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

Unfortunately, I think this is the point. They want to push the needle so that even legal immigration is restricted or difficult (unless you happen to pay them directly)

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/23/us/politics/trump-legal-i...

"intentionally malevolent" -> Stephen Miller's second name. The cruelty is and always was the point.

When you're in your visa or green card process it's not uncommon to be advised not to travel out of the country...

Yep. You're kind of in jail.

It doesn't mean that you cannot, it just means that it might complicate your already complicated application. So if a family member dies, maybe... But that's it

I don't think it applies to folks on H or L visas. Wording from the site:

"Nonimmigrants, like students, temporary workers, or people on tourist visas, come to the U.S. for a short time and for a specific purpose. Our system is designed for them to leave when their visit is over. Their visit should not function as the first step in the Green Card process. "

The cruelty is the point. They want people to leave so they can refuse to allow them back in. That's the goal. It's not more complicated than that.

These are all non-immigrant visa classes. The understanding is that you are temporarily immigrating to the United States. Why should it be surprising then that it is hard to become a permanent resident/immigrant if you explicitly came on a non-immigrant visa?

It’s intentional malevolence that’s a given from this admin

This.

I cannot be this calm about the administration that is all about the chaos and harm. Thank you for writing what I can't.

Well, the short summary of it all is that the US is the very curious case of a superpower attempting to become a third world country.

> Whoever thought of this is either intentionally malevolent or inexcusably incomprehending of the immigration process.

It's always weird to me to see confusion/uncertainty such as this.

It's intentionally malevolent. Obviously. MAGA types hate immigration. They make a lot of noise about illegal immigration, but the fact is that they hate all kinds of immigration (unless you're white-looking and conservative enough). Anything they can do to make it harder for non-citizens to stay in the US is exactly the point for them.

And more the better if they can sow fear and threat of cruelty while doing it. That's their playbook. It's MAGA 101.

> Whoever thought of this is either intentionally malevolent or inexcusably incomprehending of the immigration process.

Have you not been paying attention?

I agree with mostly everything you’re saying; but it’s not uncommon to be processed via your local consulate, even if you are already living in the US.

This is usually just for the final issuing of the GC, and where USCIS approval has already happened (for instance, on an EB1A).

People frequently do this so they don’t have the travel restriction. Source: I just did it.

> You can't reasonably get a job at a US firm while being physically located somewhere else and on the other side of an uncertain and greatly attenuated greencard application process. That's just not how this works.

For IT jobs - why can't you?

I’d encourage you to read the policy before you get too upset.

The policy specifically calls out immigration violations as the problem. It doesn’t seem crazy to me to restrict the benefit of AOS in the US to people who have NOT committed immigration violations.

In addition, the policy specifically calls out that AOS in country is entirely appropriate where immigrants hold dual intent visas. This would include H1-B (skilled workers and family), L1 (corporate transfer) and K1/3 (spouses of citizens).

Intentionally malevolent is kind of their thing in this administration

I think what this actually means is that you can apply permanent residency in the US, but you can only get the physical green card outside of the US when the case is approved. So, the last step to get the card need to from outside the country.

> Applying for a greencard while working on an H, J or O-class visa is extremely common.

But it’s not supposed to be extremely common to apply for a green card on an H or J visa. Those visas are explicitly “nonimmigrant” visas for people “temporarily” in the U.S. who have “no intention of abandoning” their foreign residence. Read the statute: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:8%20section:1.... It’s subsections (a)(15), (a)(15)(H)(i)(b) and (a)(15)(J).

The people who thought of this are trying to return the practice to the actual intent of the law. The law was sold to the American public as a temporary worker program. It was not billed as a pathway for permanent residency.

GC issuances were already way down because DHS has basically stopped working on processing them. Now they're taking the next step and saying the ability to apply for a GC while in the US was a "loophole" which is utter horse shit; "adjustment of status" has been part of immigration since the 50's, and was expanded in the 90's and 2000 with support from all parties to increase efficiency, reduce the backlog and keep strong economic players in the US. You may notice that this adminstration has figured out they could weaponize inefficiency and a huge backlog if you don;t give a shit about the economic health of the country.

This is a long winded way of saying you're right with "intentionally malevolent"; this is the next step in a pretty transparent plan.

> Whoever thought of this is either intentionally malevolent or inexcusably incomprehending of the immigration process.

It’s the former: intentionally malevolent. Trump cabinet members, including Stephen Miller have said this is exactly why.

Intentionally malevolent.

Not surprised. There are worse things in the works.

intentionally malevolent

Everything anti-immigration under both Trump terms comes directly from the fascist Stephen Miller. From blocking Muslim countries to trying to end birth right citizenship.

Of course he has full support from Trump who usually lies about knowing fascists he's had lunch with or tells to "stand back and stand by."

And endlessly lies to demonize immigrants. "They're not sending their best." "They're eating the cats and dogs."

SPLC has an article on Miller if you want to waste your time.

https://www.splcenter.org/resources/extremist-files/stephen-...

They are intentionally malevolent, and at this point, it's safe to assume that anyone making excuses for it is as well.

> Far from a loophole, applying from inside the US is the only reasonable way to apply for a greencard.

So that's kind of the point, to make the system arbitrary and capricious. It's to make the lives of immigrants more difficult.

For example, when one applies for adjustment of status ("AoS", meaning the I485), there are several things you can also apply for, most notably an Employment Authorization Document ("EAD", I765) and/or Advance Parole ("AP", I131) to allow you to travel.

In years gone by, you'd get the temporary documents in 3-4 months typically and your green card in under a year (after filing the I485, not for the entire process, which can be substantially longer).

So this administration has seemingly started a process for marriage cases where you file an I130 and I485 concurrently (the I130 is to prove you're free to marry and you have legally married, the I485 is to adjust status) where USCIS will approve the I130 but then just sit on the I485, not approving or denying the case, and never issue the EAD or AP so you can't work. Lots of people can't afford to not work for 1-2 years while this all plays out.

But that's the point.

Also, there are rumors that Palantir is getting invovled here. Rumor is that USCIS is sitting on I485 approvals while they wait for a new system to come online that will let USCIS look at way more data, likely including social media data, to find reasons to deny cases, so they don't want to approve cases before it's available. This is uncofirmed but there's a lot of anecodtal data for approved I130, no decision on the I485.

For marriage cases, this administraiton clearly wants people to consular process instead because the administration has broad powers that can't be challenged to simply withhold visas to nationals of certain countries and those bans can't be challenged in court, as per Trump v. Hawaii [1].

This is a problem for people who have made asylum claims because they realistically can't use the passport from whcih they've claimed asylum (if they even have it) and they certainly couldn't or shouldn't go back to their home country. A separate rule generally requires people to use the embassy of their country of birth. Again, that's to make life difficult.

It's not clear to me yet how this rule change affects those on H1Bs that want to adjust. Is the Trump admin going to require H1B holders to leave the country to adjust? That's going to create problems if so. The asylum case and the home country embassy rule mentioned above are two big reasons.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._Hawaii

Don't assume incompetence at this point--Miller (and Trump) are anti-immigrant, full stop.

> Whoever thought of this is either intentionally malevolent or inexcusably incomprehending of the immigration process.

It surprises me a lot. You can be a politician making a career on a hatred of immigrants, but your prosperity is bound to the prosperity of USA, so why to destroy it? It cannot be just malevolent, it is plain sheer stupidity. It seems to me even worse than roman elites fighting their civil wars while Rome itself was crumbling. They were in a situation of a tragedy of commons, stupid but understandable. But USA politicians really going against immigration is just something else. You can always look tough on immigrants while not hurting brain drain from all over the world.

There were dumb rumors that Trump is a Kremlin agent, but now I don't think they are so dumb. It is not enough to be a fool to inflict so much damage to USA.

This is the point. Welcome to America.

After 10 years of his bs I can't imagine anyone not realizing trump, maga, and heritage foundation people aren't intentionally malevolent

[dead]

[dead]

[dead]

The UK, the EU, Japan, and Australia all have identical rules to this policy.

There are people with billions of dollars that want the population of the US to drop significantly. It's hard to control 300+ million people, and that many people can just remove unpopular governments by marching in the millions. Also, I believe the "Georgia Guidestones" if I'm not mistaken, that have writing about reducing the population of the USA to 500,000. I much more manageable number. Or maybe I'm just reading too much into things.

> e.g. Indian parents can obtain Indian citizenship for their kids but it also means letting go of the kids' US citizenship

This is not true, India has something called “Overseas Citizenship of India” which is technically not a citizenship even though the name says, but its a life time visa available for US citizens of Indian origin. And you don’t have to give up US citizenship

> the kids must first get visas to their parent's countries

The bigger issue honestly is that the kids may already have grown up in the American culture and fluent in English and it could massively disrupt their education and well-being to throw them into another system somewhere else, depending on how they were raised and whether they are fluent in the language of the country of their parents. In many cases they are not.

cruelty is the point in case it wasn’t obvious

It's only logical if you are anti-immigration, which is what the US is now.

> It's completely illogical that a person must first stay in a country for 5 years to become eligible

This is wrong. There is no minimum time in the country for a green card. You are thinking of citizenship. That is different.

[dead]

> the kids must first get visas to their parent's countries

In this situation, wouldn't the kids already have citizenship of their parents countries?

How is it logical that their kids get birth right citizenship when their parents don't have it?

Adjustment of Status has been on the books since the start in the 1950's, and was greatly expanded leading into what might turn out to be the high point of the country in the late 90's and early 2000's.

It’s a shame that I had to scroll past pages of invective and name-calling to get to your comment, which is the first one to substantively deal with the policy change.

Like you, I tend to think this is a ham-handed move, but like one of the sibling comments, I also have to acknowledge that it’s common for other nations to require change-of-status applications happen outside the country. For example, Japan requires this for some (but not all!) visa modifications.

Also, I’ve seen otherwise reliable sources making unsupported claims about this (e.g. “Existing applicants will lose their ability to apply again if they leave the country”) that aren’t clear from the minuscule amount of information that has been released so far.

As usual with these debates, the content is far more heat than light.

So this is an example of being careful what you wish for.

Neil Gorsuch's mother had to resign in disgrace as the EPA administrator under Reagan in a case that ultimately became what was called "Chevron deference" [1]. Chevron deference meant that when Congress wrote ambiguous statutes, courts would defer to the interpretation of the agencies responsible for enforcing them. Almost 40 years of laws were written with this standard in mind. Critics claimed Congress should be explicit but they know this is bullshit. Congress simply doesn't have the bandwidth to pass a law every time an agency wants to change a regulation and they know it. This is all about deregulation so companies are free to poison the air and water without fear of prosecution or lawsuits. It would allow, for example, a Federal circuit judge in Amarillo, Texas to issue a nationawide injunction on pretty much anything where before Federal judges had to defer to agencies.

It has been Gorsuch's life mission to avenge his mother's humiliation. Overturning Chevron became a mission of the conservative movement and they finally succeeded in a case called Loper Bright [2]. As an aside, Gorsuch really should've recused himself from the case. A consequence of that was that the Supreme Court accepted an interpretation that executive agencies should be government by the Administrative Procedures Act ("APA") instead. So that's been the law of the land since Loper Bright. That creates a number of problems:

1. To change an agency rule now requires a complicated process unde rthe APA of proposing a rule change, getting public comment and generally following a statutory procedure. This administration that wanted Chevron overturned never does that. So under Chevron they probably could've done that. Now? Any memo like this can be challenged for failing to follow procedure. There have been cases where USCIS has had temporary injunctions imposed on them for this reason: the judges are saying USCIS is likely to lose; and

2. This memo is relying on a Supreme Court case that considered adjustment-of-status ("AoS") an act of "grace". Well, that precedent was set under Chevron. Chevron no longer applies. So which is it? Do you want Chevron deference or don't you? You can't have it both ways;

3. Millions of people have open cases under the previous rules and interpretations. Courts are likely to take a dim view of a retroactive rule change like this. New cases filed after this memo was released may not enjoy the same protections; and

4. There are people who cannot or should not leave the US to consular process. They may have incurred unlawful presence that will then get them a 3 or 10 year bar from returning. This bar may well apply if they have to consular process instead of do an AoS. Some people may not be able to leave (eg asylees). The wait time to get an interview at a local embassy or consulate varies wildly. In some cases it's already more than 12 months. If you add over a million current AoS cases to that, the wait times are going to explode. But the cruelty is the point.

Also, decisions by consular officials have very limited ability to be challenged in court. That's also the point.

This will be challenged in court. I think it will make it up to the Supreme Court as early as the next term and this court more than any probably in history bends over backwards to let the president do whatever he wants.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevron_U.S.A.,_Inc._v._Natura....

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loper_Bright_Enterprises_v._Ra...

I don’t want to defend the cure administration, but it’s very common and normal for a country to require a person to leave to change status.

Every time my Canadian work visa expired I had to drive over the border, enter the US, turn around and drive back to start the new one. The border guards call it “flag-poling” because you do a U turn around the flag pole.

When I went from work visa to permanent resident I had to do it, in January, in Alaska, at -44 degrees and nasty ice on the roads. That border required 30km of driving through no man’s land before I got into Alaska. I asked the Canadian as I was leaving if I could just u turn his building and come back right now, and he was very firm I had to enter the US, even if for just 20 seconds. Nasty drive, but all ok

They have repeatedly taken incredibly broad if not downright delusional interpretations of legal precedent and used them to set policy. They literally tried to override a constitutional amendment (birthright citizenship) with an executive order. They have been laughed out of court many times but have won a shocking number of these ridiculous cases. This is just another one. Set the maximal policy that they want and make their opponents challenge it in court. It's legal until someone (with standing) stops them.

> and paid over $100,000 in taxes last year alone

Genuinely curious, what does taxes have to do with it? Everyone pays taxes, legal or illegal in some form.

I don’t think paying your dues should make you more likely to get through the pipeline. After all, you paid those taxes because you made good money, which is what people come here for.

I received mine in 2020 and have decided to move back home. The uncertainty in general just keeps me up at night. Feels like the goalposts could move at any moment. I know I'm likely overreacting but it is what it is.

I was approved 2 weeks ago. The process took 4 years end to end. I've been updating my paperwork (SSN, Global Entry and CA DL). I saw this news and immediately thought that it would've impacted me and I wouldn't've been able to maintain my job until a consular interview.

Also a consular interview has no appeal process. A denial stands unlike AOS.

I got mine in 2019 and feel the same way. I'm actually in the process of applying for citizenship and my application seems to have stalled - it's been nearly 10 months when the USCIS processing times page says I should expect 7 (it was 5-6 when I applied). There's been some articles that the government is going to force everyone to retake fingerprints again although there's been nothing official about that yet. I really wish I had applied for citizenship as soon as I was eligible.

Have you tried being white? The trump admin is rolling out the red carpet for white south Africans.

I'm being facetious of course. I hate what maga is doing to our wonderful melting pot.

If it makes you feel any better, and I’m sure it won’t. There are US citizens outraged by this as well. And I’m one of them.

"Most disturbing is the fact that a lot of people I know who climbed the same ladder will go out and cheer what the administration is doing."

I always joke that all naturalized (citizens) immigrants automatically become republican. I say it in earnest because effectively all naturalized people who I know side with anti-immigration, except agaisnt people they know, but none of them take my "joke" seriously.

Not entirely safe even if you naturalize as they are now making noise about stripping citizenship[1]

[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/trump-administr...

I’m An immigrant, so I can relate. Not in the US.

I left my home country for a better life.

If the country I moved to was going downhill, I’d be looking to move again. I already did it, so I know it’s worthwhile.

> me and my wife have been in the US for combined 25+ years, and paid over $100,000 in

Sounds like you may be a good candidate for Trump's gold card.

I'm being fecitious of course, but I'm just pointing out that thinking of citizenship worthiness in monetary terms is something the president has already considered.

[dead]

America is not an economic opportunity zone.

Police have been killing Americans since at least the 1900s

[dead]

[flagged]

In at least one of those cases, the US citizen was driving a vehicle that struck an ICE officer.

There's a term called "US Person". Many European banks will refuse to open your bank account if you're a "US Person" and require upfront declaration that I'm not a "US Person."

Reason? Because banks don't want to deal with the mandatory annual reporting of the "US Persons" to US government on regular basis.

Their solution? Don't have a "US Person" as your client.

People said the same when the $100K fee for H1b was introduced, and said that the US won't be able to fill the 85,000 spots. But there were 211,600 applications in the last cycle.

Also, your other 'facts' are incorrect. The US for example has the highest amount of disposable income per family, has a lower tax burden (despite your complaint about it) then almost all developed countries, and there is one more (small) country with global taxation.

The extreme privilege of being forced to pay a major portion of all income you make, regardless of where you earn it, to the us gov indefinitely. And they make it hard for you to apply to do this. Crazy.

> The US isn’t what it used to be. It’s definitely not the best place in the world to live for quality of life, on basically any metric.

There is actually a list with metrics https://greatcountry.org (disclaimer: my pet project)

#27th

> It’s definitely not the best place in the world to live for quality of life, on basically any metric.

I guess these immigrants must be stupid.

Those countries could keep their own talent through economic policy (i.e. fuck you pay me)

That they don’t is entirely their own fault and they deserve to be brain drained. “Talent” are people with agency and not possessions subservient to national interests.

I'm from one of the countries on the list. Not only is there no way to legally immigrate to the US anymore, but just visiting US once requires me to give an interest-free loan of up to $15k to the US government. Yeah, no, thank you.

I never considered illegal immigration, nor will I ever - I value predictable outcomes.

But looking at these new rules, I can't help but think that it really punishes people who want to play by the rules and sets the price for ones that don't to approximately $15k.

This is the part that is the wildest to me. The current system seems to generate a collection of second-class citizens: people we openly rely on for labor but that have no recourse if they're exploited and no regulatory protections such as minimum wage (even though I argue against min wage, if we're going to have it, have it!).

My personal preference would be to allow nearly unlimited legal immigration but strip welfare programs for all. In this way we allow anyone and everyone to become an economic participant, voting participant after the naturalization process, and mitigate those immigrating purely for handouts.

But I haven't thought through this policy well. Maybe there is something this seemingly solution is missing.

> The primary reason for the strong border is allowing farms and construction companies to find cheap labor which can't complain about mistreatment.

That doesn't make any sense. If you want "cheap labor [that] can't complain about mistreatment," you want a weak border, not a strong one, because a weak border creates a larger pool of illegal immigrants to draw from.

A strong border, at a minimum, reduces the supply of illegal immigrants, and may even push the employer into hiring people with legal immigration status who can complain and sue over mistreatment.

> It helps that a decent portion of the population hates and/or is fearful anyone different from themselves. That is what's allowed for these even more draconian and brutal measures.

I'd put it another way: a large part of the population has been put under a lot of stress and pressure, while simultaneously being intensely conditioned to not blame the people actually responsible. That stress has to go somewhere. Don't blame the little guys, even if you find them contemptible because they're not from your culture. Blaming the little guy (for "hat[ing]...anyone different from themselves") is another aspect of the conditioning that protects those actually responsible.

lol "draconian and brutal measures", it is not your right to become a citizen in another country, they are doing YOU a favour. If at any point you think it is unfair, go somewhere else.

Why does the US have to offer jobs to the whole world? People flood US borders like it's a magnet sucking them in and cry when they can't stay. If it's so exploitive why don't people stay in their own country or go somewhere else?

And don't forget that US consulates in 75 countries, or approximately a third of the globe, have stopped conducting Green Card interviews.

> simple fast lane for the 100% legal, non-complicated case

Immigration policy in the current administration (which seems to be driven by Stephen Miller) is not based around legalaities, it's based around cutting immigration as much as possible because that's what satisfies Trump's voter base. These people do not care if you 'did it the right way'. They have an atavistic hatred of foreigners.

By the way, if you move outside the country, you lose Domicile which is required to sponsor the visa. And if you don't spend enough time in their country visiting them, your application can be temporary "denied" (delayed) with a request for evidence (that the relationship is real) they'll spend 3 months deliberating over.

Today's news make this crystal clear: the current admin does not want citizens marrying outside the country, regardless of how quickly the marriage rate among US population is falling.

Happens as well in Germany and it's pure insanity. The US at least does not depend on migration as much as Germany, I believe.

Even the current right wing party CDU doesn't seem to want to make migration harder, but when the extremist party AfD gets voted into office, an already highly damaged balance will break.

Sad how people become so detected from reality that they make their society irrelevant and destroying a lot of wealth in the process.

Jesus Christ, that's a bad situation. It seems extraordinarily risky to leave the country to return. I know a native-born American whose foreign-born wife has been waiting years now to come to the US. By contrast, I received my green card (through marriage) shortly after application. Considering the rapidity by which friends of mine (who were married after and applied after me) received their green cards in mid-2024, I wonder if the Biden administration anticipated losing the election a few months later.

I suppose little matters from the before days, but I've only been a permanent resident for 2 years so maybe this timeline helps: https://wiki.roshangeorge.dev/w/Green_Card_Application#Timel...

> I wish they would just have a simple fast lane for the 100% legal, non-complicated case.

The explicit purpose of this is to reduce legal immigration, and reduce the number of people becoming citizens.

There is no world in which the same racist, fascist administration doing this does anything remotely like what you describe.

Not anymore. My PERM was cancelled for this exact reason. The job advert was put on LinkedIn and the company's website like any other job. They didn't hire the local worker either because they didn't pass the interview but my perm had to be cancelled bc a skilled local worker with "minimum qualifications" existed.

What you are saying used to happen but not anymore.

Isn't the correct response to the sham hirings to regulate that jobs are posted on a gov-run board for some period of time, ~30 days, before you can claim no qualified workers? That seems more reasonable than turning the spigot off entirely.

Exactly this. The difference in the pitch to voters (labor market test) vs the actual implementation (box checking sham), just shows how dishonest the whole tech industry and immigration lobby is about this. The actual solution is somewhere in the middle, but it will likely never happen because those with political capital and high social status benefit enormously from low wage h1b/opt/l1 workers. The people who are hurt by these immigration programs don't have high social status so nobody cares.

Ironic that liberals turn into libertarian boot likers for mega corps when it comes to immigration.

So punish/disincentivize employers. This is a burden on the presumptive legal immigrant.

Even worse, with changes like this we are taking large swathes of legal immigrants and transforming them into illegal immigrants. It reads to me that a substantial number of green card applicants will now be subject to ICE detention.

"an easy solution: increase the number of legal immigrants we allow."

Not really.

The answer is: have a fair, transparent and function system.

Then - yes - you can totally 'increase' (or decrease) as needed.

'Increase a bit' likely the right thing to do - but it's a completely separate question.

But throwing Green Card holders out is completely insane, grabbing people out of church and schools and putting them into detention without oversight is cruel and inhumane.

The national debate is insane.

Just basic, normal, reasonable policy and process.

That's it.

Like DMV level stuff.

Then you can adjust the numbers one way or another.

I know this is going to. be contentious, but US mainstream discourse seems to have completely eliminated the distinction between illegal and legal immigration, in the last 10 years. Everyone seems to be a "migrant".

In my experience, the phrase is just used to mean, "I don't hate immigrants, but..." (which, like the phrase "I'm not racist, but...", you are free to doubt case-by-case). I.e. it is not inherently inconsistent to apply the same disclaimer regarding a belief that legal immigration is too loose, too high, mismanaged, whatever; since that doesn't necessitate a belief that immigration as a concept is bad.

I'm right there with you, and it's why I go to great pains to articulate the entirety of my position on immigration when I get into these sorts of debates. The simpler someone's position on immigration is, the less they understand it at length or the more extremist their viewpoints tend to be.

Somewhat ironically many of those most vocal about supporting all this are immigrants.

Those that jumped through all the hoops above bar, paid their dues in a messed up system where they bit their upper lip and got through it, and have been extremely frustrated at others trying to game the system.

It wasn’t ever about illegal immigration. It’s a way to make the position sound logical and tolerable. Now the goal post is moving to make only certain people legal.

> I hear "I'm not anti immigrant, I'm anti illegal immigrant" a lot.

A lot of those people had no issue with ICE bullying and detaining legal immigrants.

The "anti illegal immigrant" crowd ignores, or more likely supports, the systemic racism built into the current immigration system put in place by racist lawmakers throughout the country.

This new policy is no different and is a trap to kick out and never accept back more non-white immigrants.

There are plenty of voices explicitly saying that there are too many legal immigrants coming to the US under existing US immigration law, whose presence is not good for the majority of existing Americans despite not being illegal.

E.g. https://www.mediamatters.org/charlie-kirk/charlie-kirk-we-ha...

> And by the way, I want to make – I want to be very clear. I’m not just talking about illegal immigration, we have way too many legal immigrants coming into this country, too. 1.5 to 1.6 million legal people coming – Ilhan Omar came in legally and she hates the country. She’s a sleeper cell infiltrator of the United States representing Congress. She hates the country. She hates the west. She should be deported back to where she came from, Somalia. Go run for City Council in Mogadishu. The country is not enriched by people like Ilhan Omar.

The aim is not to fix the problem. These populists would be out of power the moment the problem is fixed. They want to prolong it - even make it worse - because that's what keeps people angry.

It’s a smokescreen people use to claim it’s not racist. It reminds me of that south park episode with the cable company representatives with velcro pockets. “Oh you want to migrate here legally? Oh it will take 3 years and it requires an active employment offer at application time and on arrival? Oh no… tell me more”

It took us 12-15 years to get a GC (depends on how you count).

People who fraudulently or illegally come in have had it easier. And I was in the top 1% earner, built things that everyone here on HN has used. I’ve contributed a lot and struggled to get recognized. People don’t know how much of a mess this is. They claim they want smart people to come to the US. The system isn’t setup for it.

Many people hold one or more of the following positions:

1. Illegal immigration is bad, and we should do more to reduce it.

2. Immigration (any kind) is too numerous. Eg someone could say "Nashua, New Hampshire is now 17.2% foreign born and I think that is too high." Within 2. there are multiple separate reasons to have the position. One could think that its bad for assimilation, or one could be upset that the Nashua school system's budget increases are almost completely due to having to hire more ELL staff to accommodate the rapid rise in non-English speakers in a school system that used to be almost entirely English speakers. I'm sure there are more complicated examples but I hope that one is easy to understand.

3. Immigration (any kind) is used to lower wages of the working and middle class via labor and program abuses. At the low end, this used to be a leftist talking point (the kind Bernie Sanders once talked about). At the high end, it is grousing about H1B abuses. Despite many agreeing that th program has large abuses, H1Bs are legal immigrants.

Your idea of an "easy solution" doesn't remotely correspond to a solution for people who think #2 or #3. Even for #1, someone who dislikes illegal immigration does not necessarily want more legal immigration, though that used to be a very common view (eg, Bill Clinton in the 1990s, I think George Bush too). If a person believes #3, increasing the number of legal immigrants may simply increase the corresponding abuses.

n.b. the text above is descriptive, not normative.

I hear it a lot too. It makes no sense. Obviously, if only the illegality was the problem, we could just declare all immigration legal and that would "solve" it. But it wouldn't, obviously, because that's not what people are concerned about at all

Anyone who uses this line is a racist.

This was from the official DHS account -- https://xcancel.com/DHSgov/status/2006472108222853298

What do you think they mean by "100 million"?

The reality is that people who say that are certainly anti-immigration, they just know people don’t like when they say that

Trump grew up when anybody not white legally could be treated as less than. He lost this legal ability in his formative years in college.

Stephen Miller is upset he never got to experience that.

Immigrants from Europe will some how get an exception depending on their skin color. Same goes for South Africans

They were always just against immigrants, legal or not. It was obvious back then, it should be super obvious now. And most of them didn’t really hate all immigrants, just those with a particular skin color. The MAGA movement was always racist at its core, no one should be surprised by the turns it has taken.

Its not about immigration at all. It is about creating a "us vs them" tribal narrative. That's why people defend even US citizens being harassed under this administration. And the justification is because they might hold a different PoV.

The irony is that if anyone thinks they are going to solve this problem - I have a bridge to sell. If GoP solves this then they are going to lose of the biggest talking points in next elections. I can see this being challenged and drama played out for long time saying "other side" is not letting them move forward with it.

All the while the "extraordinary" Green Card will actually be "ordinary" - done by greasing POTUS palms. Because POTUS and his supporters are hell bent on turning America into a third world low trust country.

They only want a certain type of immigrants. I know some that go through the process easy breezy and others that absolutely suffer. It is largely dictated by country of origin, outside of the normal checkboxes.

There are deeper lesson here.

First, a lot of the immigrants that people complain about now are only immigrants because the US fucked up their country. Venezuela is the poster child for this. There are consqeuences to destabilizing other countries for American corporate interests.

Second, companies like illegal immigration. It allows them to pay people sub-minimum wage in horrible working conditions and if the workers every complain, you just call in ICE to deport them. You pay a small fine for employing undocumented migrants and the next day hire a new batch. You probably even have avoided paying wages to the deported workers.

Third, a lot of attention is paid to people who sneak into the country. This is the minority. Also, "entering without inspection" (that's the legal term) is a civil infraction (unless you've previously been deported; then it's a crime), much like a traffic ticket. You technically aren't a criminal if you do this.

But the majority of undocumented migrants are visa overstayers. They get a legal visa to come to the US, often a visit visa, a student visa or a temporary work permit (eg J1, H2A, H2b) and just don't leave.

And to answer your implied question, it's not about illegal immigration. It's about white supremacy and the exploitation of labor under capitalism.

Most of them saying they are anti illegal immigrant are lying if you dive into their numbers. It conveniently lines up with the legal asylum seekers.

Usually when I find out someone’s making that deceptive claim and call them out on it they quickly admit that they don’t think asylum is/should be legal

I agree. I think there are ways to do that that could get more support than the way we're currently doing things.

Imagine if we began processing immigration applications at a rate ten- or a hundredfold of what we currently do. Imagine if just about anyone could get in, barring things like people with actual serious criminal records, etc. Imagine if when you got in via that system, you got some kind of long-term resident visa, which required you to pay an additional tax for, say, the next 10 years. Also imagine that this long-term resident visa gave you a path to citizenship, on condition of permanently renouncing all other citizenships you might hold. In other words, imagine that becoming a legal immigrant was far less onerous in process, but slightly more onerous in official requirements.

Such a plan could be framed as encouraging immigrants who want to "put down roots", and that kind of immigration is much more plausibly spun as beneficial, because people who move to a place to live permanently do not want it to be sucky. By making the process simpler but applying clear costs (e.g., extra tax), it also gives people an easy to way to demonstrate that they want to do things the right way.

Also, making the process more straightforward makes it much more politically palatable to deport people who violate it (which will still happen). A large part of the "bleeding-heart" leftist perspective towards immigrants stems from a sense that many people who immigrate illegally do so because "they had no other choice". If the bar to legal immigration is lowered so that it becomes a live option, this argument is harder to make.

It's not. Trump has always wanted to revert back to a predominantly white America if he could achieve it. The government is racist and hides their racism behind shitty interpretations of our founding articles.

This pattern plays out across so many things conservatives say. It was never about free speech. It was never about being civil after someone was killed. It was never about balancing the budget. Their anti-dei stance was never about fairness. And no it was never about illegal immigration. It’s almost like they lie constantly about their beliefs. To themselves as much as everyone else.

[dead]

I'm not anti immigrant, I just really care about paperwork \s

[flagged]

[flagged]

[flagged]

[flagged]

[flagged]

Democrats actively encouraged more than 10 million illegals to pour into the country during the previous administration. They lied about it and downplayed it for three years, and then (when election season rolled around) they talked tough about their plan to "seal the border"... which was another lie, as the bill they proposed would have allowed illegal immigration to continue at up to ~6X the historical average rate without requiring any action whatsoever to "seal the border". When the American people vote for mass deportations, those were called "fascism" and the basic enforcement of immigration law is actively, even physically opposed.

But an inconvenient process change has you clutching your pearls and crying "bad faith"? Yikes.

I'll keep repeating it: stop assuming that fascists use their words to accurately express what they think and feel. They don't. They use words solely as a tool to increase their power. Hypocrisy does not register for them, in fact they're tickled that their enemies shackle themselves by feeling the urge to be logically consistent. You cannot engage in debate with fascists, you're playing chess while they're playing shoot-my-opponent-in-the-head-while-he-thinks-we're-playing-chess.

Do you believe mass immigration has any negative side effects, at all?

Let's say hypothetically the UK increased its population by around 3 million since 2020, including one particular influx designed and implemented by Boris Johnson to suppress wage inflation, which had a direct effect on the lower end of the job market for the native population. You could also easily argue it led to a direct surge in popularity of the far right party Reform.

Purely hypothetical of course...

You'd consider that a good thing?

Point of order: that is blatantly untrue. Anti illegal immigrant has everything to do with ensuring the people in the country are known and allowed. It is completely uncoupled from legal immigration. To say an easy solution is increasing legal immigration is just saying lets leave all the security holes wide open and just make it so only the real bad guys use them because others have an easier time going legal.

> The fact that they are canceling pending applications is simply evil.

Where have you seen this documented? I haven't, and the only government statement I've seen about this was fairly clear that the change is for new applications.

I am genuinely asking. I have friends who are going through the process.

This administration is doing things that are illegal. They're getting sued and they're losing. Constantly. But that's expensive and time-consuming for immigrants, which I guess is the point.

USCIS doesn't have the authority to just unlawfully deny a case. It can be challenged in court. They can make your life really difficult. For example, they can put you in removal proceedings if you're an overstayer with a petition that they unlawfully deny and then you're out of status. So now you have to go to immigration court, where the odds are stacked against you, and either get your case approved there or get removal proceedings cancelled. And the administration is holding certain people in removal without bond even if they've been here for decades. And some people, like those on ESTA, have waived their right to see an immigration judge at all.

They prefer what's called "consular processing" (applying outside of the country vs "adjustment of status" in country) is that it takes way longer and the administration has way more power to arbitrarily deny your case, as is the case with certain current banned countries. The Supreme Court ruled the president's power to limit visas to certain countries can't be challenged. The case was from the first Trump term. It's called Trump v. Hawaii [1].

But one thing they are also doing, which is evil, is taking advantage of people come to a USCIS interview without an immigration attorney. They separate the couple and threaten the US citizen that they're committing fraud and to withdraw the case or they get the immigrant to admit things that are false or they just outright deny the case on faulty grounds because people aren't knowledgeable enough to fight back without a professional. It is evil.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._Hawaii

Why on earth would they need to wait years?

I see the article argues that this new policy is NOT following the law ("faithfully executing Congress' intent".)

So any further spokes-person-ment is just more of the same -- no rule of law, just what we decide today or tomorrow.

Everything set by precedent from 1952-present is out the window.

That “might” is rather load-bearing for something you are literally staking your future on, though.

They "might" also end up in an ICE facility and then deported to somewhere like the Congo or an El Salvadoran prison.

This is pretty normal for most countries' visa processes. You often have to leave to renew a visa.

Simila in Ireland: you are not allowed to seek work while in Ireland on a holiday visa, you can only apply for work permissions/visas from outside the country, and depending on the type of visa you get (general work vs critical skills), your spouse might have to wait a year before they can join you.

The uncertainty is one of the main reasons why I didn't bother to go the F1->H1B route and ended up leaving the US again.... but that was a decade ago.

They undid public charge from my memory. It doesn’t exist anymore.

The USA don't owe you citizenship. It's on you to prove that your presence there would be of benefit to the other citizens.

Under what administration was your process?

I am pretty sure you’re talking about the time when the doctor asks you to lift your dick to check that you don’t have an STD or something .

Best moment of the process.

This is complete nonsense. All other countries, including the UK, Australia and most of Europe has immigration systems that are just as stringent if not more so.

Notably, and very relevant, the UK recently made it substantially harder for UK citizens to bring over spouses to the point that even teachers don't meet the income thresholds necessary to qualify.

Australia is more expensive AND takes longer than the United States for the equivalent spousal visa.

Or you can simply move to a country that actually apreciates you and doesnt treat you like unwanted subhuman garbage. We have few in Europe, with QoL and happiness higher than US average, sometimes much higher. Just dont make the mistake of comparing salaries directly, US is massively more expensive if you plan to stay long term (ie healthcare) and/or have kids.

You would also have enough time to actually enjoy life, not just work till death/health issues come in some empty prestige rat race.

> people who come here to contribute their skills and experience don't all come along on an H1-B/L1, nor do they only come from white or european countries.

But out of the pool of people who come from poor countries, who don't have jobs lined up in the U.S, and aren't here on a skilled worker visa, a large fraction of them will end up relying on welfare benefits.

Family-based visas are a huge loophole in U.S. If you look at most of the immigrant ghettos in the country, they're fueled by family reunification. In my own extended family we have several people, who came here based on my dad's sponsorship, who are a drain on the government. (The sponsorship commitment is basically never enforced.)

> Despite being able to show 10 years of consistent working history with income far exceeding the minimum, because I didn’t have a job lined up in the US (who would, or could, in that scenario?) we had to ask my wife's elderly parents to sign affidavits of support to prove I wouldn’t become a "public charge".

This seems entirely reasonable. You had as much time as you could have liked to apply for jobs after deciding to try the USA. Fortunately you were able to take advantage of an alternative that didn’t require that.

I’m not really sure what you were going for writing that. You think 10 years working in country A should entitle you to a work permit from country B?

> nor do they only come from white or european countries.

Why should that matter? If country B decides to only allow white and / or Europeans to apply to live and work in country B, that is entirely fair. It’s not people-from-outside-country-B’s privilege to decide what country B does or doesn’t do.

Discrimination is a human right.

The reality is many people come on temporary visas, as tourists, as students, etc., and overstay. This policy is some attempt to address flows of quasi-legal immigration.

It's unfortunate there's friction to the process, but it's by design. 15% of American citizens and permanent residents are foreign born, the highest it's been in 50+ years, so people are successfully making it through the process. Ideally we'd have better levers to (1) modulate the rate of immigration, (2) simplify the process of legal immigration, and (3) still somehow limiting illegal immigration, quasi-legal immigration, overstays, etc. This is not the ideal solution.

> it feels necessary to say: people who come here to contribute their skills and experience don't all come along on an H1-B/L1

Do people migrate to "contribute their skills" to a foreign country, or to improve their lives? Maybe I'm a cynic, but I suspect the vast majority of people throughout history have migrated to improve their lives, not to altruistically benefit a foreign country. And that's fine, that's normal. It's what motivates people, and the U.S. has a long history of being shaped by ambitious people, especially immigrants, who wanted to improve their lot in life.

> nor do they only come from white or european countries.

I don't know if that's necessary to be said, because who thinks that? In recent decades, 85%-90% of immigrants to the U.S. are not white. >90% if you include undocumented immigrants. The trajectory of America from a white majority to white minority country is fueling at least some of the immigration backlash today. But I think for most people, it's a feeling (right or wrong) that jobs becoming harder to find, houses are becoming harder to afford, and more and more people are competing for fewer resources.

Intent (are you planning to switch immigrant visa later) and status (immigrant/non-immigrant) are two different things. Visas like B1 are non-immigrant and require that you are not intending to abandon your foreign residence. In practice that means that when you enter US you cannot be planning to apply for immigrant visa. H1B is also non-immigrant visa, but it is dual intent visa meaning it doesn't have that requirement and thus it's fine to enter even if you intent to apply for GC. You can even exit and re-enter after submitting your application.

You're not actually wrong, but your phrasing makes it sound like that somehow excuses this travesty of justice.

I can only assume that's accidental. You're the 17th most active person on HN, so I'm certain you've seen an overwhelming amount of evidence of how skilled immigrants are immensely beneficial to the US economy.

The H-1B is not the only path to a green card. There are many ways, every case is different, and pretty much all of the paths suck, even if you do everything right.

This decision only makes all of those paths worse.

Number must go up

Immigrants are the low hanging fruit to attack, and the best to blame all your suffering on, meanwhile, the real issue is wealth distribution. Since covid, the very few people got mega wealthier while the majority suffered, do you just leave it as is for people to find out? No, you push other distractions like immigrants, race rage baits, and other nonsense to keep people busy fighting each other.

Oh they have a clue. They just want to rub it in.

"Look how prosperous we got off your backs, suckers!" is the intended message.

It's taunting.

Ya, because we never got immigration reform

> The same people who want to paint the Statue of Liberty gold seem to have no clue what it represents.

Well, yes. The current administration and the republican party as a whole are composed of fascists and thieves who steal from hardworking citizens like you and I to fund vanity projects like a ballroom and "Arc de Triomphe but bigger and gold".

They're shitting on the history of our country and all the people who have sacrificed to make this place what it is today, and they're doing it just to enrich themselves.

Frankly they are traitors and I hope that in time the wheel of history will deal with them as traitors deserve.

> The polarization of politics has become so intense

> The same people who want to paint the Statue of Liberty gold seem to have no clue what it represents

You seem to be lamenting political polarization and in the same breath making character attacks on one side of the isle. Pick one.

As a naturalized American citizen, I hope the world extends Americans who leave the same hospitality the US extended for decades before the last year.

The US is an extreme outlier in accepting migrants. The current situation is effectively what the vast majority of countries already do. Some go beyond that, and gun down people with machine guns at their border.

The idea that the US is not a country that belongs to its citizens, but some sort of abstract global entity that everyone in the world is entitled to is farcical, and it's coming to an end. The US owes absolutely nothing to non-US people.

If people don't like it that can go anywhere else (keeping in mind that other Western countries are starting to do the same) or, you know, stay in their own country? (Crazy, I know)

That would be amazing.

Well the fundamental question is does one see the US as a nation or some economic zone/factory where your worth is determined by how much you produce.

In the first case the paid taxes argument is pointless.

So you want voting status to be determined by how much you pay in taxes? Fascinating, surely that would go well

Looks like it. And if you are from one of those 75+ countries, whose consulates have already stopped processing GC applications, you are cooked.

IANAL. Seek legal advice. I hope you have an immigration attorney. I honestly think that in this administration, no case should be submitted without an attorney. DIY filing is incredibly risky.

What matters here is how your spouse entered the country, what visa they are on, how soon you got married after they entered the country, their entire immigration history and whether or not they've accured any unlawful presence.

It seems like people who are on so-called "immigrant intent" visas (eg L1, H1b) might still be able to ordinarily adjust in the US. What this will affect (if it isn't struck down) is people who entered on a visitor's visa or a student visa (both of which are not dual-intent) and then got married and filed for adjustment. Those people might be forced to consular process if this stands. People who have already filed when this memo was released might still be able to adjust. We really don't know until this gets tested in court.

But interestingly there are work visas that aren't dual-intent (eg TN, E3). Those people may not be able to adjust with consular processing if this stands. That's a big change. It may force them to adjust to an H1B first.

Ah yes, the EU, which has no problems with white nationalism.

The end result is the same though. If your application is rejected in the US, you could stay while you appeal, but if you're ultimately rejected then you have no choice but to re-apply through consular processing anyway once your status runs out. Good if you have a job in the US, but you're kicking the can down the road.

> A refused green card application might be the end of being ever in usa.

Do you have evidence for your other claim? The main thing you need to prove for a non immigrant visa or VWP is that you won't overstay or have intent to immigrate at the time of application and upon entry. Otherwise it's up to the consular officer like usual. You would need to declare the refusal/denial of course.

What will get you denied is "inadmissibility" if you don't submit a waiver. If you're inadmissible that usually means some serious violation and you've got other problems.

As far as I know, people have been successful in re-applying for EB green cards after being rejected when they've assembled a better packet.

Yes, this is a feature. I don't think non-immigration visas actually exist, or can in principle actually exist until there are massive legal and constitutional changes in the US up to and including ganking the birthright citizenship clause of the 14th amendment. Anyone who sets foot on US soil for any reason - even illegal immigrants, let alone people on a legal, ostensibly non-immigrant visa - can try to adjust their status, and has lots of "possibilities for appeal".

The US government should not give permission to anyone at all to set foot on US soil, unless the mass of existing citizens of the US are comfortable with that person eventually voting as a citizen on what the composition of the government should actually be. And as a US citizen, I am not comfortable with letting the vast majority of people in the world - many of whom are scrambling for any legal opportunity at all that will let them legally reside in the US - vote for the government that passes laws that affect me.

> they will not be able to obtain non-immigration visas in the future

Why? Aren't L1 and H1B "dual intent" visas?

H1B is considered “dual intent”

IANAL. My understanding is that you can do consular processing even if you are in the US, it's just that you need to leave to do the interview (and things like biometrics) and get the actual visa.

Now I'm not sure if you are allowed to re-enter after your interview before your case is decided/you get the visa but I would imagine so (if have valid visa), you would just need to exit again to get the visa later.

> You need to be have a job and be on a valid visa to even apply for a green card.

False

You don’t need a job to apply for green card.

Valid visa, yes. But that’s easy.

No. This is the last stage of the Green Card process. When you do Consular processing you make an appointment at the US embassy or consulate in your country, go do the interview and then you are granted the GC on the spot. Then you fly back. You don't need to fly back for years, it's only for the purpose of the interview at the consulate.

That doesn't make any sense. The US enjoys its position of economic power because it has the reputation and wealth to attract skilled people and keep them here.

This is my thought too. The intent of the law is for it to be temporary, and creating the citizenship loophole has caused a lot of issues. I think the expectation H1B may lead to citizenship causes a lot of disress and forces people into roles that take advantage of them, and closing the loophole seems strictly good.

Nice way to destroy the US economy over the next few decades, if you consider who made the country rich since WW2.

Which is so puzzling to me given Trump's impeccable record as a successful and prudent businessman.

It's shocking, actually. Horrifying, and again I say: They do all of the things one would expect them to do if their stated goal was the absolute destruction of the United States of America. They are traitors, no more, no less.

The base of the issue is weaponizing fear and anger in the citizenry to better control them. Immigration has been an evergreen topic for that for the entire history of the US.

In recent years, they've combined yet another favorite, racism, to get that tasty peanut butter chocolatey goodness to get the base angry enough to go to the polls to vote based on that.

I hold on to hope that somehow, someday, we can overcome this nonsense. I have nothing to support this so I get in this sense it makes me a man of faith.

From what I could understand from the 6-page memorandum, (my paraphrase) "the law allows us to be nice and convenient, but doesn't require us to be nice and convenient, so we decided to make things hard and cruel going forward"

The current administration is sending a pretty clear message to immigrants.

How is this good in any way?

How could this ever help to build stronger industries or trade relationships?

If somebody hands you a shit sandwich you don't need to pretend it tastes good.

Isn’t it better for the smart people in India to stay there and make India richer, instead of coming to the U.S. to make billionaires here richer? These countries absolutely suffer from the brain drain.

The government has completely abandoned any pretense of following the rule of law. Don't be shocked when they start revoking green cards. Don't be shocked when they start revoking natural citizenship. "But they can't do that!", you say. But who's going to stop them?

In other countries (Germany, France, Canada etc) - there are spelled out paths for getting the permanent residency. I would be a permanent residency by now or maybe even a citizen if I had decided to go to any other developed country. But here, after 10 years, with a clean record, I worry I will be picked up by ICE someday.

In European Union countries, transitioning from a temporary residence permit to a permanent residence permit is typically done inside the country: once one meets the eligibility based on length of stay or whatever, one files an application with the local immigration office. No need to leave and apply from outside.

Many other countries including UK enforce a similar rule. It's very inconvenient in those countries, but there's a significant difference: in most other countries that have this kind of policy, visas can typically be processed in a timely fashion (and are actually processed at all). It's insanely expensive and very arduous administratively to get a visa for the UK as the spouse of a British citizen, but the process will typically only take a month or so.

I first entered Canada with my spouse as a visitor, then got a work permit as a NAFTA intra-company transfer, then became a permanent resident – all without having to return stateside for immigration reasons.

That's a huge oversimplification though. Group 1 would mostly consist of some of the most ardent social progressives and some hippies, and the Group 2 is most everyone else and basically the policy in every country currently in existence.

In reality most people are somewhere in the spectrum of group 2:

* There are those who believe everyone economically net positive should be allowed.

* There are those who believe everyone who are a good cultural fit (for their personal criteria and biases) should be allowed.

* There are those who believe only exceptional people with rare talents should be allowed.

* There are those who believe people should only be allowed if they meet some definition of greater good.

* There are those who believe partner visas should be allowed/disallowed.

* There are those who believe only the wealthy people who'll spend or invest their wealth in the country should be allowed. (=various kinds of golden visas)

* There are those who believe no one except for certain race(s), nationality(es) or religion(s) should be allowed.

* There are those who believe no one should be allowed.

* ..Different combinations of above options..

* ?? (Many other possibilities)

> 1) Those who believe that every human born on this planet has a basic right to move to and live in, any country that they want.

This is an extremely small group of people.

Most of them pretend to be in the group to virtue-signal.

Same with homeless problem. We must not move/clear homeless camps (as long as those camps aren't next to my house, of course).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

This simplification is very small. #2 is almost literally self evidently true.

Most of the disagreement is where a given country should be on the spectrum of zero immigration and fully open immigration.

You can know we have the right to set strict regulations, and also object to driving smart hardworking people away from your country for no reason.

the reality is that there a very wide spectrum of opinions about what immigration policy should like, and really not so many people in the (1) category

Accepting your dichotomy for the sake of argument, I'm in camp 1, but camp 2 could still be humane and comprehensible. Many countries have strict immigration rules, and while I disagree with that philosophy, it's not necessarily objectionable in the same way.

The Trump administration is not in camp 2.

The Trump administration, as this rule clearly illustrates, is in camp 3: Those who believe that the people who are not currently citizens of your country should never be able to become so, and should be punished for even trying.

The problem is not that the system is "strict" in the sense of holding an incredibly high bar. The problem is that the system is arbitrary - there is no process you can follow that will give you a high degree of confidence that you'll be allowed to enter, or even that a decision _will be made at all_ in a fair manner, no matter who you are (unless you're a personal friend of the administration) - as opposed to you being randomly arrested by ICE halfway through waiting for a decision. And even if there were such a process, you would have no confidence that it wouldn't change retroactively in another week.

It is laughably naive to believe that they are doing this in good faith out of any sense of strictly filtering immigrants. There's exactly one explanation that isn't transparently pretextual, and you and I both know what it is.

That’s really unfair, sorry this is happening to you.

> Nonimmigrants, like students, temporary workers, or people on tourist visas, come to the U.S. for a short time and for a specific purpose. Our system is designed for them to leave when their visit is over. Their visit should not function as the first step in the Green Card process.

Do they consider H1B workers to be “temporary” for this purpose? It seems broken and cruel to force them to go back to apply when they’re here legally and could easily just apply here (assuming their visa is still valid).

Lately as compared to when? Mountain View is in the heart of the tech world, it's right next door to Palo Alto and Menlo Park.

> likely not well thought out

Or it has been, and cruelty is the point

I wonder how this would have applied to Melania

The reason why you allow married people to adjust status is because it's absurd to actually expect a spouse not to just break the law and harbor their illegal immigrant spouse. They are going to choose to break the law rather than kick their spouse out and have them apply from overseas. Maybe they deserve to be punished when inevitably that happens en masse, but one has to consider the societal effects of creating a bunch of criminals over what amounts to an administrative fuck-fuck game over a spouse who was already determined to be admissible to the US.

I responded similarly in another article. This policy punishes American citizens who pursue relationships with people they met in USA who were foreign born. At a time when marriage rates are rapidly declining.

FWIW K1s were never a great visa category. Doing an engagement party with a white dress and posting it on instagram could lead to a "go apply for CR1 instead" rejection.

I think if you enter on a B1/B2 tourist visa, you should not be allowed to adjust status to a green card except in extraordinary circumstances. I’m not so sure about other non-immigrant visas.

K1 will obviously be an exception as substantial steps are generally taken at a home consulate.

Can you name some of these countries please?

As a European, I also support this. Natives should not have to compete with all these new people for housing. Real Americans really need to begin advocating for themselves. For their material interests.

Come back where you belong.

Apparently you haven't travelled much in the US. Outside the major cities it can be pretty desolate.

I don't think we're too crowded, but it definitely doesn't make sense in the era of AI and tech layoffs to continue the H1B/green card status quo.

Also consider that these "new people" are assets to our economy. They're tax payers, many are highly educated, and their presence over the last hundred years is the exact reason you have the privilege of being in a wealthy country. Seriously, how do people think the US became what it is?

Will sending these people away improve our economy? Because I doubt it. I mean, we've been doing mass deportations right?

Well... has the economy improved for you? Has your life gotten better after we dumped a few tens of billions into ICE? Because I'm still waiting.

When will that chicken come home to roost, do you think? I'd like to know so I can make a note of it and inevitably tell you "I told you so" when that day rolls around.

Maybe it'll be around the same time we get those tax refund checks from all the money DOGE saved.

Guess what? America's homebuilding is powered by immigrant workers.

https://www.businessinsider.com/immigration-crackdown-housin...

That's a reasonable opinion for one to have, but it can coexist with humane timeframes for changing laws over time. Not grandfathering people already here for a change in policy of this magnitude -- this is inhumane.

the number of doctors on j1 extensions the us is going to lose over this is going to seriously impact us healthcare. it's also not uncommon for doctors to practice on an o1 and they'll be impacted also

> because there simply aren’t American graduates who want those jobs.

Facts are just invented in these debates. Here is an actual fact: in the 2026 residency match cycle, about 6.5% of U.S. MD seniors went unmatched, resulting in approximately 1,300 to 1,400 U.S. MD students failing to secure a position initially.

> Whatever they are trying to get to this is a big concern for all H1B employees.

Thankfully H1B is a small visa category.

Quick exit/entry trip unless you're from one of 75 countries in which the US consulate is literally not hearing cases.

The tech industry and general business lobby is extremely pro H1b/immigration. They're probably the only thing holding back a total ban on h1b immigration right now.

In some ways that industry is losing a tool. Sponsoring a green card used to be the prize they dangle in front of the h1b to keep their nose to the grindstone.

Absolutely. I don't think they will be happy.

So many great students will be off the market. This will affect to the whole tech space. No way they will be happy with this decision.

You think either of them care about other human beings? They have continuously demonstrated they only care about themselves.

Musk has no problem "pulling the ladder behind him", and Huang's only duty is to shareholders - which means kissing Trump's ring to avoid retaliation.

Americans voted for this.

It is intended to disrupt immigration full stop and especially brown immigration.

Isn't this about applying for a green card directly from a non-immigrant visa, e.g. student? H1-B is an immigrant visa.

I will vote in midterms. Enough is enough.

> The DHS has made many communications that were openly white supremacist

Just dropping this here: https://x.com/DHSgov/status/1970251208322621530

If the perpetrators are not dragged in chains in front of a nationally televised tribunal at some point in the future, we will have failed as a country.

Easier to get a temporary talent visa? Maybe, for some profiles. Easier to get permanent residence? Almost certainly not. The U.S. green card system is backlogged and maddening, but it is still a mass immigration system. China’s green card is closer to an exceptional-status program (it's 100x harder to get a green card in China than a green card in USA).

Also if you really want to immigrate to a country you eventually probably want to become a citizen of said country right? USA has pathways for this (albeit getting harder with this new admin). However in China it's nearly impossible.

I think in specific visa circumstances, an i485 will still be required such as K1 visa which is granted outside the country and then by nature of a K1 visa, adjustment to green card must happen within the United States.

> but unless you lied you will be fine.

That’s a huge unsubstantiated claim.

Why is it "nearly immediately" at a consulate but "backlogged" in the US? Why can't that be fixed?

From what I've gathered, the consular route is nowhere near immediate, especially if they are from one of the countries typically backlogged (e.g. India). You're saying that someone who gets married while on F1 + OPT/STEM should leave with their partner, potentially for months if not years, while pursuing the consular route.

Consulates are not nearly immediately. You have to wait months-years for appointments at some.

> I read that it used to not be like this, that it used to be possible to renew the _visa_ itself from inside the US, but that got changed before my time. I can only imagine that the reason for that was that non-citizens inside the US are entitled to due process, but non-citizens outside the US are not. And denying a visa to somebody outside the US is therefore a lot easier than denying it to somebody inside the US, and essentially cannot be appealed

No, after 9/11 they passed a rule to always collect biometrics before issuing visas and validating them at border entry. The DoS facilities in the US did not have fingerprinting facilities but the consulates and embassies did, so they forced the change. Recently there was a pilot to allow it in the US itself.

This is just Trump trying to torture immigrants likely due to the psychopath Steven Miller.

In general the law applies equally to everyone associated with the US in any respect so you get due process (in theory) regardless. Specific laws may apply to different classes of people though (see 'enemy combatants').

My buddy married someone he met in grad school abroad, then got a job in the US when he graduated. She had to move in with her parents in Japan while waiting for the green card. It took at least a year.

I'd disagree on nuance. Xenophobia is anti-foreigner. This targets people of color. They target people of color who are US citizens, too.

It is gutter racism.

edit: I wish I could be surprised by the downvotes, but it's gutter racism and I'm proud to point this out! I would be never be quiet about a matter of ethics and conscience just because of startup accelerator social media popularity points. This directly influences many of our friends and colleagues in this field. It is vile, evil racism and directly topical for software startups.

edit 2: the list of immigrants and children of immigrants who have founded software companies that are the absolute backbone of US information infrastructure is embarrassing to write down. Anyone can search for the information, but it's harder to list companies not founded by immigrants or children of immigrants.

Their interests and morality have been evident for a long time.

Yes, and if you move there, you lose “domicile” and no longer qualify to sponsor her but if you don’t visit her regularly, she’ll get RFE’d for “bonafide relationship proof” (since your name appears Indian just be aware they’re very quick to RFE at Mumbai immigrant dept)

Hey friend, you don't come here for reasoned discussion, do ya? On a Saturday?

It's shocking to me that the gov is allowed to claim "backlog" to defer one of the functions the gov is actually supposed to do. They print the money. They can hire enough to fulfill their obligation with almost zero effort.

Maybe it does close that loophole, but the effects are much, much broader and more harmful: https://www.cato.org/blog/dhs-quits-granting-green-cards-alm...

No, this also affects anyone under employment based immigration petitions unrelated to marrying a US citizen.

Given our population problems, I can't think of a single rational reason why we'd want to stop this from happening.

It is absolutely NOT specific to the very limited situation you are describing, which is already a big red flag when processing applications.

Holy shit why is this comment buried?! This is exactly the purpose.

Slight correction here. It is fraud if you intend to stay after getting married. Nobody cares if you get married on a tourist visa and leave the country after.

I doubt it. We've seen time and time again that what the USCIS considers "extraordinary" are actually very, very ordinary circumstances. Anybody with proof of employment will qualify.

You don't know what you're talking about. This is the very last stage of the GC process. Before everyone had the choice to do AOS or CP. I personally chose CP. Now there's only the choice of CP. But nothing else has changed. It means you need to fly back to your home country for a few days for the interview and then you get your GC on the spot.

[flagged]

It's an insanely stupid move, but from what I'm seeing on Twitter, it's somehow not that unpopular among the less bright.

Or evidence that they are confident their takeover and transition to single party rule was successful a they are not subject to further accountability.

If something seems irrational it’s usually a sign that you don’t understand the underlying logic. This behavior is totally logical if they aren’t worried about losing power.

Aren’t h1b’s time limited? 1-2 renewals?

Yes - the rule is that the application for Adjustment of Status can't happen while you're already in the US.

It’s an overly upsetting policy, but comparing me to a slave because of my US citizenship seems… distasteful.

The are other nits to pick with the analogy, but I’ll leave it at that

[dead]

It is to disincentive those on a temporary visa to apply for permanent residency, without eliminating the visa path entirely. What your mental model is optimizing for (easy, efficient) is different than what they are optimizing for (hard, inefficient).

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-05-22/trump-to-...

> The policy change could impact hundreds of thousands of people a year and potentially reduce legal immigration further amid a sweeping government crackdown, according to immigration-law experts. President Donald Trump’s administration has introduced a series of restrictions affecting everyone from asylum seekers to students and highly skilled workers.

> The new rules generally apply to any foreigner who came to the US on a temporary non-immigrant visa, including students, employees on H-1B or L visas and visitors. The US awards about 1 million green cards a year, though roughly half of those are for foreign relatives being sponsored by an American citizen. Those applications are generally already processed outside of the US.

(POSIWID [The Purpose of a System Is What It Does])

No, it is not. And if you fall in love and want to get married to someone on a student visa, your fiancée should not need to leave the country for a year or two to wait for paperwork to process. Which is one of the real world impacts of this change.

Absolutely not. My wife could apply for German permanent residency as well as now German citizenship from within Germany. She has been living in Germany for 10 years now and at no point in the process did she have to go through a German consulate (she is a US citizen).

For many immigration statuses in Sweden, you must leave and apply outside of the country (outside of Schengen for non EU-citizens) to change status. This was even the case before the current right wing government was elected.

Except for the part about requiring you to leave to process your application.

Wait times to process applications depend on your country of origin and visa type. If you are an H1B from India that was already decades approaching never. Same for Brazil and elsewhere.

And that was before Trump. All that was practically halted.

yea, i’d say this is rather ridiculous. it places an undue financial burden on someone to uproot their life after they’ve already made community connections just to stay permanently. this seems very much obviously designed to discourage and halt immigration by making it more painful

K-1 visa is immigrant intent, you are basically applying for temporary 90 day pass to get married and one of two things will happen: Get married and adjust your status or leave.

What this screws over is there was plenty of people from US visa waiver countries who decided K-1 was too hard and just flew over to US and got married. They would then apply for Adjustment of Status. That is big door being shut close because B-1 is non immigrant intent visa.

My room mate from college did this with UK foreign exchange student 20 years ago. She came over on visitor visa, got married and they got a lawyer to fix it all up.

If you recall, Andreesen said he’s not into introspection. Don’t think this is a thing they’d think about.

Also, a lot of these guys are simply straight-up ignoring the news today. They got their bag and they believe it will keep them safe.

Right - this is the natural extension of the dichotomy "There are those the law protects but does not bind and those the law binds but does not protect". The law doesn't bind Musk - those visa infractions are enforced on peasants, not Epstein Class Nobles like him.

[flagged]

Have you been through an immigration process?

Who are you?

So people from other countries also have to suffer ?

There's no THE greatest country; every country can be great.

US&A has been the escape hatch for oppressive regime in China/Russia/... for many years, young people from there seek freedom in US, instead of fight for freedom in their own.

Individual freedom is great but collectively they made people who can't migrate have less and less freedom. Some expected US&A compensate that with trade, military and twitter, which all turned out to be disasters.

I'm sorry for anyone stuck in those processes, but for long term US&A giving up on Green card / dual citizenship is not necessarily a bad thing for the world.

> the greatest country on earth.

Hundreds of millions of people from abroad shared that belief up until 2 decades ago or so. I don't think they believe it anymore. It's been like watching your awesome high school friend throw away their lives over time.

Step 1: tell ourselves we are the greatest on earth?

... by what metric is/was the us 'the greatest country on earth'?

[flagged]

Petrodollar is gone now. Only ships paying in Yuan can exit the Strait.

If anything they are reducing staffing for these posts. Last I heard foreign service staff morale was at an all time low