for injustice and a corresponding responsibility to pursue a more just system.
Except it's not an overstay--you're automatically in status while there is an application pending.
I've found that it's quite futile to expect American citizens to actually understand how their own visa and immigration laws work.
Unfortunately it doesn't stop them from having strong opinions about them.
Unfortunately it doesn't stop them from having strong opinions about them.
I remember talking to a britisher about the US border situation on a forum that also included yanks. He had asked for advice, and I relayed a bunch that was evergreen, but was passed around during the first trump admin.
The yanks all got confused, like I was making up a problem. And would not stop pretending like there are no border issues even after I presented multiple instances as evidence. Like if you can drive your car to the store and back there must also not be issues at the airport.
I feel like US media must isolate people severely. Whereas, countries that do business with the US, are kept keenly aware of the dangers.
The yanks all got confused, like I was making up a problem. And would not stop pretending like there are no border issues even after I presented multiple instances as evidence. Like if you can drive your car to the store and back there must also not be issues at the airport.
I feel like US media must isolate people severely. Whereas, countries that do business with the US, are kept keenly aware of the dangers.
I am intimately familiar with the immigration system as my entire family came to this country by applying for green cards and waiting. Not your average yank lol.
Not even just immigration. The US detains people based on the content of their phones.
Like beloved childrens authors https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/28/in-tha...
Or meme havers
https://hyperallergic.com/us-agencies-say-they-have-no-recor...
The advice is generally, that if you absolutely have to go to the US, that you start a fresh email account, and take an empty/clean phone signed in with your fresh email account through border security, then load a backup to your phone once through.
Like beloved childrens authors https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/28/in-tha...
Or meme havers
https://hyperallergic.com/us-agencies-say-they-have-no-recor...
The advice is generally, that if you absolutely have to go to the US, that you start a fresh email account, and take an empty/clean phone signed in with your fresh email account through border security, then load a backup to your phone once through.
My understanding is that the validity of the visa has nothing to do with whether you are "in status". The visa is for entry and authorized status allows you to stay in the US. You could be authorized to stay in the US and yet have to petition to get a re entry permit should you choose to leave the US temporarily.
Now I wrote this and even I am not sure if what I wrote is fully correct. I know it is correct for at least one scenario but I anal and I am sure there are scenarios where what I said is not just false but dangerously bad advice.
Now I wrote this and even I am not sure if what I wrote is fully correct. I know it is correct for at least one scenario but I anal and I am sure there are scenarios where what I said is not just false but dangerously bad advice.
I'm the US citizen married to a foreign spouse. I'm looking at the rules at the time we went through them--the application invalidated her non-immigrant visa, she could not enter but since she was here she was allowed to remain while the application was pending.
Case in point: public charge and political rhetoric that (at the very least) wildly stretches the truth about immigrants applying for benefits.
My entire family migrated here. No one broke any of these laws. People went home and we figured it out eventually. Spare me. You probably read about this in a book somewhere. I lived it.
Again. I'm sorry for these people. But the law is easy to follow
Again. I'm sorry for these people. But the law is easy to follow