I don't know the ins and outs of immigration but that's because I'm a citizen. If I wasn't, I'd sure as hell know what I needed to do in order to stay in the only country I'd ever known as home.
According drinchev, I can assume that when his/her friend turned 18 she would have had to go through the process to apply for green card just as if she never lived in the US.
I know someone who was in a similar situation, grew up in America, his parents were diplomats, when he turned 21 he could not longer be a dependent of his parents' status, and the amount of time he lived legally had no benefit in giving him eligibility to apply for a green card.
Why are we so quick to blame the USA, or blame our own country when these things actually aren't all that difficult. There are forms for everything. And where there are challenges, there are lawyers. Can't afford a lawyer or figure it out yourself? Guess what you just proved you're not prepared to bring over an immigrant regardless of their age.
Sucks for some yes because they don't take care of business. But it also sucks when we don't have protective measures in place. And it's both unfair and extremely difficult to have exceptions for everything subjectively.
Are we also expected to pass with an A+ everyone who had good faith that they knew course material? Are we supposed to loosen up all regulation as well because we 'trust' a company will handle things fine because somebody's cousin owns the company?
You know when somebody leaves the scene of an accident, they sometimes do it because they don't realize they are supposed to stay, sometimes they don't even realize they knocked a cyclist down nearly killing them. Guess what, they still get charged with leaving the scene of an accident even if they were completely oblivious.
You do have some points, but your examples aren't so good.
1. In your test example, the students didn't know the course material, they just thought they did. They don't actually qualify for an A+. 2. In the scene of the accident, the rule there is in place because there is an incentive to leave the scene of the accident. Ideally, someone who didn't know the law would get a less harsh penalty than someone who did (so intent matters).
In the case above, there is something special happening. The rights of citizenship are on a much higher more protected plane than other rights (as other fundamental rights, voting, residency, amongst others are derived from them). We are allowed to use strict liability for leaving the scene of an accident because it's a shitty thing to do regardless of the law and because while it does affect the fundamental rights of liberty, it is based on something that the person did to deserve a punishment.
In the case of citizenship, if they technically qualify and act as though they do, that should be enough to at least give them the option of taking it retroactively. It's too fundamental for the most simplistic interpretation of bureaucratic rules to suffice.
And sometimes, these sentiments are easy to say when you are 30, but not so easy to see these things when one is 18, not so easy during the next 4 years as they are in college... and suddenly, crisis.
This stuff is common sense for most agencies to deal with. Lived over 24 years here, born a baby - lets solve this.
Its tragic to be honest. More than anything else, seeing that crumble is disheartening. More than wars, more than Trump.
A green card is what establishes permanent residency. (I don't think we have permanent visas, but I could be wrong.)
I can only speculate how your friend was allowed to live in this country that long without ever obtaining permanent residency, but regardless, it's an example of the system failing, and that's a really terrible thing to happen to someone.