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.

Deregulation and union busting greatly expanded in the 80s leading to the high point of the country in the 90s as well.

1% says what?

1% says correlation is not causation

And my theory is that the US only looked good because there were no competitors: Break up of the Soviet Union left the constituents without economies of scale. Similarly European markets were still desperately fragmented. China was growing, but from a low base.

So capital flooded to the US.

So we all have our own theories.

The real question remains "What's best for America right now ?"

Soviet Union was never the place where large scale immigration happened.

Actually the opposite. There were severe restrictions to emigration. They didn’t want people leaving the Soviet Union (or the satellite states) and going to the West. The Berlin Wall for example. Things weren’t so rosy behind the Iron Curtain.

For quite a while, the "Cost to renounce citizenship" was at $2350. Turnip lowered it back to $450.

But no, US citizenship, like everything else in this country, a cost.

https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/16/travel/renouncing-us-citizens...

And if you have unforgivable student loans because you believed the k-12 propaganda, then you can never "leave". You might be done paying them by the time you, uh, die.

What “the books” say is that H1B is a “nonimmigrant” visa for people “temporarily” in the U.S. It’s right there in 8 USC 1101(a)(15)(H).

“Adjustment of status” is an option at the discretion of the administration (8 USC 1255(a)):

> The status of an alien who was inspected and admitted or paroled into the United States … may be adjusted by the Attorney General, in his discretion and under such regulations as he may prescribe, to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence

Note the “may” and the “in his discretion.” Basically, if the government really likes you, it can change your status. But that doesn’t change the primary purpose of the H1 visa from a temporary worker program into a permanent residency program.

> Note the “may” and the “in his discretion.” Basically, if the government really likes you, it can change your status. But that doesn’t change the primary purpose of the H1 visa from a temporary worker program into a permanent residency program.

Where this falls apart is that the K-1 Fiance visa is also a non-immigrant visa, that through Adjustment of Statuses (based on your demonstration of a genuine and sincere relationship) becomes a green card pathway. All "may", "at their discretion", on a non-immigrant visa.

But then what is the purpose of the K-1 visa? To allow you a US citizen then perhaps, maybe, one day, be allowed to stay in the same country as your spouse? At the government's discretion, of course?

The K visa actually proves my point, because someone on a K visa (by itself) isn’t eligible for adjustment of status at all! The K visa only allows admission for purposes of getting married within 90 days.

Under 8 USC 1255(d), the AG can’t adjust the status of someone here on a K visa: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim.... If you don’t get married, you have to leave.

What entitles alien spouses to petition for permanent residency is not the K1 visa, but section 1154: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim.... So, for example, the citizen could marry their fiancé in the fiance’s home country.[1] And they’d use 1154 to petition for permanent residency. The K1 visa just allows the marriage to happen in the U.S. but is unrelated to the ultimate basis for permanent residency.

[1] Our family friend did this. We set him up with the daughter of our next-door neighbor in Bangladesh. They had a wedding over the phone with him in the U.S. and her in Bangladesh. Then she came over on an 1154 petition.

Right, I met my wife in the US when she was here on a non-immigrant student visa. We actually married in the US before the end of her CPT/OPT quota. After that, I became an expat when we both relocated back to her original country.

After about 4 years there, I relocated back to start a new job, arrange housing, etc. We started the USCIS petition in her country during one of my visits. She eventually finished the whole process and got her immigrant visa to come back and join me.

It worked out smoothly for us, but mostly because we understood the general process timeline and pipelined it to coincide with other professional and personal life factors that drove things. We were going to be separated for a bit anyway, because I wanted to chase the new job back in the US while she still had obligations to wrap up overseas.

> So, for example, the citizen could marry their fiancé in the fiance’s home country.[1] And they’d use 1154 to petition for permanent residency. The K1 visa just allows the marriage to happen in the U.S. but is unrelated to the ultimate basis for permanent residency.

Per my immigration attorney, the K-1 entirely bypasses 8 USC 1154 at the petition stage. 1154 governs immigrant visa petitions (I-130, I-140, I-360, etc.). The I-129F is technically a nonimmigrant petition even though it's understood by everyone as a pre-immigration vehicle.

K-1 AOS does not require a separate I-130. The approved I-129F plus the marriage to the petitioner supplies the petition basis. This is one of the cleaner cases where 8 USC 1154 is genuinely sidestepped, not merely deferred.

For K-1s, the path to residency is firstly via 8 USC 1186a, and is automatic and statutory, granting the conditional LPR.

Then at 2 years of marriage, 8 USC 1186a again handles the removal of conditions.

However, many attorneys will file I-130s, according to her, and such, simultaneously, though not required if you follow the process to the letter. And that does go via 1154.

USCIS forms aren't the law. The statute is the law. And however USCIS has chosen to structure its forms, the legal basis for a K1 visa holder's eligibility for permanent residency isn't the K1 visa itself, but instead other provisions of the law that confer eligibility for permanent residency on immediate family members of citizens.

This CRS report examples: https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/20151215_R44310_34af119...

"Once in the United States, the K-1 nonimmigrant is required to marry the U.S. citizen petitioner within 90 days. K-1 visa holders are permitted to work in the United States during this time if they file for employment authorization. The foreign national is eligible for lawful permanent residence as an immediate relative if the marriage takes place within 90 days and the fiancé(e) is otherwise admissible."

It's the status as an immediate relative of a citizen that confers eligibility, not the visa itself.

I've seen it decades ago. It wasn't "really likes you", but whether they believed you were seeking an adjustment of status because of a change in circumstances since your original entry.

40 years ago--we had no knowledge of each other's existence when she entered the US. Life put us in proximity, our hearts decided they wanted more proximity. Adjustment of status was granted. She's 20 feet from me as I write this.

One of two things happened here:

1. You just quoted 8 USC 1255(a) because it's at the top of the USCIS memo without understanding it; or

2. This is just the most ChatGPT comment.

I say this because you clearly don't understand this stuff. From reading your comment history, you're a Trump supporter [1] and you seem to have done the most MGA Thing of being told what your position is and then looking for a justification.

8 USC 1255(a) is a carve-out that basically gives the AG authority to let people adjust. It doesn't go the other way and say the AG can withhold permission to adjust. The entire section details the requirements to adjust, detailing admissibility requirements.

So how did we get from the AG can allow someone to adjust to the AG can override the entire section that details adjustment requirements?

Also, you don't understand what "nonimmigrant" means in relation to your H1B comment. Yes, H1B is a nonimmigrant visa. That just means they're not a lawful permanent resident ("LPR"). It doesn't mean they can't adjust status.

It's a bit like taking the description fo a woman as "non-pregnant" and taking that to mean they're not capable and/or not allowed to get pregnant.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48188084

> 8 USC 1255(a) is a carve-out that basically gives the AG authority to let people adjust. It doesn't go the other way and say the AG can withhold permission to adjust.

That’s exactly what “may” means. The AG “may” do it, but he doesn’t have to.

To make that clearer, the statute also says “at his discretion.” That means the AG can adjust or not at his choice. That’s what the word “discretion” means in a legal context: https://dictionary.justia.com/discretionary

> The entire section details the requirements to adjust, detailing admissibility requirements.

You need to read more carefully. The rest of the section describes conditions where the AG cannot adjust the status. They don’t require the AG to grant the status adjustment to anyone who meets the requirements.

For example, subsection (d) says: “The Attorney General may not adjust, under subsection (a), the status of an alien lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence on a conditional basis under section 1186a of this title.”

So subsection (a) gives discretion to the AG to adjust status at the AG’s choice. Then other provisions say that he can’t adjust status under certain circumstances.

> Also, you don't understand what "nonimmigrant" means in relation to your H1B comment. Yes, H1B is a nonimmigrant visa. That just means they're not a lawful permanent resident ("LPR").

No, because there are also “immigrant” visas. Those visa holders also aren’t LPRs. So what’s the distinction between immigrant and non-immigrant visas in your reading? The difference is that immigrant visas are intended to be a pathway to a green card, while nonimmigrant visas are intended to be for temporary workers who will typically go home.

Note that subsection (H) also includes H2 visas for unskilled temporary workers. Those visa holders can request an adjustment of status too. But the expectation is that generally that will not be granted.

A misrepresentation. 'Adjustment of status' is not 'if the government really likes you', it's a process that's available by rule. And the federal rulemaking process, as you are fully aware, involves publication in the federal register, solicitation and and collation of public comment, and republication of teh final rule, again, in the federal register.

Incidentally, we don't have an attorney general at present, only an acting one (Trump's former personal lawyer), and I question the standing of an unconfirmed federal officer to alter existing rules, never mind to bypass the federal rulemaking process entirely.

> misrepresentation. 'Adjustment of status' is not 'if the government really likes you', it's a process that's available by rule

I’m using a colloquialism to convey how much latitude the administration has under the wording of statue. It says that the “status of an alien who was inspected and admitted or paroled into the United States … may be adjusted by the Attorney General, in his discretion and under such regulations as he may prescribe…”

When the statute says an officer “may … in his discretion” do something, that’s Congress giving very broad latitude to the executive to make case by case determinations.

The word “discretion” has a special meaning under the APA. The APA says that courts can’t review agency actions that are “committed to agency discretion by law.” The Supreme Court has read that carve out narrowly (because otherwise I think you have serious due process problems). But Congress using the word “discretion” here at the very least conveys how much latitude Congress intended to give the administration with respect to adjustment of status.

That's a lot of words because you no counter to the point I made about rulemaking. This blanket change seems to me to violate the APA, and as I mentioned above it's questionable whether Blanche has authority to set policy at all given his lack of confirmation. I anticipate this being set aside as arbitrary and capricious.

It depends on what kind of change in practice is at issue. Was it a practice that was dictated by rules? If so you need a new rule making. But I don’t believe that’s the case here. The memo here says that, to the extent decisions are within the discretion of immigration officers, remember that you don’t have to let anyone adjust their status.

You don’t need a rulemaking to release guidance on the exercise of discretion, even if that new guidance changes prior agency discretionary practice. Agencies do that all the time.

This interpretation makes the entire immigration system extremely arbitrary and capricious. It's almost as if Trump supporters just want to give non-citizens a hard time for no reason. The cruelty is the point.

No the point is to create disincentives for people to immigrate so fewer people will do it.

> No the point is to create disincentives for people to immigrate (...)

Yeah, and the disincentives consist of giving non-citizens a hard time for no reason.

> so fewer people will do it.

You're not disagreeing with OP. You're just trying to whitewash all the xenophobia behind the motivation.

> You're not disagreeing with OP. You're just trying to whitewash all the xenophobia behind the motivation.

Wanting to control immigration flows so immigrants don't change American culture isn't "xenophobia." It's the moral right of people in a democracy to control the flow of people to limit cultural change.

> Wanting to control immigration flows so immigrants don't change American culture isn't "xenophobia.“

Such desires can be and have been xenophobic. You’re welcome to prove that they’ve never been. I would like to see you revise the Federalists’ own history for once, instead of someone else’s.

> It's the moral right of people in a democracy to control the flow of people to limit cultural change.

You’ve elided a premise along the lines of “moral rights cannot be exercised in a xenophobic manner,” which is incorrect.

Immigration changes society. People who like their society the way it is, and don’t want it to become more like the places the immigrants come from, are entitled to vote against that. They don’t owe you any explanation.

[flagged]

This account you are all arguing against is a totally political account here. Check the profile

> It's the moral right of people in a democracy to control the flow of people to limit cultural change.

Tell me what is changing about American culture. I am curious to know.

The US has become less of a high-trust society than it was.

In the Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey (SCCBS), 40 US communities were studied, some high in ethnic diversity, some low. In the communities high in diversity, people trusted neighbors less, had fewer close confidants, volunteered less, and withdrew from community life more generally.

One of the principals (namely, Robert Putnam) behind this study described this behavioral pattern with the phrase “hunker down.” In diverse neighborhoods, according to his analysis, residents of all ethnic groups became more socially isolated, including from members of their own ethnic group.

Many things, but for example the taboo against showing off your money has diminished. I know someone whose dad probably worth half a billion dollars. I knew her for several years and had no idea. That’s very different from my culture (south asian) where social hierarchy is very important and heavy emphasis is placed on signaling your wealth to establish your place in the hierarchy.

When I grew up in northern VA in the 1990s, that taboo was still strongly in place. There were lots of rich people (my dad once ran into Dick Cheney at the CVS). But people drove old Volvos. I only ever saw one Porsche growing up, and it was an old one owned by my neighbor who was an engineer who could do his own work on it. Since then there’s been a huge immigration from south asia and the middle east. And the houses got way more opulent, luxury stores started opening in the malls, people started driving Maseratis, etc.

And how can you attribute that to immigration and not something else?

Many things culturally comes and goes in waves. How can you tell them apart?

Culture evolves, but slowly and on a trajectory.[1] Immigration changes the trajectory in a very visible way. You can compare places in the U.S. that experienced more versus less immigration. For example, the taboos against showing off your wealth are still strong in Oregon where my wife is from.

[1] The French refer to "les payes Anglo-Saxon," the Anglo-Saxon countries: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24517581. The term describes the deep cultural and political commonalities between the UK, Australia, Canada, the U.S. and New Zealand. Before the mass immigration of the 2000s, Toronto and Sydney were more similar to each other than I think residents of either city would want to admit.

Would also this means that all sorts of interference with other countries is also bad and should not happen? I can think of a couple of countries right now with a massive problem of illegal immigrants on ships but they use uniforms

The point is that decisions can remain arbitrary

The point is exceptions are not the rule.

what do you mean by "makes" . It has always been arbitrary ppl get denied at airports arbitarily. my brother and i have the same background and education. i was given an f1 visa and he wasnt.

For anyone wanting to loose the time on this discussion ok. But this account is weird AF. Look all the interactions and comments this user appears. Probably the bots or the comment army got to hacker news.

A way to silence people is to cause commotion so people get dizzy by the noise.

There is no menace. There was no evil plan. There was nothing like that. Accusing others of what you want to do is a classical trick.

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

Okay but this has not been the case in the US and everyone knows that. We can try to make things up to rationalize why this being done.

Or, we can be honest, and acknowledge these actors have proven themselves to be irrational. What is happening is that an end-goal is desired, and then the trump administration is working backwards to make it happen.

H1B as a visa status (and the one nearly everyone in this thread being affected by the green card status) is only 36 years old.

The immigration act of 1999 very clearly created it as a temporary visa not a stepping stone to a green card. That's a modern invention.

The "only" is doing A LOT of heavy lifting. Also, you're being a bit dishonest here, because this does not only apply to H1B visa holders.

Also, are those people not the exact demographic that so-called "anti illegal" Republicans should want? They're highly educated and desirable, not welfare queens right?

I will repeat my point. You have been lied to. The Republicans do not give even a single shit about what is legal and what is not. What they desire is less brown people, and then they work backwards to justify it. Any other interpretation is just not reasonable at this point, with the evidence we have been given.

Nobody would care about this if it didn't affect H1B. The confusion is whether h1b is a temporary visa or some kind of stepping stone. According to the immigration act of 1990 and US law it's a temporary visa and subject to this rule.

For example O-1 is not affected because O-1 is not considered a temporary visa in US law.

O-1 also has no cap. The USA can take in unlimited O-1 immigrants.

O-1 is nonimmigrant in the statute, so by definition we take in zero O-1 immigrants. It’s a temporary work visa.

People care about this because it is arbitrary and capricious and runs counter to decades of established practice.

> What they desire is less brown people, and then they work backwards to justify it.

Which is a perfectly fine thing by the way. I can't see anything wrong with it. If the Americans want fewer "brown" people in their country, that is entirely their prerogative. It's their country, after all.

I am from India. Indians themselves have preferences for the kind of people they'd like to allow to immigrate to India. Bangladeshi muslims are not desired, whereas Tibetans are welcome. Intra-regional migration is a problem within India itself, with certain populations being seen as less desirable in certain areas.

Perhaps the "brown" people can work on fixing their home countries so that they wouldn't have to emigrate in order to enjoy a better quality of life.

> Which is a perfectly fine thing by the way. I can't see anything wrong with it. If the Americans want fewer "brown" people in their country, that is entirely their prerogative. It's their country, after all.

Which Americans? Whose country is it that "their" is referring to here?

> Perhaps the "brown" people can work on fixing their home countries so that they wouldn't have to emigrate in order to enjoy a better quality of life.

That's an ignorant thing to say. Even in democratic western countries, it can be very difficult for the average person to institute change even at a local level. If you have to battle corruption or war on top of that, it could be impossible. For example, would it be fair to say that a Sundanese villager should just fix their country as PMCs being hired by the UAE(and others) are committing genocide? Or would you consider that reasonable to flee the country in search of a better life?

We have to admit there are lots of cases where people can't just "fix" their own country as there are complex geopolitical issues that a normal person, or a group of normal people are not able to fix. If Americans want fewer "brown" people in their country, the idea should be to promote global economic and political stability so that people can reasonably make their countries a better place, not to just tell them to go away and fix their own problems.

> If Americans want fewer "brown" people in their country, the idea should be to promote global economic and political stability

Speaking as an Indian: "brown" people's countries are "brown" people's own responsibilities. If their countries are messed up, they should also own the task of fixing them.

Other countries can feel free to pitch in if it suits their interests, as you say. But the primary responsibility for our motherlands is with ourselves.

> that a normal person, or a group of normal people

We just have to become not-so-normal then!

> Speaking as an Indian: "brown" people's countries are "brown" people's own responsibilities. If their countries are messed up, they should also own the task of fixing them.

>Other countries can feel free to pitch in if it suits their interests, as you say. But the primary responsibility for our motherlands is with ourselves.

Yes this would make sense if the US & other countries had a policy of non-intervention. When the US & its allies are actively destabilizing these countries, you can't turn around and be like oh now its your fault your country is messed up and you are solely responsible to fix it after we bombed, invaded, or otherwise economically destabilized the region. The long term solution to stop people from immigrating to the US for a better life is to promote political and economic stability in those countries, ie. not bombing them, invading them, removing their leaders, promoting trade with them etc.

I live in Canada and the US is actively trying to destabilize my country through threats of annexation, disregarding trade deals and implementing tariffs, promoting separatism. What can I do to stop the US from doing this exactly? If the US ends up destroying my country, is it my fault? am I solely responsible to fix it?

Nobody said it is their fault. But it is their responsibility.

United States immigration policy is supposed to benefit the United States. It doesn't need to be fair.

The US can bomb a country if it's in US interests, and then deny immigrants from that country if that immigration is not in US interests. It really is that simple.

I never said that they can't bomb a country or deny immigrants. They certainly can and are. I also never said that it needs to be fair. I'm saying its ridiculous to be mad when people are trying to immigrate to your country for a better life and you're tell them to go back to their country & fix it when you're the one(or your close friends are) actively making it worse on purpose. I'm sure you can see the hypocrisy in this.

I'm not sure what is controversial about if you want to reduce people trying to come to your country then you should promote global economic & political stability so they don't have any reason to come. Especially when you are the most powerful country in the world that is already meddling in everyone's affairs.

Bangladeshi Muslims demanded and got a country for Muslims as they wanted that's why they are not welcomed by Indians. Read history

I'm from India too. It's disingenuous to say things like "Bangladeshi Muslims are not desired" and not mention the massive backlash the Citizenship Amendment Act received. It's almost as if people recognize arbitrary discrimination is the opposite of just.

Attitudes like yours - justifying entitlement without holding its corruption accountable - is why people have to leave their home countries: their own insufferable countrymen.

congress made h1b dual-intent in 1990

What are the Canadians up to and why are they doing it?

That’s strange. I was able to renew a work permit in Canada while staying (and continuing work) in Canada. Same for study permit. This was over a decade ago, so perhaps things have changed.

They also were not called visas, but permits. Visa is for entering the country, permit is for staying.

you can renew the same permit without, but you can't go from one type of permit to another (student to working prof in my case) without flagpoling; you also can't go from a visa to a permit without flagpoling

The article is about U.S and not Canada. Also yes, you can stay in Canada while apply + wait for the final decision, but if you get rejected, you have to leave. Also in your application, you have to state where you applying from. I find the Canadian immigration system clear and fast, login, input data, pay, wait.

You say "normal" and then add the other paragraphs, which are very clearly not normal. Common maybe.

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

My guess: If they end up being denied then it's easier to not let them back in by not letting them cross the border whereas if it's in the country it's harder to locate them to deport?

Seems pretty brutal to me though.

I was “denied” re entry doing a flag pole run once.

They let me in, but had me sign something that I would leave within 30 days.

I have a strong suspicion this is another way of doing an end run around the courts. If the person is denied entry can they realistically get that changed by a US court? I doubt it.

It also means that if you came here fleeing persecution that you might not be able to return.

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

It’s just how things are done.

largely/generally this is how it's done for NAFTA visas

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

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

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

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

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

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

A consulate overseas is more equipped to vet someone from the country where it is located than a USCIS office in New Hampshire. E.g. it has people able to read the documents in the local language and access to the officials who can validate those, it has people able to call or mail local authorities to ask about an applicant's involvement in crime, it has people who can recognize affiliations with local extremist groups etc.

It is actually really bizarre that the USCIS would essentially take the applicant's word without any vetting before this memo.

Depending on the person, they may have spent years or possibly a decade or more in the US before trying to get an AOS. As such, the USCIS is probably a better adjudicator than a consulate.

If someone came in as a child then it's true, and thus there is a discretion. Adults have history in their home country which does not disappear in 10 years or any period of time.

Maybe they've heard of email, faxes, phone calls?

I am sure they had, how is it relevant?

> 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.

This new policy is different than the "flag poling" you've described. The new guidance requires immigrants to return to their country of origin, then apply for the change in status, and wait in their country of origin while the change in status is being processed/considered which can take many years. If the status changed is approved, they can move back to the US.

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.

I think one of the primary divergences of thought happening here is whether H1B is indeed a temporary visa or whether it was meant to be a stepping stone to a green card.

H1B is only 36 years old. The Immigration Act of 1990 always meant it to be a temporary status, which is why it is so easily imperiled.

Yes, it's temporary, but the 1990 act explicitly established dual-intent, which clearly made the visa eligible for adjustment of status under INA 245. Nobody is really debating that fact, but the announcement memo is also not clear about what they're going to try to do in terms of actual administrative process.

Part of the noise around this topic is that the administration just announced something vague with no detailed guidance, which leaves the door open for bad-faith interpretations by everyone.

It's also necessary for media to exist as an industry. The objective of nearly all news articles is clicks, comments, and sharing. Bad-faith interpretation is by far the best way to increase the count of all of those things regardless of how detailed the guidance might be.

Japan only requires leaving for converting a tourist/digital nomad visa and some Working Holiday Visas to a normal working/spouse visa. And WHV to normal status is really dependent on the partner country. For example Australians don't need to leave, but Canadians and Brits do, and I've heard that immigration will sometimes just grant the change of status anyways. So that seems to indicate that Japan doesn't really care.

Needing to leave to convert a normal working/spouse status to PR is not the norm anywhere.

> . So that seems to indicate that Japan doesn't really care.

Additionally, Japan has a very clear and straightforward process to convert HSP Visa (Highly skilled visa) to a permanent residency.

It can be done in 3years for most and to 1year for the high level candidatures (PhD profiles).

This is very far from the current H1B shitshow.

> Additionally, Japan has a very clear and straightforward process to convert HSP Visa (Highly skilled visa) to a permanent residency.

I mean, that's true as far as it goes, but HSP is one special visa amongst many, and they're not all so easy. Also, Japan is currently in the middle of its own dramatic restructuring of the immigration system related to HSP, including a number of new requirements that would drive critics of the US system to apoplexy (i.e. language fluency requirements).

Overall, the Japanese system looks a lot more conservative than the US one, though the sanity and consistency level is far higher.

> HSP is one special visa amongst many, and they're not all so easy.

Japan has a selective immigration system where the profiles JP gov considers as "necessary" are made easy to immigrate, and the others not so much.

One can disagree with the method, but at least it is consistent.

Near that, half of the American tech (and associated GDP) is constructed highly qualified immigrated engineers on H1B visas, and still the US gov openly shit on them.

> US system to apoplexy (i.e. language fluency requirements)

JP mainly just put some Japanese language level requirement on the HSP visas related to roles with communication. That honestly does not shock me.

We agree that the Japanese system is far more consistent. I think it's better!

But let's not kid ourselves: if the US instituted a CEFR B2 language requirement [1] for anyone on an H1B visa to gain residency, it would be an absolute shitshow.

[1] This is the new Japanese language requirement.

For the US to institute a language standard, we'd first have to agree on an official language at the federal level.

There's a (fairly basic but extant) English language requirement for naturalization, so it doesn't seem inconceivable that could be applied to a visa.

This has been a political issue in the past--mostly with respect to Spanish--but there's essentially a de facto English requirement for most purposes.

No, it would not be a shitshow. That's just your assumption.

Do you think I could not pass that test?

> Do you think I could not pass that test?

Well, I don't know you, but you've missed the point entirely so...

It would be a shitshow because of the politics of it. I am certain there would be plenty of people who could pass, and some who can't.

Also, it's obviously my assumption.

Right, it's obviously your assumption, but you stated the resulting shitshow as an obvious fact—"let's not kid ourselves".

I doubt H-1Bs would oppose taking that test. Many already took English proficiency exams by the time they apply for the visa.

I assume Americans in general would favor this extra requirement too.

And companies, if we decide we care about what they want, really have no reason to oppose the test. There's a large enough number of applicants that they can easily pick from the ones that do speak English fluently.

So to conclude it would be a shitshow because of the politics is likely incorrect, certainly defeatist, and gives up on the actual thing we should strive for, which is to make the H-1B visa better.

Assuming English is the language, CEFR B2 is roughly 75 in TOEFL, such a low standard that community colleges would think twice before admitting such internationals students. In reality H1B tech workers easily blows 100+.

The U.S. system is insane because Congress never had the votes to create a skilled immigration system designed to be a path to permanent residency. Republicans voted against the 1990 law. And Democrats were split. The law was opposed by labor organizations. The law that passed was very watered down compared to what the tech company lobbyists had wanted.

The 1990 law ultimately passed 231 to 192. It likely would never have passed if it had removed H1 from the “temporary worker” category and turned it into an immigrant visa with a clear path to citizenship.

H1B is a shitshow b/c mostly the shitty Indians come.

It's a shame you scrolled past pages of comments and missed the point entirely.

The fact that it's "common in other countries" is entirely irrelevant to what the United States does.

It's not even clear it's common in other countries. Japan is notorious for being insular.

This is a garbage move by this administration that flies in the face of decades of precedents _in the United States_.

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.

H1b (the visa status of nearly everyone here affected by this change) is only 36 years old. We're not talking about ancient case law here.

Is the legal precedent they are ignoring only 36 years old? No? I guess that makes us talking about case law older than 36 years then. (As we all know, laws less than 40 years old are option to follow anyways).

H1B's are non-immigrant visas. 80% of H1B's are Indian nationals. The program is corrupt, as has lately been shown, with forged credentials and fake companies. The best way out is to simply abolish the program.

H1B is very explicitly a "dual intent" visa.

Where has it been shown? Links?

Read the law! It’s there in black and white! It’s 8 USC 1101(a)(15) and (a)(15)(H). It’s a “nonimmigrant” visa for people “temporarily” in the U.S. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1101

How is it “delusional” to interpret a law that’s plastered with the words “non immigrant” and “temporary” and say that maybe it shouldn’t be a de facto path to permanent residency?

As is the K-1 fiance visa. Talk to us of how the purpose of the K-1 fiance visa is a "nonimmigrant" visa that is for people to be allowed "temporarily" into the US to see their spouse, and that it is "delusional" to think that that might be a path to permanent residency with their spouse.

Because the words temporary amd nonimmigrant don't carry the meaning that you're imbuing into them. Fiance visas operate very similarly to these dual intent H1 visas. You're granted a temporary nonimmigrant status while you pursue a permanent one. The words nonimmigrant and temporary doesn't exclude pursuing a permanent status at all.

In the case of a K-1, it is assumed you will transition from a temporary nonimmigrant status to a permanent status. [1] Requiring folks to move to the U.S., and then go back out of the country to get a green card, only to return again, is absurd. That absurd dance for both K1 and H1 w/dual intents is the reason the laws and guidance provided to agents changed starting in the 50's through the 90's. These changes in guidance to agents are nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to suppress people coming to the U.S. lawfully, which is absurd and deeply anti-American.

[1] https://www.uscis.gov/family/family-of-us-citizens/visas-for...

The K1 visa is even more temporary! It’s only for 90 days, and under the section 1255(d), the government doesn’t even have the power to convert a K1 visa into permanent residency. It’s like a tourist visa. The visa itself is not a pathway to anything.

People who come here on a K1 get permanent residency once they get married through a different statutory route: 8 USC 1154. But that has nothing to with the K1 itself. That route is available to anyone married to a US citizen, including illegal immigrants under certain conditions, or aliens who get married abroad. The K1 visa isn’t a stepping stone to permanent status. It’s just a convenience that allows people to have the wedding in the U.S. instead of the spouse’s home country.

> It’s like a tourist visa. The visa itself is not a pathway to anything. > ... > People who come here on a K1 get permanent residency once they get married through a different statutory route: 8 USC 1154. But that has nothing to with the K1 itself.

The UCIS explicitly links the K-1 (which has the words temporary and non-immigrant visa scattered throughout) to a de facto path to permanent status (see below). The fact that the two are different statutes is moving the goal posts (i.e., a logical fallacy). The government clearly sees them as a linked pathway to permanent status.

> "If you are a U.S. citizen who wants to bring your foreign fiancé(e) to the United States in order to get married"

https://www.uscis.gov/family/family-of-us-citizens/visas-for...

> The K1 visa isn’t a stepping stone to permanent status. It’s just a convenience that allows people to have the wedding in the U.S. instead of the spouse’s home country.

There's a reason they require a medical exam to be filed with the consulate as a part of the K-1 application, they expect you to be in the U.S. for a long time. K style visas are a lot more than a convenience, they are the law of the land and have been so for nearly 75 years.

Trying to follow the Constitution literally is hard and in practice, it's not done. The political system just interprets the Constitution in whatever way the consensus of the given moment wants to interpret it. The 14th Amendment is clear that all persons born in the US are citizens of the US. However, if you follow the 2nd Amendment just as literally, it means that the Federal government, at least, cannot make any laws restricting us from owning nuclear weapons.

The second amendment is very much intended to protect access to military weapons. It was never intended to address personal defense or sport hunting but national defense by state militias.

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...

> There are people who cannot or should not leave the US to consular process. They may have incurred unlawful presence that will then get them a 3 or 10 year bar from returning. This bar may well apply if they have to consular process instead of do an AoS. Some people may not be able to leave (eg asylees).

This feels like it might be the actual motivation of the Trump admin to do this change. The cruelty is indeed the point.

> They may have incurred unlawful presence

> The cruelty is indeed the point

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

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

This cruel and unusual measure only applies to people following the law.

It is actually remarkable how much of the bullshit we have to put up with comes down to our giving power to craven or unscrupulous men with a chip on their shoulder.

Bush W. and his father's single term.

Biden and his family's troubles with the federal government.

Musk and gestures broadly at South Africa

Trump

I'm sure the list goes on.

Thank you for this fantastically informative comment.

No, the comment is complete misinformation. In particular:

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

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

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

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

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

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

So here was the first version of your comment that I saw:

> The comment is misinformation. For example:

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

> Executive agencies were always governed by the Administrative Procedures Act. The law was created in 1934 for the purpose of governing executive agencies.

So this seemed like the most ChatGPT comment, particularly because it made factual errors (eg APA was 1946 not 1934) but, hey, at least you corrected it. Maybe it was run through ChatGPT after the fact? I found this [1]:

> The U.S. doesn’t have a real statutory pathway to permanent residency for skilled immigrants. The current H1B to Green Card pipeline is built on a legal fiction papered over a visa program that was the word “non-immigrant intent” written all over the statute.

> Gemini gets this correct: “The H-1B visa is a nonimmigrant classification that allows U.S. employers to temporarily employ foreign nationals in ‘specialty occupations’ that require highly specialized knowledge and at least a bachelor's degree.”

Gemini, huh?

So back to the merits. Let me quote the actual decision [2]:

> Held: The Administrative Procedure Act requires courts to exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, and courts may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous; Chevron is overruled

This was what "Chevron deference" actually was: presumptive validity of agency interpretations vs what we have under Loper Bright where the APA is the only way of changing agency interpretations (other than Congress passing laws, of course). So, under Chevron, the USCIS could issue this memo and courts would've had to have largely deferred to the agency interpretation. Now they don't have that defense.

Or, to put it yet another way, it's what I said.

You should probably disclose your politics here. I'll use as an example this George Floyd comment [3].

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48244638

[2]: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf

[3]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48188084

I made a typo and wrote “1934” instead of “1946,” which I quickly corrected.

Your comment meanwhile is still fundamentally wrong about the most basic facts: “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.”

The whole point of the APA was to govern executive agencies. So you’re wrong about the most basic premise of your post.

> This was what "Chevron deference" actually was: presumptive validity of agency interpretations vs what we have under Loper Bright where the APA is the only way of changing agency interpretations

Incorrect. The APA allows agencies to proceed in two ways: rulemakings and case by case adjudications. Agency interpretations can arise in either context. You don’t need a rule making to change an interpretation. You only need one to change something that was already a rule.

> Gemini, huH?

Yes, I quoted Gemini as a rhetorical device. “Even Gemini knows” that H1B is a temporary immigrant visa, not a pathway to permanent residency.

Your comment is completely wrong:

For example:

> Overturning Chevron became a mission of the conservative movement

Chevron’s biggest proponent was Justice Scalia!

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

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

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

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

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

Don’t you technically leave the nation when you enter an embassy?

Not at all, no - embassies are granted special privileges but are still the territory of the country they are in.

No. This is a popular myth.

Gives them the freedom to interpret it 'case by case' which is to mean punishing businesses and states not aligned with Trump with a million inconveniences, while leaving his base unmolested. The most divisive and punitive president ever.

> Essentially they're trying to change the rules by aggressive re-interpretation of the existing legal framework, and not actually changing any laws or regulations.

If you want to make that argument, you have to confront the fact that H1 is by its terms a “nonimmigrant” visa for people who are “temporarily” in the U.S. 8 USC 1101(a)(15)&(a)(15)(H). While adjustment of status was possible, it was never intended to be a de facto immigrant visa that typically leads to permanent residency.

Note the law does also have immigrant visas which are designed to lead to permanent residency, such as E1 visas: https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/visa-inf...

H1-B (I think H1 generally) is dual intent. https://fam.state.gov/FAM/09FAM/09FAM040210.html

You have to think about what "dual intent" actually means. The relevant provision is 8 USC 1184(h):

> (h) Intention to abandon foreign residence > The fact that an alien is the beneficiary of an application for a preference status filed under section 1154 of this title or has otherwise sought permanent residence in the United States shall not constitute evidence of an intention to abandon a foreign residence for purposes of obtaining a visa as a nonimmigrant described in subparagraph (H)(i)(b) or (c), (L), or (V) of section 1101(a)(15) of this title or otherwise obtaining or maintaining the status of a nonimmigrant described in such subparagraph, if the alien had obtained a change of status under section 1258 of this title to a classification as such a nonimmigrant before the alien's most recent departure from the United States.

What does the text in italics mean? It's there because having an intention to abandon your foreign residence makes you ineligible for a nonimmigrant visa, including H1B. All 1184(h) says is that a petition for permanent residency cannot by itself be used as "evidence of an intention to abandon a foreign residence" for purposes of renewing your H1 visa.

That's all "dual intent" means. It's a fiction where you can keep saying "I intend to go back home after my temporary work in the U.S."--which remains a fundamental requirement of H1B status--and the government can't point to a permanent residency petition as evidence that you are intending to stay in the U.S. permanently. The law doesn't give the H1B holder any right or expectation of being granted permanent status.

The law does have immigrant visas for people who can come here and say "I want to work here and seek permanent residency. I'm not intending to go back." H1B isn't like that.

> The law does have immigrant visas for people who can come here and say "I want to work here and seek permanent residency. I'm not intending to go back." H1B isn't like that.

you are, obviously, interpreting the law to fit your narrative:

""The fact that an alien is the beneficiary of an application for a preference status filed under section 1154 of this title or has otherwise sought permanent residence in the United States shall not constitute evidence of an intention to abandon a foreign residence for purposes of obtaining a visa as a nonimmigrant described in subparagraph (H)(i)(b) or (c), (L), or (V) of section 1101(a)(15) of this title or otherwise obtaining or maintaining the status of a nonimmigrant described in such subparagraph"

All this means is that you, indeed, can be dual intent and apply for permanent residency while holding a H-1B, like generations of Americans have done before ourselves.

Not only is changing laws harder. Changing regulations requires following the Administrative Procedure Act. They might also be short circuiting APA - as in typical for this admin to attempt.

What part of this memo changes the regulations? The punchline is this: “Where adjustment of status is in the discretion of USCIS, officers are reminded that they are to consider all relevant factors and information in the totality of the circumstances in exercising that discretion.”

All the memo is saying is reminding USCIS officers that adjustment of status is an act of administrative grace and applicants aren’t entitled to have their status adjusted. That’s always been true.

That is what the memo is trying to say. That no regulations or laws are changing, but it's simply pushing for a certain interpretation of the law that doesn't seem to have been the status quo for awhile.

Some stats I found online report that ~60% of greencards are granted to people already living the US. This memo makes it seem like that route will now be much harder. So while its true that the law as written has always been true, they're definitely pushing for a change that will result in past behaviors no longer being true.

> That's always been true.

Except it is completely contrary to how the immigration system has worked in the US for decades. It is absolutely standard for people who are already in the US on other types of visas to apply for Green Cards.

Maybe it has become de facto standard, but from my reading that’s not how the laws and regulations are written. For whatever else you might say about Trump, he was given a political mandate to enforce the immigration laws and regulations as written.

More like he's been given a political mandate to be needlessly cruel to non-citizens, and he's constantly finding new ways to do so - whether legal or illegal.

The latest move even forces spouses of US citizens to leave the country before they can apply for a Green Card. Why? No reason except spite. Hating on foreigners is good politics.

And then all sorts of people will come out of the woodwork to try to explain that this is all normal and fine, and that nobody should be upset by it.

It took decades of bait and switch and not enforcing the immigration laws to get to this point: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/29/podcasts/the-daily/electi...

The last time the U.S. had this level of foreign born population, it enacted extremely restrictive immigration laws and the foreign born population dropped from 15% to under 5%.

"Bait and switch"? Applying for a Green Card while in the US is allowed by the law, and has been the norm for decades.

Yes, the US has had other xenophobic phases in its history. That doesn't justify the new wave of xenophobic politics.

> Bait and switch"? Applying for a Green Card while in the US is allowed by the law, and has been the norm for decades.

The law was marketed to voters as a temporary worker program. That’s not what it ended up being. That’s the bait and switch.

> Yes, the US has had other xenophobic phases in its history. That doesn't justify the new wave of xenophobic politic

The immigration restriction was necessary to Americanize the immigrants culturally and dissolve their foreign identities and affinity for their own cultural groups. It was fairly successful, too!

It’s bizarre to have to explain this concept on HN. Silicon Valley companies spend so much time on culture and fit, and with good reason. Cultivating a successful culture is extremely important. It’s curation, not “xenophobia.”

A country is not a company.

The central belief that defines Americans is that the country is open to immigrants, and that it will accept anyone who embraces the civic creed: democracy and civil rights, as defined by the Constitution.

The attempt by Trump and his supporters (yourself included) to replace that American identity with a xenophobic, exclusionary identity is a major deviation from traditional American values.

> The central belief that defines Americans is that the country is open to immigrants, and that it will accept anyone who embraces the civic creed: democracy and civil rights, as defined by the Constitution.

Insofar as America has a "civic creed," it's principles like limited government, federalism, property rights, free markets, and individual liberty.[1] We know that, because America's founders were prolific writers and wrote down everything they thought was important: https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/full-text

It's definitely not immigration. Here's Alexander Hamilton on immigration: https://www.iwp.edu/articles/2016/12/21/hamiltons-actual-vie... ("The safety of a republic depends essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits; on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias, and prejudice; and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education, and family.")

Alexander Hamilton thought you needed a "common national sentiment," "uniformity of principles and habits," and "love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education, and family." Hamilton would have hated Mamdani.

Alexander Hamilton was a monarchist. He's hardly the single authority on what American values are.

If we're playing the "what did the founders think?" game, then I'll see your Hamilton and raise you a Washington [0]:

> The bosom of America is open to receive not only the opulent & respectable Stranger, but the oppressed & persecuted of all Nations & Religions; whom we shall wellcome to a participation of all our rights & previleges, if by decency & propriety of conduct they appear to merit the enjoyment.

And then I'll double down with a Jefferson [1]:

> and shall we refuse to the unhappy fugitives from distress, that hospitality which the savages of the wilderness extended to our fathers arriving in this land? shall oppressed humanity find no asylum on this globe? the constitution indeed has wisely provided that, for admission to certain offices of important trust, a residence shall be required, sufficient to develope character and design. but might not the general character and capabilities of a citizen be safely communicated to every one manifesting a bonâ fide purpose of embarking his life and fortunes permanently with us?

And of course, the most famous statement of the American attitude towards immigration:

> Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,

> With conquering limbs astride from land to land;

> Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand

> A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame

> Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name

> Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand

> Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command

> The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

> “Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she

> With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,

> Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

> The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

> Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

> I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

0. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/99-01-02-...

1. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-36-02-0...

2. https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/46550/the-new-colossu...

> I'll see your Hamilton and raise you a Washington [0]

If America can be defined in terms of a "creedo"--which is your position, not mine--then surely that creedo can't include things that architects of the country like Hamilton and Jefferson disagreed on? The creedo must be the things they had in common, like federalism, republicanism, and property rights?

> And of course, the most famous statement of the American attitude towards immigration:

The American creedo cannot logically be defined by some poem some activist wrote a century after the founding.

Jefferson is much closer to the American credo than Hamilton was, though the United States did not remain stuck in the 1770s-1790s, so it's just a fallacy to treat the founders as the sole source of American identity.

But if you do want to play the founders game, Jefferson had a much larger impact on American self-identity than Hamilton. Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, created the Democratic Party, which is the only party that has survived throughout all of American history, and championed the idea of democracy, which Hamilton was highly skeptical of. Hamilton was a monarchist, as I mentioned before. He had a major impact on the American financial system, but was much less successful as a political figure in his own right and did not shape American cultural and political identity in the way Jefferson did. His political party collapsed within 20 years, and his conceptions of an elite politics were overtaken by the rapid democratization of the US.

There have always been minority streams in American politics that have been xenophobic and have opposed immigration - you just happen to belong to the latest one. But these movements have consistently lost out over the course of American history. Successive waves of immigration have brought new groups to the United States. Xenophobes like yourself have constantly said that every new group would ruin America. The Irish didn't ruin America. Neither did the Germans. Neither did the Italians. Giving African Americans civil rights didn't ruin America. Chinese and Indian people haven't ruined America. Haitians aren't ruining America.

You seem to have some sort of obsession with Mamdani, which is weird, since he's as American as Apple Pie. It's actually difficult to think of anything about Mamdani that comes across as particularly foreign. He speaks perfect American English. He acts just like any other progressive New Yorker. He's extremely hooked into American culture. What, exactly, is it about Mamdani that's foreign or dangerous to America?

When you ask what makes immigration part of the American credo, this is what does that: the US is not a country founded on any ethnic identity. It's a country founded and peopled by immigrants, whose only common identity is belief in the American project, which is defined in purely secular and civic terms. Throughout its history, immigrants from all over the world have embraced that identity and have been rapidly incorporated into the society of the country. You don't like that, and want to undo it. Too bad.

> principles like limited government, federalism, property rights, free markets, and individual liberty.

A laundry-list of principles the current federal Republican regime has been destroying or violating the last two years, and surely each one far more important than (non-)immigration.

It started by abusing the responsibility of "immigration" to violate the First Amendment, punishing people purely for op-eds and opinions the President didn't like. [0] Then he unilaterally declared an "invasion" by a Venezuelan street gang, using that as an excuse to round up dozens of people (without charges, let alone evidence) based on a crazy "any tattoo I can't recognize" rubric (for a gang that doesn't even use tattoos) and violating court orders to deliberately ship them into a third-world dictator's brutal gulag. [1]

That was, what, just the first month? We've had dozens of other things that ought to have been scandals worse than Watergate since then.

> Hamilton would have hated Mamdani.

Hamilton would have embraced Mamdani as a brother, if the alternative was Trump having any position of public trust.

Discussing immigration, it seems a little strange to target the mayor of a particular single city, instead of the enormous cartload of impeachable offenses being committed by the highest office of the land that actually does immigration stuff.

[0] https://www.aclu.org/cases/khalil-v-trump

[1] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/pro-soccer-player-sent-...

> Hamilton would have embraced Mamdani as a brother

No. Hamilton was very worried about immigrants bringing foreign social and political views to the U.S. Jefferson, meanwhile, though the immigrants would support the Democratic Party, and favored those radical ideas. It's the same debate we have today: https://www.iwp.edu/articles/2016/12/21/hamiltons-actual-vie.... Hamilton was the MAGA of his day.

That's unfair to Hamilton: There's huge difference between "kinda wanted a king" versus "would have approved of that becoming king."

> on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias, and prejudice

If that includes Russian and Hungarian influence, Mamdani is waaaay closer to that then the JD Vance, Trump and the rest of Putin + Orban loving group.

In fact Mamdani and left are way closer to having actual consistent values they operate on, positive national sentiment then the above gentlemen. The right is in the process of destroying to values and replacing them with wast amount of corruption on the oligarchs sake.

> and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found

The people you promote hate America as it is. Their literal project is to destroy it and rebuild completely different feudal setup - the one based on suppression and violence.

> to be closely connected with birth, education, and family

It is again right who is trying to destroy education and to modify family into mini dictatorship where connection does not matter, because you will do as ordered of punished.

> We know that, because America's founders were prolific writers (...)

Every single one of them was an immigrant. I mean, check the country's history.

By the way, the current US administration is questioning the legal principle which would support the idea that the founding fathers or even their descendants were citizens.

> It's definitely not immigration.

You have a massive statue at the gateway to your biggest city with a big ass plaque stating "give us your tired huddled masses".

It is the symbol of the country.

Are we so desperate to whitewash this mess to even dare to gaslight about such a fundamental topic?

not just de facto standard and not just in the US, it's a logical way to intepret the laws, in many western countries. The laws should streamline and welcome people who have already established connection and contributed to the success of America. It makes no sense for people to have to leave the country to apply for permanent resident, and be treated like all those to-be immigrants who have never lived in America.

> The laws should streamline and welcome people who have already established connection and contributed to the success of America

The law should do what it was designed to do. The H1 system reflects a compromise between people who wanted skilled workers and those who didn’t want foreigners becoming permanent residents. So the compromise was a temporary worker program where most people would go home afterwards.

The law should be interpreted to give effect to that compromise. Your approach of streamlining immigration wipes away that compromise.

they still need to file for permanent residency and you can still reject them.

If the laws need to "wipe away that compromise", better just disqualify them from filing in the first place.

It makes no sense to deport some of the people that you're going to give permanent residency to, while you're giving permanent residency to them.

For him to have been given a mandate, he would have had to stick to one well defined, self consistent position for more than a day.

I wonder why all of this