hckrnws

This has been a very active and interesting AMA so thank you everyone. I will be stopping now and returning tomorrow morning to respond to all the unanswered questions and comments.

Can a TN classification denial result in immigration detention? If so, how can I mitigate that risk?

For context, a Canadian woman recently tried to enter into the USA from Mexico and get TN-1 status. Instead of refusing her entry, officials detained her and she's been stuck for 10 days waiting for deportation.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-canadian-woma...

It's unclear to me how big of a risk this actually is for the average "Canadian goes to the USA" story because of her specific factual scenario. Presumably I don't want to enter from Mexico, but is it advisable to take flights from a TSA preclearance airport in Canada so I'm not actually in the USA if the classification is denied?

That's extraordinarily unusual and in my experience has only happened when CBP believes that the applicant was lying or has a criminal record so I wouldn't base the decision on where/how to apply on this very low risk. Depending on the TN application, there are better and worse ways to apply for a TN and from an outcome standpoint, sometimes it's better to apply with CBP at the border or with CBP at a U.S. airport by flying directly to the U.S.

You don't think border processes are becoming uncertain now and relying less on precedence?

A land-border crossing in Mexico? 100%, yes.

With all respect, everything happening in the US at the moment is "extraordinarily unusual" today.

Tomorrow it will be the "new normal".

According to other sources, this was an unusual case. She was a Canadian trying to enter from Mexico, who had been told back in November that her visa was no longer valid.

According to this article, Canada rejected her entry as well. Maybe it's not just the US, but this person actually had a real issue with her visa and her travel plans were not prepared well.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c80y3yx1jdyo

"...when she reached the border [Canada], Mr Burke said the Canadian authorities denied her entry as they were concerned she may try to work illegally."

Different person. The person mentioned in the top-level comment is surnamed Mooney.

canada cannot deny canadian citizens entry

She crossed overland. Imagine you do pre-clearance out of a Canadian airport. Can they kidnap you out of country and ship you to a US detention center?

Canadians may be often unprepared and shocked how aggressive and militarized the southern border is, compared to crossing at northern border land entry points.

I rarely find the pre-clearance process to be all that nice when compared to internal clearance. When I traveled a lot to NYC I far preferred to fly out of Toronto island and do immigration at Newark vs flying out of Pearson. The tone was entirely different.

I personally am not sure that pre-clearance should even continue given current diplomatic tensions. Having an armed foreign police force from a country whose official head of state says it wants to occupy you... doesn't seem wise.

US airports love Canada pre-clearance because it allows them to assign planes to any gate. Might be an easy way to gum up the works as retribution.

It varies. In recent years (last decade or so) YVR has been pretty good. Historically there were ups and downs.

I doubt a few immigration officers with handguns (can't say for sure they even carry them or carry them out of the airport) are going to take over BC.

It's not that I think they're some sort of potential foreign occupation force. It's just oddly symbolic and weird, and their powers to detain people, etc. seem entirely problematic in the current context.

It is as bad as it has ever been………

But border patrol has always been a bunch of small dick assholes, all the way back to Obama.

My wife and I adopted a child from another country. He was 18 months of age at the time.

We flew into LAX. We were exhausted from a long flight. We got to customs. Agents approached us and said that they had a few questions and said that I (the father) needed to collect our bags and they would escort my wife(us citizen), my oldest son (us citizen), and my youngest son(adopted foreign national) to the waiting area.

I got our bags and tried to rejoin my family. They denied me entry. Said they had questions for “them”. After an hour I started to have to raise hell because I had all the supplies for my family. Diapers. Food, etc. I was told it obviously took us a while to adopt this kid so we can wait longer.

I eventually stated that they were illegally holding two us citizens and I was going to call 911 for them to take me serious.

They acted like they didn’t know my wife and oldest wee US citizens. Bunch of bullshit. Fuck those assholes and every one of them that continues to violate our constitutional rights.

Signed

12 year US Navy Civilian.

Did the adoption agency warn you about crossing borders?

Many families with recent adoptees have terrible experiences. It’s sad, but it’s important to prepare for it.

Adoption and human trafficking can look very similar. And border guards are often assholes.

Lol they've wisened up to that, now they just take your phone in secondary. If you are a veteran they likely just see you as more of a threat.

Now imagine you had no recourse to citizenship and how terrified you would feel. Threatening to call 911 would lead to escalation of crisis rather than its opposite.

Having seen what the US gov't did to Maher Arar 20 years ago, I have never felt comfortable crossing that border since, despite being a white middle class Canadian of no suspect at all. Just place, wrong time, wrong person, and it can go so, so badly, without any recourse.

Were they doing it because they thought you were immigration illegally or because they thought this could be human trafficking situation?

I don't think either one is the case and obviously I know nothing of your situation besides what you've said, but I can understand why they might be suspicious if a couple of Americans leave the country and come back with an infant that was not part of their family when they departed.

Again, I'm not saying that I think that this is true or even that their concern is reasonable in this specific situation, just that there is another explanation for this other than power tripping racist border thugs, and depending on circumstances it may have been prudent.

Being snarky when you are holding all the power in a power imbalanced situation, is never prudent.

> all the way back to Obama.

I, a natural born US citizen, was a student in the Bush years and I'd drive up to Canada. Coming back, the US guys were always aggro and weird. I had one guy smelling my laundry.

At the time I figured it was some post 9/11 BS.

US citizen here in Michigan, grew up and currently live near the border with southwest Ontario.

For as long as I can remember it's just been known that going to Canada the border control folks are friendly, and coming back into the US is a mixed bag. Sometimes things are fine to cold, other times it's like the folks are having a bad day and taking it out on you.

And this is just me, rando US citizen without any criminal record, going to Canada for random couple-day touristy things. Seeing Toronto, Niagara Falls, hiking, etc.

I always had the impression that this is how they were trained. Like it's part of the homeland security/border agent training to act as hostile as possible. I've never had a positive interaction with an US border patrol.

Hope it wasn’t the underwear specifically.

Sexual harassment and assault, such as illegal strip searches and the conditions at women's detention facilities, is a common form of Immigration abuse. This comment is an important reminder of just one form of that.

Agreed, I wasn’t trying to be sarcastic. I’m afraid that the officer was simply being a sicko rather than actually “investigating”.

[dead]

I'm an American and I was annoyed at how aggressive and militarized the southern border is.

I was on a big road trip across the country visiting national parks. I went to Organ Pipe Nat. Monument in Arizona which literally touches the Mexican border.

On my way there I drove through a border patrol checkpoint 10 miles north of the border inside the US. They don't check southbound traffic, only northbound. I never entered Mexico. On the way back I had to stop at that border patrol checkpoint. The border patrol agent was basically yelling at me for my passport. I told him I didn't have it with me. He yelled to see my driver's license. I gave it to him and he yelled at me "Why do you have a North Carolina driver's license?" I replied that is where I live and that is my home address on the license. He then screamed at me "Don't you know this is a prime drug running area?!" I told him "I have no idea and I'm not interested in drugs. There is a national park area 5 miles away, don't you get a lot of tourists here going to see that?"

I then noticed in my rear view and side mirrors that another agent was going around my car with a dog sniffing around. After about 2 minutes I saw the dog agent give a thumbs up and the rude agent said "Okay, you can go but you should carry your passport"

I had less rude experiences in Texas and California but still overly suspicious border patrol agents. One guy asked me what all the stuff was in my car. I actually offered him granola bars and soda cans and then showed him landscape pictures on my cameras. He realized that I was really a tourist and not into drugs or helping immigrants cross.

> Okay, you can go but you should carry your passport

Funny, since half of U.S. citizens don't have a passport.

I thought you only need a passport if you're crossing international borders?

If you leave US mainland customs zone and go to saipan or Guam or something it will probably slow you down and they might claim you need it, even though you don't. Also Mexico never changed their law like US did, iirc you can still enter Mexico with a birth certificate.

If you're near a port of entry, you actually can be stopped at any time to be asked for proof of citizenship/visa/etc. See also https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone There are plenty of border patrol stops along highways that never cross a border where you'll be routinely stopped.

In practice, that means "near the border with Mexico" where there are border patrol stations along highways well inside the US that do routine stops, but technically it applies to any port city as well.

_Technically_, if you're a US citizen, you're not required to have proof of citizenship on you. But a drivers license in the US does not show that you are a citizen, and they absolutely can stop you from leaving (at least long enough to mess up your day plans) if you cannot actually prove citizenship in practice. It's just a _lot_ easier to have a passport on you. Passport cards exist mostly for this purpose.

E.g. I lived in Texas for a long time and have a passport card for that specific reason. Driving down to the beach or just going on random trips involves passing through border control stations even though you never leave the US or even get particularly near the border. Your chances of just going to visit a friend in south Texas and winding up needing to pass through a border control checkpoint due to unplanned road closures/etc are pretty high, so it's best to have a card in your wallet at all times that counts. Most remote highways have them as soon as you get back near a town. Most of the time, they'll wave you through pretty quickly, but it's just a lot faster process if you have a passport card and not only a drivers license.

Side note: A friend of mine was a park ranger at Carlsbad Caverns. He picked me up at the El Paso airport and we were driving to Carlsbad. We went through a border control checkpoint. They threatened to arrest him on the spot because he had his park service uniform hanging up in the back, but no employee ID or other proof that he actually was a ranger. They said he was impersonating a federal officer. They made a big deal of it and made us wait while they called the park to verify he was employed (and that didn't work because it was about 8pm). We eventually got let go with a warning after he found random online photos of him giving cave tours and convinced them that he couldn't possibly have staged a ton of random folks on the internet to have him in the background of photos.... But still, it was kinda nuts...

I think people often think something they did or didn't do lead them to be fucked with. Having gone through the border and checkpoint many many times with absolutely wild variation despite doing same stuff, my observation it is 99% whether the officer is bored or sadistic and 1% the totality of the situation.

Slight correction: "enhanced" driver licenses are citizen-only, and this is actually checked during issue, so they can also serve as proof of citizenship.

To clarify some of the confusion in this thread, a REAL ID driver's license is completely different from an enhanced driver's license. A REAL ID meets federal security standards and is available in all states. An enhanced driver's license proves U.S. citizenship and includes RFID but is only available in five states.

Nope, that’s a decision made by each state.

Enhanced driver licenses, not regular ones. These come with a whole lot of federal strings attached, and exist pretty much entirely for the purpose of traveling across the border without a passport. As far as I know, the feds require citizenship checks for any participating state.

Now, in some states, regular driver licenses have a citizen or non-citizen marker on them, but that's a whole separate thing (and AFAIK the feds don't consider them sufficient proof in any case).

States can give out enhanced driver's licenses to people who are non citizens. The only requirement is that they are here legally at the time.

That’s not correct. An enhanced driver’s license requires US citizenship.

https://www.dhs.gov/enhanced-drivers-licenses-what-are-they

You're right, I was confusing REAL ID with "enhanced drivers licenses"

carry minimum documents especially inside the country.

It’s the most “powerful” of all the US identity documents. It’s a good idea to have one even if you don’t intend to travel.

It is insane to travel without a passport. How is it even possible! Americans are living in some weird timeline.

I have a US passport. I use it when I go to another country.

When I have traveling within the US I never take my passport. There is zero need and I may lose it so why even bother taking it when it serves no use?

My trip was a 6 week long road trip from the south eastern US through Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California, up to Seattle in the northwest, and then back to the south eastern US.

I had no intention of going to Mexico or Canada. They are fine countries but that was no the intent of this trip so I left my passport at home.

During this trip I learned that the US border patrol has set up border inspection points about 10 to 50 miles inside the US. Most of the southern border are remote desert regions where people can cross on foot and then try to meet up with someone in a vehicle on the other side. So the border patrol doesn't just patrol the actual border but has checkpoints inside the US on the roads near the border.

You don't need a passport to get through these as you never left the country.

But I was driving a vehicle (Honda CR-V) with an open cargo area that showed it was full of luggage, bags of food, and lots of water bottles. I probably looked suspicious like I was picking up immigrants on foot or smuggling drugs.

I wasn't. I was on a big road trip and wanted to be prepared for days if my car broke down on a side road and I was stuck in a desert area waiting 3 days to be rescued.

It's pretty common around the world.

EU citizens don't need a passport to travel across the EU (even outside the Schengen area, where you have to go through a border check), they just need an identity card.

(most) EU citizens could also travel to Turkey with their identity card.

EU citizens could travel to the UK with their identity card, for a few years after Brexit, as long as they got UK (pre-)settled status.

Russian citizens can travel to Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan without their international passport. They instead have an "internal" passport (meant to be used like an identity card, and for travel to closed towns inside the country), which is recognised by those other countries.

The same applies in the other direction for citizens of nearby countries travelling to Russia (even in the case of an Abkhazian internal passport. Abkhazia is recognised by only ~6 other UN member states).

I'm not sure in which way a US "passport card" differs from a plastic identity card. But it's notable that a few countries don't have either (UK doesn't... Russia and a few neighbouring countries, as mentioned before, instead have an "internal passport")

Of course, something in common with all the examples above, and with US citizens travelling to Mexico, is that you're travelling to neighbouring countries with friendly relations.

To add to that: in virtually every country in South America their citizens can visit the other countries in South America with only an ID card, no passport necessary.

> Of course, something in common with all the examples above, and with US citizens travelling to Mexico, is that you're travelling to neighbouring countries with friendly relations.

Militarily speaking, yes. But unlike the other examples, there is a huge economic difference between the US and Mexico, meaning migration flows exclusively one way. Illegal crossings are extremely common and the US has strong incentives to prevent them. It's hard to compare the US-Mexico border to any other border in the world.

> I'm not sure in which way a US "passport card" differs from a plastic identity card. But it's notable that a few countries don't have either (UK doesn't... Russia and a few neighbouring countries, as mentioned before, instead have an "internal passport")

US simply doesn't have any official identity card.

So they make up replacements for when it's convenient to actually have one.

I suppose the goal is to encourage innovation in the identity theft industry... after all it adds to the PIB doesn't it?

Circa 2018, I was travelling from Greece to Germany. For whatever reason, the Bundespolizie decided to check everyone’s passports. In particular everyone from Ireland was demanded to have a passport - their identity card wasn’t good enough.

They probably singled out Irish citizens because Ireland (just like the UK) doesn't provide ID cards...

But they have a "passport card"

https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/travel-and-recreation/...

I don't see why Bundespolizie would have had to treat people differently, alas it's usually difficult to argue with a foreign country border police

They were on a road trip in the United States and never crossed an international border. Why would they need a passport? I've never taken mine on a trip like that.

Falsehoods Programmers Believe About International Borders

It cuts both ways. Many American friends have told me that they were treated aggressively at the Canadian border as well.

If you get to chatting with a CBSA officer (Canadian version of CBP), they'll have plenty of stories for you about Americans who want to drive from WA to Alaska with all of their guns in their car and not declare it, or try to bring all kinds of absolutely ridiculous stuff into the country without declaring it. The people who cross the border on a regular basis, like a dozen times a year or more, know the system and policies.

It's the tourists and people who rarely cross that have never encountered CBSA that try to treat Canada like some kind of theme park. They're also often unprepared with appropriate ID, documents, receipts and stuff and get weird when CBSA starts asking them exactly the same nature of questions that CBP asks of people going southbound.

I would also emphasize that CBSA knows how often you cross, through a US-Canada data sharing agreement. An ALPR system takes a picture of your license plate on your car and very quickly queries a database, for information presented to the question-asking-person, as your vehicle approaches the window. This is assuming you're driving northbound of course. Even if that doesn't happen, they'll ask to see your drivers license along with your passport and immediately know you don't reside anywhere near the border.

They know immediately if the zip code where your car is registered is somewhere close to the border, or is very far away from the border. And if you have, or have not, crossed the border recently. It's people from very far away from the border that rarely if ever cross who also think they can take their guns, drugs, etc into Canada and won't get questioned about it.

In '09, after getting laid off I did a road trip around with provisions for "I could go camping if my road trip took me that way." No fire arms or criminal record.. but I'm getting to that.

So, going from Seattle up to Banff by way of the Sumas / Huntington crossing...

I went in and was asked for the purpose of my visit ("tourist"), duration of stay ("one to two weeks, no more than two"), for my occupation ("I am currently unemployed") and my permanent residence ("I am currently without a permanent residence")... and the officer looked at my car with camping equipment for more than two weeks... and I was sent to have a bit more of a discussion with an agent.

Parked my car and went in and waited. While waiting, another family was moving from Washington to Alaska... and they were having difficulties. Three vehicles, four possible drivers, though one was an older woman. One car contained a rifle and one of the drivers had a criminal record.

I got to the counter after an hour, explained, was denied entry but that could be rectified if I came back with proof of ties to the United States and proof that I had sufficient funds to be able to stay the duration of my stay without needing any employment.

So, got back in my car, got in line to go back to the US and called my parents on my iPhone (still a rather new tech). They happened to have been at the insurance company when I called, and so got insurance for the car that I was driving for Canada - and sent a photo of that insurance and their drivers licenses with the address clearly visible. Got to the US border agent who was confused that I hadn't entered Canada but was clearly coming from Canada and sat in that office for a little bit while they looked to see that yes, I was an American citizen.

After half an hour there went to the ATM and got a balance of my accounts. I had more than sufficient funds in the account, and then went back to the border crossing. It was the same agent at the crossing so I didn't need to explain again, but said I had the necessary proof (which surprised him that I got it that quickly) and had me park again and go in to the office.

In the office, the family was still trying to figure out what to do. An hour later after they decided that the brother with the criminal record was going to walk back to the US side and that they were going to pay an arm and a leg to register the rifle I got to the counter, showed my parents drivers licenses ("this is where I am going, I had some time without any responsibilities and so decided to tour North America"), the photo of the car insurance for Canada (they called that one in and verified it... again, surprised that I was able to get it so quickly), and matched the account on the ATM receipt with the account that I had for my card... and let me in with some paperwork in my passport noting that I needed to provide that paperwork when leaving the country otherwise entering again could be problematic.

Anyways... I had a great time in Canada. Loved Banff and later Waterton. Handed over the papers to ensure I was leaving at Chief Mountain. I'd love to do it again some day... the drive from Kamloops to Banff was one of the most enjoyable "just driving" days I've done.

It took a while, but trying to cooperate to the best of my ability and that new "sending pictures around" technology really helped.

Glad you got to experience Waterton. Many Canadians will eventually go to Banff or Jasper (though it's surprising how many people here in Ontario where I live now have never been west of the province, but almost all have been to the US)... but almost nobody gets to Waterton and it's a jewel that most people don't even know about. Haven't been since I was 14. I lived in Alberta but it was still an 8 hour drive.

Going to Waterton, as I said, I was prepared for camping... got to the gate and the ranger looked at my car and informed me that the campground was full. However, camping was my backup if my first choice was not available... staying in the Prince of Wales. It was beautiful.

A selection of some of the photos I took there. https://imgur.com/a/stdkS0c ... some are memories, some are trying to capture the beauty of the area. I don't have them on http://shagie.smugmug.com because technically I was a tourist rather than a photographer and selling the prints gets into potential future visa issues. The rock formation is a nice, compact chevron fold.

When I was there in the late 80s as a teen we camped, but the campground was really just a big open flat area with no trees.

I recall doing the long walk into town and dumping quarters in the Bubble Bobble machine they had in the arcade there.

Met a cute girl there.

Unfortunately, most of Waterton burned in 2017. The Prince of Wales Hotel survived, but those trees are all dead. It will be decades before it looks like your photos again.

That's disappointing... and I see that Athabasca Falls also had a fire ( https://youtu.be/kljQc4ycIs4 ).

I don't have any great photos from Athabasca area... some of the other photos...

https://imgur.com/a/c2Ep6ox

The style of waterfall photographs that I find myself drawn to are high contrast, narrower field of view that have a... "story of the water". You need to be able to follow it through the frame. The great spouts aren't ones that I find interesting. I much preferred Romana falls (Mount Hood - https://shagie.smugmug.com/Nature/Waterfalls/Ramona-Falls ) and Burney Falls (near Mount Shasta - https://shagie.smugmug.com/Nature/Waterfalls/Burney-Falls ). While they're veils of water from high cliffs that crash onto rocks far below, I can photograph them... intimately. They are majestic, but there are so many parts to them that tell their own "story".

https://imgur.com/1o6BVGR - I think this is from the Lake Louise area. Not sure, it's not labeled but it's date stamped near other photos in that area.

https://imgur.com/joZFgVT - Another example of "intimate photos of grand nature" - this is a small part (from where I stood https://www.google.com/maps/@52.1765131,-117.0554424,3a,75y,... ) of the mountains.

https://imgur.com/SmKxAeQ - I have it labeled as "Lower Brenda Falls" in my photos. I think its from Waterton area... Ahh... looking it up, Bertha falls. https://www.google.com/maps/place/Waterton+Lakes+National+Pa... (I'll be fixing that up in my albums)

And even then, a fire can show the recycling power of nature. https://imgur.com/IHQhm7z and wildflowers are once again freed from the seed bank. https://www.google.com/maps/place/Marble+Canyon+Trailhead/@5... - I was there in 2009, the fire was from 2003. https://cyclewriteblog.wordpress.com/2015/01/01/natures-riot...

(See also the "Cheeto truck explosion" on the road to Yosemite after the area had a wild fire through it - https://shagie.smugmug.com/Nature/Wildflowers )

There's still plenty of beauty in Jasper after the forest fires

https://photos.app.goo.gl/A8LypichDTns3n1V6

I'll have to try to get out there this summer/spring, wildflowers tend to emerge after mass fires like that.

The road up to Marmot Basin was just crazy when I was up there this winter. Desolation.

Beautiful. Thanks for sharing your story and the photos.

Only negative border patrol experience I’ve ever had was crossing the Canadian border.

They gotta keep the criminals out somehow. I know quite a few well to do white men with DUIs that kept them out of Canada and I can't blame Canada for it. I think any Felony will keep them from letting you in.

Which is why Trump should be banned from entering as he is a convicted felon.

It’s a bit more complicated than just “any felony” - among other factors, Canadian immigration law considers how Canadian criminal law would treat the offence, as well as how long it’s been since the sentence was completed. And there are discretionary provisions to allow ministerial overrides, as I’m sure they’d do for Trump during his presidency if he would otherwise be covered.

But you’re right, it’s absolutely true that Canadian immigration law treats DUIs by foreign nationals far more harshly than US immigration law does (assuming simple DUI in each case and not something with complications like someone getting hurt or killed).

I got lots of questions going from the US to Canada. But we were just waved through going in the other direction.

I am Canadian and I have always had an easier time crossing Into the US. I have been detained multiple times from the Canadian side.

I took an espresso repair course just across the boarder in Washington and on my way back I was detained for hours and questioned very aggressively because "there is no such thing as an espresso machine repair course".

That being said, I don't doubt the American side can be tough too, though I have never experienced it.

She crossed overland from Mexico for some reason, not from Canada. The linked article says: "Then they came back and told her that, because they were denying her, that they have to send her back to Canada."

Is there a policy that requires that people denied entry be returned to the country they are citizens of?

Mexico would have to officially accept her as a deportee. I’m sure it’s possible, but they “can’t” just let her walk back across the border.

From what I read, the Canadian consulate can't do anything for her.

They have her in their system, and she has no rights.

I read that she was scheduled to be released (sent back to Canada) today, but I can't find any more recent news either way.

In a way it's a story only notable because she's middle class and white. These kinds of things happened routinely to people with Arabic or "Muslim" names for a disturbing amount of time after 9/11. Maher Arar being the most famous case.

It is sad that this is now a priority for so many only now that it's affecting affluent white people.

They didn't care before, and they only care now for self-preservation.

Preclearance locations have more traffic and so tend to have more nasty interviewers and more random denials. TN interviews elsewhere are much friendlier. Choose a land crossing if possible.

I’d rather be told “no” than end up in detention.

If my asylum application gets denied, what options do I have? I came to the U.S. as a minor and have little to no memory of my original country. I applied for asylum in 2016 and have been waiting for an interview ever since. Given my pending status, are there any other pathways to obtaining a Green Card or legal residency that would allow me to travel?

Edit Additional Question - Some of us like myself, came to the U.S. as children, following our parents after being forcibly removed from our home countries by authoritarian leaders who targeted us because of our "tribe". Despite this, the current climate often unfairly associates undocumented immigrants with criminal activity. How can someone in this situation avoid being wrongfully labeled as a “criminal immigrant,” especially in the event of an ICE raid?

I am neither OP nor a lawyer at all, but I do have experience watching authoritarian regimes destroy a country in real-time. One of the most terrifying things to me is the breakdown in the rule of law, because you no longer have any expectations to plan against, and anything can happen.

I would never counsel against getting legal advice, because competent legal advice is going to be one of your best assets for planning every possible future outcome. But I would caution you that in this environment, you also need to plan for what to do when the legal advice can no longer predict or inform outcomes.

Sometimes there are employment-based green card paths that can help for those seeking asylum but whether going down this path would allow you to travel would depend in part on your immigration history - what your status was when you came to the U.S., when you/your parents applied for asylum, etc. If you haven't already, you should speak with an immigration attorney to look at all options, including those based on employment.

That would be an employment visa, not green card. It can lead to a green card in some cases but it's complicated (depending on the country of origin it can take an extremely long time)

Historically, bona fide marriage with US citizen allowed the best way to legalize. I don't know if that changed recently.

It’s unreliable and recently ICE has deported people who are attempting to legalize their status. https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/free-books/fiance-ma...

https://www.cbsnews.com/miami/news/south-florida-ice-hsi-mig...

were you a son of an asylee that then aged out? If so, you may want to look at the asylum “nunc pro tunc” process

[flagged]

Hi Peter, thanks for doing this over the years, when going through my own immigration journey reading through your past AMAs was a huge help.

For reference, I'm a Canadian who just moved to the US on a TN Visa and I've got a few questions:

- What would you say the percentage likelihood range is that the TN Visa is no longer an option for Software Engineers in 3 years time.

- With the news of USMCA talks reopening, is it advisable to switch to an H-1B visa?

- How long would it take for the government to eliminate the TN Visa, considering the complexity of the process?

- If the TN Visa is discontinued, is it safe to assume those already on it will be allowed to work in the US until their Visa expires?

I would never have thought that the TN would be at risk but if relations between the U.S. and Canada continue down the path that we're on, then I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility. I'm not sure how long it would take for the U.S. to get out of the free trade agreement but if the U.S. were so motivated, it effectively could kill the TN very quickly, even if just by policy and practice. So yes, if you can, it probably makes sense to start looking at options to get off the TN, such as the H-1B (but subject to the annual lottery), the O-1, and the E-2.

In my experience, big tech companies ask their TNs to start participating in every H1B lottery as soon as they join, and switch them over as soon as they bag a spot.

TN renewals are risky because you can be arbitrarily judged as having immigrant intent and get rejected, especially the more times you keep renewing them. H1B in contrast is dual-intent so this risk isn't there. Just my IANAL understanding of things.

Hi Peter, Thanks for doing this. I am a Canadian citizen born in India and ~ 6 months ago moved to work for a FAANG company on a TN visa from Canada.

The company applied for H1B visa lottery this year and awaiting the results for that.

My question is if I get through the H1B lottery

- How does it impact my options to switch employers in the future? Would I be able to work on H1B for future employers?

- My partner (Canadian citizen) is currently on a TD visa (which does not allow work) but actively searching for positions eligible under the TN categories. If my status changes to H1B, would she be ineligible for a TN visa?

Are there any obvious advantages of H1B other than eligibility for applying for a green card (which is a loooooong wait for people of Indian origin)

In order of your questions:

1. The H-1B is easily transferrable to another company (as long as the position meets the H-1B requirements). 2. Yes, she still would eligible for the TN if you changed to H-1B. 3. That's the main reason; it's really impossible for Canadian citizens born in India (or China) to pursue a green card while in TN status (without jeopardizing that status). Also, under the current law, an H-4 spouse can apply for a work card if his or her spouse is in the green card process (specifically, has an approved I-140) and is from a backlogged category or country like India.

> Are there any obvious advantages of H1B other than eligibility for applying for a green card (which is a loooooong wait for people of Indian origin)

Was your partner also born in India? If not and you get married you can use their country of birth for the green card, even if the green card is being sponsored by your employer. Maybe you're aware of this but just to say if you're not.

ask company to bring you on a L visa. H visas are not a good option for transfers, only new hires.

You’ve got it reverse. You can transfer H1b to another company (without going through lottery again) but you cant transfer L1 visa to another company. L1 visa is used to transfer an employee from a foreign branch to the US branch of the same company, once in US if they want to change the company the new company has to sponsor their H1

i got his comment wrong then. looked like he just going to the USA office of a place he's already working at overseas

Depends on how you look at this. L visas are not subject to lottery, but then that brings much more scrutiny from USCIS. Also, you are tied to your employer, you cannot change jobs easily. H visa, once you get it by lucky draw, gives you much more flexibility. And it's perfectly fine to use H-1B for intra-company transfer.

How do you protect people visiting or participating in YC from ICE? There have been two dozen stories of random tourists being disappeared for no good reason from all over the US.

Given that the policy is in the very early stages of implementation we can expect those numbers to reach the hundreds, thousands and tens of thousands in the next few months.

> There have been two dozen stories of random tourists being disappeared for no good reason from all over the US.

Really?

That is frightening. I plan to be a tourist in the USA within a decade.

Can you expand on that?

It's BS. Random tourists aren't being "disappeared for no good reason". A "tourist" that overstayed by 2 years without applying for a Visa and/or started working here are being deported back to their home nation - in accordance with the law.

There's a tremendous amount of scaremongering, fearmongering, and misinformation being thrown about currently. Majority of it is very much over stated hyperbole.

> Canadian woman put in chains, detained by ICE after entering San Diego border

> She said the officer refused to allow her to go back to Mexico and ordered her to be detained. She was kept in a cold room at the border by CBP before being arrested by ICE, who placed her at the Otay Mesa Detention Center. Mooney claimed in the middle of the night she, along with a group of 30 other women, was rounded up to get transferred to a facility in Arizona. CBP wouldn’t tell Team 10 the reason for Mooney’s detention, citing privacy restrictions.

https://www.10news.com/news/local-news/never-seen-anything-s...

> A German tourist detained by US immigration authorities is due to be deported back to Germany on Tuesday after spending more than six weeks in detention, including eight days in solitary confinement. Both Germans were held at the Otay Mesa Detention Center, a prison in San Diego, California. Brösche and Lofving had attempted to enter the US from Tijuana in Mexico on 25 January.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/mar/11/german-tourist...

The German tourist is a tattoo artist traveled with her gear. Based on another article (in German) she used a tourist visa but had clients lined up. She should've used a business visa.

[edit] Found an article with more info "[her US friend] told CNN that her German friend was joining her in Los Angeles to tattoo her. She speculated that immigration officials may have misinterpreted Brösche’s statements about the project as a declaration that she’d come to the US to work." https://edition.cnn.com/2025/03/04/world/german-detained-ice...

As an IT worker I'm worried of cause because my 'gear' is a laptop and I usually travel with a laptop.

I decided not to visit (let alone work in) the US until it has adopted legal standards and enforcement that are suitable for a developed nation. The latest political developments have tanked my trust in the US even more.

And I don't mean you can't somehow get legal remedies when you have sufficient funds and time if someone mistreats you. In the US you can even get legal remedy when you were in the wrong, if you have the funds. I mean that the people down on the ground seem to act with arbitariness and no respect for the law or what is just, be it the police, border officers, employers, or whatnot. Police officers telling a perfectly calm person they are "resisting" is not normal. And the fact that a whole society seems to have given up on trying to solve that kind of uncivilized behavior (or is even defending it!) makes it worse.

If I want an adventure that can end my life I go into the mountains, there at least the air is nice.

Same here. I hate having to do business trips to the US. Unfortunately, our most important customer is from there, which forces me to travel once in a while. But the whole experience just sucks.

If you believe that's the entire story - walked across the border was arrested - then I have a bridge to sell you...

If you were right, they could easily clear the record by actually charging her. In several of the cases, they held people for extended periods rather than letting them leave the country which they really shouldn’t be doing if they don’t have enough evidence for at least one charge.

Immigration proceedings are usually administrative, this is why people often proclaim that visa violations are as same as parking violations. So there is no need to charge as there is no trial and there is administrative detention among the punishments. On the same note, "immigration judge" is not a member of the Judiciary but an officer of the Executive branch and "immigration court" is an Executive office as same as DMV.

There are criminal charges possible but are not necessary to indefinitely detain and/or deport any non-citizen who appeared on the border.

Again, my point is simply that if there were some more serious offenses as the person I responded to alluded they could easily respond to reporters saying this isn’t a simple administrative mistake.

You seem to be confused over the meaning of word "administrative". In this context it means that the matter is entirely in the hands of the executive power so there is no charging and no trial.

The linked articles have no information in them, except a sob story told through one perspective.

For all we know, the US was coordinating extradition or release into their home country. A person attempting to illegally crossing the border (such as the two in the article) have committed a crime and could be held on that alone - yet they were released back to their home country. Seems like a pretty good ending for them, unless you are advocating they should be charged and imprisoned here for longer?

What sort of fucking shithole backwards country locks people up for weeks (including over a week in solitary!) for arriving with an invalid visa? If you think that is a proportional response you are a nasty, nasty person.

> What sort of fucking shithole backwards country locks people up for weeks (including over a week in solitary!) for arriving with an invalid visa?

The USA.

Or Russia

Tweedledum and Tweedledee

Needs to be some reciprocation on American “digital nomads” on tourist visa.

One that has individuals in government with a history advocating for private prisons where most undocumented immigrants are housed. 6 weeks probably leads to some solid profits for the bottom line.

Solitary is probably a bonus charge.

> The linked articles have no information in them, except a sob story told through one perspective.

Here, how about this article: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jasmine-mooney-canadian-detaine...

If this is not sufficient (It includes statements from an ICE spokesperson), then please do mention what type of evidence it is that you're looking for.

> For all we know, the US was coordinating extradition or release into their home country.

The evidence that we have does not indicate that, and in fact, indicates that these Jasmine Mooney was unnecessarily held for 6 days across two different locations, then unnecessarily transferred to Arizona for an additional period of time.

It seems like a very faulty thought process to pretend that there exists evidence to contradict what the current evidence suggests, rather than to simply base your judgement on available evidence.

> A person attempting to illegally crossing the border (such as the two in the article) have committed a crime and could be held on that alone

Jasmine Mooney - a Canadian citizen, was crossing the boarder, with the paperwork for a work visa, in order to turn them into the US consulate to apply for the visa. This isn't even required by the way under NAFTA: https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/temporary....

It specifically notes that Canadian citizens need not apply at the U.S. consulate, contrary to the information provided by the customs agent.

How reasonable is it to you, that a person would attempt to follow the correct procedure to apply for a work visa according to the U.S. government's own website, then be detained and transferred several times, one of them being literally to a detention facility 209 miles away simply because her visa was denied at the border of Mexico (Before she even entered the U.S. by the way)

Here's another source for this, which includes statements by an immigration lawyer noting how unusual the handling of this is: https://globalnews.ca/news/11080371/canadian-woman-detained-...

> Seems like a pretty good ending for them, unless you are advocating they should be charged and imprisoned here for longer?

How is it a good ending to be detained and transferred hundreds of miles because paperwork at the boarder isn't correct? Isn't the whole point that they shouldn't be in the U.S. at all? So why is it then that we waste so many resources to send them all over the U.S. instead of just denying entry?.. How does this make any sense to you?

Next time you live your country I wish you can feel what arbitrary tyrannical treatment at a border feel like, because it seems you are of the type that has to feel it themselves to learn.

Well maybe not arrested. CBP has jailed me before but it wasn't an arrest since it is administrative. You can't even contact a lawyer like an arrested person can.

A British tourist has been in immigration detention for weeks after she was accused of “working for room and board” by doing some household chores while staying with a family in Portland.

https://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/article301877574.h...

Sources say otherwise: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/mar/11/german-tourist...

https://www.nhpr.org/nh-news/2025-03-14/green-card-holder-fr...

> Senior described Schmidt being “violently interrogated” at Logan Airport for hours, and being stripped naked, put in a cold shower by two officials, and being put back onto a chair.

> She said Schmidt told her immigration agents pressured him to give up his green card. She said he was placed on a mat in a bright room with other people at the airport, with little food or water, suffered sleep deprivation, and was denied access to his medication for anxiety and depression.

I wish it was just deporting back, putting in them in inhumane conditions is whats happening now. This admin is fcked up. No misinformation its happening

Hello Peter, I have a situation. I am on H1B and I am being forced out of my job. My wife is also on H1B. After consulting some attorneys, I have decided that I will move to H4 status under my wife, while I search for the new job. Will this protect me until I get a new H1B with new employer soon? What should I be cautious about? For what it is worth, I also have EAD through I-140 pending, but I am deciding not to use the EAD and move to H4 dependent as soon as my H1B expires when I terminate my job. Let me know if I have to be cautious or aware of any circumstances that can put me or my family situation in jeopardy.

That's probably the right advice, you don't have to be cautious, you can look for work while in H-4 status (or while an applicant for H-4 status). The issue is this: if you find a new H-1B employer before your H-4 change of status application has been approved, while the new H-1B employer can file an H-1B petition for you, upon approval you likely will have to depart the U.S. and reenter with a new visa (if your previous H-1B visa has expired) or reenter with your previous still-valid visa and new H-1B approval notice. The point is this: USCIS likely will consider you ineligible for a change of status to H-1B when your underlying status is not H-4 but an applicant for H-4 status.

[dead]

Hey Peter! In the current climate, what steps would you suggest for foreign-origin workers to stay safe from being detained? I know some of my foreign-born friends are carrying their EADs with them in case they are stopped by ICE, but in some statuses (e.g. H1B) that is harder to do, as you'd have to carry around your passport.

Strictly speaking, the law requires a foreign national to carry proof of status. It's not something that ever has been enforced but it might be now. Such proof would be a valid passport and the most recent I-94 admission record. If applicable, such proof also would include an I-797 approval notice and/or EAD.

Hi Peter, given that companies are constantly laying off employees, what options do people on H1B have in an event they are out of a job? One can find a job but a 60 day time restriction can be very challenging. It’s almost impossible to apply, schedule multiple rounds of interviews, get an offer AND file the immigration paperwork in that time. A lot of people have established lives and have been here for decades because of the green card backlog. How would one maintain presence legally in the US in such a case?

A few years ago when there were a lot of layoffs at big tech, USCIS published guidance on the options for those who lost their jobs. This guidance just validated what attorneys were advising anyway but it was reassuring. Whether USCIS will stick with this guidance is another question. But the main advice was to file an application to change status to B-2 or B-1 (if the terminated worker couldn't join his or her spouse's visa as a dependent). If the terminated worker was in H-1B status and filed such an application, then he or she would not have to go back into the lottery after finding a new employer. Because of the backlogs in most green card categories, a green card filing as a solution isn't a solution anymore.

@proberts - not sure how that works, can you clarify? I know that normal B1/B2 visa in theory allows 6 months stay in the US, so is that what you are suggesting? If you are fired from your job then just pretend to be a tourist for the next 6 months? Isn't that obviously violating the stated purpose of B1/B2 visa, and asking for a ban to enter the US in future?

> after finding a new employer.

Obvious question then does the employer and the job have to be similar to the job that they had (and how similar and what is the test)?

Not at all; the job just needs to be related to the employee's education.

before the pandemic there were vans interviewing and hiring people from big layoffs. this last one was the only to ever do real damage to the employees.

Do Greencard holders have right to Social Security? What can you do if you are denied it?

Background: I was a GC holder and the expiration date on the GC was past due by the time they processed my application for social security. BUT I had also already applied for citizenship, and when doing that online the website informed me that my CG status was automatically extended a year or so because I had applied for citizenship.

I showed the Social Security Administration the printout of the document that showed my GC status had been automatically extended. But they denied my social security application with the reason "We have not been able to determine your age is > 64".

I had been to the SS offices several times showing them my actual greencard and my valid passport from my country of origin. The government issued GC showed my birthdate. Also I showed them the printed social security statement they used to mail me every year or so, showing my age.

So it seems to me I was denied social security on totally false premises. They surely were able to easily and reliably determine my age.

How can this happen in USA? Why would they do this? Do they have a standing order saying "Deny every application you can if it is an immigrant?"

What should I do? Sue the government? (I understand you cannot give an exact recommendation what to do in this case, but would that be a viable practical option?)

Thanks

To follow up a bit: I got my citizenship. Then I was approved for Medicare. Then I applied for Medicate part C and D with the healthcare provider Humana. Humana initially approved my application but then sent me a letter saying my part C and D was DENIED the reason being: "Illegally present in US".

I have never been in the USA illegally but always had a valid visa until I got my citizenship. So where did Humana come up with the claim I was illegal? I can only assume that Social Security Administration told them so, perhaps to cover up their mistake that they had wrongly denied me social security.

Should I sue Humana or Social Security Administration?

This isn't really an immigration question so I would recommend that you speak with a benefits lawyer but it's always a good practice when something like this happens to submit FOIA requests with the appropriate agencies to try to find out what's going on.

Thank's for the tip. I've known about FOIA requests but never fancied I could create one myself.

It's more an issue with benefits than immigration like you say, but I just assumed I was treated badly because I was an immigrant, so immigrants beware.

Also I wanted to play nice I thought if I caused some trouble for them they would definitely treat me even worse. Immigrants don't have a similar feeling about their "rights", and what they can do, as perhaps native-born Americans have.

Hi .. wondering what the situation is for a senior Canadian scientist wanting to raise funds/do a start up in the US? Had H1B many years ago (and possibly have a year of time left on it .. not sure that matters). Lots of papers so can go the EB1 route if needed. Want something simple and straightforward. Is transferring via existing employer beneficial (with delaying future plans)?

Given your qualifications, either an O-1 or E-2 (requiring an investment of Canadian money) through your own company is probably the best option.

Hi Peter, I have a few questions:

1. I currently do consulting for US clients through a Canadian corporation. If I accept a full-time job in the U.S. (e.g., on a TN or H-1B visa), can I continue consulting for other clients?

   - Does the answer depend on the visa type?  

   - Are there any restrictions on self-employment or side income?

   - Can I be a shareholder?  

   - Can I take dividends?  

   - Can I actively work in the business?

   - Would an O-1 visa allow for more flexibility?
  
   - If I move under a TN visa, can I later transition to an E-2 investor visa to run my own business?

   - Should I aim for a Green Card as soon as possible? 
 
   - Is there a specific visa category that would allow this?

I'm not Peter. IANAL so do your own homework. However, I have been on TN visas for almost a decade.

1. Once you enter the US on a work visa, you are only authorized to work under the restrictions of that visa which are normally tied to a single employer. The "I was working remotely for a Canadian corp" does not fly legally speaking. Wherever your feet are are "where" you are working. That being said, one little known thing about the TN visa is that you are allowed to have multiple of them issued for multiple employers. If you get one from all of your clients, you can continue working for those clients while you are in the US. Practically speaking, they cannot tell you are working remotely and your clients are sending payment to the Canadian corp. However, if audited, do not expect to ever be allowed back into the US.

2. Anyone can start an LLC. You do not need a work visa. However, if you do not have work authorization to work for that company, then you cannot legally work on that business.

3. This is going to be a matter of preference and what you classify as flexible. TN visas are very convenient and issued at the port-of-entry which makes them quick to process. They are also indefinitely renewable and multiple can be issued for multiple employers. The other visas you mention will take months to process. The rules to transition to E-2 are clear "If the treaty investor is currently in the United States in a lawful nonimmigrant status, they may file Form I-129 to request a change of status to E-2 classification."

4. Consulting is one of the most scrutinized jobs under the TN classification. I do not like being the bearer of bad news but obtaining a Green Card is now a 5+ year process unless you qualify for EB-1 or marry a US citizen which you can get right away. However, you probably do not qualify based on the fact you are focused on consulting. I am not an expert on E-2 visas so I don't know how consulting is treated under that visa but it may very well be your best bet.

Excellent responses. Thank you. I would add that the O-1 and the E-2 are probably the best fits to do consulting work for multiple companies in the U.S. but the O-1 requires a relatively high level of achievement and the E-2 requires a "substantial" investment by (in this case) Canadian citizens (which can include investments by you) or Canadian-owned companies and a business plan that shows the hiring of U.S. workers (citizens and permanent residents) over time.

Thank you both!

Follow-up question: do US employers ever provide assistance with O-1 or E-2? What is considered "a relatively high level of achievement"?

Yes, many U.S. employers, particularly those who don't want to lose out on good candidates, sponsor new hires for O-1 and E-2 visas. It's less about a "high level achievement" and really more about checking evidentiary boxes: an applicant must meet at least 3 of the listed O-1 criteria and very often for talented professionals at least 3 criteria are within reach.

Hi Peter. As always, thanks for doing this.

I am a Canadian currently on an H1B visa, valid until November 2026. I can probably recapture time until early 2027. I just got an EB2-NIW approved, but my priority date is in August 2024, and currently we are serving people in Apr. 2023. It will take at least until next year until I can file my I-485 and get my GC.

I am wondering what my options are in case I need to find a new job. My understanding is that the EB2 doesn't help me much unless I can truly demonstrate that the new job continues to advance the national interest in the same way, and that any deviation from what I wrote in my application is grounds to deny the I-485.

In case I can't find a new job that fits the exact description I have on my EB2-NIW, and I have to move out of the US, can I still file my I-485 once my priority date becomes current (and therefore get a GC)?

Your understanding about the exact fit between your NIW job and a new job isn't correct. NIWs are not subject to the same portability requirements as PERM-based green card applications. That being said, when you are able to file your I-485 application, you might be asked to demonstrate how your work is serving a national interest, even if this interest is different from the one in the NIW.

Peter, I'm a software engineer with a FAANG company, ~20 years experience and at the senior staff level. I lived in the US for a while with my family, and we all have green cards. Last year, we moved back to India (where we're from), with re-entry permits that are valid till July 2026. We'd like to continue living in India for a while (the next 8-10 years, till our kids finish school), but also keep our green cards so that we can move to the US afterwards without going through the Indian-citizen green card nightmare, especially for my kids. I go to the US every 3-4 months on work, my family less frequently. Been paying US taxes and no problems continuing to do so, but I don't own a house in the US. Is there a way I can keep my green card while living in India for 8-10 years? Or should I just give it up when my re-entry permit expires, and find a way to apply again?

I’m surprised green cards are available for people who don’t really live here and don’t plan to in the future. This is a scarce resource.

8-10 years might be tough but definitely speak with an attorney to talk this through. Is this your first reentry permit because you can get reentry permits totaling 5 years?

Yes, this is our first reentry permit, and it has a 2 year validity.

So you should be able to get another reentry permit valid for another 2 years and then a third reentry permit valid for 1 more year. After that, it gets tougher and USCIS will look at various factors to gauge whether a green card holder has given up his or her green card, including time in the U.S., home in the U.S., assets in the U.S., employment in the U.S., family in the U.S., etc. But at a minimum, without a reentry permit, you should never be outside the U.S. continuously for more than 6 months.

Isn't the requirement 6 months per year in the USA minimum?

Sort of. You need to spend more time in the US than not, but even if you do 6 months every year, there's a high change you'll start to get tough questions when you try to reenter. Longer periods, it gets worse.

That said, the GC will only be taken away if (a) you give it up (you can be pressured into doing so though) or (b) an immigration judge takes it away (CBP can send your case to one if they think you are not living in the US)

This is why a reentry permit exists and that's what OP is talking about. It allows one to leave the country for two years and can be renewed (not guaranteed though).

[flagged]

A friend has hired an engineering leader from Ukraine, entering via the United for Ukraine program which authorizes work in the US. Their family, who moved with them, is now very stressed because of the threat of losing work authorization and deportation. What are their options?

The threat is real, unfortunately. Your friend should look at switching him to a work visa, such as an O-1, which as an experienced engineer, the Ukrainian employee might qualify for.

In the event that the TN visa is scrapped, what would likely happen to current TN visa holders working in the US? Would there likely be some grace period?

Furthermore, supposing that no equivalent to the TN visa is proposed in its place, what would be you recommend to these TN visa holders?

Unless the basis for scrapping the TN were somehow that the free trade agreement was unlawful/invalid or the TN itself were unlawful/invalid, I believe that it likely would remain valid until expiration for work purposes but probably not for international travel purposes. What the other work visa options would be would depend on the person's qualifications and job; these would include the cap subject H-1B (but this is subject to an annual lottery), the cap exempt H-1B (available year-round but with a qualifying organization), the E-2 (requiring the creation of a company and an investment or employment with an existing E-2 qualified company), and the O-1 (requiring high standard of acheivement).

With the rising tensions between USA and Canada, what is the second best route (after TN visa) for a Canadian citizen to work in USA?

See my response above.

Possibly too broad of a question but any insight you can provide on the definition of "work" in the context of being a digital nomad in the U.S. would be helpful. For example, if I am a European citizen who works for a European company and enters the U.S. on a B-2 for a 2 week vacation, is it reasonable to interpret the prohibition on "work" as meaning I am not allowed to participate in the U.S. labor market but does not prohibit taking a zoom call with my team back in Europe? The common sense application of immigration law is that it's not work for immigration purposes but I'm curious if you have a more nuanced take and/or any insight.

According to "International Digital Nomads: Immigration Law Options In The United States Abroad" published in The Georgetown Law Journal[1] some jurisdictions have specifically said that it is not work which is what I'm leaning on for my current (optimistic?) view.

"Directors of the CBP office in South Florida, a leading winter locale for visiting “snow birds,” recognize that “[w]orking remotely from the US for a foreign employer, by itself, is not a violation of B visitor status” so long as “the work is incidental to the primary purpose of the trip,” which is a permissible visit."

[1] https://www.law.georgetown.edu/immigration-law-journal/wp-co...

The last paragraph is correct and well said; as long as the trip is "brief" (that is, you haven't effectively moved to the U.S.) and your work-related activities for your European company are incidental to the primary purpose (that is, your primary purpose is not to somehow work for your European company), then you should be fine. Where digital nomads run into problems is when they're spending a lot of time in the U.S. and effectively have moved to the U.S. as a visitor.

That's interesting. I would have thought that any work, incidental or not, would be a violation of the visa. I've heard of people being harassed for e.g. doing work on their vacation property (e.g. Canadians owning US property) while they were vacationing even when it's something small/minor.

Hi Peter, thanks for doing this AMA!

I’m a cofounder of a startup in the US. Two of us are here on green cards, but our third cofounder is based in Switzerland. He has a PhD from a top university, previously founded a company, and has raised over $30M in the past.

At what stage would it be possible for us to bring him to the US on a visa? Would it be:

- As soon as we incorporate a C Corp?

- After raising funding?

- Once we have revenue?

Are there any specific visa pathways (O-1, L-1, E-2, etc.) that would be most relevant for him, given his background?

Appreciate any guidance on this!

This should be an easy O-1 and you should kick off that process after you have incorporated the company (and done a few other easy company-related things).

I've seen recent examples of the government targeting green card holders for their speech. As a naturalized citizen who wants to exercise my free speech rights, how concerned should I be about potentially having my citizenship challenged on technical grounds? Are there realistic scenarios where this could happen despite First Amendment protections?

There's ample legal precedent in the federal system that a green card holder is a "US Person" for many things related to the federal government. For instance, a green card holder can form a corporation, own an FFL, register it with the ATF, become an FFL 02/07 (firearms manufacturer), and even become a SOT (special occupational taxpayer), to manufacture, buy and sell NFA items (silencers). The corporation owned by the permanent resident can even manufacture post-1986 full auto ATF-defined "machine guns", to be retained/owned by the company, as manufacturer samples for demos and sales to law enforcement within the USA.

Permanent Residents are also treated as a "US Person" for the purposes of FAA pilot licensing, up to the largest categories of multi-engine jet transport aircraft.

This doesn't address what recently happened with one specific Permanent Resident that's been in the news, but it's a very chilling effect if suddenly green card status people don't have the right to the 1st amendment.

[flagged]

You are absolutely incorrect.

Show me the law that says only citizens can own NFA items - there is no special regulation in the gun control act of 1934 which specifies permanent residents or citizens. If you can buy a regular 4473 FFL item (any serialized firearm post-1968) and silencers are legal in your state, a permanent resident can buy a silencer, most typically on an eForm4 from a local dealer.

Similarly, a permanent resident can buy an NFA item, short barrel rifle (SBR, sub 16" barrel, rifled barrel, serialized firearm) on an eform4 from their local dealer, as long as the category of SBR is legal in their state of residence. A permanent resident in a state with few or no firearm restrictions such as Idaho could buy an AR-15 or AK/AKM semiauto action based based SBR. If the permanent resident is in a state with restrictive new assault weapon laws, such as WA, they could still buy an SBR, but it has to meet the other requirements of their state of not being a state-prohibited assault weapon (such as a 10 inch barreled bolt action chambered in 8.6 blackout, as bolt and lever actions are exempted from the recent WA state assault weapons ban)

That same theoretical permanent resident can even own what's casually called a double stamp item, two NFA items attached together, such as putting a silencer on an SBR, if they have enough money to buy both, pay the $400 total in NFA item tax stamps, and pay their local FFL SOT dealer for the transfer. Exactly the same financial cost to them as for a US citizen.

If you buy it online, it will go on an eform3 shipped from the originating vendor/manufacturer/dealer to the inventory and books of your local FFL SOT, and then an eform4 to you.

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/undefined/atf-national-fir...

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/form/form-4-application-ta...

You can see the "paper" version of the ATF form 4 there.

An alien admitted to the united states under a nonimmigrant class visa generally may not purchase firearms (except under certain exemptions) or NFA items. A permanent resident is an immigrant class status.

Quoting the ATF form 4:

Alien Admitted to the United States Under a Nonimmigrant Visa. An alien admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa includes, among others, persons visiting the United States temporarily for business or pleasure, persons studying in the United States who maintain a residence abroad, and certain temporary foreign workers. These aliens must answer “yes” to question 16.d.1 and provide the additional documentation required under question 16.d.2. Permanent resident aliens and aliens legally admitted to the United States pursuant either the Visa Waiver Program or to regulations otherwise exempting them from visa requirements may answer “no” to this question and are not required to submit the additional documentation under 16.d.2. An alien admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa is not prohibited from purchasing, receiving, or possessing a firearm if the alien: (1) is in possession of a hunting license or permit lawfully issued by the Federal Government, a State, or local government, or an Indian tribe federally recognized by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, which is valid and unexpired; (2) was admitted to the United States for lawful hunting or sporting purposes; (3) is an official representative of a foreign government who is accredited to the United States Government or the Government’s mission to an international organization having its headquarters in the United States; (4) is an official representative of a foreign government who is enroute to or from another country to which that alien is accredited; (5) is an official of a foreign government or a distinguished foreign visitor who has been so designated by the Department of State; (6) is a foreign law enforcement officer of a friendly foreign government entering the United States on official law enforcement business; (7) has received a waiver from the prohibition from the Attorney General of the United States.

----

You will note that the 4473 and the form 4 has a section for citizenship. Theoretically, a Canadian with permanent resident status typically provides their citizenship and alien number as part of the application.

See also, questions 35 through 38 on the FFL application form, which asks if you're an alien admitted to the united states under a nonimmigrant class visa. The FFL application form does not require you to be a US citizen. It does not allow for nonimmigrant class visa holders to be an FFL. Again, a PR is an immigrant class person.

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/apply-license

https://www.atf.gov/file/61506/download

Further reference: https://www.atf.gov/firearms/federal-firearms-licensee-quick...

I have seen this misconception quite widely, even from gun store employees. Many FFLs are not familiar with transfers to non-citizens.

I don't exactly have the highest opinion of the level of intelligence of some retail gun store customer service employees, but the basic 4473 even has a section for putting in your alien number (A#) which is on a permanent resident card. Just don't answer the question about being a nonimmigrant foreigner incorrectly on the check box section.

Until recently, I would have said that the only way a citizen could have his or her citizenship taken away was by committing treason but there has been talk by the current administration about expanding the grounds as well as increasing denaturalization efforts. The first Trump administration tried this but it was largely unsuccessful but it's a different administration and a different Supreme Court so I don't think concerns now are unjustified.

To be clear, the statutory standards for denaturalization are quite expansive: https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-12-part-l-chapter....

8 USC 1451(a):

> a) Concealment of material evidence; refusal to testify It shall be the duty of the United States attorneys for the respective districts, upon affidavit showing good cause therefor, to institute proceedings in any district court of the United States in the judicial district in which the naturalized citizen may reside at the time of bringing suit, for the purpose of revoking and setting aside the order admitting such person to citizenship and canceling the certificate of naturalization on the ground that such order and certificate of naturalization were illegally procured or were procured by concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation

According to USCIS, the misrepresentation need not be but-for material. That is, you only need to show that the omission or misrepresentation was relevant to the naturalization inquiry. But you do not need to prove that the government would have denied naturalization had it known the true facts. In that respect, the standard is similar to 18 USC 1001, which has been applied extremely broadly in federal prosecutions. The second Trump administration has much smarter lawyers than the first one, and I'd count on them to be aggressive about using the full scope of section 1451(a).

Isn’t the green card risk based on a couple of items in the green card process The visa process and the person’s assertions to those visa questions For example - did you every x? And the required answer is No Let’s assume the person did commit X but answers No Years go by and the person gets a green card. The underlying assertion was a lie - therefore the whole stream of events later becomes questionable. The second situation is a new item being added. For example consider the hypothetical scenario that When the applicant filled out his forms - greenpeace was legit. And the applicant was a greenpeace member. Years later the applicant becomes a green card holder. Now years later. The govt classifies greenpeace a terror org. Is the green card holder under threat?

So this is not legal advice and I'm not an immigration lawyer. And I'm not explaining how the law is likely to be applied. Instead, I'm explaining how an aggressive government prosecutor could plausibly seek to apply it.

The wording of 8 USC 1451(a) is not limited to particular questions on visa or green-card applications. The statute refers to how the "order and certificate of naturalization were ... procured" which arguably encompasses everything leading up to the order and certificate. Moreover, the statute has two separate prongs for revocation: (1) the "order and certificate of naturalization were illegally procured"; or (2) "were procured by concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation."

The way government prosecutors interpret these statutes is to push each of these terms and prongs as far as they can logically go. For example, you could argue that the phrase "illegally procured" encompasses any unlawful activity that has some arguable nexus to the visa or naturalization process.

As to the second prong, 8 USC 1427(a) sets forth extensive requirements for who qualifies for naturalization. The requirements are extremely vague and broad:

> No person, except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, shall be naturalized unless such applicant, (1) immediately preceding the date of filing his application for naturalization has resided continuously, after being lawfully admitted for permanent residence, within the United States for at least five years and during the five years immediately preceding the date of filing his application has been physically present therein for periods totaling at least half of that time, and who has resided within the State or within the district of the Service in the United States in which the applicant filed the application for at least three months, (2) has resided continuously within the United States from the date of the application up to the time of admission to citizenship, and (3) during all the periods referred to in this subsection has been and still is a person of good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States.

That third requirement is so broad that almost any fact about a person could be deemed material to the naturalization decision. Now, remember that 8 USC 1451(a) only allows naturalization to be revoked based on concealing or misrepresenting material facts. So it must be the case that you were arguably required to disclose the fact to the government at some point and either didn't or misrepresented the fact. But if you made an omission or misstatement on any government form ever, that could be fair game for bringing revocation proceedings.

I am also not an immigration lawyer. In Maslenjak v. United States (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-309_h31i.pdf), eight justices disagreed with the expansive interpretation of the statute you describe. From the majority opinion, "The statute Congress passed, most naturally read, strips a person of citizenship not when she committed any illegal act during the naturalization process, but only when that act played some role in her naturalization." and "Suppose that an applicant for citizenship fills out the paperwork in a government office with a knife tucked away in her handbag. She has violated the law against possessing a weapon in a federal building, and she has done so in the course of procuring citizenship, but nobody would say she has “procure[d]” her citizenship “contrary to law.” That is because the violation of law and the acquisition of citizenship in that example are merely coincidental: The one has no causal relation to the other."

So that case involves 28 USC 1425, which doesn’t have an expressly-stated materiality requirement. The holding of the case is that, nonetheless, the statute requires an omission or misrepresentation to be material, which the Court defines as information “that would have mattered to an immigration official.”

8 USC 1451(a) has an express materiality requirement, which I addressed in my comment. The standard of what “would have mattered to an immigration official” can be seen extremely broadly in view of 8 USC 1427(a). In the context of the false statements statute, 18 USC 1001, material facts are those that have the “tendency” to influence the decision maker, but need not actually influence the decision. United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506, 510 (1995).

The materiality requirement provides some protection. It’s doubtful revocation could be premised on someone having illegally parked their car when going into a USCIS interview. But the standard for materiality is still quite expansive and leaves a lot of room for aggressive prosecutors.

Great points. The whole doc is vague and filled with trap doors.

Best to get a citizenship asap

Iirc not legal advice but there are reasons why some people may not want to apply for citizenship, if something has happened since they got their green card and they'd prefer not to have to have to put on an application.

Interesting - hadn't considered that possibility - makes sense

GP is talking about denaturalization, which is exactly stripping citizenship.

This is why the ask what seems like an absurd question - “Are you a Nazi?” - on the US citizenship application.

Not because they expect people to say “yes”, but because if they find out later you hide information about your involvement in WW2, they deport you for lying.

No need to prove you were an actual Nazi. You withheld information which is enough grounds for revoking citizenship.

[flagged]

Advocating for Palestinians isn’t advocating for a “terror group”. Which is itself a nebulous term that is used for political reasons.

Now, working to carry out a foreign governments interests against the best interests of the American public IS treason, but that’s okay when you’re the president I guess.

Are you denying that Hamas is a terrorist group? Committing terrorism is literally the central part of their operations. Are you denying that October 7th was terrorism? Are you denying that launching thousands of rockets against Israel to kill as many Jewish people as possible is terrorism?

Can you read the comment you're replying to again please? It doesn't mention Hamas anywhere in it

This is a very common trope in any Israel/Gaza debate. Person A says 'Palestinians' and Person B judos that into 'Hamas' to make Person A's point sound extremist.

Is calling out a right wing military state for bombing and killing over 14,000 Palestinian children terrorism? Just talking about it makes you the bad guy, huh?

Presenting it in those false terms makes you a bad guy, yes. Israel is not a "military state" and a left wing Israeli government would have carried out much the same military operations. "Children" were not bombed. Military targets were bombed. Many children died in consequence, not least because of Hamas's eagerness to put them in harm's way in an attempt to win over credulous fools, albeit some of them well-meaning.

There is no left wing in Israel, you are painting a false narrative. It is a fascist state run by thugs (much like ours, which is probably why they are so eager to sell out Americans to Israel).

Children were bombed. They knew the kids were there and they bombed them. Often happily doing it knowing they'd slaughter hundreds to get one supposed terrorist. They bulldozed bodies. They tiktoked the destruction of universities and hospitals.

"Hamas's eagerness to put them in harm's way" is such a tired lie to cover up for the slaughter of innocent people by the Israeli terror state.

The 2021 elections ended with a government of 61 seats, including 7 seats for Labor (left), 6 seats for Meretz (fairly hard left), 4 seats for Ra'am (Islamist), so 25% from what would be considered a "left bloc" from a Western viewpoint. Then Yesh Atid and Blue and White had 17 and 8 respectively, both centrists, so just short of 50%. So there most certainly is a left (albeit small) and a substantial centre. Israel has a pluralistic political sphere.

Israel's military operates according to the laws of war, which forbid targeting of civilians, but do not forbid civilian deaths.

In a sense you're right though. If by "left" you mean "peace movement", that was on life support after the second intifada, and Oct 7th pulled the plug. There will be no substantial peace movement in Israel for a generation. Many of those slaughtered on Oct 7th were from the hard left/peace movement bloc.

And to reiterate, yes, presenting things in those false terms makes you a bad guy.

Seats mean nothing. If there is a plurality and any kind of left movement there, what opposition have they given to the right? AFAICT, Yair's biggest criticism was that the war was managed poorly by Bibi.

80% of Israeli jews support the ethnic cleansing of Gaza. People are arrested for saying the oppressed have a right to defend themselves. You see videos of IDF troops calling for the death of all Arabs while they are on vacation. You see them doing crimes against humanity in Gaza war footage. That isn't a healthy society, it isn't a society with a leftist movement. It is a fascist bloodthirsty society, run by thugs like Bibi, Smotrich, and Ben-Gvir.

Supporting them means you either naive or that you lack any morals. Which makes your "bad guy" accusation meaningless.

Yes, that's my point. Any plausible Israeli government, left, right or centre, would have conducted the war in roughly the same way, including the historical left governments of Ben Gurion, Meir, Rabin, Peres or Barak. Thus attempts to paint Israel as "right wing" due to its conduct of the war are fallacious.

I'm just pointing out that painting falsehoods about Israel and its people (as you have continued to do in your most recent post) does indeed make you a bad guy. I don't expect you to agree with me!

> Any plausible Israeli government, left, right or centre, would have conducted the war in roughly the same way

So why did Benny Gantz leave the unity government and say publicly that it was because of irreconcilable differences over how the war was being conducted?

"Roughly the same way" is a vague term that leaves a thousand miles of leeway of interpretation. Of course Benny Gantz also supported a military response in broad strokes, but stated war goals and prioritization of those goals were very different

No plausible alternative government would have conducted the war in a way that would have avoided the slander of "genocide" and "murdering children". People will accuse Israel of that regardless.

Here's a fact about Israel. It is illegally annexing other countries' land right now with impunity.

Is there any country that does this that isn't authoritarian and right wing?

Israel claims the Golan Heights as part of its sovereign territory. It captured the Golan Heights during a defensive war in 1967, when it also captured the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula. It gave back the Sinai Peninsula for a peace agreement with Egypt in 1979. The capture of all that territory happened under a left-wing Labor government led by Levi Eshkol. The return of the Sinai happened under a right-wing government led by Menachem Begin, of the party that is the forerunner to Likud. Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip to leave it in the hands of the Palestinian Authority in 2005. That happened under Ariel Sharon, a right wing prime minister (albeit in a centrist party, Kadima).

The West Bank is still occupied because the Palestinians have not agreed to a peace deal with Israel, despite being offered one including that land most recently in 2008. Given what happened on Oct 7th, I don't think there will ever be such an offer again.

Israel is currently occupying parts of Lebanon and Syria because Hezbollah fired 8,000 missiles at Israel from southern Lebanon during 2023 and 2024, and Hezbollah was supplied with those missiles through, with the consent of, Syria. Hezbollah's presence south of the Litani river was in contravention of UN Security Council Resolution 1701.

So whether Israel captures or returns land has really nothing to do with whether its government is left or right wing. Israel is not authoritarian. It is a constitutional democracy.

The West Bank was occupied and colonised, which is a war crime. The peace deal involves leaving only a fraction of the territory to the Palestinians, and leaves Israeli citizens in the colonies.

Occupied from whom? Who was the previous government of that land? The fact is, there has never been an independent modern state in that land. Before 1967 it was occupied by Jordan. Before 1948 it was occupied by the British Mandate, and before that it was occupied by the Ottoman Empire.

The peace deal offered by Olmert to Abu Mazen was for 95% of the West Bank, plus land from Israel itself to make it up to 100%. Abu Mazen declined. I suspect that in a post-Oct 7th world, the Palestinians will never get an offer like that again.

It's either not occupied, it's part of Israel and Israel subjugates the Palestinians to an apartheid rule (with a big part of their lives controlled by Israel, included where they can move, work, live, and different laws applied to them), and harassed by colonists. Or it's Palestine and Israel is occupying it.

In any case the UN and the ICJ think it's occupied territory, and the colonies are a war crime.

Israel is in administrative control over that part of the land. It's not clear to me exactly how much it owes the people who reside there, who used to be Jordanian citizens and who had their citizenship stripped by Jordan.

That part of the world has never been part of a modern state. Jordan doesn't want it. The Ottoman Empire doesn't exist. There is and has never been a state of Palestine. Abu Mazen turned down an from Olmert to make it into a Palestinian state. Arafat turned down an offer from Barak.

When Jordan took control of that that territory, including East Jerusalem, the Temple Mount and the Western Wall, they expelled or murdered all Jewish citizens living there. After the second world war ethnic Germans were expelled from Czechoslovakia and Poland. Israel _didn't_ expel residents of the West Bank, after capturing it in a defensive war, and somehow that makes Israel not a democracy?

People live in the West Bank. If you take control of the area for 58 years you need to give them some rights and either make them citizens or give them independence. Neither thing happened, and the reality is that they live in an apartheid system, with different laws than other Israelis living in the same area. Israel might be a democracy but Palestinians are not citizens of Israel.

Germans expelled from parts of Europe was also bad, so?

Why should they be given independence? They're formerly Jordanian citizens and formerly Ottoman subjects. It's not as though some country or civil polity has been eliminated and needs to be restored. There never was any. They were offered a country by the Peel Report in 1937 and then the UN Resolution 181 in 1947, but they rejected it. They were offered a country by Barak in 2000 and Olmert in 2008, but they rejected it. They were given de facto control over Gaza, but they used the opportunity to launch rockets at Israel for 15 years and then to commit Oct 7th.

Germans expelled from parts of Europe was good! It was the natural consequence of Germany trying to take over all of Europe and failing. Germany has now lived in peace with its neighbours for 80 years. The people in the West Bank and Gaza Strip have not demonstrated they can live in peace with Israel.

Then don’t give them independence, but if Israel has administrative control of the area, it must respect the human rights of the people that live there. If I’m a foreign national in a country I can do almost everything a national can do besides voting: I can buy land wherever I want, move freely, work freely, travel abroad. Palestinians can’t. So it’s one or the other, either you consider them a nation with whom you can have a peace treaty and thus all the “they are not a country” doesn’t apply, or they are foreign nationals and you have to treat them as such. Israel chooses the awful option: apartheid, because then it can still keep an ethnic state whiteout killing or deporting millions. It is debatable if Israel needs to be an ethnic state to protect Jews, but at least its apologists should acknowledge that.

> If I’m a foreign national in a country I can do almost everything a national can do besides voting

Certainly not in general! That very much depends on the country and the immigration status under which you are in that country. Most visas strongly restrict the right to work. If you leave, you may not be allowed back in, unless you can obtain fresh clearance.

Under the Oslo Accords, signed by Israel and the PLO, the recognised representative body of the Palestinian people, the West Bank is partitioned into areas designated A, B and C. That agreement gives Israel control in area C, the Palestinian Authority control in area A, and B is somewhere in between. Israelis are forbidden to enter area A, by the way. Israel conducts itself in accordance with this agreement signed up to by the PLO.

Anything else is pending further negotiation between the two parties, and perhaps a final status agreement (though I am increasingly pessimistic about the potential for a final status agreement).

So, I absolutely do not think it's "one of the other". It's an extremely rare situation in human history with no specific well-trodden path for how it should be resolved. Israeli prime ministers have offered the Palestinian leadership their own state twice in the 21st century. Both offers were rejected.

So are Palestinians immigrants in Israel, without a visa? Even immigrants have freedom of movement and are subject to the same laws as nationals.

They are of course not illegals immigrants, because they were already there.

So what are they? When it’s convenient, they are a nation that doesn’t want peace. When it’s convenient, Palestine was never a country. So what is it?

Not all of them were already there. Many immigrated there from Jordan (and to the Gaza Strip from Egypt) post 1948.

In the West Bank they are former Jordanian citizens who had their citizenship revoked post 1967. Egypt never offered residents of Gaza citizenship, so I suppose they are former Ottoman Empire subjects without any new state to become citizens of. Remember that they rejected the creation of an Arab state in 1948 under UN Resolution 181, and Israel supported the creation of such a state.

Broadly, they are a stateless population that has made war on Israel since 1948 (and against Jews in the area since before then) and it is hard to see why it's Israel that owes them something, as opposed to their Egyptian and Jordanian allies who were in control of those territories and their lives for 20 years.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordanian_annexation_of_the_We...

Israel owes them something because they control the territory where they live. If you are fine with countries anexing territories and then discriminating people based on ethnicity, then no, they don’t owe them anything.

Then why didn't Jordan and Egypt give them a country when they controlled the territory where they live? The answer is because they didn't want a country there, they wanted the land that is called "Israel". Egypt never gave them citizenship, but that didn't seem to be a problem to them. They tried to attack Israel, not Egypt. There's more to this story than you're telling.

So because in 1966 Egypt didn’t give them citizenship, Israel can do the same in 2025 plus occupying then military, displace them, jail them and kill them? Until when? 10 years more? 100? 1000?

Here’s more to this story https://conquer-and-divide.btselem.org/map-en.html

The point is if they wanted a state they would have agitated for one during the UN Resolution 181 vote. But they didn't. Or they would have agitated for it between 1948 and 1967, when they were occupied by Egypt and Jordan. But they didn't. They didn't attack Egypt and Jordan to try to force their hand to give them a state. They attacked Israel, when Israel didn't occupy any land outside its currently "internationally recognised borders"! And now they supposedly want a state on the land that they already had? They only decided they wanted a state on that land once Israel occupied it.

Here's Hasan Zomlot, Palestinian ambassador to the UK, claiming yesterday that "We will leave back to our homes inside the '48 areas, we will go back to our land, we will go back to Yaffa and Haifa!".

https://x.com/koshercockney/status/1901248223580160056

I'm not surprised Israel is being cautious.

Maybe they don't like Israeli occupation which has been going on for 58 years, while their access to land has been reduced more and more.

And besides, I'm not even talking about statehood, my main point is Israel's awful treatment of Palestinians in the West Bank, based only on ethnicity.

Maybe they don't like it, but if so then I would have thought they would have chosen statehood when they were offered it in 2000 or 2008. Moreover, they never even had any land to begin with! No country of Palestine has ever existed. To reiterate, it was previously Jordanian-occupied, British-governed, Ottoman-ruled. Something else is clearly going on, beyond what you're saying.

I don't like the word "treat" in this context. I don't believe Israel "treats" Palestinians in any way. Rather, the state of Israel has a particular policy on the Palestinian issue because of their shared history, no small part of which is the Palestinians repeatedly attempting to eliminate Israel.

But if you insist on using the word "treat", then I'll add that I don't like the way Palestine treats the Israelis either.

Israel's policy is not based on ethnicity, it's based on citizenship, as is usual in a western democracy. Arab citizens of Israel have the same relationship to the state as any other citizens of Israel, for example.

I agree that many Palestinians are in an awful situation. I disagree that Israel bears the blame or the responsibility to resolve the issue.

So the country that military occupies the territory where the Palestinian live, jails them, shoots them, restricts their movement, restricts their ability to build, restricts their airspace and borders, and they bear no responsibility? Israel’s primary policy is ethnicity, just check the “ Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People” enacted in 2018.

I just can't understand, if they are suffering all that, why they didn't jump at the chance for their own state one of the many times they were offered one. It's not as though Mahmood Abbas or Yasser Arafat are hated Palestinian figures for turning down a state. Something else must be going on.

So if they don’t accept the offer Israel is giving them then they must suffer? It’s either what Israel offers or military occupation?

You're presenting that dichotomy, not me. I'm sure they have plenty of possible courses of action. I'm just trying to say that it's not obvious to me that they actually want a state, and if they don't then there's not much Israel can do about the situation.

Sure there is, they can stop the military occupation and leave.

Interesting idea! How do you think it would turn out? You might like to reference in your answer the time in 2005 when Israel did exactly that, and the consequences that occurred on Oct 7 2023.

The right of conquest, which you are invoking, was ended after WWII, due to the disastrous consequences of its implementation by a group Israel claims to be so against.

None of what you said changes the fact that there are no non-authoritarian, left-wing countries which annex land in war. Russia does it. Azerbaijan does it. Can you give some examples that contradict this? That's what I asked. I didn't ask for a flimsy justification to flaunt international law.

I will also say, though I hope you don't only respond to this and ignore the other parts, as you've done so far, that Israel is a democracy in name only. It has many subjects who have no right to vote who were born in the land Israel controls (The West Bank and Gaza), who have no other citizenship, and who are native to the land stretching back to at least before the founding of Israel. Of course, because Israel wishes to be an state controlled by a specific ethnicity, it cannot allow such people to vote. So how much of a democracy is it really? It's as if we called the US a democracy if it only allowed voting in such a pattern that white people were always the majority, or as if Saudi Arabia transitioned to a democracy but only in such a way that House of Saud members would always be the voting majority. How democratic would that really be?

If you read my post closely you will see I am not invoking any right, nor justifying Israel's occupation of those lands (although I do believe they were justified). I'm merely pointing out that occupation of those lands was carried out under a left-wing non-authoritarian government. If you're saying that occupation of land makes the occupying government by definition right-wing authoritarian then I don't think that's a very useful definition and can't help you further.

I personally don't see why Israel should be required to give influence over its government to a belligerent enemy population who have supported wars of annihilation against it many times. However, many Israelis disagree with me, including past prime ministers. That was why Olmert offered 95% of the West Bank plus Israeli land making it up to 100% to Abu Mazen in 2008. Abu Mazen declined the offer.

Before 1967 the Arab occupants of the West Bank were Jordanian citizens. After 1967 Jordan stripped them of citizenship. Perhaps Jordan is the one denying them democracy? (For what it's worth, the pre-1948 Jewish residents of the West Bank had already been expelled at best and murdered at worst).

> Israel's military operates according to the laws of war

That’s a highly contested claim and I personally don’t believe it. You can prove it to be false without even looking at their actions in Gaza, just the torture of prisoners.

It is not the policy of the Israeli military to torture prisoners. If your point is "The US behaved significantly worse than Israel in Abu Ghraib and I hate the US" then fair enough. I don't really have a response.

It is actually the policy though. There are tons of documented stories of physical and sexual abuse in Israeli prisons, which hold many people without formal charges or a right to any kind of due process. That being said, lots of countries do this. Iran, for example.

Israeli prisons are not run by the military. Holding people without formal charges is called "administrative detention" and also happens in Australia, Brazil, the UK and the US. Perhaps some abuses happen during that process. I wouldn't be surprised. But it's not the policy of Israel to abuse prisoners.

Okay maybe I can say it's an extremely common occurrence the government doesn't sanction

Are you saying it is not Israeli government policy to abuse detainees?

Yeah I could say it's not. Just as it was not US policy to abuse detainees, but Abu Ghraib still happened. Same way it's not Israeli gov't policy, I take that back, but there are still lots of credible Palestinian reports of abuse at the hands of settlers (supported by the army), the army, the jail system, etc.

Then we're broadly in agreement. Some of the settler behaviour is atrocious and enabled by segments of the military.

Did you know, however, that the word "settler" applies to any Jew living beyond the Green Line, generally in places that Jews have lived for millennia before being expelled by Jordan in 1947 (the lucky ones who were not killed where they stood)? Mostly so-called "settlers" just some Jews living in some neighbourhoods, often suburbs of Jerusalem. Mostly.

> Committing terrorism is literally the central part of their operation

That is untrue

They are far deeper than that.

They are primarily cultural, education is their main focus

>They are primarily cultural, education is their main focus

That's...a new one. Are you sure you're talking about the same Hamas, aka the Islamic Resistance Movement? The one that, as of their 2017 charter, declares that "Hamas is a[...]national liberation and resistance movement"?

I'm not here to debate whether or not they're a terrorist organization, I just think it's pretty disingenuous to say that "education is their main focus".

> working to carry out a foreign governments interests against the best interests of the American public IS treason

That sounds even more vague and broad than the definition given in the Constitution. But I'm pretty sure the one in the Constitution is talking about a clear and deliberate shift in allegiance from the United States to another group that is actively engaged in hostilities with the United States.

[dead]

Sigh...

Do the same people claim that arguing against Israel's interests in Gaza is treason against the US? Because I'm not sure what that makes the US government. Now imagine making this argument against a Russian immigrant criticizing Putin's regime.

You are deliberately ignoring the fact that Hamas, and their supporters chant “death to America” and hold AMERICAN CITIZENS under captivity. This is no the same

[flagged]

Do you have a link to their charge? My understanding is the first Columbia student specifically wasn't charged with commiting a crime intentionally, and instead their Green Card was being revoked at the direction of the Secretary of State.

If they aren't being charged with a crime, I don't know how this could be occuring for any other reason than speech.

> These green card holders are being deported for committing crimes.

No, they are officially being deported for being a foreign policy problem without being accused of any crime.

And the specific source of the foreign policy problem is the political content of their speech.

This is not true. They have been quite clear that Mahmoud Khalil has not been accused of a crime.

AFAIK he wasn't charged with a crime but it isn't required for deportation.

Check out these articles explaining https://www.theblaze.com/columns/opinion/a-free-speech-right...

https://www.theblaze.com/columns/opinion/a-green-card-is-not...

get ur brain worms checked out

[flagged]

Organizing an event that citizens choose to participate in is a clear example of benefitting the US, at least from someone's perspective. Someone who "encouraged," something can't be more guilty than the people who chose to do it - this is really about the rights and the conduct of Columbia students.

It's also important to remember that the government follows the public, not the other way around. The legitimacy of preferences among belligerents in foreign conflicts is determined through the equilibration of public opinion, and it's the end state of the protests and discussions (whatever it is) that legitimizes or overturns the lists, not the other way around.

From the perspective of someone asking about immigration law, this doesn't pose the question "to what degree should I do things that the people around me like," it raises the question, "to what degree does my perception of the preferences of the current administration take precedence, due to personal risk, over what the people around me would like me to do for them."

[flagged]

Zionist and other far right twitter accounts being bandied about as an argument for the detention of someone exercising free speech rights.

LOL, how the hell are these accounts "far right"? And how do the accounts invalidate the video evidence and screenshots published on the posts?

One of them is Andy Ngo, and you're asking how they're "far right?"

The comment said "Zionists and other far right twitter accounts", which means at least 2 of the accounts are "far right". Can you explain how https://x.com/canarymission and https://x.com/CampusJewHate are "far right"?

Those accounts document hatred against Jewish people in Columbia and other universities. How on Earth are these accounts "far right"? Can you link to at least one post from either of those accounts that you would characterize as "far right"?

How about this one that says Dick Durban is supporting Hamas because he has advocated for the release of Mahmoud Khalil? Along with all the celebration of DHS arrests on campus and advocating to deport more students, calling Khalil and campus protests terrorism, and proclaiming that support for Palestine is a mastermind plot by Iran to destroy America? I could also accept a description as “extremists out in their own far-crazy that just happen to have identified the left as the enemy and the right as their friend”, but it’s gonna get shortened to “far-right”.

https://x.com/canarymission/status/1899487784454508681

> How about this one that says Dick Durban is supporting Hamas because he has advocated for the release of Mahmoud Khalil?

You made a false statement of fact. The tweet never said that. It reads [1]:

> 1/ Canary Mission is apolitical. We call out antisemitism on all sides and have never had a vested interest in a political party. However, Senator Dick Durbin is testing our principles like never before. His defense of Mahmoud Khalil, a pro-Hamas activist, raises serious moral and ethical concerns. It is troubling that one of our great parties is standing behind a Hamas supporter - a group recognized as a terrorist organization—the same group that perpetrated the massacre of October 7, which included the murder, rape and kidnapping of innocent civilians.

It clearly says that Khalil is a Hamas supporter, not Dick Durban. There's video of Khalil giving a speech defending Hamas' "armed resistance" [2]. Was this a lack of basic reading comprehension or was that a deliberate lie?

[1] https://x.com/canarymission/status/1899487784454508681

[2] https://x.com/canarymission/status/1900204678240928166

He doesn't mention Hamas, and there's no proof available that the man is a pro-Hamas activist. He has never self-claimed any such thing either.

Also, Durbin is not defending his views. They are defending his right to not be disappeared to another state in ICE custody without being charged with any crimes. All of that cannot be labeled anti-Semitism. By this logic, the ACLU was anti-Semitic for its defense of civil liberties in the Skokie case

Because supporting Palestine isn't hating Jews and posting people mugshot style on a website as anti-Semites because they support the Palestinian people right to have a nation and to return to the homes they were kicked out of is far-right. The same way wanting the Ukrainians to be able to go back to Crimea and other Russian-annexed lands is not hatred of Russians. And if a website posted mugshot style bios of Ukraine-supporters in such a way, we'd all know they are far right.

> Because supporting Palestine isn't hating Jews

Did you fail to read any of my comments or are you just pretending? Khalil gave a speech openly defending the "armed resistance" of Hamas [1].

[1] https://x.com/canarymission/status/1900204678240928166

He didn't mention Hamas, or Jews. And what he said is not anything anti-Semitic either. It's also true. Under international law an invasion and occupation of one's land is a justified reason to launch an armed resistance. Like Ukraine did.

You may have wanted him to say, in that clip, "10/7 was justified" but he did not. He is simply saying that any type of amassing of arms will be seen by Israel as terrorism when they have a right to defend themselves. Do you think Palestine has no right to defend itself from Israel?

These sorts of people are never honest.

stop eating brain worms

these people literally can not

[flagged]

[flagged]

That distinction doesn't even matter. Someone can stand on Main St and shout "I love Hamas" all day and the government can (well, in theory) do nothing. This freedom applies to everyone on American soil regardless of their immigration status. The fact that people are being targeted and prosecuted by this adminstration is a complete breakdown of free speech and first amendment protections, supported by a republican congress and court system.

This is easy to say when it's someone you like, not so much when it's someone you don't.

Do you also think a foreigner should be allowed to openly advocate for Nazism while on a green card, without consequence?

There is actually a law that prohibits advocacy of nazis while on a green card.

Nothing prohibiting advocacy of nazis, from what I can tell, it's for affiliation with nazis. And its an entry/approval requirement, and there is a big difference though between entry/approval requirements and ongoing obligations. The government can deny entry/approval for a myriad of reasons related to unfavorable speech, but they can't infringe on the legal speech of a green card holder.

Regardless, the prohibition for entry/approval is against people who were associated with the nazi party or nazi-allied parties between 1933 and 1945, which is basically obsolete already. Anybody for whom that prohibition applies would be 98+ years old now.

Yes thanks for the correction.

Sorry if I'm missing your sarcasm, but I was curious and tried to search for this and wasn't successful, can you give more details?

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/grounds-deportabilit...

Look up the line on nazis. On second look, The word advocacy is wrong. It is nazi persecution

I agree with you, and I don’t know where on that line the Columbia student with a green card that was detained falls, but I will say there were plenty of protestors in the US who were supportive of Hamas. There was a group in Chicago, for example, that adopted the imagery of a hang glider on their protest posters, which were used in the Oct 7 terrorist attacks. So I would not be surprised if he did express support for Hamas, but I of course believe in innocent until proven guilty, and would like the government to have to show evidence of that if true.

Expressing support for Hamas is also protected speech, and that's not controversial in terms of 1A law/jurisprudence.

The government cannot and will not show evidence of that because they can’t. The guy has actual self-published records of his speech which contradict all of the hysterical hearsay claims that the right is making against him. The current government has no interest in the truth, which is why they moved him to a state where his immigration attorney cannot practice.

Yes, there were and are plenty of protestors that actually support Hamas. Fuck those guys. But automatically claiming that if you support Palestine that you must support Hamas is the exact sort of childish intellectual laziness that leads to and supports actual genocide.

[flagged]

I'm reading this link and don't see that in the post. Is this the correct link?

I do see in there a reference to Kymani James, so I did a search for him. I see that he posted incendiary comments online which he later recanted and were taken out of context when reported on. But, I don't see how your post indicates a connection to Mahmoud Khalil, and even if there was a connection, why this warrants detention and deportation?

Perhaps you didn't read the subsequent tweets? Parts 2 and 3 follow the link I posted and clearly say what they believe.

And I never said it warrants detention and deportation. I'm just pointing out that Khalil is affiliated with a group that supports Hamas, and that he does not merely "protest for Palestine". It's well attested in the media that Khalil was a negotiator for the group but I can link a source below.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/03/13/columbia-s...

> I'm just pointing out that Khalil is affiliated with a group that supports Hamas

The article that you linked says he was a negotiator for Columbia pro-Palestine protestors. Painting them as supporters of Hamas is a tired tactic intended to silence anyone who doesn't support Israel's actions.

[flagged]

> essentially long term visas

Not visas which are visitation permits. They are non-citizens who live in the United States. This is not visitation.

Revoking a green card is akin to expulsion from the country. And can only be used when laws are broken, treason is committed, or terrorism is waged.

In the case of the Columbia student, he was accused of terrorism without trial and had his revocation signed single handedly by the Secretary of State. This is a first time for the law to be used.

> And can only be used when laws are broken, treason is committed, or terrorism is waged.

CBP/ICE has a pretty detailed explanation on their website that you can lose permanent resident status by remaining outside of the country for more than one year and failing to retain a bona fide residence and presence in the USA (US job with annual 1040 tax filings, residence, identity documents, etc).

I would wager that a scenario such as remaining overseas for multiple years is a much more common way for people to lose US PR status through negligence/lack of action than for people to get their PR status revoked through some legal process initiated for treason, terrorism, etc.

In the distant past the US government claimed US Citizens who lived abroad too long lost their citizenship.

The courts said, “no.”

But the US State Department would still refuse to provide consular services.

Some expat US citizens tried to claim this to avoid paying taxes for the U.S. on foreign income.

The courts enthusiastically said “no”.

Isn't it exclusive to the US that you have to pay taxes after having moved abroad, despite living in another country for a long time, having your home address, etc. set there and so forth.

Yes but USA lets you write off taxes you've already paid to other countries, up to ~$150k - $200k of income IIRC (might be wrong here on the details).

You also get other benefits too though. If you ever become desolate or need help getting home, embassies can help or provide a loan. If war breaks out or some natural disaster happens, America will come for you. You get the power of our passport. You can still collect benefits like social security.

Pros and cons.

> If war breaks out or some natural disaster happens, America will come for you.

Sort of. The state department will arrange evac, but if it's a charter on a PJ, you'll be on the hook for it and will have to sign a promissory note for it.

Sending in the military is very rare. You'll have better luck with a private security company, but they aren't cheap.

North Korea does it too.

Yes, leaving the country for a long time is another way to lose residency. I was focusing more on expulsion.

That may be the case, but as in NY vs Trump, sometimes laws are used in novel ways, in that case 'falsifying business records' -ie. inflating asset prices; something the prosecutor herself engaged in. Previously, those were normally misdemeanors but were reclassified as felonies. Also, they were not historically prosecuted. So, there is precedent for using previously unenforced laws as well as reclassifying the severity.

No. The case for inflated assets was a civil lawsuit, not a criminal one.

Business records were filed falsely in the hush money scandal. That resulted in a criminal conviction. 34 counts total, because it was done over eleven transactions, and three filings made for each transaction. It was supposed to be noted and declared as hush money, but because it was labeled legal money, this was a lie.

If you want to argue that it is unfair , I am with you, but the bigger person you are and the bigger your pursuit the bigger your enemy and the more squeaky clean your record has to be. That’s the price of fame and fortune with envy.

That's a mischaracterization of the case. In New York v. Trump, the charge was falsifying business records in furtherance of another crime, which is what elevated it to a felony. That isn’t a novel interpretation—New York law has long treated falsification of business records as a misdemeanor unless it’s done to cover up or advance another crime. The prosecution argued that Trump falsified records to hide a campaign finance violation, which is what made it a felony.

As for the idea that these laws were "previously unenforced," that's misleading. Falsifying business records has been prosecuted as a felony in New York many times before, including against other executives. What makes this case unique is the high-profile defendant, not some unprecedented application of the law.

And the claim that the prosecutor herself engaged in inflating asset prices is a distortion. Letitia James, as AG, pursued civil fraud claims against Trump for devaluing his assets for tax purposes while inflating them for loan applications—something Trump himself admitted to in depositions. That’s not the same as falsifying business records.

So no, this isn't some brand-new legal strategy being used against Trump; it's just a matter of finally holding a powerful person accountable under laws that have existed and been applied before.

There are a few NY democratic operatives of some renown in whose opinion the prosecutions were politically motivated. I think the statute of limitations had expired but through manoeuvering they were able to bring charges. That lends credence to that opinion.

Saying the statute of limitations had expired ignores New York’s well-established tolling rule, which pauses the clock when a defendant is out of state—something courts upheld in this case and hundreds of others. The idea that prosecutions are politically motivated based on the opinions of a few operatives doesn’t override the legal basis for the charges, which follow existing precedent on falsifying business records to cover up a crime. If anything, failing to prosecute someone due to their political status would be the real favoritism.

Are Foreign Nationals Entitled to the Same Constitutional Rights As Citizens? David Cole, Georgetown University Law Center - https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/297/ | https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?a... (page 12 of the pdf)

> The specific features of the constitutional guarantees of political freedom, due process, and equal protection further support their extension to foreign nationals living in the United States.

> Green card holders are essentially long term visas with citizenship grants for good behavior

No.

One of the major distinctions being – CBP cannot deny a green card holder to enter the country. They can try pressure tactics to 'convince' the person to 'voluntarily' give up their green card but, if they don't sign anything, they will still be let in. If there's something off about their case, they may be referred to an immigration judge, which is the only way to revoke a green card (barring some fraud detected by USCIS).

Contrast that with visas. They are entirely at immigration discretion and can be canceled at any time, including at the port of entry, for any reason. Visas which grant work authorization still have the SSN restricted and it's tied to whatever authorization the person has. A green card holder can remove the SSN restriction and their SSN is exactly the same as a citizen.

Really, the main differences are that a citizen can hold some offices a LPR cannot, the ability to vote, and no requirement to renew anything. And, most importantly, no residency requirements for a citizen.

As you point out, naturalization is more difficult to remove, but green cards aren't that easy either.

Actually they can.

For eg. Some green card holders live overseas. They are required to visit here periodically to keep status alive.

I know of cases where their green cards were revoked

That is a pre-indicated stipulation of the green card validity, not revocation based on the whim of an evaluating (non-immigration judicial) official -- ie CBP and DHS and ICE cannot (read: should not be able to) revoke green cards.

The "basic US presence" requirement of green cards has always been present in the validity clause alongside the 5-10year expiry date, and not committing immigration fraud and other basic requirements to maintain green card -- a comical number of European green card holders gloss over/forget this clause every year, that is made explicit to them upon receiving the card and proceed to forfeit their green cards by not entering the US for over a year -- that is not a revocation (implies a subjective decision made by an official), it is a lapse of validity (implies some pre-stated condition was fulfilled).

I see your point. Thank you.

I think most non legally inclined people (like me) would say CBP yanked my GC.

Your point being that - nope, they just enforced the law.

Right?

Yes. People are generally familiar with rights that can lapse if eligibility is not maintained - consider the right to vote in state elections, which you lose if you fail to maintain residency in that state. Nobody yanked your state voter registration or your eligibility for in-state tuition, you abandoned it.

Green cards can be revoked for non residence and commission of crimes.

US Citizenship used to be revoked for these things, but that’s not recent.

Green cards cannot be yanked for constitutionally protected speech.

That is true. What recently happened is that the Supreme court has determined that speech which benefits a foreign terrorist organization constitutes "material support" to that organization, and providing material support to a terrorist organization is a crime which can get a green card revoked.

Now, I don't think it makes any sense that speech is "material" support, but I also think it doesn't make any sense that speech is "violence," and US culture seems to have repudiated my thoughts on what distinguishes speech from action.

But whatever I think, under current law, speech in support of a terrorist organization is no longer free speech. And certain pro-Palestinian organizations were defined by the previous administration to be terrorist organizations back in November. So it follows that certain pro-Gaza activism is no longer free speech. I don't think this should be the case, but this is the current state of the law.

Not a lawyer, but reading from the 2010 decision that I think your citing the first line is.

"Material support" is logically defined as more than mere statements of support, and supporters of these groups may advocate for or participate in these organizations.

Specifically it's seems as though an organization was working with terrorist groups to provide training on how to seek non violent solutions with global humanitarian bodies.

Seems like for this to be similar it would require the government to show they individual engaged in direct actions to provide aid to Hamas greater than statements/speech to meet the current definition of "material support".

For statements of support of a terrorist organization to be considered "material support" I think it would require a new ruling from SCOTUS

Counterpoint: green cards are now being yanked for constitutionally protected speech.

That is not true.

My understanding is a US citizen could promote a terrorist organization like Al Queda and that would not be a crime (if no imminent threat) as it’s protected speech.

They could be investigated, but if no crime is committed the won’t be consequences.

If you’re a green card holder you most certainly could have your green card yanked for the same speech.

Green card holders are still immigrants and liable to be removed from the US for a host of reasons that aren’t actual crimes. Heck, “moral turpitude” is a reason for losing your green card, and that includes a whole host of speech that promotes things like war crimes.

Yep. I was acquainted with a green card holder from Serbia who got accused of a war crime. He eventually was stripped of his green card and sent to Croatia to face a trial there. The basis was that he didn’t tick the “I am a war criminal” box on his green card application. He submitted to a plea agreement to be incarcerated for not ticking the box for 2 years and then was deported. (This happened back in 2015 under the Obama administration.)

Croatia gave him a fair trial and found him not guilty. Despite that he can’t ever come back to the U.S.; this situation is analogous to what the protester from Columbia is facing. Basically, USCIS can decide you lied on an application about a crime they think you committed, without actually being convicted of that crime. (Or in the case of Slobodan Mutic, eventually being found not guilty.)

False. PRs do not enjoy all of the same the First Amendment protections that citizens do, especially in the case of Khalil.

In cases such as mine, where I am no longer the citizen of any other country except the USA, what would revocation of naturalized citizenship mean?

I suppose deporting you to Guantanamo and detaining you there until your country of origin agrees to take you back would be consistent with the current administration's actions.

In theory, I believe the US is signatory to international treaties that say they will not make someone stateless. In practice, it probably depends on whether they can get any other country to accept you as a deportee.

They can also do it while you're abroad, and then it doesn't matter if the other country accepts you or not. The problem is wholly on your shoulders.

A notable case is Shamima Begum's: born in London, the UK deprived her of British citizenship, claiming that she anyhow had Bangladeshi citizenship (but she hasn't: the Government of Bangladesh said as much). Anyhow, since all of this time she has been in Syria, this is not really a problem for either the UK or Bangladesh.

Green card holders have a right to free speech.

Green cards come with rules to keep. If you break those rules you can and probably will lose your green card and be deported.

"Green cards come with rules to keep."

The whole issue is that the current administration has determined that they are the sole arbiter of those "rules", and they can detain and attempt to deport green card holders without any due process.

Promoting a declared terrorist organization isn't a gray area. Nor is abusing schedule 1 drugs but the felon seems to want his African buddy to slide on that one.

Promoting a terrorist organization is legal and well within the boundaries of free speech. It's just not cool, not a good look, and should be shamed into submission.

Providing material support to a terrorist organization is where it crosses into criminal territory.

> Promoting a terrorist organization...

is not what Mahmoud Kahill (sp?) was doing.

He's was protesting the University of Columbia's support of Israel, who were engaged in a wildly homicidal campaign against his kin.

I’m well aware. Read my other comments in this thread.

You need to educate yourself. This is 100% incorrect. It might be legal for a citizen but not a permanent resident. Endorsing terrorism is a question asked on every Green Card and naturalization application, and will get your deported. Until you are a citizen you will lose your green card for endorsing terrorism.

Conditions for admissibility are one thing, and you can be denied entry for any thought crime that the government wants to impose.

Once you are in, you have the same rights to free speech as any citizen, and the same rights to due process as well. In fact, the only thing they can do to curb your free speech is prove in court that you lied on your application. Which is likely how this case will play out after judges rule on how illegal their attempted action is, but as of yet the government has not provided any evidence of him lying on his application.

No you do not have the same rights as any citizen. You are wrong. You cannot endorse terrorism. If you come into the US on a visa and say "Death to America!" then you will be deported. This has been the case for decades upon decades and in my opinion it is correct. It's called biting the hand that feeds you and that person is taking a spot from someone else who would be grateful for being in the US.

Your opinion doesn’t matter dude. Decades of jurisprudence and Supreme Court precedent has already conclusively determined that green card holders have the same rights to free speech as citizens. It would take overturning the existing Supreme Court precedent, and destroying the 1st amendment along with it, for that to go away.

You are completely wrong. Supreme Court found that aliens do not have full first amendment protection, especially around terrorism.

s/Supreme Court found/Subservient Council declared/g

Our Constitution and Bill of Rights is framed in terms of recognizing independent-existing natural inalienable rights. Citizenship is a complete red herring. The SC has been writing justifications for blatant infringement of natural rights for decades, even before the current neofascist takeover. Take the Bill of Rights as a list of test cases, run down them, and try to find one that is actually passing.

Wrong.

Reno v. American-Arab Antidiscrimination Committee made it clear that there are no First amendment protections from deportation. This is well established case law for decades now.

https://www.aclu.org/documents/reno-v-adc

This is why talking confidently about things you have absolutely no idea about makes you look foolish.

Nothing in your comment is a logical response to anything in mine. Perhaps you need to take your own advice, especially with text that's right above where you're typing?

Probably because you don't understand what I posted. It clearly states that non-citizens do not enjoy First Amendment protections when it comes to deportation, which is exactly what Khalil is going through right now. If you don't understand how this relates, then you need some deep education on what you were posting about.

I understand your comments just fine. Rather it seems that you have a comprehension problem. Your link may state that the Supreme Court has declared that non-citizens [etc]. Pointing out that you're holding up this declaration as if it's some unassailable logical conclusion rather than an arguable policy decree is the crux of my comment.

Ah, so you don’t understand how the judicial branch works. Okay. Regardless of what you want to believe, non-citizens do not enjoy first amendment rights when it comes to deportation. Period. End of story. You can be against this all you want, but Khalil will be lawfully deported and so will any other non-citizens that engage in endorsing terrorism. This is established case law.

I don't know why you keep jumping to characterize disagreement as misunderstanding. Your apparent belief that the courts somehow represent infallible logic rather than merely a different type of policymaking is exactly why I'm making my point. Like, it's a big deal when a new justice gets appointed, right? They're not just interchangeable cogs.

Pragmatically, yes, Khalil will likely be deported due to having exercised his freedom of speech. This, along with many other current affairs, should be abhorrent to anybody who actually believes in the ideals of individual liberty - regardless of the justifications crafted by the judicial, executive, and fourth estate. And I really don't know what you gain by cheerleading authoritarianism, besides some feeling of smugness of being on the winning team.

So if a green card holder said "I can see why people support Hamas" should he be expelled? When does just talking about a situation turn into "endorsement" or "support"?

That’s part of the problem here. The federal government can decide by fiat that you did a bad thing before you applied for a green card and then deport you based on that.

They can also say you did a bad thing after and revoke your green card, although it’s a bit more paperwork to do so and requires a higher up to sign off on it (in this recent case, the Secretary of State himself).

I’m not aware of any country that provides blanket free speech for noncitizens.

We used to be a unique country when it came to free speech. No reason why it shouldn't be provided to noncitizens too, imo. We let our enemies pump news and media into our country because we believe the people actually run the country.

Yes, it's enough to get lawyers involved if you're stupid enough to get caught for talking about terrorism like that when you're on your green card.

That's ridiculous, imo. If we don't understand geopolitics and can't talk about it, what hope do we have of being good at it?

Could you show me where in those rules it says that you're not allowed to support Palestine? Or possibly somewhere in the rules where you forfeit your right to free speech?

On the I-485, which you file to get a GC, you have to answer several questions like this:

> Do you intend to engage in any activity that could endanger the welfare, safety, or security of the United States? > NOTE: If you answered "Yes" to any part of Item Numbers 42.a. - 45., explain what you did, including the dates and location of the circumstances, or what you intend to do in the space provided in Part 14. Additional Information

> Recruited members or asked for money or things of value for a group or organization that did any of the activities described in Item Numbers 43.b. - 43.e.

If you say 'yes' to these, you probably aren't getting a GC. If you falsely say 'no' to these, you may have committed fraud. The reference to Item Numbers 43.b - 43.e can be found by reading the I-485 - https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/forms/i-4... - but to save you time, it seems to apply to any group doing armed resistance.

That said, mere speech supporting Palestine is, as you say, legal. I also think that it had to be false at the time the statement was made, not something he only did afterwards. But if they can show that a person lied on these questions or any of the other several dozen questions in the application, they can accuse them of obtaining the GC fraudulently and go into removal proceedings.

Reading between the lines, this is what I believe is happening to Khalil based on statements given in articles like - https://reason.com/2025/03/13/mahmoud-khalil-is-an-easy-call... - compare the questions I quoted to their stated justifications in that article:

> The official said that Khalil is a "threat to the foreign policy and national security interests of the United States." > "The allegation here is not that he was breaking the law," said the official. "He was mobilizing support for Hamas and spreading antisemitism in a way that is contrary to the foreign policy of the U.S."

Now, I'm not exactly sure exactly how removal proceedings work, but from what I've read, it seems likely that he'll get some kind of hearing. Hopefully, this gets adjudicated properly, promptly and fairly in a way that respects his first amendment rights, though it is concerning that someone can just be held in detainment waiting for all this.

He'll get a hearing in immigration "court", an administrative court where the judge is on the payroll of the agency and very few rights you have in normal courts apply. Just to give one example, these are the same courts that have been putting 3-year-old children on trial without representation and calling that "due process".

I've been made to understand there should be a hearing before an administrative law judge but I don't know much beyond that. I don't think he gets a jury or anything like that, though.

[flagged]

January 6th protesters were all arrested with valid warrants and received full due process (until they were all pardoned).

Mahmoud Khalil was arrested solely on the discretion of Marco Rubio (the arresting agents thought they were revoking his visa when he is in fact a green card holder), he has not been criminally charged, he was been provided with little to no contact with his lawyers, as far as I've read he lead protests but there is no evidence he has provided material support to Hamas.

Comparing his situation to the January 6th protestors is the "falsest" of false equivalences.

Like most MAGAs, your ability to project false equivalence is unmatched. There were thousands of actual laws, passed by congress, on the books that prohibited the actions of January 6th protesters that were charged. Can you point to a single protestor that was charged that did not unlawfully enter the capitol building? There were thousands of people that were there protesting but never stepped foot in the capitol building. They were not charged. No MAGAts had their right to protest infringed on...they had unlawful entry, criminal tresspass, assault/battery, destruction of property, attempt to disrupt official proceedings, etc.

Mahmoud Khalil has broken no laws, at least according to the accusations of the government. He hasn't even demonstrated support for Hamas...and it wouldn't be illegal even if he did. All he has done is said something that some people don't like. That is not a crime.

That's why this is egregious, where J6 protest convictions are completely logical and morally consistent.

Green card holders can have their GC stripped for committing crimes. If free speech becomes a crime then the GC is at risk.

Note - I don't agree with it but I think this is the logic the current administration is using.

No, the administration is using a clause that allows the Secretary of State to designate a person as a threat to the country and strip their green card. They have explicitly said it is not based on any accusation of crime.

Those rights have been evidently eroded and discarded as of recently

Doesn't seem that this administration think they do. Pro free speech my ass.

[flagged]

> forget what the law says if push came to shove you would be killed no questions which is fair if you think about it

Under no circumstances would any thinking person consider that fair.

haha man you got so much to learn about the world fairness only exists in blogs and comments :)

[flagged]

GC holders are permanent resident aliens, not naturalized citizens. Yes, thet went through a legal process, but citizenship is further down the road of that process.

Correct. One has to file an N-400 to get naturalized after obtaining LPR ("green card") status.

Which you can do 3 years after marriage (in the case of Khalifa), and it’s recommended to do so.

The main reason people don’t is because they don’t want to be filing U.S. tax returns the rest of their life if they plan to eventually move back to another country. I have relatives who have made such a decision.

This is not correct. But I can't edit it :/ so I am just adding this comment here

> GC holders are naturalised citizens

Incorrect. GC holders are not "naturalized US citizens" and still need to apply for full US citizenship with the USCIS when they are eligible to do so.

Nope. Not at all. They put people on a path to citizenship, but they are not yet, till they are sworn in as a citizen. Residency can be revoked for criminal behavior, fraud, among other things.

Thanks for doing this Peter!

I'm the founder of an early-stage company seeking to establish an office in Phoenix, Arizona. My situation has specific immigration complexities I hope you can maybe give some pointers on.

My spouse is currently subject to a 10-year bar from entering the United States due to an overstay....

We are exploring a hardship waiver (I-601/I-601A) but finding the process challenging while simultaneously managing my business responsibilities. I've been considering various visa pathways including TN, H-1B, and have begun the I-130 petition process for my spouse. Given these circumstances:

What strategies would you recommend for addressing my spouse's admissibility issues most effectively? Are there particular hardship waiver approaches that have proven successful in similar entrepreneurial situations? Could you advise on the comparative benefits of different visa pathways in our specific case? Are there any specialized resources or professionals with expertise in cases combining entrepreneurship with complex inadmissibility issues?

Sorry for this punting response but the details here really matter (how long she overstayed, how long she's been outside the U.S., whether you or she has any health issues, what your business does, etc.) so I would recommend consulting a business immigration attorney with waiver experience

Scenario: A Canadian tech worker (software engineer) has been working in tech for 10-ish years, however, their University degree (general BA, BSc, etc) does not match the work that they've been doing. Would this person be SOL for a TN/H1B? To improve their chances would it be advisable to get a 1-year accelerated Master's in the field (CompSci, AI)?

There is a 3 years work experience = 1 year of degree study rule. You can probably use your experience (3.3 years of a degree) + actual degree to qualify.

That's right, for H-1B purposes, you can qualify based on a combination of education and experience (or even just experience) evaluated to be the equivalent of a 4-year U.S. bachelor's degree (in a field related to the H-1B job). There also are a limited number of TN occupations where a bachelor's degree isn't required or an unrelated degree can work.

Hi Peter, suppose a Canadian founder got denied at the border for a B-2 visa and was asked to bring proof that they are not participating in the US labour market (ie. hiring in the US which they are not doing, they are just visiting their S/O). What kind of documents would constitute this proof?

Thank you for doing these AMAs, it's really appreciated and very helpful.

The standard documents are proof of employment abroad (in Canada) and Canadian bank account statements showing sufficient funds to support himself or herself while in the U.S. Also, something pulling this person back to Canada, such as a spouse or significant other or other ties and/or responsibilities.

What’s the play for solo founders? I can’t establish a company and work towards funding without an H1B but then at the same time I can’t really afford an H1B without funding.

Very curious about this as well. I've seen articles[1] that suggest that you canis engage in passive work, which includes activities such as:

- Conducting market research and customer discovery

- Discussing planned investments and purchases with prospective co-founders

- Attending and participating in business meetings

- Developing business relationships, such as meeting with investors and clients

- Negotiating contracts

- Incorporating a US company, applying for an EIN, establishing a mailing address, and applying for a business license

- Act as a passive shareholder or investor

However, my attempt to find the specific regulations or uscis policy memorandums that state these failed so I'm unsure.

[1] https://www.deel.com/blog/starting-your-own-business-h1b-vis...

I did this for a bit. There has to be an employee employer relationship even if you have equity. You must establish that you can be fired by the board or an executive in the company. Also you need to be on payroll (W-2) at pulling a prevailing wage for your region and job description.

Curious what is the rationale for this rule. Not against or for it or anything, just interested in what historical precedent led to this logic.

Since an H1-B or O-1 visa is an employment visa, it has to be used as an employee to work for an employer.

Two founders can form a board and hire each other, creating an employee-employer relationship to the business. This has been done with great success for O-1s; I doubt it would be as easy for an H-1B.

There isn’t a visa that allows immigrant or nonimmigrant intent to come to the U.S. and be self employed. Therefore your business structure must not contain a whiff of self employment.

Would really like to know about this one as well

See my comment to OP

+1

In connection with trying to start a company, there are a lot of activities that can be undertaken as a visitor without a work visa. In fact, I would say that more often than not companies founded by foreign nationals are started when they are visitors. The line that can't be crossed is productive work for compensation but establishing the company, obtaining funding, meeting with potential clients, even hiring can all be done while in the U.S. as a visitor. That being said, the line between work and non-work sometimes is grey and nuanced so it's good to consult with an attorney to understand the limits. This is particularly important when traveling to the U.S. because it's at the port of entry where entrepreneurs are most likely to have issues particularly if they are traveling to the U.S. frequently. One form of protection so to speak is to establish the company with the goal of obtaining an E-2 or E-1 treaty visa; the visitor regulations are much more flexible regarding permissible activities as a visitor when the visitor is planning to get an E-2 or E-1 visa.

What if I have an H1B, but want to pursue starting my own Startup. What are the actions that I can undertake without jeopardizing my status or relationship with my current employer?

One of the main hurdle is I cant go an seek customers, as my profile would show an employee with my current employer?

The real issue in establishing a company while employed by another is that your current employer could have claims over the IP that you develop through your startup so while there are lots that one can do vis-a-vis a startup while currently employed by another company (or in the U.S. as a visitor) as noted in my comment above, I think the bigger issue is putting the company's IP and other assets in jeopardy by incorporating while still employed by another company. This is a corporate/IP law question so out of my area. As a foreign national seeking to start a business, I think it's as if not more important to consult a corporate law attorney than an immigration law attorney and it's also good to get them talking to each other.

Good point. A lot of people don’t know this.

If the company makes it - the venture can be in legal jeopardy.

Thanks for the response!

Hi Peter - thanks for doing this.

I'm currently on a H1B and transitioning to an E3 visa. However, I did get married to a US Citizen and am also applying for my green card via marriage. I need to move to the E3 as my H1B maxes out before I can get a green card. I have a few questions:

* The E3 visa is a non-immigrant visa, but I assume getting married to a US citizen implies immigrant intent. My lawyers tell me it's not an issue as long as I wait 90 days after getting the E3 to apply for the green card. Does that sound right / any concerns?

* How long are you seeing current wait times for the marriage based green card end to end after applying? I'm mostly concerned about not being able to leave the country for 1-2 years (even with filing advanced parole)

* I'm also going for the employment based green card and we've filed my PERM (3 months ago). That doesn't really seem like it;s going to work out in time for it to matter. Does that sound right?

My responses in order: 1. The safest advice is to wait at least 90 days after entering the U.S. before applying for a green card; however, applying for an E-3 visa after getting married to a U.S. citizen involves some risk. If you are in the U.S. and just changing your status to E-3 from H-1B (and not applying for an E-3 visa), then you really don't have to wait the 90 days. 2. Until January 20th, less than 6 months typically although there was variation depending on place of residence. It appears, however, that USCIS is bringing back the in-person interview as part of the marriage-based green card application process and this will slow the process down considerably to what it was before, which was one to two years. 3. Absolutely; the marriage-based route should be much faster.

I have a Ukrainian refugee family under TPS, approved through 2027, staying in my guest house in Texas. There are rumors that the Trump administration will revoke the status of TPS peoples in the next month or two.

If this happens, my understanding is that this will immediately turn them into illegal aliens, subject to deportation.

Is my vague understanding true? Is there anything I can do to help them? I don't mind participating some civil disobedience if it means allowing them to stay in the country longer. Should I gate up my property? Any advice is appreciated.

It's super scary and awful. Although unlikely to help, it's always worthwhile to look at employment-based visas for those in TPS status or pursuing asylum. Sometimes there are solutions. But to answer your question, my understanding is that those whose TPS status has been revoked would have little time to leave and that would set forth in the revocation order.

Here's an article on it:

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-plans-revoke-legal-st...

> The planned rollback of protections for Ukrainians would be part of a broader Trump administration effort to strip legal status from more than 1.8 million migrants allowed to enter the U.S. under temporary humanitarian parole programs launched under the Biden administration, a senior Trump official and three sources familiar with the matter told Reuters.

> A move to revoke the Ukrainians' status could come as soon as April, all four said. They said the plans to revoke their status got underway before Trump publicly feudedwith Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy last week.

> White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt pushed back on the Reuters report in a post on X, saying "no decision has been made at this time."

I have been calling every single person I know that has a Republican congress person and begging them to please call their congressperson on the matter. I have no idea if it has any effect. It certainly feels like shouting into the void, and there's about 1000 other things that everyone is angry about.

I feel so helpless in the face of so much chaos, incompetence and malice.

Even if it continues, there are many in the TPS community that will be stuck in odd situations that prevent them from daily life such as not being able to get drivers licenses.

The malice, the excuses for this nonsensical system, and more have permanently damaged some of my close relationships. It's times like this when people show who they truly are at heart.

What citizenship will a naturalized citizen get if they lose their citizenship and where will they go?

Country of birth, if not a dual citizen

Not necessarily. People can and do get left stateless (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Kateb_v_Godwin involves someone born in Kuwait but not a citizen); countries can and do reject deportations even of their own citizens (https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/31/world/trumps-deportations...).

Nope! Citizenship is a basic human right. No one can be deprived of it. Middle Eastern countries have strict laws regarding citizenship; in that case, the person would have the citizenship of their parents. If one can prove legally their citizenship, that country is bound to take them back if deported.

#4 -> https://www.mea.gov.in/Speeches-Statements.htm?dtl/38990/Sta...

> Citizenship is a basic human right. No one can be deprived of it.

That's great and all, but the problem still exists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statelessness

> Middle Eastern countries have strict laws regarding citizenship; in that case, the person would have the citizenship of their parents.

Well, when Palestine gets international recognition as a sovereign state, that'll solve the problem. Until then, he's stateless.

"Kuwait's Nationality Law is based on the citizenship of the parents, jus sanguinis, (Article 2) and does not provide for citizenship based on place of birth, jus soli, except in the case of foundlings (Article 3). For this reason Al-Kateb did not acquire Kuwaiti citizenship at birth, and was thus considered a stateless person. Al-Kateb left his country of birth after Kuwaiti authorities pressured nearly 200,000 Palestinians to leave Kuwait. In December 2000, Al-Kateb, travelling by boat, arrived in Australia without a visa or passport, and was taken into immigration detention under the provisions of the Migration Act 1958."

> Nope! Citizenship is a basic human right. No one can be deprived of it.

Unfortunately not true. Yes, it's a human right. Yes, there's all sorts of international agreements trying to prevent it (because it's a real mess that nobody wants to deal with), but it still happens.

This is more likely for countries that force one to renounce their birth citizenship. Not all those regimes want to take them back even if the option is statelessness.

Also FWIW, United States is not a signatory to the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, so it's not a "contracting state".

Any other remaining citizenship. If they had to renounce it as a part of becoming a US citizen (e.g. India requires it), they become a stateless person.

Stateless? Sounds new information

Yep. The US is not a signatory to the UN Conventions on Statelessness: the https://www.unhcr.org/us/what-we-do/protect-human-rights/end...

A US citizen can also just renounce their citizenship, and the US won't care if they have another citizenship.

Other countries are more restrictive. For example, Russia (a signatory of that convention) requires people to prove that they have another citizenship ready before they allow the renunciation to proceed.

Hi Peter, Thank you for doing this!

I'm on H-1B with an approved EB-2 via my current employer and an approved EB-1A (self-petition). I want to switch employers or take a break. I expected my priority date to become current in Q3 or Q4 2025.

Questions

1. If I switch to an H-4 status for a break, can that affect I-485 via EB-1A?

2. I need to visit family urgently and I have got a few offers in hand. Can I quit and travel internationally while the H-1B transfer is in progress and re-enter the US? My stamp expires in 6 months and my partner can mail the approved I-797. What are the general risks here apart from the mail getting lost?

3. Can a change of employment lead to issues with an AOS application in the future using EB-1A?

My responses in order: 1. Green card applications are prospective in nature, meaning they concern what the applicant will do after getting a green card so what an applicant is doing now, before getting a green card, shouldn't matter strictly speaking but switching to H-4 and stopping work could cause USCIS to question whether you intend to work in your EB-1A field after getting your green card. To be clear, however, the risk of this is low and USCIS's concern if raised easily rebutted. 2. Yes but you would need the original receipt or approval notice (combined with your existing visa) to get back in. Make sure to speak with the company's attorney about this/travel. 3. Unlikely, since the EB-1A isn't based on a specific offer of employment but as noted above, a change to a different field could raise questions about whether you will continue to work in your EB-1A field after getting your green card. To be clear, however, the risk is low that a job change in the EB-1A context would trigger an RFE by USCIS.

Isn’t the green card risk based on a couple of items in the green card process

The visa process and the person’s assertions to those visa questions

For example - did you every x? And the required answer is No

Let’s assume the person did commit X but answers No

Years go by and the person gets a green card.

The underlying assertion was a lie - therefore the whole stream of events later becomes questionable.

The second situation is a new item being added. For example consider the hypothetical scenario that

When the applicant filled out his forms - greenpeace was legit. And the applicant was a greenpeace member.

Years later the applicant becomes a green card holder.

Now years later. The govt classifies greenpeace a terror org.

Is the green card holder under threat?

You should read the actual questions on an I-485, they don't rely on declarations that any given organization is "terrorist" or anything like that.

Now, I think you're right that the statements are only required to be true at the time they were made. That said, if I can get you to look at the I-485 which one fills out to get a green card, and focus on the questions in Item Numbers 43.b. - 43.e, which cover what is essentially material support for a terrorist org, you will see that all of them relate to the group's actions. You can read the questions yourself here on p. 16 of the PDF for an I-485:

https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/forms/i-4...

So the only way the truth of someone's statements could change over time would be if the groups they had given material support to (e.g. money or recruitment) had only engaged in things like assassination, kidnapping, hijacking, sabotage, destroying people or property with weapons or dangerous devices, etc. after the person had already turned in their I-485 form.

This isn't very likely to be the case for various Palestine-related organizations that are doing armed resistance, since that armed resistance has been going on for a very long time now. But I suppose it's hypothetically possible in the abstract, and I presume one would argue this at an immigration hearing, since they have to establish immigration "fraud" and parts of that depend on what you knew and when you knew it.

Good points.

Thanks for sharing the link. Yikes! It looks like all of part 9 is in play. Ie one had better be absolutely truthful - or self decline, who would ever do that?

Also, the problem with the legal definition of “a disqualification requirement” is it can be vague and subject to change.

Would I be correct in saying that a strict adherence to USA law is mandatory?

IANAL, but if you've read all of the questions, they include some incredibly broad things like the one about having ever committed a crime, even if not charged, convicted, etc. that you can find on the I-485.

I've heard it said by lawyers that you're not qualified to know whether or not you've committed a federal crime and some of those are quite broad - see this illustration for a few ideas in that vein: https://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=1008 - but even then, one "out" is that my understanding is that you have to actually commit fraud here.

So maybe if you violated some incredibly broad provision, but were never charged or convicted and literally didn't even know it was a law, you could defend yourself by pointing that out and arguing that because of that, you haven't committed actual "fraud" even if your answer was wrong.

But in general, yes, you should be honest on all the forms and engage with a legal professional if you're ever in trouble. I've heard that this area of law is all that well tested, so we'll have to see what the courts do with it. In fact, we suffered some significant delays in our immigration journey due to being honest, but I don't regret that one bit.

or just party in miami once and blow your brains out ;)

If a company issues a temporary visa for an overseas employee, and the employee overstays and cuts ties with the company to become an ilegal alien. Is the visa issuing company penalized or held liable in some way?

Hey Peter, thank you for doing this!

Is it possible to build a successful o1 case for a founder, who's been digital nomading for years and can't build his case based on achievements from one specific country? Any tips?

IANAL but I don't think there's a need for O-1 evidence to be from a specific country. The evidence just needs to credibly show that you're extraordinary.

You can try https://o1pathways.com/ to evaluate your profile.

That's right, there's no need for the O-1 achievements to be from a specific country; the achievements just must meet the O-1 criteria and be documented wherever they occurred.

Thank you!

Hi Peter, I cofound a startup with my friend (US citizen). I am Canadian. What is possible path for me to work in US? TN1 visa requires not self-employment so my startup cannot sponsor me a letter. Thanks

Under certain circumstances, a TN could work. But the other options for Canadians would be the E-2 (requiring Canadian investment) or O-1.

Hi Peter, Thanks for doing the AMA. I have a general question/request, but I understand if you think it is not a relevant topic for this AMA.

A lot of people tend to equate foreign workers on work visas with "cheap labor", especially in the so called "white collar" jobs; even though there are things like labor market tests and/or minimum salary requirements which have to be satisfied for many employment based visas. Can you please dispel/corroborate this based on your experience with employment based visas?

My experience like all lawyers is in the end limited and limited to my clients and cases but I can tell you that for my corporate clients looking for talent, salary is usually the least important factor, meaning that they are not looking to pay the least but to find the best employee or at least a highly qualified employee. The competition for talent seems so fierce that my clients do not seem interested in lowballing great candidates. Now this might be limited to the high-end/"white collar" H-1B jobs, as you note above, and not the entry-level/grinder jobs.

For a U.S. citizen who resides abroad (3 years, NRA spouse) with a single-member LLC doing consulting software work for U.S. clients, what U.S. address should be / can be used for the business address of the LLC? Registered agent?

Separately, I know many startup founders who have long-term software developers ("contractors", apparently...) in other countries like India, Brazil, etc. Paying them with whatever random popular money transfer service. It's common practice but is it legal or risky on the U.S. side?

This really isn't an immigration question but a corporate/employment/payroll/tax question.

I have an E-3 visa sponsored by my company. I know that it doesn't have a direct path to green card; so anything that I should be doing now at this point for permanent residency?

Underlying status has no bearing on green card options. Those in E-3 status can pursue green cards. The issues, which can be managed, involve traveling on an E-3 visa when in the green card process, extending E-3 status when in the green card process, and renewing an E-3 visa when in the green card process. But our clients sponsor E-3 Australians all the time.

What are the pitfalls to watch out for when following the I-130 process? I’ve read a bunch about applying for a green card from within the US, but not as much good info for the I-130.

If you are applying for a family-based green card while outside the U.S., then the main challenges are timing - these take longer than U.S.-based applications - and travel to the U.S. - while travel to the U.S. is fine while in the I-130 process abroad, you should expect to be questioned when you enter the U.S. about your plans; CBP will want to make sure that you are not trying to circumvent the process abroad while entering as a visitor and then applying for a green card when in the U.S.

Thanks. How much longer has this avenue taken, in your experience?

It's all over the place but depends in part on how busy the particular Consulate is. For example, there are huge delays in Canada because the volume is so high.

Hi Peter, I'm an E3 holder. Thinking about marrying my partner who is a LPR and have a couple of questions:

- I entered on the E3 status in January but went to Canada for 2 days in February, does the 90 day rule restart from when I came back in February or when I initially entered in Jan?

- Can I continue working in my role after I apply to change my status after marriage to my LPR partner?

- Typically how long would I be unable to travel abroad while waiting for parole/adjustment of status? Thanks so much!

F2A (Spouses and Children of Permanent Residents) isn't current. Even after you marry and your spouse files I-130, you'll likely be in for a wait before you can file I-485 to adjust status. You can and should maintain your E-3 status in the meantime.

Since E-3 is not dual intent, the safest option is to avoid international travel until I-485 is approved. Re-entering on approved advance parole is allowed, but not if your I-485 is suddenly denied.

My responses in order: 1. When did you actually decide to marry your partner (if you've even decided)? If this decision occurred after you returned from Canada, then there's no requirement to wait 90 days. 2. Yes. 3. This is changing but now it seems to be taking at least 6 months and creeping to 9 months and even longer to an advance parole.

Hi all

I have a general question that perhaps others can answer too. I am currently located in Switzerland but I plan to move to the US as my partner just got the medical license as a doctor in the state of New York.

My question is, as I am currently still located in Switzerland, does it make sense to already look/apply for jobs in the US from here? If yes, what's the best way to do so?

If there is a choice, does it make more sense for an immigrant visa to be sponsored by my partner or by an employer?

Peter, I'm curious as to the easiest way for Australian founders to get a long stay visa and work permit for the US while working for their own (Delaware) company?

For Australians, even Australian founders, it's always worth looking at the E-3; this is even truer now that USCIS has said that under certain circumstances founders can get H-1B visas (and the E-3 is similar to the H-1B). The other options for Australian founders are the E-1 or E-2 treaty visa or the O-1 visa but these take a lot longer to prepare and are much more expensive than the E-3. But if you are inclined to explore the E-3 path as a founder, then absolutely consult with an attorney who has handled E-3s for founders (and there are lots of attorneys who handle visas for Australian founders).

thank you

Hi Peter, thanks for always circling back to the YC community!

I'm curious about LLMs for the legal system that can reference the law and help to guide individuals on the process they need to navigate. How much of Immigration Law do you think can be navigated independently by people? Obviously, unauthorized practices of the law would be illegal *but if it was permissible*, how critical are lawyers in Immigration Law when people are cheap and want to DIY?

I think that the drafting of documents/forms, the development/drafting of arguments, and the creation of letters of reference are rapidly being taken over by AI and I think within a year, immigration practice will look totally different. There are a number of companies doing very interesting things who are offering this service to would-be immigrants/founders. The immigration lawyer's role probably will be reduced to determining the best immigration path, advising on job changes and international travel, and navigating criminal law issues but the execution of applications probably will be handled almost entirely by AI with double-checking by the lawyer of course.

Hi Peter, thanks for doing this! I've heard from a couple of people that O-1a petitions are not as smooth as before. Many people getting RFEs even if the lawyers told them the case was strong. Is one article on a major newspaper normally enough to tick the coverage requirements? Having the agent type O-1 makes it easier to change companies? Some say yes, some say all the companies need to be listed when filing the petition. Thanks!

I haven't seen adjudications of O-1 petitions becoming more difficult but my experience, like everyone's experience, is anecdotal. The regulations are unclear/inconsistent on whether a singular instance of a criterion (media, publications, awards, etc.) is enough to meet that criterion but in my experience, yes (although multiple instances is always better). Once someone has obtained one O-1 visa, it's generally very easy to get the next O-1 (and much cheaper, easier, and faster than getting the first one). That applies whether the first O-1 was a company O-1 or an agent O-1.

Hey Peter, Thanks for doing this. For someone on F1 visa, can they work as a cofounder of a company through CPT. What are the options for this situation?

Theoretically, yes under certain circumstances, but in the end, this is the school's decision and some simply won't allow it.

As a Canadian Citizen with a extra serving of Melanin, what are the chances of my getting detained by ICE when visiting my family in USA for a week ?

https://globalnews.ca/news/11080371/canadian-woman-detained-...

Edit : fix typo Also added context.

If you cross into the US at a port-of-entry and are admitted as a visitor then you are good whether or not you took Melatonin supplements. If you enter illegally or associate with people who entered illegally, don't be surprised if you are caught up in a raid. However, even if you get detained, if you have no criminal history, you will get released after arrested because there are no more beds [1].

Seriously though, if you are going to make a cheeky reference to race, at least get the reference right. Melanin is responsible for darker skin [2].

[1] - https://www.newsweek.com/ice-seeks-more-bed-space-detainee-n...

[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanin

Lighten up dude !

I'm a citizen, but I work with folks who are from India and are in the Green Card system. They have application dates going back all the way to 2015. They constantly tell me stories of how the date for being able to get your GC changes and that some people think for Indians it's going to take 20 more years. Can you explain how that works and what's going on there?

Only about 7500 or so Green Cards are issued every year to Indians in each employment based category (capped due to the per-country cap that's applied to India, China, Mexico) in each of the few employment based categories. The number of people who have applied for these categories in the last 10-15 years is much more than 7500 a year, typically almost 10x, so the line moves at a glacial pace, usually moving a month every year.

The line for EB-2 and EB-3 (where most Indians are) is currently servicing those who applied in Summer 2012. So if your colleague got in the line in say Summer 2015, that's 36 months away. At the current pace it could easily be 20-40 years before their turn comes.

Also remember that there was a massive tech boom in the 2014 to 2019 period, so a LOT more people applied during that time so the movement of the line will slow down even beyond the current 1 month per year rate. If your colleagues applied in 2016 or beyond they are unlikely to get it in their lifetime unless the per-country caps are removed.

Finally, you'll sometimes hear the word "retrogression". That refers to the line actually moving "back". This happens because the date that the USCIS announces as the "pointer" to who is being issued cards is an estimate based on the recent green card issue rate.

Sometimes it can move back if they had to issue more green cards than they expected to (since people can apply for spouse and kids together when their turn comes).

Sometimes it moves forward faster if the number of people they expected to apply for the final processing stage turns out lower than their estimation.

Hi Peter,

Thanks for doing this.

If the recent trend continues, the May 2025 visa bulletin might have my priority date (May 30, 2013) current for EB-3. Originally, I am on EB-2. I have two questions:

Is it worth downgrading to EB-3, or should I wait for my EB-2 date to become current? If my date becomes current, what are the next steps to getting a Green Card (GC)? Is there anything I can do to expedite the process?

That's always a tough question because sometimes downgrading can actually slow down the process while USCIS gets around to reviewing the downgrading request. If the EB2 date isn't too far off, then it might make sense to wait. There have been times when USCIS encouraged people to downgrade and reviewed them quickly but I don't expect that to happen again any time soon.

I am French, and I will incorporate in Delaware. Is the ESTA dangerous in this case, for example, if I go to SF in June?

That depends entirely on what you will be doing when in the U.S. While you can't work in the U.S. as a visitor, there are lots of activities that you can engage in as a founder while in the U.S. as a visitor. See one of my responses above regarding permissible activities as a visitor.

Could you please share your contact details so I can reach out to you for legal assistance if needed?

His profile has contact information.

hi I have a friend in a tricky situation wondering if you could help.

he and another founder are both technical cofounders.

he decided to be CTO and the other CEO but he is the only director in delaware c corp.

The CTO is Canadian and CEO is American.

However, CTO found out the CEO wasn't doing in his role. He wasn't committing code and also not contributing to executing, just sitting on his linked in private messages as some way to promise potential investor interest. So to protect the IP, CTO decides to block CEO from accessing github until he can explain and negotiate what to do next.

CEO used this as an excuse to terminate the CTO and acquire the IP by automatic buyback and claim ownership of the IP.

CTO is currently lawyering up and plans on filing injunction against CEO who acted in bad faith.

Will the CTO have trouble getting visas in the near future? It's clear the legal dispute will become public very soon.

My company is actively in the PERM process for me, but I'm worried that things will go wrong (for example, failed recruitment) and I'll need to start from scratch. Would it be advantageous to apply for NIW on my own, and could there be any problem with doing both at the same time?

I am a founder for an early stage startup on H1B. The prevailing wage for a CEO is extremely high in California and will burn my companies runway. It it possible to just show on work part time 20hrs a week in order and get an hourly wage the meets the prevailing wage requirement?

Apologies for a trivial question. I have an odd fascination about the edge cases of birthright citizenship.

If a non- citizen gave birth in an American embassy, would their child be entitled to US citizenship? What about US Antarctic Territory or aboard a boat within US coastal waters?

Hi Peter,

What are the legal ways US graduates in F1-OPT and F1 STEM OPT start their startup in the form of LLC. I found conflicting information that F1 OPT holder can own/start a LLC but cannot actively work or mange it.

How do I even launch my startup if I legally cannot be the owner of it?

I always tell F-1 students that if they look at the guidance from 10 different schools, they will get 10 different answers on whether and how a student on OPT and STEM OPT can start their own/can work for their own business. But the law is clear, it's 100% fine while in OPT status and 100% fine in STEM OPT status under certain circumstances. My only advice is that before talking to your international student office, talk to an immigration attorney so that you don't misstep.

Thanks Peter for the response. School's DSO seem to be less knowledgeable on the subject matter they are advising on.

We are a group of 3 founders. One with J1 Visa, one with H1B and me (outside the US).

We would like to incorporate in Delaware and I know this is no problem for me, but we are trying to figure out how the other two founders can legally work on the company when established.

Any advice? Thanks Peters.

They would need work visas and (assuming that they don't qualify for a country-specific visa) the potential options are the H-1B and O-1 (and possibly the E-2 depending on their countries of citizenship and other factors). Because this analysis is so fact-specific, you will need to have a consultation with an attorney to explore the options.

Thanks! We'll consult one.

Quick follow-up: In principle, would it be possible for them to keep their current job while working on the startup, or would they need to leave it entirely?

Thanks for the AMA.

Recent changes to H1B allowing any organization that conduct research "as a fundamental activity" to be eligible for cap exemption status. What's your comment on this?

Based on your work experience with startup, do they ever fit this criteria?

I had fun vibecoding and fine-tuning a model on all past proberts answers: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43374736

Mind-blowing (to me)!

Hi Peter Are there any legal ways to earn money outside of my employer on H1B, at all?

Do you know if there is any specific order of processing for greencards? A friend of mine got their EB1a I-485 approved within a month, and I've been waiting for more than 6 months (mine was applied before theirs).

I think I qualify for EB-1C, but does one need to be present and already living in the US to apply for it, or can that happen from the current country of residence?

Or is the general path: L1 -> Move -> Apply for EB-1C once migrated.

Most people go the EB1C green card route after they are in the U.S. in L-1A status but that's not required; the entire green card process can be done while the applicant is outside the U.S. and not yet employed by the U.S. company.

Is it recommended or not? I've heard anecdotally that going through the Consular services to obtain EB1C is not recommended - because you can get denied easily without any protections you might get from being in the US.

You don't have protections in the US per se. If you are on a visa, your visa will remain valid and continue on its own terms. Your GC application is orthogonal.

If I have no bachelors degree and I'm trying to prove 12 years of experience, how does this affect if my changes, I do have the 12 years, but it seems arbitrary to define if they count or not.

Thank you very much for the feedback.

The 12 years of previous full-time experience has to be documented with employment verification letters and the experience needs to be at a professional level.

When considering a candidate on an F-1 + OPT, what should be our expectation of their need for H1B sponsorship? What are O-1 and National Interest Waiver success rates for recent PhD grads (in computer science)?

Is it basically impossible to move to the US as a UK Citizen without a degree?

Both Musk and Vivek initially supported H1B, and saw massive backlash in the conservative communities. So much so that Vivek left (was removed?) from DOGE and went to run for Gov now with a largely sour taste in MAGA people’s opinions. Pointing to me that H1B is advantageous for employers but deeply unpopular with the majority of voters this last election.

Do you see the Administration taking on H1B changes in a big way or letting this slide?

You can’t expect any sane policy decisions from this administration. They’ll target whatever gets them the clicks/votes/engagement. It’s like the bad clickbait but in governance.

It's so hard to say but looking at what they tried to do last go-round might provide some insight and this included dramatically changing the prevailing wage requirements (didn't happen) and tightening the adjudication of H-1B petitions (happened). But the U.S. economy relies on foreign workers in general and H-1B workers in particular so I think in the end, there will just be some tinkering around the edges.

The administration is mainly implementing project 2025. You can look up this tracker to see if they plan changes there: https://www.project2025.observer/

Hey Peter. Is there any way to confirm whether a request to USCIS to bump a case from F2A to IR was recevied or acknowledged? We haven’t received any 797-C or any other confirmation. Thanks!

Yu won't receive anything in writing; sometimes by calling USCIS and escalating to a supervisor, this can be confirmed.

Would it help to send all correspondence to them as certified or registered mail so you can prove they have received your application?

Thank you Peter! (not just for this answer, but for doing these AMAs in a regular basis!)

Hi Peter, thank you for your time.

On an L1-A visa, can my company file my perm while I return home to get a new L1 visa (my visa is expiring and the date on I-129s is the same as the visa expiration date)?

Someone has a green-card for 7 years.

He's thinking of giving it up.

Is there an exit tax for him?

Is it only after 8 years?

How much is it?

Thank you?

Not everyone needs to pay exit tax, only if your net worth is over $2mln or your 5-year average annual tax paid is over $190k or something like that.

IANAL so do your own research. Google "covered expatriate".

Apparently so.

Also the 8 year thing seems to be real, but it's 8 tax years, which means that as far as that is concerned he needs to pay.

He doesn't have nor made that much money, so he should be good.

Given how things are progressing I think he would just leave either way and don't pay anything.

The chances of that following him or extradition seem very unlikely with the bridges that the US is currently burning.

If a transgender software engineer who is a US citizen applies for asylum in a non-US country, are they at risk of losing their US assets (e.g. a home) or having their US accounts frozen?

I can only respond about the potential U.S. immigration impact but there is nothing in the law at present that would allow the U.S. Government to take away your citizenship. It's unbelievably upsetting and shocking, to me at least, that a U.S. citizen would ever have to seek asylum in another country but that's the world we're living in now so it's a fair question.

[dead]

Hi Peter, thanks for doing these AMA.

I was counted against the H1-B cap in 2017 and worked for about 3 months before I left the states.

Would I be able to use the rest of my time now if I were to get a job in the states?

It's not guaranteed but likely yes; we've done H-1Bs (without having to go through the lottery again) for foreign nationals who haven't been in H-1B status for nearly 10 years.

Whats the best way for me to work as a Canadian citizen easily with not much legal hoops for the USA thanks. Math/Comp Sci degree with Physics backgroud.

There's plenty of remote US jobs that will hire Canadians, but most want you in country. Otherwise find a company willing to hire people on work visas and see if you qualify for a TN visa (an advanced degree related to the field is usually enough), then go to the border at an airport or similar with paperwork put together with the help of an immigration lawyer. They also might know where the best port of entries are to get TN visas approved. Sometimes (Canadian) land borders are better.

If you're looking for the harder but longer term route then try H1B.

I want to make a paid internship with a US based startup (still need to find a company). What is the path of least resistance in terms of visa?

After reading this thread it’s apparent that our immigration laws and regulations are just as sordid and obtuse as our tax code.

How do you sleep at night knowing corporations use your advice to import scab labor that displaces the existing population?

When have corporations cared for population? They exist to make money and they will try to abuse the outdated system as much as possible.

[flagged]

How risky is the E-3 to Eb1 green card path for moderately successful founders in this current political environment?

Do you mean because the E-3 visa not a dual intent visa?

What's your favorite taqueria?

Upvoted, but no reply. It was a sincere question ;_;

Can you open a business in USA without being there, living there? Greetings from Kosovo!

Not Peter but yes. The U.S. is pretty easy to incorporate in from overseas, many agents offer the service, such as Stripe Atlas and Firstbase. Keep in mind, the U.S. tax system is much more complicated than most other nations so unless you specifically need a U.S. entity, pick a country with friendlier tax laws.

Opening a business is easy but opening a legit bank account with brick and mortar presence seem to be difficult.

Hey, What is the best option for someone working in NL to immigrate to US.

Should I go via H1B route or ?

The answer will depend on your countries of citizenship and your qualifications and the work that you will be doing in the U.S. including whether you will be working for your own company or another company. Assuming that no country-specific visa is available, the standard options are the H-1B and the O-1 (and depending on a variety of factors, the E-1, E-2, and L-1).

Given the recent layoffs in the tech industry, how do you see the role of immigration in addressing labor market needs?

Some people express concerns that the H-1B program might be used primarily to reduce labor costs rather than to fill genuine skill gaps. How do you view this issue from a legal and policy perspective?

What is the chance I can get to the US legally as a software developer from Syria?

sacrifice ten goats to mighty god ra :)

Have you contacted worker 17?

Why move at all when you have no tax or medicare liability signing w8ben?

if a person in the US on a visa changes roles, say from software engineer to manager, and acts in this role prior to changing the visa, is this fraud?

Can foreign streamers stream in the US on a tourist visa?

If the Trump administration is successful in ending birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants, what actually happens to those kids who were born here? Could they end up in a "The Terminal" situation where no country will claim them?

Don't most countries grant citizenship to children of parents from that country? I'm sure there's lots of bureaucratic issues if they were never recorded in the parent's country though.

does H-1B transfer need valid passport? Would pending asylum documents would suffice?

Not necessarily. Other documents can satisfy this requirements. What asylum documents are you referring to?

Receipt of filing or EAD

Love you AMAs been so helpful. Do you think did O1 get harder. How do you see changes through the Trump administration?

Other than national interest waiver petitions, which were getting harder before the change in administration, I haven't seen anything getting harder and in fact it seems that USCIS is more receptive now to EB1A filings.

[dead]

[dead]

[dead]

[dead]

[dead]

[flagged]

[flagged]

How isn't ICE the American secret police?

because the secret police is different department but they're really nice they've refined a lot of things so they resort to old school methods rarely / if you are a threat