The Globe and Mail had a piece on March 25th on the advice that lawyers were giving to their clients, often Canadians working on TN visas down south:
> York-based immigration law firm Dyer Harris LLP, which helps foreigners secure work visas in the U.S., sent an e-mail to their clients residing and working in the country to hold off on international travel altogether, unless in an emergency.
Yeah I run a startup accelerator out of the back of a Canadian law firm, saw a note from the GC of the firm reminding the lawyers not to do non-essential work cross border and to take firm issued blank laptops and phones across. Clearly being taken seriously.
I'm super interested to see what the next HN thread with that proberts lawyer dude is like.
I found the commentary in the last post from him to be pretty meagre, whether it was because people were afraid to talk about this kind of stuff or they just didn't know, I'm not sure, but it seems like reality is quickly setting in for a lot of people in the US.
The most interesting thing I see is people overestimate how resilient the system is. Unfortunately, this is at the whim of a president, who with a majority in the court, dictates the law. With a ban or at his whim, even legal residents can find themselves out. We tend to think the system is resilient to this, but ultimately it really isn't. Scholars cannot even agree on whether these tech workers are entitled to the amendments (since they are not citizens, despite living in the US). Much of this was eye opening for me, and is used by Rubio as a basis to deport the Korean girl and the Columbia guy (also a Harvard student as of yesterday). The law is unfortunately very vague and thus open to interpretation (which is ultimately subject to the commander in chief, the current clown)
Its not like immigrants have had
wonderful, controllable and predictable paths to residency in the past. For those who arent Einstein or belong to the over rated HN crowd, the system has always be exploitative. Anyone who isnt born rich and has been through the process has had to live with constant fear, doubt and uncertainty.
I emigrated to the US as a fiancée. It was not necessarily easy or cheap (I'm agreeing with you) and I came from a "low visa fraud risk country" (Australia). Some of the challenges faced:
It probably cost around $30,000 all up. Every visit to a consular office or USCIS cost about $100 in biometrics alone (each time). Fees for applying, fees for adjustments.
My partner and I had an issue where I was supporting her (she was in school). The system is not set up for that, and expects the US citizen to be financially supporting their prospective spouse. I realize that there are challenges around our situation in terms of providing a financial benefit to a USC that could be construed as paying for a visa.
I was interviewing for jobs in the US from Australia as my move date got closer (after the visa was approved). Siemens nearly torpedoed things when they wanted to start a H-1B or other visa app for me even after being repeatedly told I didn't need one.
My fiancees family ended up having to sponsor me, signing declarations of financial responsibility, that they could be made to repay any government benefit I claimed within the first 10 years of living here (tied to that previous issue).
Some of the evidentiary requirements (bona fide relationship) were reasonable and actually quite clever (separated, and asked questions like who usually does dishes, or takes out trash, and what day is trash day for that matter, and beyond) and others were onerous (I had to pay BoA an exorbitant amount to get all bank statements for 3 years, copied and notarized).
In the end, ironically we determined I would have been "adjusted" to a unconditional LPR more quickly, and more cheaply, if I had come here on a visa waiver, promising not to get married, and just got married and said "oops, my bad, can I be converted anyway?" than actually doing it the right way.
Actually USCIS pretty much has blessed your VWP "loophole"
> "INA section 245(c)(4) renders aliens admitted under the VWP ineligible to adjust status to that of a person admitted for permanent residence. This provision, however, includes an exception for immediate relatives of U.S. citizens. Thus, an individual admitted under the VWP who is also an
immediate relative is not precluded from seeking adjustment of status, even after the VWP period has expired."[1]
As lesbians, do you think it would be more difficult for you under Trump? Was this before or after Australia legalized same-sex marriage seven years ago?
As an alien you would have generally been extra wary of your behavior. Civil disobedience and dedication to political action is not what you should expect of an average alien.
Some natural born citizens seem to have been introduced to the immigrant experience yesterday.
100% agree with civil disobedience being high risk. And it always has been for immigrants. But writing articles in a newspaper? Criticizing domestic or particular foreign governments? If immigrants can't exercise purely expressive speech something is drastically fucked up.
> Civil disobedience and dedication to political action is not what you should expect of an average alien.
How does one square that with "Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" though?
Absolutely amazing how the "freedom" party turns out to not care about the actual freedoms when they're used by the wrong people to do the wrong things.
> The law is unfortunately very vague and thus open to interpretation (which is ultimately subject to the commander in chief, the current clown)
That is it exactly. The US legal/governmental system is a house of cards that has been running for at least 150 years on a bunch of wink-wink-nudge-nudge assumptions that both sides were too scared to test or even acknowledge. An ounce of prevention might have been worth a pound of cure, but now we'll need the cure, and it's probably going to be painful.
This isn't unique to modern American history. Literally all of human civilization meets this criteria. It's all based on a collective acceptance of rules, titles, borders, property. All of which are completely imaginary.
The truth is much of it could have been prevented (court packing was one idea that might have been unpopular, but there are many other ideas that could have been acted upon). We live with consequences of failures of the Democratic party for the last decade. Had Ruth Ginsberg been pressured to retire after her numerous health issues, Roe v Wade would never have been overturned (it was a 1 vote swing). Had primaries occurred, I believe the current guy (a felon) would have lost. There were many mistakes, which had they been addressed through any action (literally anything), could most certainly have been prevented. And this time around, it seems actual executive orders are shaping a very different America (that will require generations to undo). Early this week, a college program I am involved in (for STEM high school students over the summer) was cut. It was heartbreaking getting an email inquiring on why it is no longer on our website. Also it is the same song (the guy had travel bans his first admin, and is doing it again in different forms and to a wider range of individuals. We had four years to make these things difficult, but we did nothing). Holding paddles at state of unions seems to be widely believed among Democratic leadership to be effective, and there lies the issue.
> We live with consequences of failures of the Democratic party for the last decade.
While that's not completely wrong, I find it fascinating that everyone seems to treat the Republican party as having no culpability. We have a Republican party that's had a policy goal of blowing up the government for a half century with varying levels of how far they were willing to take it, but it's the Democratic party's fault for not saving us from them and the voters that support them.
I mean, I think most people who say this do think the Republicans are more to blame. It's just that they also think the Republicans are beyond hope so there's no point attempting to make them feel guilty.
Also we as humans tend to assign a different flavor of blame to people who do bad things than to people who claim to be preventing them while not actually doing so. If a criminal is holding a victim at gunpoint and then they drop their gun and a bystander picks it up and hands it back to the thug, we tend to view that as wrong act even though it's dependent on the criminal's earlier wrong act.
Likewise when Republicans do bad things over and over and then Democrats argue that they'll do better but they just hand the same system back over to the Republicans, people are going to be dissatisfied with that. Added to this is the perception that Democratic politicians do this to protect their own political position and preserve what power they individually have, which makes Democratic inaction even more irritating.
Freedom and justice should not depend on these kind of game show tactics. The system should be more resilient. Unfortunately it isn't due to the culture and social norms of the country.
There isn't a system in the universe that can be resilient against a compromised executive, legislature, and judiciary. Of the three, the judiciary is the least compromised, and it is currently the only one pushing back, but it can only do so much.
At the end of the day, you have to not keep voting in criminals.
I love how your analysis does not blame the perpetrators. And I think this is pervasive and one of root problems - Republicans and conservatives are not blamed for own lies nor plans nor decisions.
Instead, democrats are blamed for what Republicans do.
Yes, democrats should have been harder on republicans. But again, the same double standards would cause them to be blamed for "gaming the system".
I absolutely would not blame Democrats for gaming the system (as long as they did it in the service of the right goals). At this point it's really just a choice between gaming the system or destroying it.
> both sides were too scared to test or even acknowledge
I think that’s harsh. I think the folks in government generally believed that the opposition was there in good faith and with the intent of strengthening the nation, even if they disagreed on how.
I don’t think that’s the case any longer and institutions based on good faith don’t work when the group in power is willing to light everything on fire.
To an extent that's true, but those good-faith assumptions are sort of what I mean by wink-wink-nudge-nudge. It's like a bunch of people working in an office with a bunch of high explosives lying around. Having "good faith" that no one will set them off is another way of saying you'd rather not actually acknowledge or fix the problem.
Also, it's harder to believe it was all good faith unless you ignore some quite egregious earlier situations that pretty clearly showed that festering issues were being swept under the rug.
Most obviously, after the Civil War the South was placed under military occupation. In 1877 it was ended as part of a political bargain, whereupon the South resumed the racist policies it had previously had in place, and which had been supposedly banned by the reconstruction amendments and laws. It should have been obvious to people at the time that many people in the South had not learned their lesson, and perhaps military occupation and strict enforcement of reconstruction would have been necessary for decades more.
The willingness of both parties to condone outrageous gerrymanders over decades also indicates a shared desire to look the other way rather than face the dangerous implications head-on.
2008 was a long time ago, and it was notable at the time because it was already contrary to the overall trend of partisan polarization, which had been consistently escalating since the end of the long period of overlapping realignments that started in the 1930s and settled out in the 1990s. (Political polarization had been high in much of that realignment period, but because the major parties weren't coherently aligned around the high-salience issues that divided the public, that polarization was not strongly partisan.)
i think this is a key point, and this is why this problem will remain until we make some drastic changes.
to look at a completely different example: the internet was designed on good faith. year after year more things have been put into place to protect against those not operating in good faith. proof of work against AI bots is just the latest example.
what is really needed is a change in education. we need to teach the next generation that operating in good faith is absolutely essential for the future of mankind. we can no longer assume that good faith is the default. it isn't any more.
I tend to think that, unfortunately, it's the other way around. What we need to teach the next generation is that good faith, while still to be treasured, cannot be relied on, and we must be prepared to unflinchingly root out bad actors and forcibly prevent them from making things worse for people.
>what is really needed is a change in education. we need to teach the next generation that operating in good faith is absolutely essential for the future of mankind.
How can mankind have any future at all, when education is one of the tools used to indoctrinate children into not wanting children of their own someday? The first priority of any society/civilization must always be that of making the next generation of people... or else that society/civilization will soon cease to exist. And we no longer hold that as a priority. Whatever the solution might be, I do not think that it can use the education system, in whole or in part, without serious reform of the sort that would frighten those who most want to use it.
Furthermore, it may be the case that our particular nation is composed of two distinct groups who no longer have enough common values that we can effectively remain a singular nation. At least not without one coming to dominate the other decisively. Which is unfortunate given that there are many foreign powers that would take advantage of any possible divorce, amicable or hostile.
not to be harsh but let me tell you, this is bullshit, there's only rule of law if most people accept it. its all ink in paper, the moment someone tries to subvert or pretend it doesn't exist and there are no consequences the "law" is irrelevant.
the laws only exist to the extent that the people that "control" it are willing to exert it. for instance, at any other point in time, everyone involved in the signal-gate scandal would have been fired (and i bet if you were an actual army officer you would still be fired) but the people that enforce the rules can just pretend this isn't a problem and move on.
there is no crime if no one is interested in sending you to jail.
Wait until they declare nonresidents are not entitled to properties in the US and seize all bank accounts and 401k, USSR style.
The scariest thing, and most absurd to me, is that even though I made that joke just 1 minute ago, now that I think about it, it is not completely impossible in this current political climate...
I dread to think about what the US will be 10 years from now. Trump is not the problem. He is a solution, or claimed to be, to the ailments that plague the US. The people here want change, they know something is rotten but they don't even know what is the problem with so many lies and misdirection and days to days burdens they have to bear. So Trump become their cry for help. It is just sad and tragic. Truly something for the history book, if we ever get there.
I don’t think your hypothetical is crazy at all. I learned this weekend that much of my close family, who were pretty normal conservatives just a couple of years ago, now believe that all legal and illegal immigrants have been let into the country by jws to eliminate the white race. And that’s not an exaggeration at all. Like I’m mincing words to make them look less bad.
My family is not the down and out, they never supported these things because they have financial stressors. If anything the economy of the last 20 years has been too good to them. They are relatively wealthy and have stable lives and good jobs. They listen to too many alt right podcasts and are too deep down the Facebook hole.
Two weeks ago I was relatively optimistic. Now I’m really scared, how do you cope with loved one’s who believe these things? We’re off to a really dark place.
Comments or opinions like yours are the reasons why I think my hypothetical scenario is possible.
It is too easy to view everything as "nothing new, already done in some way" and ignore the slow boil, especially when they are not directly affected or ideologically opposed to it. That is how we get people clamoring for the government to post pictures of chained people marched into extrajudicial prisons without due process.
All I can say is that while some people will be insulated from the consequences, if the situation keeps escalating, do not bet on you being one of those privileged few.
Citizens aren't far off. I give it until election season.
JD Vance wrote a cover blurb for a book arguing to the MAGA base that all the milquetoast liberals they know are actually "secret communist revolutionaries" who must be "crushed" by any means necessary.
They are openly enablers, twisting the rules for them whenever they can. Thomas is also quite corrupt. Kavanaugh is purely political advancing conservative project. Alito the same, with better excuses.
Kavanaugh has been a swing vote several cases that have gone against conservatives. He's been fairly judicially consistent in his interpretation of the law, even when it isn't in favor of Republicans.
The system is actually quite resilient. What you are describing is a specific impact the system might have on someone's situation. That makes a specific situation non-resilient, not the system. Everyone in the whole world who is on a visa knows that is not the most resilient situation, by definition.
Also, it is well-settled that visa is a discretionary benefit. Green card is more nuanced, but still not a panacea. Some of the "scholars" that debate these things know full well what the case law is but they want to stir the pot in the media.
But to (a) Revoke it with no warning (b) Instantly making your presense illegal, and you a criminal, and due to your new criminal status(c) immediatly abducting you by masked, unidentified "officers" in an official capacity and sending you on a plane anywhere but here, seems to, I don't know? "stir the pot" as you say?
These revocations could be done far more graciously than they are. It certanly reveals how the people in charge feel about their fellow humans. It's being done this way NOT to be efficent. They're doing it to send a message.
"See how quickly we can disappear you for dissent."
Exactly. It's discretionary, but for reasons I won't go into here, I had to have an immigration attorney for my green card adjustment. Her constant refrain was that I was not to worry as it was "discretionary but presumptive" - my previous efforts and process laid it that the onus was on the USG to show that my green card was or might be fraudulent or in bad faith.
Now? The same applies, but the current administration's attitude is "So stop us."
My friend was married to a USC (bona fide legit marriage) and they almost fucked them over during Biden administration casting doubt on their marriage. In San Francisco, not some red state. Many examples of that nature regardless of the administration.
Almost always if your case is legit, you'll be fine in the end and nothing to worry about, just as your lawyer says, but it does not mean there won't be a bumpy ride. I genuinely doubt Trump administration is any worse or better unless you affirmatively have anti-Western ideas or from Travel Ban countries. In fact, the anecdotes I have heard so far on the consular processing of Immigrant Visas is better than Biden era.
I mean, I was discussing the law, now we pivot to emotions? The "masked" guys immediately showed their badges if we are talking about the same incident. When you come to the US on a visa, you should not be under any illusions that is not the case. In fact, a US visa is not even guarantee of entry to the US as you are reminded when you get one.
I am not aware if any other country behaves differently if they want a foreigner gone. It's not a right to be in another sovereign country.
Regardless, this has pretty much nothing to do with the resilience of the system at large.
Here in Argentina, legal immigrants' visas cannot be revoked, and illegal immigrants generally can only be deported if they are accused of a crime. (Being present illegally is not itself a crime.) They have several weeks to challenge the deportation in court.
Nearly all other countries behave differently. The kind of "immigration law enforcement" we're seeing today in the US is far outside the norms of liberal democracy.
Debating morality rather than legality, any policy that gives thugs free rein to grab people who are not harming others off the street, and imprison them, is immoral, and should be stopped. Even if it were the policy of every country in the world, it should still be stopped.
In Finland (and I guess in some other European countries) deportation in itself is not a sufficient reason for arrest. Once you have been informed of the decision, you get some time to leave voluntarily, or to challenge the decision in the administrative court system. But you won't be arrested until the decision is final and you have failed to leave voluntarily, unless there are specific reasons to the contrary. And those specific reasons are typically ones that would justify arresting a citizen as well.
You started with "Stir the pot in the media", and brought emotions into it.
But the point still stands. Legal does not mean moral. And there is a legal obligation to represent the will of all the people of the country, not just those that elected you.
Clearly, the law needs to spell out exactly what legally needs to be done in the case of an expideient deportation, so it codifies some sense of common morality.
But to your point of resilience: The resilience breaks down when people lose their faith in it. Why trust a system that can act aribtrairily like this? Do we really want our guests to fear that speaking in solidarity with nearly half the country is grounds to be treated like a criminal, and be subject immediate and expedient deportation? That's not the way a "great" country behaves.
You would normally at least be entitled to due process. My understanding is that Trump is citing a law that allows the President to deport nationals of a country we are at war with without due process, except we aren’t at war with Turkey.
Except the people I cited were legal permanent residents and not "visitors" or "solely here as students". A legal permanent resident is by definition a national. In most forms, you will see US citizens/nationals refer to born or naturalized citizens AND legal residents. So your point is fabricated.
I stand corrected. US nationals refers to something else, but is sometimes used to include permanent residents alongside citizens. I am not familiar with the terminology, but my point stands. A legal permanent resident is very different from the situation you are citing, and I think if you believe they are not entitled to free speech (in particular, for offending a foreign country), we have a much bigger problem here.
I would also disagree very much with your point including for visitors. Individuals visiting America value our free speech. Renouncing it in favor of a foreign country (most of those arrested were deported for anti-Israel sentiment), is not something we should be proud of. It makes me sad that fellow Americans turn down those who wanted to be here, in favor of a hostile nation that couldn't care less about any American and that has gained immensely from grift on our taxes.
Immigration policies are way stricter now, and they're leaving people out. Also related, some countries are issuing warnings for people traveling to the US.
https://travelnoire.com/europe-us-travel-advisory
Do you have any evidence of that? Have there been changes in legislation, specific directives issued?
> some countries are issuing warnings for people traveling to the US
In the case of Germany, it was emphasized that the change was not a travel warning, but instead a travel advisory [0]. Here are a few advisories from Canada, accessed 2025-04-02:
The State Department has a similar advisory on traveling to the UK:
> Country Summary: Terrorist groups continue plotting possible attacks in the United Kingdom. Terrorists may attack with little or no warning, targeting tourist locations, transportation hubs, markets/shopping malls, local government facilities, hotels, clubs, restaurants, places of worship, parks, major sporting and cultural events, educational institutions, airports, and other public areas. There is also a risk of isolated violence by dissident groups in Northern Ireland, focused primarily on police and military targets.
I will look at anything specific you have on hand that you feel merits attention, but I know that in the case of the German advisory, it was just updated to reflect that possessing a visa was not a guarantee of entry. So far as I know this did not come about as a result of change in policy. While the Trump administration has done a lot of chest-thumping on immigration, I haven't seen any indication that these sorts of refusals and detentions are unprecedented; they just seem to be receiving more media attention. In this instance, there were three high profile cases of Germans being refused entry and / or detained, which resulted in the advisory.
> That the administration thinks they just just drag people into vans and ship them off to a foreign prison?
Can you point to a specific instance where this has occurred, and what laws you believe were broken? I'm not qualified to say if the El Salvador detention facilities are legal or not, but my understanding is that ICE has always had the authority to arrest illegal immigrants, and that a potential penalty for illegal entry is imprisonment.
See: 8 U.S. Code § 1325 - Improper entry by alien
> (a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts
> Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
> Sealioning is a type of trolling or harassment that consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity ("I'm just trying to have a debate"), and feigning ignorance of the subject matter.
Read the site guidelines. You are breaking several of them.
Seems but isn't due to the way taxation/jurisdiction/licensure works. Where you are doing your work from and where the benefactor of that work are make a big difference. Example: Doctors can't telehealth over State lines. Lawyers likewise. Employers aren't supposed to allow migrant workers to work from across state lines from their address of record.
A great deal of draconian control is actually implemented through employment and licensure law, and as with most things in real life, come bundled with a surprising amount of detail. Part of why I've become particularly dissatisfied with the U.S. as of late, as so much of it is predicated on actually keeping you locked into one geographical location.
> so much of it is predicated on actually keeping you locked ino one geographical location.
Most of the digital nomad hubs have the same laws with regards to worker protections and tax residency; they're just too poor to enforce them. The same is true of the workers themselves. In the 2010s I remember seeing a lot of guys bragging about having virtual assistants in the Philippines. This was probably illegal on both sides of the transaction the way that they had it set up, the issue is that the people working these jobs do not have the resources to pursue a case against a US-based employer; that's assuming they have the knowledge and motivation necessary to sue the employer in the first place. I'm not as libertarian as I once was, but these kinds of arrangements are a no-brainer; it's all of the upside of the free movement of labor with none of the downside of that labor being physically relocated.
at this point, what's even the point of immigrating here? if you're still young and haven't rooted yourself to this place (no family / house / significant other), I'd advise to leave and look to build a life in a different country. the best years of your life would be better lived elsewhere.
There are still massive benefits to living and working in the US despite the fact that it's also uniquely problematic. Incomes for some/many areas of work are extremely high here compared to the rest of the world, and despite the narrative of corporate news that the world is literally on fire, the general day to day of most Americans is pretty unimpacted.
Yes that's true, I really don't know what the endgame is for this new admin. Growing up south of the border we always knew the beauty of this country was richness in cultural diversity. It seems like we're going backwards now?.
End game is to stay in power, to stay in power means to deliver your campaign promises to expel immigrants which is what trump is doing and, despite many here don’t like that, relatively well received by American public. https://www.axios.com/2025/03/31/trump-us-adults-approval-ra...
China detained two Canadians for almost three years in retaliation for Canada cooperating on a US warrant for Meng Wanzhou. They can make you disappear in the way that people in this thread are pretending the Americans can. It is not safe to travel there.
You mean like how the CIA flew around doing “extraordinary rendition” during the turn of the millennium? Yea, that’s a shitty thing to do, hopefully all the people of the world can get better governments.
Dude, there are super public and well covered cases were the US did not only that but even worse, i.e. MEGAs illegal CEO abduction from their home soil in the 2010s for a particularly egregious example
> MEGAs illegal CEO abduction from their home soil in the 2010s for a particularly egregious example
I’m assuming you’re referring to Kim Dotcom since I can’t find any other reference to what you are describing. Kim was not abducted; he was arrested in by New Zealand police in 2012, and has since been fighting in court to avoid extradition to the United States. There was nothing illegal about this; it all went through the court system.
Yup, visa condition for me to China are the same as to the US and they aren't likely to search my phone (I've crossed that border dozens of times with barely a hiccup, just a smile)
Anyone returning to the US necessarily had to earlier leave the US for some other country or countries.
If you are asked upon returning the US why you have a burner phone with few contacts say that it is because you didn't trust one or more of those other countries.
The Globe and Mail had a piece on March 25th on the advice that lawyers were giving to their clients, often Canadians working on TN visas down south:
> York-based immigration law firm Dyer Harris LLP, which helps foreigners secure work visas in the U.S., sent an e-mail to their clients residing and working in the country to hold off on international travel altogether, unless in an emergency.
Lawyers advise Canadians working in U.S. to avoid travel amid border crackdown, The Globe and Mail, 2025-03-25. https://web.archive.org/web/20250325223021/https://www.thegl...