Forgive me if this sounds harsh but shouldn't she have applied for a green card as soon as she turned 18?

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.

It's not harsh, but your reply just proved the point of either how little Americans know about their immigration system or how it much nonsensical it is.

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.

Brought over an immigrant myself. The fact is you MUST ensure you've done everything correctly. You don't trust, you verify. Diplomats should have known better. People who adopt from overseas need to know. You can't just do whatever you want in terms of bringing new bodies from foreign lands. That's the administrative reality and there's no reason to have exceptions when these people should have been responsible. If you don't have consequences, then people don't follow administrative rules. If you don't have administrative rules and laws, good luck having order, good luck managing. Good luck collecting taxes, good luck having a country.

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.

How exactly are you going to apply for a green card at 18? It's not like most 18 year olds have the necessary university degrees to qualify for an employment based green card. And 18 is a bit young to be getting married to qualify for a marriage based green card.

It's okay to foist an injustice upon someone because they were ignorant or lazy? We should be making our social systems fail-safe when the consequences are so severe. It shouldn't be possible to eject someone like that without round after round of appeals and second chances to get good paperwork, and if they were eligible for citizenship, and in good faith relied on the idea that they were citizens, then by all rights they should be one.

You're actually calling justice / rules 'injustice.' You clearly have never done any of this type of paperwork. It's not actually that hard for one. And there are consequences for things you don't do, whether you're a nice guy, whether you didn't realize something was prohibited.

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.

I too always like to start my day with a fresh breath of legalism.

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.

I think that's how it works today. In my personal experience, USCIS goes above and beyond to get citizenship for citizens. It's possible the above comment leaves out some crucial detail.

Or things just fall through the cracks. It's not surprising to me that tragedies like the one in the original comment happen sometimes.

Part of the problem is more that she might not have had grounds for a green card. Study gets her through school, but afterwards? She'd have to have a job or marry or something similar to be in the programs. And things can go wrong with all of this. The system just doesn't have much to deal with this sort of situation.

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.