Are We Welcome Entrepreneurs or Unwanted Criminals? | Hacker News Reader

Are We Welcome Entrepreneurs or Unwanted Criminals?

medium.com

185 pointsladydi142 comments

I sympathize with this lady. Not because I don't have my paperwork in order -- God willing, the 100 pages currently sitting at the immigration office will again meet with their approval -- but because if you hit any snag it is an instant Kafka-esque nightmare.

If the IRS accused me of underreporting my income by $200,000 and threatened me with jail time, I'd be stressed, but I'd call my accountant, get some paperwork together, and be assured of vindication. If the most junior employee of the Ministry of Justice has a bad morning and decides I look shifty, he has an instant Ruin My Life button on his computer. The appeals process would take place with me being across an ocean from my family and de-facto homeless. The threshhold for him hitting that button is not even "articulable suspicion." And that is with all the social advantages which come along with being, relative to most immigrants, rich, educated, savvy, and connected.

This assumes that the agents you're dealing with are merely zealously applying the law with regards to the facts as they perceive them. This does not describe 100% of the interactions between agents of government and people subject to their administrative authority. Immigrants have a uniquely difficult problem in the failure cases implied in that sentence, because they don't have access to many of the toothy, enshrined-for-generations remedies that citizens have with regards to overreach by agents of the government.

>>Immigrants have a uniquely difficult problem in the failure cases implied in that sentence, because they don't have access to many of the toothy, enshrined-for-generations remedies that citizens have with regards to overreach by agents of the government.

I was wondering about this as I read the article. She was technically on US soil (I think), which means most Constitutional protections apply to her regardless of whether she's a citizen. So she must have had the right to remain silent and ask to see a lawyer.

edit: I guess we can no longer have polite conversations on HN without getting downvoted.

You're not on US soil until you've passed through customs and security. The international border (airports included) is a limbo zone, where the Constitution doesn't really apply.

Also not true.

citation requested.

There are many, many, many cites I could pull for this, but might as well grab the a pertinent graph where the Supreme Court considers the question of whether a seizure of contraband specifically authorized by an act of Congress at the border nonetheless violates the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on "unreasonable" search and seizure. After extensive analysis of relevant case law and the history of the United States they conclude:

Border searches, then, from before the adoption of the Fourth Amendment, have been considered to be "reasonable" by the single fact that the person or item in question had entered into our country from outside. There has never been any additional requirement that the reasonableness of a border search depended on the existence of probable cause. This longstanding recognition that searches at our borders without probable cause and without a warrant are nonetheless "reasonable" has a history as old as the Fourth Amendment itself. We reaffirm it now.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt//text/431/606

Reasonable people can disagree with the Supreme Court on whether their application of the Constitution is as broad or narrow as it should be in any particular circumstance, but it is fairly clear that they did not write "The Constitution does not apply at the border!"

thanks

That conversation goes something like:

"Tell me why you are coming to the United States."

"I refuse to answer, on the basis of the Constitution."

"I find that you have no legitimate purpose to be in the United States. You are accordingly denied entry, and will be briefly detained while we arrange for you to be sent to the last country you were in."

"I would like to speak with an attorney. You have to do that when you arrest people."

"You are not under arrest. This is not a criminal matter."

"My lawyer will disagree."

"He is welcome to take it up with the Supreme Court. It didn't work out that well the last three times. 'The power of the state is at it's zenith at the border.' I love that word zenith. Zenith, zenith, zenith. That implies your legal privileges are at their nadir, by the way."

"I will call him immediately. I get a call, right?"

"That's a convention in US movies, for some reason, but it has never been a legal requirement. Funny thing, movies."

All too true. Even though our founding documents say 'all men' have 'inalienable rights', somehow they don't apply to our neighbors. Because they are not men, or not deserving of rights. Always seemed hypocritical to me.

That's a bit of a tangled mess, there. For starters, the unalienable rights are "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". Not the right to a lawyer.

"Among them are ". Due process is part of it too. The bill of rights should figure in there somewhere as well.

The Declaration of Independence isn't a binding legal document.

"American Consitutionalism rests on four pillars: the Declaration of Independence; the Articles of Confederation; the Northwest Ordinance of 1787; and the Constitution. These fundamental documents, which have the collective title "The Organic Laws of the United States of America", are the first section of THE UNITED STATES CODE, the official text of the statute laws of the federal government."

And? The Declaration of Independence is not a binding legal document. It's legal significance is exclusively as an input to the Constitution. (Well, that and severing us from England).

You probably ought to make the provenance of that quote known, too:

http://candst.tripod.com/doinotlaw.htm

Or, just read more of his site; the most recent SCOTUS decision he cites on it includes the text:

"The Declaration of Independence, however, is not a legal prescription conferring powers upon the courts"

I have to ask... if you believe that the Declaration is a binding legal document, do you also believe, as the Declaration asserts, that all our rights come from God?

So, the statement of our founding principles are just verbal chaff to be ignored? Hypocrisy isn't a legal state; its a moral one.

According to the Supreme Court, the acceptable timeframe for a detention is around 20 minutes.

http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/criminal-law/arrests_and_...

>>In a detention, the police only need reasonable suspicion to stop an individual, and a reasonable person would feel as though they could leave in a short amount of time. This timeframe can vary a bit based on the circumstances, but the U.S. Supreme Court has held that 20 minutes or so is a reasonable timeframe for detaining someone.

In other words, if you're being forced to wait in some office for hours (as is usually the case in these types of matters), the Supreme Court would say that it no longer counts as detention at that point.

But would it count as an arrest? Further down in that article, it says:

>>An arrest is characterized by the idea that a reasonable person would not feel free to leave due to the actions of the law enforcement officers. This usually means that the officers take the individual into custody. Custody can mean a number of things. An individual may be taken into custody by driving them back to the police station. However, courts have also held custody to mean any situation in which an individual reasonably believes that they will not be able to leave within a short period of time.

Aha. So being forced to wait in an office while they arrange for your return flight home is indeed an arrest.

Of course, like you point out, these are not the types of situations in which one can challenge the authority of the state officials. Still though, I do want them to detain the wrong person one of these days and get their asses pwned in a lawsuit.

But see, for example,

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

>Aha. So being forced to wait in an office while they arrange for your return flight home is indeed an arrest.

Not so sure about that. Are they detaining you, or simply not allowing you to enter the US?

Let's say you walk up to my front door, and I won't let you into my house. Would I be 'arresting' you on my front step by not granting you entry into my home?

> Let's say you walk up to my front door, and I won't let you into my house. Would I be 'arresting' you on my front step by not granting you entry into my home? No, but it'd be an arrest if you told me that I couldn't leave your porch unless you let me in or forced me out.

The government's position is that the rights that one has in an encounter with law enforcement don't apply in the same way during an admissibility or customs inspection prior to admission to the U.S. For example, they say that one does not have the right to assistance of counsel during these inspections.

Jacob Appelbaum tweeted a lot about how he used to get stopped and questioned when entering the U.S.; they apparently never granted his request to have the assistance of a lawyer during these events.

One difficulty is that the government's view is that refusal of admission to the U.S. (the border equivalent of deportation) is not in the same conceptual category as a criminal punishment. In fact, in their view it's not a punishment at all, just a core sovereign act of the state.

I worked with some lawyers to write a guide about border searches of electronic devices. One question that comes up a lot is whether there's a fifth amendment right to silence during a border inspection (whether about one's possessions generally, or about one's passwords). My recollection is that the lawyers I was working with considered this question somewhat unresolved. A common assumption has been that U.S. citizens and permanent residents will eventually be admitted even if they are uncooperative with an inspection, but they might be detained temporarily and their possessions might be seized in some circumstances. People who don't have either legal status might be refused admission (right then and also in the future!) as a punishment for declining to answer questions, but the government might argue that it's not a punishment at all.

Maybe I should emphasize that this is my recollection of what some people thought was likely to happen, and not a legal analysis of caselaw or an individual legal situation.

While it sucks that the author was verbally mistreated by the CBP officers it’s kind of difficult to feel a lot of sympathy for her without knowing the details of her case. I feel the article would have been more instructive if she had provided information like:

What exactly was the technicality that prevented her from getting a visa? How has she been living in the states for the last seven years? What visa was she traveling on?

I'm an Irish guy living in SF, everytime I leave the country I always make sure I have my paperwork in order. The article would have been much more valuable to people like me if she had answered the above questions. Anyway, I hope things work out for her.

I agree on the details bit. When simple details are omitted I feel like the "technicality" is going to turn out to be something like "is a convicted felon with a warrant out for her arrest".

Take a step back and look at all the arbitrary requirements that some people make up in order to keep other people from being able to work within some arbitrary bounds.

The article is not supposed to be a guide for foreigners on how to be able to exit and enter the US. This is what the writing is about:

>I hope that my story can help fuel the need for positive immigration reform in a country that has given me so much to be thankful for.

"Take a step back and look at all the arbitrary requirements that some people make up in order to keep other people from being able to work within some arbitrary bounds."

I've been going through the US immigration system for the last 7 years. I am unfortunately intimately familiar with arbitrary requirements and have obeyed the law to the letter as I am a guest in a foreign country.

"The article is not supposed to be a guide for foreigners on how to be able to exit and enter the US. This is what the writing is about: >I hope that my story can help fuel the need for positive immigration reform in a country that has given me so much to be thankful for."

While I sympathize with her plight, I think the lack of details really hurts her case and does nothing for the cause of immigration reform (which I am 100% in favor of).

Even if the US immigration process was reformed tomorrow their would still be rules, regulations and paperwork surrounding working here. Details allow us to sympathize and relate to her situation, they can provide a case for why laws should be changed. They can also help prevent others getting into a similar situation.

I understand the point you are making, and I could agree that more details wouldn't hurt. However, the problem is probably something like she wrote her birthday as DD/MM/YYYY instead of MM/DD/YYYY, or any other little detail like that. I don't think that she would have been allowed to reenter if there was something big.

>I am unfortunately intimately familiar with arbitrary requirements and have obeyed the law to the letter as I am guest in a foreign country.

But there are so many rules that obeying the law may become impossible. They could use a parking ticket as an excuse to deny you a visa, there is too much left up to your visa application reviewrs' discretion.

"But there are so many rules that obeying the law may become impossible. They could use a parking ticket as an excuse to deny you a visa, there is too much left up to your visa application reviewrs' discretion."

Sure but in her case we don't know because she provides no details as to what the nature of her technicality was. Plenty of people leave and enter the USA everyday on work visa's. If you're on a work or student visa its made clear to you when you can and can not travel. If she decided to leave the country despite knowing that she had issues with her visa paperwork thats a pretty different situation from someone being arbitrarily refused admittance because she was a "hacker".

With these stories, it is usually pretty obvious to me what the person did wrong. It is not always clear that they should have been denied, but it is often clear why they were denied (and my sympathy is therefore tempered).

In this case, the lack of details makes it hard to say. However, as you pointed out, she mentioned a "visa technicality."

She also says, "I further explained that my current work visa application had been complicated due to a filing mistake and that I had been waiting on a decision."

Generally, if you leave the country with an application outstanding, that application is considered abandoned. So, if I had to guess, it looks like she was attempting to enter the U.S. to live and work without a visa. Anybody surprised at the result?

+1 this. I've been on a student visa and several work visa's during my time in the USA, on each occasion it was made clear to me when I could and could not travel without risk of not being readmitted. It really feels like this person got into trouble due to something like this. Of course we can't say for sure because she provides no details in her account of what happened.

Not necessarily, she could have been applying to extend a H1B visa and still have a valid one to travel under. I'm sure there are other cases too, e.g. I was travelling with H1B while my green card was processing (and had two separate sets of re-entry paperwork).

For all the people that are thinking, "Oh yeah, of course it happened because she didn't have a visa. If she did, it would be fine." — similar things can happen even if you do have a perfectly valid visa. I had one valid for more than a year when this happened to me on my latest trip back to the States. I was stopped, and escorted into a room by a couple of burly officers with automatic pistols on their hips. The room was filled with a bunch of other South Asian people, all of whom had been mysteriously stopped.

They made me wait for 2 hours, and finally said, "Oh, there was an error with our database. You're all good." (Apparently, their system had flagged my student visa for the States that I had held before my work visa, as having expired, even though it should have been automatically "Invalided without Prejudice" when I transferred to the work one. User 'henningo in the comments seems to have gone through a similar sort of procedure). No apologies, no cursory, "Sorry about that. Welcome to X" sort of nice talk I've heard in other countries. They looked grim, forbidding, and had a "Do we have to do this?" look on their faces.

To sum up, even as a perfectly legal immigrant, I'm usually apprehensive about the combination of a screwed-up computer system (unfortunately, I see how that sausage is made) and an immigration officers who seem to have a "Seriously guys, why are you even here? Hmmm, let's see what we can do.." attitude causing me massive problems every time I enter the States. That is why I heavily sympathize with the experiences of the author, if not her logical or moral case.

I didn't downvote, but I think the issue is that you made a comment where you stated an absolute, then proceeded to follow it up anecdotal evidence. As former visa holder, this never happened to me, and I moved between countries all the time.

"...where you stated an absolute, then proceeded to follow it up anecdotal evidence."

If this is about the "similar things happen..." part of my comment, I guess you're right. I changed it to "similar things can happen...". I'm trying to point out that the fact that she had a visa problem could also have been due to a technical fault (though it sounds like it wasn't, in her specific case). It still doesn't change the feeling of intimidation and unwelcomeness that is most apparent at the CBP.

"...As former visa holder, this never happened to me, and I moved between countries all the time."

By their nature, such incidences are going to be rare. If this was the experience of every person at immigration, it would change pretty quickly. In fact the problem is that because it is relatively rare, there tends to be an air of disbelief towards people who speak up about it.

Sometimes a single example is enough to disprove a hypothesis. Namely that anyone holding a valid visa would be fine.

My Canadian friends almost always get the third degree when they come back to the US with a TN visa. It's one you have to apply for at the border, but the folks at the border always seem to hate it. (Those damn Canadians stealing our jobs? I don't get it.) One friend got rejected (or hassled thoroughly, he's here after all) because he took too many English classes in college, and not enough engineering classes, so the TN visa appeared fraudulent.

I don't get it. If I ever move to another country I will only do so after paying very good lawyers to make a perfect application.

Immigration system is totally broken from top to bottom, there is probably strong political incentive to keep it that way.

Here are some tips that I got from people before I arrived in US.

- Immigration officers are not the kind of people you are used to in your classroom or work environment. - They are mostly moderately educated, stuck in a clerical job without any purpose and do not know much about the outside world. - They might be jealous of people who might be younger and far more successful/high achievers then them. - Their job is to enforce rules within their powers. They dont give a damn about you and how good your intention is.

Getting past them involves optimizing on the following variables.

- That you have got impeccable paperwork. This needs to be conveyed using important keywords that they are looking for instead of other rubbish. For example for H1B workers if the officer asks, why you were in US on B1 via a year back you should say "For last 4 years I was a student in India doing my 4 year graduation in CS, I had arrived in US on B1 visa to publish my paper at Standford University" compared to "I was in US to publish my paper on Cost Effective Real Time Systems for Greenhouses". The officer might think that you were publishing newspaper or something.

- Other important keywords for H1B immigrants are "specialized engineering", "4 year graduate program", "part of engineering team responsible for highly scalable/ specialized system in Java, Databases systems". "working out of XYZ company".

- One should totally avoid words like "Hacker", "Startup", "small company", "disruptive change", "Venture Capital", "seed funding", "angel investors", "entrepreneurs". I remember when one H1B guy told the officer that he works for a Venture Capital he asked if it is the same company that has Capital One credit cards.

- One should also use influential words that the officer is familiar with. For example "Director of our Company is Mr. X, who was a Vice President of Google Inc.", "Microsoft has invested X in us". "Our Company has turnover of 100M dollars" and so on. Keep the evidence handy.

I think the lady here got into trouble because of she mentioned of Hackathon, Social Entrepreneurship, evolution as an individual etc. etc. If she had said that she works on a program recognized by UN and given the evidence to officer she would have probably got away with this.

I'd quibble with some of these, but in general, you want to a) provide exactly as much information required to exactly match the published requirements of the relevant legislation and b) provide nothing else. You're not attempting to be persuasive, you're attempting to manipulate a state machine. Provide exactly the required input required to trigger transitions from the start to Approved then provide no other input except for such pleasantries as are proper in polite society.

(Works in Japan, too.)

I disagree with the last part. Avoid pleasantries. Don't ask the officer how they are doing today. Don't compliment them. Don't comment on the weather. These are considered proper pleasantries in polite society, but they can make the officer think you're being overly friendly in order to hide something.

When you arrive at the counter, simply say "hello sir/ma'am", hand your documents, carefully listen to and obey instructions (such as fingerprints), answer any questions in a clear, concise manner, and then end the interaction with "thank you sir/ma'am."

Yes, answer the questions asked, no more.

The reason for this is that the more you say the more questions it can create. The more questions, the greater the stress, and greater likelihood of making a mistake in your answers.. and this will lead to secondary screening and suffering.

I've always had great, pleasant conversations with my CBP officers (is that the correct term?). I remember having a long chat with one of them (there was no line) about Google Books and how his wife loved ebooks. Another talked about his Android phone. Didn't start out with that of course, but usually once they realised I worked for Google it was off to the races. Being a native English speaker (Brit) and entering via SFO probably had huge amounts to do with it as well -- just wanted to point out that sometimes they can be pretty nice people and you can have a friendly conversation!

(On the flip-side my husband was very nearly deported because the border agent at LAX found my Safeway card in his wallet when he was re-entering on a visa waiver. Agent told him if he'd come along later in the day it would have been over, but he was the first borderline case and seemed like a nice guy.)

I'd say it's probably the same reason as "don't talk to the police". There's very few things that you can tell to make you better (usually those will be asked from you anyway - like where you're working, where you live, where you're going, etc. - and even there precise concise answers probably better than vague verbose ones) but a real lot of things that you can tell to make you worse, even without realizing it.

Oh gosh, great point. This video on not talking to the police totally changed my perspective on doing that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

What's a Safeway card and why would it get him deported? Also why is the border agent searching through his wallet?

A Safeway card is a loyalty card from a US grocery store. It's the kind of thing you have in your wallet if you live in the United States. If you're coming over on the visa waiver, you're explicitly saying "Don't worry, I am not an immigration risk, I'm just going to be here less than 90 days for business or pleasure and then go back to my permanent residence abroad. Establish a life for myself in America? No way, I have absolutely no interest in that."

There are a variety of easy ways for a CBP agent to have your wallet in his hands. One is giving it to him to show an ID, when you hand over your passport. As mentioned previously, that is not the required input for the state machine, so don't offer it.

Yeah, he wasn't actually foolish enough to hand it to them right at the booth. He was taken aside for further questioning since he had already been in the US on a visa waiver within the same calendar year, which pattern-matched border dodging. He was forced* to hand over his wallet early on and the card was clearly there. There's obviously more context, but it's funny that such a minor thing came to be so important -- and sticks in my head 3 years (and one marriage) later.

* Not sure where this fell on the spectrum of 'force', but had he refused, that would presumably have increased suspicion. Damned if you do, etc.

Ok, and what about if the officer tries to initiate pleasantries? What should a good Turing robot do then?

HAHA YES THE WEATHER IS GOOD

sweats profusely

"you're attempting to manipulate a state machine"

I love the double meaning of this.

One is innocuous and arcane and the other is downright sketchy and common.

Lesson: Don't use this when you are being detained.

I noticed the author's Medium bio starts with 'A perennial vagabond'. It could be worth revisiting that language too.

I think you're broadly correct. The issue is identified in these two sentences for me:

> I slowly explained that I’m a social entrepreneur promoting global change through the concept of ‘hackathons’ where attendees work together and find solutions to community issues within a tight time constraint... We spoke two totally different languages

I'm sure that's the case. The office wanted to know what she did, She offered something that sounded like am elevator pitch - it failed to give them the reassurances that they needed to make an easy judgement about her work status. Add a paper-work mix up on top of that, and I'm not too surprised they popped an X in the box and went to get a coffee.

There are several issues with her story that make me much less sympathetic to her

1. She thinks about herself as some special snowflake and thinks that denying her entry to US for one year is a huge loss to US. It's not. She is not special snowflake and denying her entry is not a loss. The country will be fine without her.

2. Entry and right to work in US is privilege and not a right. I can stop inviting to my dinner party without any explanation and the same way US can deny you entry at any time unless you are citizen (and to lesser extent green card holder).

3. She was living dangerously. She spent last 7 years in and out of US on tourist visas. Officer was absolute right that she was abusing the system. US system is built on discretion. On B1/B2 visa at airport you are automatically granted right to live in US for six month but USCIS does not expect you to do it. Anything over one month is suspicious.

4. She applied for work visa but it did not get through. At that moment she looses key assumption for B1/B2 visa - she has no intention to live in US. The moment she applied for work visa she manifested desire to live in US which means that could not be granted B1/B2.

5. Social entrepreneur and organizing hackathons sounds like work. You could not work on visitor visa.

6. Where did she get money to live in US for 7 years? This is legitimate question if she lived on visitor visa.

PS. I think immigration system in US is borked but this is example where it worked as it is expected to work.

How do you know which visas she had, or if she was on a visitor visa? She doesn't mention the specifics in the article, nor does she say that she applied for a work visa and was denied. (She is still waiting for a decision on her current work visa application due to a filing mistake.)

It's pretty easy to figure out looking at her LinkedIn and story. She was on F1/J1 visa to study English for two years (2009-2010) and then attended Foothill College (2010-2012). I am surprised that they allowed her to go to community college when she already had B.A. for University of Bogota. I was told that this loophole was closed. I have several friends who used ESL courses and community colleges to maintain legal status in US. Usually you pay around 1k/month in tuition and it gives you legal status. Sometimes attendance is required and sometimes attendance is more or less optional. She said in story that she had four different visas - probably mix of F1/J1/B1 visas.

The only work visa she can reasonably qualify for is H1B and I am not sure what decision she is waiting for - FY2014 started 10 month ago and FY2015 starts only in October. If you look at her LinkedIn she clearly worked while in US so she broke visa rules even if she was not paid (you could not even legally volunteer while on F1/J1/B1 visa if somebody can reasonably pay for that work to US citizen). CBP officers have internet and they can certainly search FB/LinkedIn too. Unless she is wealthy enough to live 7 years in US without any income, she clearly made money somewhere.

It's dangerous to built your life on those types of visas if you do not have clear end game (marriage to USC or work visa). She played the system and she lost. I am immigrant myself and I was very careful not to have long term plans in US before I got green card because I understood that I may have to move back to my home country at any moment with only 30 day notice.

Nice catch. There might more to the story here.

E.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foothill_College#Controversy

That's fair. Your original comment would have read better if you had mentioned any of this supporting evidence initially.

I could have done the same homework myself, but I felt no need to. In my opinion her visa situation is her business and although we can make assumptions, we also don't know the exact details. To me, starting from the point of view that she was in the wrong and drawing on evidence to support that assumption is a form of victim-blaming that doesn't help further the overall agenda -- immigration reform is desperately needed. Unless as an immigrant who successfully got through the system, one feels others must, in turn, dutifully pay their way. I don't feel this way, but I had an unusually easy immigration experience by all accounts.

This article is stuffed full of a tone where the author seems to feel that she deserves to be treated better than the other "common criminals" who were denied access to the US. I am engaged to a U.S. resident immigrant from Peru, and she is absolutely paranoid every time we leave the country to make sure all her paperwork is in order. She doesn't assume that in the event of a 'filing mistake' she will be whisked through and given special treatment.

I was also struck by this aspect.

The author seems to have some trouble empathizing with people who don't have the education, money, and connections that she does, and who are also being treated cruelly by U.S. immigration authorities (maybe also as a result of misunderstandings, clerical errors, cultural differences, hard-to-foresee technicalities, ...!).

I guess in the author's situation I would also be shocked that immigration restrictions had actually ensnared me, who had never ever encountered any immigration-related troubles before -- even given my opposition to those restrictions, I don't expect them to have a concrete effect on my life.

Yeah, I think these feelings are natural. Many natural feelings beg for reflection however, and the OP missed that boat completely.

I think what she meant was being put in the same category as people who had committed real crimes which warrants harsh treatments like confinements. I don't think she meant treat me specially :)

"I further explained that my current work visa application had been complicated due to a filing mistake and that I had been waiting on a decision. This fell on deaf ears. "

No, I bet that didn't fall on deaf ears, quite the contrary.

The person doesn't have a visa corresponding to their status.

Yes it sucks, yes I don't agree. But that's how things work, and someone that prides themselves in being an Enterpreneur, they should know better.

Or she could just take her entrepreneurial creativity elsewhere, a place where she is welcomed.

Let's be honest here. Entrepreneurs are not welcomed anywhere, but your home country, if that (several countries are terrible to start businesses in, like India, Australia, etc). I could talk about this at length, but just wanted to say that this is a trite and dismissive comment you have made without any experience or understanding of the issues at hand. You think people like the author and myself haven't considered this?

> your home country, if that

I can vouch for this: I'm a white male with no physical disabilities or impairments, as an entrepreneur (and employee) I am not welcome in my home country [1]. In this climate many have "resigned to their fate" which means there is a somewhat substantial amount of South African expatriates. This has resulted in us not being welcome in the 1st world countries that we assume our hard work will be appreciated in.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Economic_Empowerment#Crit...

>We spoke two totally different languages. Mine, the language of reasoned hope and optimism. Theirs, the language of suspicious cynicism, fear and ignorance.

Another word for their language would be the language of security, threat assessment, and law enforcement. It's probably safe to assume that anyone with a badge speaks this language and to act accordingly. At some level, it's a function of their training, experience as an officer, possibly of their upbringing. I have relatives who live in that world and it's always interesting to hear their perspective on things.

Edit to add:

>Are we truly welcome here as budding foreign entrepreneurs or will we forever be perceived as unwanted immigrants?

Unfortunately, the answer is both. I hope this person can get the visa situation figured out and going forward, get the sense that people like her are welcome in the US.

I have become somewhat sensitive to the fact that different people saying the same words can have vastly different intentions.

I propose that government employees with opportunities to exercise some measure of legal authority over others actually switch off portions of their brain when they go on duty. Reason and logic, empathy, trust--all these seem suppressed with particular vigor. Anyone incapable of doing so either burns out and leaves voluntarily, or is shuffled out of the career track and systematically denied promotion, or any other opportunity to affect change from within.

>Reason and logic, empathy, trust--all these seem suppressed with particular vigor

I'm pretty sure that empathy and trust are removed as part of the training process.

> Another word for their language would be the language of security, threat assessment, and law enforcement.

If deporting social entrepreneurs on the basis of their nationality and the word "hacker" is what's meant by "security" and "threat assessment", I submit that these people are incompetent. Sure, everyone is a product of their environment, but to the extent to which that environment allows them to make terrible, destructive decisions with other people's lives without meaningful accountability, they are very much operating out of fear and ignorance, and we should condemn them accordingly. I don't see how throwing around flimsy terms like "threat assessment" does anything but give a broken process an air of artificial legitimacy.

I dont believe we know enough facts to assess the competence of the officers - but I'm not defending their actions nor was I trying to legitimize them. The purpose of my comment was to make people aware that in general they see the world very differently than the typical entrepreneur. Not how I would like it to be, but it does seem to be a general fact.

Fair enough.

I'm no fan of the current system (being an immigrant worker in the US myself), but I don't understand your proposal. Are you saying that immigration officers should have the authority to selectively apply rules because someone is a "social entrepreneur" instead of, say, a farm worker?

That sounds like a recipe for corruption and disaster.

Not at all. It's not even clear what rules they were even applying here, other than their own discretion. My point was that if "security" and "threat assessment" were the operative parts of their decision, they couldn't possibly been doing it right.

Considering who she was detained with ("I soon found myself locked in a room with a pedophile, a woman smuggling $25,000 in cash and unsavory others"), they were right perhaps to not give her the initial benefit of the doubt.

Er, how Kafkaesque is that? They (or, rather, their coworkders) are the ones who detained her in the first place. "So, we locked you in this cell with these other unsavory people. Notice how now you're in a cell with unsavory people -- very suspicious!"

Sorry, that wasn't what I had meant at all. I meant that if they're used to dealing with people who are constantly working the system, why would they ever go into their job thinking positive thoughts about the people they're dealing with. If she is the exception, she will likely be considered nefarious until proven otherwise, they just don't usually give the chance to actually prove anything, otherwise or not.

Unfortunately, the answer is both.

In LA, I once asked a stranger I'd overheard hiring a car where he was from, because I couldn't place his accent. He thought that was hilarious - he was from Australia (like me), but he'd worked on losing his accent because, in his words: "Americans love Australians... unless you're taking money from them. If you want to do business in America, you should probably lose the accent"

One thing that bothers me about this article is the clear line between herself and the criminals. In general, there seems to be a tendency to classify criminals as a completely different type of human being. I think that this is a lot of where the problem comes from in the first place. It's drawing a firm "us vs. them" line that justifies your actions and motivations while disregarding the motivations of the people who have committed crimes.

Yes, they may have committed crimes (and even maybe they haven't), but they're still human, and they have justifications for the things that they did. They have paths that led them to their choices, and it's foolish to completely disregard their humanity by sweeping them into a 'them' category that isolates their decisions and way of life from your own decisions and way of life.

You need to prioritize things based upon importance. If being in the US is vitally important to your company and your career, then that should take precedent over leaving the country until you get your visa situation resolved. Federal immigration services are tasked with making sure that people obey the laws of the country. A 'snafu' does not lift the burden of you handling your own responsibilities, and being an entrepreneur shouldn't matter to them.

The system needs to be reformed, but until it is you need to abide by its rules.

I personally think that companies should avoid asking anybody to physically come over. Working or even partnering up remotely is perfectly possible.

I understand your frustration and there is no excuse to be dehumanized, and treated like cattle during your proceeding. After saying that...a visa oops, snafu, miscommunication, is still your responsibility. A great quote is 'Ignorantia juris non excusat' which translates out to 'ignorance of the law excuses no one'. Upon hearing stories like this, I can't help but wonder, if you had your visa taken care of before you tried to re-enter the country, would this situation have happened? Were you singled out for your race, sex, behavior, or were you singled out because you were not legally allowed to be there? I know that may come off cruel, and like I said, no one should have to endure how we treat detainees, however this issue seems to resolve around your mistake.

This is pretty much the gist of it. I found this bit annoying:

> We spoke two totally different languages. Mine, the language of reasoned hope and optimism. Theirs, the language of suspicious cynicism, fear and ignorance.

It's CPB's job to be cynical. For every "hopeful optimist" there are hundreds of people seeking to abuse the system. It's simply a confusion as to the delegation of power. Even if you're someone in favor of accelerating legal residency for skilled people like the author, you have to acknowledge that that's a plea to be made to the political figures, not to CPB agents.

I disagree, large portions of the people traveling through airports are hopeful optimists going on vacation, honest ordinary people trying to play by complex, impenetrable rules, few of them are trying to game the system.

The real problem is the enormous numbers of false positives and the results on the unwitting victims

Was this a false positive?

I was thinking more of all the people who go through this because the US has NO formal emmigration procedure - in any other country you pass through a desk with a customs agent who puts a stamp in your passport saying you have left the country - in NZ, my country, they wont let you leave if you have outstanding fines or warrants.

In the US there is none of this, you just roll up to the gate, it used to depend of some airline minimum wage check in people tearing little green cards out of your passport and them getting to the right government person who typed them in correctly - lots of times it didn't work correctly and people would attempt to come back into the US a second time and then get tossed out because they had "overstayed" their previous visa. A number of friends have been through this insanity.

Now days the US does this electronically some how, it seems more reliable (hopefully) - but is still completely out of the control of the traveler and it still leaves one without a receipt, a stamp in their passport, indicating they have left correctly under the terms of their visa

>>For every "hopeful optimist" there are hundreds of people seeking to abuse the system.

Citation needed.

Seriously, Americans need to stop perceiving foreigners as unwashed masses, most of whom are seeking to abuse the system.

Indeed, it's strange looking in from the outside that they consider the country to be so precious in this fashion. I would not go if I were paid a large amount of money to do so, and I have been offered exactly that numerous times, so that's not just hyperbole either.

The US is not a shining city on the hill, it is a slowly sinking empire with walls made of disjointed, often incoherent words, that even the people charged with enforcing the measures extrapolated therein don't actually understand letalone hope to reasonably enforce.

15 million illegal immigrants are a damn good reason to perceive foreigners as unwashed masses seeking to abuse the system.

But most of those immigrants are sneaking into or being smuggled into the country, as opposed to trying to cheat their way through immigration and border security. The former involves a backpacking trek through the desert whereas the latter involves years if not decades of expensive, arduous bureaucracy.

Around 40% of illegal immigrants in US had valid visa when they initially entered the country but overstayed. Also significant number of people came into US on tourist visa but then exploited the system to change status through genuine or fake marriage to USC, asylum, study, etc.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142412788732391630...

How does changing status via genuine marriage count as "exploiting" the system?

Technically if you get married or plan to get married you are supposed to leave the country and get either fiancee visa or immigrant visa by applying at the consulate abroad. Many (most) people ignore this rule because there is no penalty and many immigration violation (like visa overstay) are waived if you get married to US citizen and change status inside US. You can also appeal immigration decisions. On the other hand if you leave the country with visa overstay, you can be banned for three or ten years from getting any type of visa (even marriage-based one) and the right to appeal is pretty much non-existent.

Overall immigration law is illogical mess with conflicting rules that can often be exploited if you have money and a good lawyer. But even with a good lawyer the system can fuck you over as in the case of that woman.

They may not have a choice. I can perfectly well see why they erect barriers and put large obstacles in front of people trying to cross their borders. The problem is rather that startups should not demand that you physically move over there. I have had the case several times and I had to refuse the project. Moving over there, is unpractical. Why not collaborate remotely with people around the world? Do people really need to sit next to you in order to work with them?

I would agree with your opinion if the American visa system wasn't a total mess.

"Having visa taken care of" is an incredibly easy thing to say but a very hard thing to do in reality without legal assistance, or more generally without a s*load of time or money resources to throw at it. Unfortunately many of us don't have these kind of resources available.

See my, and user henningo's comment elsewhere in the thread. The dehumanization, and being treated like cattle can happen due to overly wide flagging and/or technical glitches even if you hold a valid work visa. These are false positives.

The outcome (hopefully) ends up better than the author's.

As a practical level, I agree with you completely. On an ethical level, however, I find it difficult to put much blame on the OP. To quote Madison:

"It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?" [1]

Mistakes are human and they happen. It should be the responsibility of our nation's immigration officials to help people through the inevitable difficulties and mistakes that happen in a system as complex and Byzantine as our immigration system. Yet the post-9/11 trend seems to be that immigration officials see themselves more as a pseudo-police force rather than civil servants. As such, the default suspicion of any non-citizen and "guilty until proven innocent" attitude the OP describes is not surprising.

Even if whatever mistake she made is a critical one that should prevent her entry into the US until it is resolved, I cannot see any justification for deporting her and forbidding her from reentering for 18 months.

When people try to live and work as productive and positive individuals in the US and our legal system actively treats them in a hostile and suspicious manner, justifying it by a minor clerical mistake [2], we have a duty as citizens to recognize the real problem and work to correct it.

I find it ironic that in an earlier age we (as a country) ridiculed the "papers please" culture of Soviet Russia and assumed that we (as freedom loving Americans) could never become such a country.

[1] Federalist #62

[2] A visa is a piece of paperwork. If immigration officials were deported every time they made a mistake on their paperwork, prevailing attitudes towards immigrants might be very different within their ranks.

Internet high five for quoting the federalist papers! If only more people in our country (or Washington) would read them we would all be better off.

So the main point I was trying to make was this: She was not discriminated against because of her race, her sexual orientation, her religion, her actions, her associations. She was singled out for not following the rules, which, she admittedly knew that there was an issue with her visa before trying to enter the country.

While I can understand there are hurdles to jump through, the thing is, everyone has to jump through them. There were no 'extra' requirements for her that she didn't know about. The immigration system is meant to treat everyone attempting to enter the country uniformly, not fairly. While that may suck, its the only option that scales. Otherwise we will be left to the judgment (and corruption) of CPB officers. I would much rather her be turned away for not having visa documents in line every time than it be a crapshoot/flip of a coin if you get to stay based on the mood of the CPB officer. That is a trade off I am willing to accept with our immigration system.

What irked me a bit about her writing was to me she appeared to have some sense of privilege because she worked as an entrepreneur and in tech. That if only the immigration officers would listen to her work they would overlook her invalid visa documents. That somehow her case was different than those who had relatives in the country who had missing documents, than the agriculture worker just trying to make a better life for himself and his family. Everyone should be treated the same and the same rules should apply to all, no matter your role, industry, etc.

'Ignorantia juris non excusat'

This would have been logical with short and understandable laws.

Nowadays, however, it's impossible to know the law in it's entirety. (Nor is it possible to deduce logically from similar known laws).

If it's literally impossible for an expert to know all the laws (let alone a common citizen), 'ignorance of the law excuses no one' is a meaningless sentence used to dismiss a much, MUCH bigger problem.

Try saying it this way:

"Well, you should have known what no human being is able to learn. You're not a super human? Too bad."

There is no need to know much about immigration laws to successfully navigate the US immigration system. All you need to know is that CBP has the power to deny entry for any reason whatsoever, and the best way to avoid triggering that code path is to have your papers in order. Have an outstanding visa application? Reentry visa expired? Passport expired? Lost your copy of the I-20 form? It's very simple, just don't travel. It doesn't take a supreme court justice to know this. It's inconvenient and cruel, sure, and it could use reform, but it is what it is.

I must admit I'm terrified this will happen to me every time I visit the US, I lived in the Bay Area, working in the Valley for 20 years and visit for work and fun a few times a year .... but every time I go through immigration I';m on the edge of panic.

I've never overstayed a visa, the only trouble I ever got into was for not physically handing back my green card when I moved away, I stopped using it for travel when I was no longer a US resident (I almost got kicked out that time, then couldn't figure how to actually hand it back, the US consulate had no online information on how to to do it, and charge by the minute for phone calls from people who want to ask questions, I called up, spent my money and they didn't know either).

The whole US system is baroque and arbitrary, I live in NZ I know people who choose to fly to Europe west rather than east simply because they are scared of traveling through the US (AirNZ now provides a route through Vancouver), even though they would love to visit, there's an impression is that it's just to risky and could ruin your vacation

LAX is possibly the worst Airport I've ever been in.On the flipside, I've found Auckland Intnl/Amsterdam Intnl are the best..

I have to agree - LAX and JFK are my own personal bete noirs.

AKL isn't that wonderful - the blatant duty-free product placement at both ends of the process is (as a kiwi) frankly embarrassing, it's terribly "exit through the gift shop" sort of experience that reflects badly on us all (and always leaves me in tears from being forced to walk through all the perfume - not unlike being stuck next to that little old lady who's lost her sense of smell on the bus)

Stepping off that plane and getting a whiff of the fresh clean air.. It's something I always pick up on.

that was not really what I meant, more the opposite

Sorry, was just having a moment..

Not to mention the complete lack of power points at the gates...

>"my current work visa application had been complicated due to a filing mistake"

Making a mistake is not an acceptable excuse for these people (even Brad Feld experienced this [1]).

Having been in the "backroom" twice I can attest how stressful it is and like many other stories, the lack of information is quite scary indeed. In my case, it was just a secondary screening triggered by me having had a student visa in 2006, a similar type of visa that the Boston bomber had had [2]. The officer told me that anyone who had held a student visa in the past 10 years had to go through this, so I'd imagine a fair few people here must have had the same experience.

[1] http://www.feld.com/archives/2013/03/the-joy-of-being-detain...

[2] http://blog.ogletreedeakins.com/dhs-orders-verification-of-f...

I've been in secondary a number of times (business related, frequent border crossings).

They're not interested in you as a person, nor are they interested in holding anyone. They're entirely interested in detecting fraud and crime, and the people are secondary to that.

When you're in there, keep that in mind. They don't care about you as an individual, in a completely neutral sense. Just take in the surroundings (ever notice that it's just a normal workplace to them? Seems weird, but they're mostly relaxed at the office), and answer questions comfortably and respectfully. You'll be out in good time, depending on the lineup.

>>> We spoke two totally different languages. Mine, the language of reasoned hope and optimism. Theirs, the language of suspicious cynicism, fear and ignorance.

>>>I slowly explained that I’m a social entrepreneur promoting global change through the concept of ‘hackathons’ where attendees work together and find solutions to community issues within a tight time constraint. They were dismissive and didn’t seem to want to hear an explanation.

If even a hint of this attitude got through, you would be denied... Have you seen the flood of shit the CBP people have to put up with? Have you seen the news of the massive floods of people trying to get in through Texas recently?

The CBP officers are going to be suspicious of anyone and everyone just like most people are suspicious of used car salesmen. Giving the CBP rank-and-file reason to suspect you (hacker? ..., obvious disdain for their function etc) will lead to nothing but bad. They do not make the rules, they enforce them and are given little leeway in how they can help. You're lucky to have found a sympathetic supervisor.

>>I slowly explained that I’m a social entrepreneur promoting global change through the concept of ‘hackathons’ where attendees work together and find solutions to community issues within a tight time constraint. They were dismissive and didn’t seem to want to hear an explanation.

> If even a hint of this attitude got through, you would be denied.

Even without the attitude, I'd be dismissive of that too. It's buzzwords and puffery. Oh! You're in the Global Change industry? Silly me, I didn't realise. Come on in, they just opened a big Change The World By Writing An iPhone App In A Weekend factory in San Diego so we'll need all the skilled global change promoters we can get.

Still not entirely clear from the article, but, sounds like you were working in the US without a work visa? What did you expect?

I would be very sympathetic if this article described a situation in which the U.S. wouldn't give this person a visa and so they couldn't travel there.

However, I struggle to find much sympathy for the actual case in which the U.S. didn't "technically" (?) give this person a visa but they tried to cross the border anyway, border control wasn't amused by this (shocker), they had to wait around a little bit and explain themselves, and then they basically got the best outcome they could have possibly hoped for in trying to cross an international border knowingly without the correct paperwork.

Note that this is a person who has been living in the U.S. legally for the past seven years.

I sympathize with the author, but I disagree with the focus of the discussion that always surrounds such cases. It strikes me as akin to discussing the best tactics to overrun the Maginot Line by frontal assault.

When faced with a huge obstacle maintained by forces stronger than oneself, the correct solution is usually not to attack it head on, but to examine the assumptions under which it is an obstacle in order to find a way around.

The assumption under which the Maginot Line was an obstacle was 'you can't go through the Ardennes'. The assumption under which immigration law is an obstacle is 'you have to sleep in physical proximity to the people you're working with'. In each case, technology has rendered the assumption obsolete.

Remote study and remote work are not just matters of convenience, productivity and quality of life for those of us living in developed countries. They are key to enabling more of our species to fulfill its potential and contribute to the future. And I don't believe that's optional. I think the problems we are facing as a species are hard enough that we can't afford to have only a small fraction of us contributing.

Yes, I know employers will say 'we don't hire remote for reasons' and venture capitalists will say 'we don't invest in people outside Silicon Valley for reasons'. The mere existence of reasons does not make it okay to give up in the face of this obstacle.

If there are procedural or technical obstacles to working remotely, they are problems that need to be solved not surrendered to. We need to get to the stage where being denied entry to the US has no more significance than a change in holiday plans.

Sorry this happened. The US really needs to get immigration figured out. As a country we need and want skilled workers, dreamers, entrepreneurs etc.

Does anybody else see the irony in the contrast between this story and the current US-Mex border situation?

We expend so much time and effort to harass people who fly in, while every day thousands of other people simply walk over the border without permission and are then relocated within the US with very little threat of deportation[1], and eventual amnesty in the cards. I'm not for a border fence or massive forced deportations, but the imbalance here sticks out to me like a sore thumb.

[1] http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-obama-deportations-20140...

What source(s) do you have for the "no threat of deportation" claim? I have known some immigrants who feared this every day of their lives, and the worry and stress it causes them is tremendous. I find it hard to believe that someone who walks over the border with no paperwork does not feel that pressure.

There's plenty of time and effort spent harassing people coming in over the land border too. I expect there would be more people coming in that way without that effort.

I don't think I agree with the current U.S. border policy, but I don't see how we get from where we are to not having one. There is also probably some sense in aligning enforcement with stated policy.

(I'm not sure that last bit is clear, but I mean if the rule says you have to have a visa, it makes sense for the guards/agents/whatever to just enforce that, not try to decide if the visa is really needed in each different situation)

The United States is a nation of immigrants and as a US citizen I have no problem welcoming more people in. One of my all-time favorite poems is The New Colossus by Emma Lazarus, made famous by its association with the Statue of Liberty, where it is now stamped on the base of the granite pedestal:

"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she

With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

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

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

At the same time, I work twenty feet from an extremely talented British product manager who wants nothing more than to qualify for a green card and become a US permanent resident. I've watched him jump through hoop after hoop for years, spending thousands of dollars in the process, afraid to travel overseas for a family funeral because of re-entry concerns. Meanwhile he watches hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants cross the border, settle, and start vocally advocating for their rights. My heart breaks sometimes for him and his family. Our system is totally broken and I don't know what the answer is either.

Tell him he's looking at selection bias. The immigrants he sees here represent a very small fraction of those who have tried to enter the US. Those are the few that succeeded in either satisfying or dodging the process, not the bulk that get rejected by it or sit on waiting lists.

He should be comparing himself to the typical outcome of a would-be immigrant (never passing the border at all), not to outliers cherrypicked to only be observed after they have already succeeded.

I'm a US citizen, and I dread going through immigration when returning to the US. I understand the psychological techniques they use to trip up people that are lying, but really? I have a valid US passport. What are you going to do, deport me? I'd love to see that.

(I've always wanted to get in a state where country A wants to deport me to country B, but country B wants to deport me to country A. I guess I always answer the questions right, though. "Did you come in contact with any soil on your trip?" "Oh no sir." "Welcome back.")

American Immigration and American Healthcare are two of the most F*d up systems in an otherwise "developed" country. The rank hostility with which the CBP treats visitors continually amazes me - having traveled to China, Japan, Australia, Most of Europe & South east Asia.

Is it the volume of people that arrive in US vs the smaller number of CBP officers available to process them that makes for such a system?

Or is it some training aspect or something else?

Those are just the most fucked up systems you are aware of. The justice system (criminal matters/incarceration/probation/plea bargaining) is really bad and much more threatening imo. Also what about politics, budgeting, government contracts? That's just off the top of my head.

I'd urge Aurora Chiste to use this as a galvanizing opportunity to work for good in places of the world other than silicon valley. US needs to learn the lesson, here, clearly. But until then don't be bitter, let this painful separation become an opportunity to guide you to something much, much better, somewhere else.

I thought USA is country of immigrants.

Stop whining and come to Canada.

Wonderful writings, like

unwelcome foreigners

To some extent, you may still need to be physically present in the US/Silicon Valley in order to join in on some of the startup fun. However, it is often possible to do that without moving over.

I personally only participate in a startup, if I don't have to come over. It is expensive over there and your simple living expenses will add to the burn rate of the startup's seed capital; in addition to having to face unpleasant bureaucracy concerning your attempts at immigration.

There are just too many people who are desperate to move there and who are not bringing anything that the local population would be interested in.

Why not pick a cheap and easy country to live in, and work remotely with your colleagues from all over the world? Why physically move to the US/Silicon Valley?

Paper work snafus can be a big deal- or not, is hard to know without knowing the details. BUT everyone knows bureaucracy is seldom sympathetic to paper work problems in any country.

After reading:

>I had time to reflect on the past seven years of my life in America.

>The US and Silicon Valley had become my true home. The opportunities in this country never cease to amaze me.

My questions was, why didn't the author become a U.S. citizen?

A person who has no intent on citizenship is not a immigrant, should their visa expire, they are simply an illegal alien outstaying their welcome... I have no problem with immigrants (in fact I support them), all my ancestors immigrated after all, but I do have problems with people who think its acceptable to be an illegal alien. I want people like the author to immigrate to this country...

P.S. If you are going to downvote me, please do me the courtesy of explaining the error of my ways.

Its not straightforward to acquire US citizenship. There are many hurdles to be crossed, for example, moving from a Student Visa to a work visa like an H1-B, after which your employer can to apply for your Permanent Residency (which again is a long process depending on the country you are from) and then you have to wait 5 years before you can apply for Citizenship. You may be able to apply for permanent residency based on relatives in the US or apply for asylum, and I'm assuming the author couldn't use any of the latter methods to get a green card.

> "My questions was, why didn't the author become a U.S. citizen?"

Her personal motivations and desires really have no bearing on her legal status here. Questions like these imply that the only people the US can accept into its borders are:

1) Citizens

2) Non-citizen short term visitors

3) Non-citizens committed to obtaining citizenship

Yet, historically, many of our most valued and productive members of society have been immigrants who did not obtain citizenship right away (not to mention the labrynthine and expensive process required to get just a green card today [1])

> "A person who has no intent on citizenship is not a immigrant, should their visa expire, they are simply an illegal alien outstaying their welcome"

The issue is not legality, but proportionality. If you forget to renew your drivers license and drive with it expired, you will get a ticket. You then pay your fine, renew your license, and in the few days this process takes, you are inconvenienced by not being able to drive. At no time have you "outstayed your welcome on the road" and no sensible person will accuse you of "thinking it's acceptable to drive without a license". Sensible people recognize an honest mistake in a byzantine system and give people the benefit of the doubt.

On the other hand, if your visa status is in any way imperfect for a single minute you can be deported and barred from ever reentering the country. The OP was "lucky" to be allowed to be able to reenter 18 months later. Welcome to the land of the free.

[1] http://immigrationroad.com/green-card/immigration-flowchart-...

Wow, that document does show the process to be quite a labyrinthine... I would definitely support simplification of the process. I also think 5 years is too long (so long as the other requirements are met) and I think time spent legally resident with any kind of visa should count towards the threshold.

For anyone interested here are the requirements: http://www.uscis.gov/us-citizenship/citizenship-through-natu...

However, I do feel that people groups 1,2 & 3 are the only people any country should accept into its borders. Maybe with the addition of medium term visitors like students, people on prolonged business trips or investors.

5 years greencard-to-citizenship is nothing in comparison with how long it takes to get the greencard.

If you are a Filipino who in 1991 filed for family-based green card, because your brother was US citizen, then you are still waiting for your greencard approval. Yeap, 23 years later.

http://travel.state.gov/content/visas/english/law-and-policy...

Well, the US can accept all kinds of people, but isn't it quite clear that it wants to let in only those three major groups (with some tiny exceptions) ?

The current USA policies seem quite clear - it wants to expel anyone who wants to live and work there but pretends to be a short-term visitor. Try saying "I want to live and work in USA" in your visa application - you won't get a visa. According to the current immigration laws, if you want to do so, then you've "outstayed your welcome on the road" already before entering USA.

The whole point of these laws wasn't to get people like her to 'follow a proper procedure' where a mistake can be forgiven; the intended goal actually was to detect people like her and get them out.

One can definitely argue that the goal is evil (IMHO it is) and should be changed; but these policies aren't stupid, they're doing what they're designed to do.

Why didn't the author become a U.S. citizen?

Because immigrants can't just "become US citizens" just like that, like early western European immigrants did in the past: for many people it is just plain impossible, and in any case it often takes way, way longer than the 7 years the author has been in the country.

For instance: for most people under a H1B visa right now (like, presumably, the author), the process to obtain a green card alone might take anywhere from 4 to 12(!) years, depending on circumstances and nationality [2]; if approved at all [3]. Then they need to wait 5 more years to merely apply for citizenship, which is another whole process that itself might take up to a year.

That's a 10 years best case scenario, and doing everything exactly right.

[1] http://www.immihelp.com/greencard/employmentbasedimmigration...

[2] http://www.immihelp.com/visa-bulletin/july-2014.html

[3] In most cases, the process requires the company to prove that the person does a job "no qualified US workers are available or willing to do" by presenting "proof of advertising for the specific position, skill requirements for a particular job, verification of the prevailing wage for a position and the employer's ability to pay". In other cases, it suffices to prove the person is of "exceptional ability", or has an "advanced degree" (masters, PhD or "equivalent" job experience) that is required for their particular job --but the requirements and scrutiny are so onerous that many applicants with higher degrees prefer to go through the former regardless. See [1] and despair.

>Because immigrants can't just "become US citizens" just like that, like early western European immigrants did in the past

We need to fix this.

You're getting downvoted because you're insensitive. Yes, it's true that there are immigrant-intent visas and non-immigrant-intent visas. There are fewer people who get the right one, and even fewer people who really know what they want. Maybe they come to the US on a TN visa and think, "hey, I like this place, I think I want to live here". Now they're an illegal alien based on your definition. Similarly, there are people that get immigrant intent visas and don't like the country all that much, and never bother to apply for permanent residency. Both are fine and reasonable decisions. If there weren't fixed numbers of visas, people might make the right choice, but since there are, they decide "I'll get in and sort it out later." (Hint: get a lawyer if this is you. It can be sorted out, but it isn't trivial.)

Anyway, as an American, I don't really see the point of restricting entry to the country. Nobody is going to steal our jobs. Incoming criminals are going to have quite a bit of trouble with the local criminals, which are quite numerous. It will all work itself out.

It's not like there's free medicine or food given out to everyone in the country, so if you're here, you're own your own. The government will send a fire truck to put out a fire in your home, and we have some roads. That's it for government assistance.

Anyway </rant>. Come steal my job.

You are also an atypical worker. Less-skilled labor faces a much greater potential threat from uncontrolled immigration than you do. Also, many potential immigrants might decide to live in the US based on mistaken, outdated perceptions of opportunity and social mobility, but later wouldn't have the financial resources to relocate again if reality didn't meet expectations.

Emergency medical care is provided freely, and has its costs, as well as public education. Also you can't discount the risk of turf wars and violence with the "native" population, especially during times of economic stress or other instability.

Don't get me wrong; i'm all for immigration streamlining and reform, as well as equal legal protections for all people regardless of citizenship status. But immigration control remains a complex, multifaceted issue, that does not necessarily lend itself well to fully idealistic, ideologically pure solutions. Even the most liberal (or libertarian) of European countries have border control and non-trivial, exclusive requirements for immigration, with many policies and requirements being even more restrictive and byzantine than those of the US.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com