Hacker News Reader

Comment by voidlogic | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

> "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.

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.

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