[KingMachiavelli]

Absurd, currently trying to figure out how to sponsor my wife and now this. The wording seems to imply that even those here on valid non-immigrant visas (F1) would need to apply via their home country. It doesn’t help that I130+I485 (AOS) could take over a year to process?

If you have filed I485 and they fail to process it before your current visa expires (D/S ends like F1 OPT). Then what? You just have to leave, abandon AOS and re-apply for CR1?

It’s insane that the simplest immigrant pathway; spousal green card could take 12+ months and may now require temporarily moving and being separated. Guess I actually will be paying $4K for a lawyer (plus the 3-4K just to file the USCIS forms).

I wish they would just have a simple fast lane for the 100% legal, non-complicated case.

[airstrike]

And don't forget that US consulates in 75 countries, or approximately a third of the globe, have stopped conducting Green Card interviews.

[kylehotchkiss]

By the way, if you move outside the country, you lose Domicile which is required to sponsor the visa. And if you don't spend enough time in their country visiting them, your application can be temporary "denied" (delayed) with a request for evidence (that the relationship is real) they'll spend 3 months deliberating over.

Today's news make this crystal clear: the current admin does not want citizens marrying outside the country, regardless of how quickly the marriage rate among US population is falling.

[anigbrowl]

> simple fast lane for the 100% legal, non-complicated case

Immigration policy in the current administration (which seems to be driven by Stephen Miller) is not based around legalaities, it's based around cutting immigration as much as possible because that's what satisfies Trump's voter base. These people do not care if you 'did it the right way'. They have an atavistic hatred of foreigners.

[esseph]

> Immigration policy in the current administration (which seems to be driven by Stephen Miller) is not based around legalaities, it's based around cutting immigration as much as possible

White immigrants are fine with this administration.

"All but 3 of 6,069 refugees taken in by Trump are White South Africans"

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/news/2026/05/22/trump-south-a...

[beering]

Yeah, the move to take in only white refugees from SA was a clear message to their voter base that it’s about race. They could have chosen not to do that and have some plausible deniability, but they wanted to make that point very publicly.

[randerson]

Not just race, but political orientation. Not all white South Africans qualify for refugee status - only Afrikaners. A group who are generally conservative and likely to vote Republican once they've been fast-tracked to citizenship. (English-speaking, urban white people tend to vote more liberal there.)

[gottorf]

Do you think the Biden-admin immigration shenanigans (2M illegal crossings a year, "temporary" protected status, CBP One, etc.) weren't predominantly aimed at a group of people who were deemed to be more likely to vote Democratic?

[esseph]

> Do you think the Biden-admin immigration shenanigans (2M illegal crossings a year, "temporary" protected status, CBP One, etc.) weren't predominantly aimed at a group of people who were deemed to be more likely to vote Democratic?

Most Hispanic families and cultures are overwhelmingly socially conservative leaning.

In addition, non-citizens cannot vote in federal elections.

That "theory" has never held water, and was always a racist dogwhistle.

[randerson]

I won't defend Biden's weak border, but I don't see any signs that he was specifically letting in people based on their political leaning while excluding others, nor were they given a fast track to citizenship.

[FireBeyond]

As someone who came here on the K-1 (fiance) visa, this would have impacted me as (IIRC) there are two points where I had to adjust status: once, after marriage, to get "Conditional" Permanent Residency, and after two years of marriage, to "remove conditions" on my residency.

I get being out of the country for the initial application (the consular officer in Sydney explained that it typically had to be filed by the sponsor, while the sponsor was in the US and the applicant was overseas, so that there was "no" concerns on coercion, etc.), but this... oof.

> Guess I actually will be paying $4K for a lawyer (plus the 3-4K just to file the USCIS forms).

And then of course the $85 biometrics fee every time you talk to USCIS, which could be multiple times in the process.

> Guess I actually will be paying $4K for a lawyer (plus the 3-4K just to file the USCIS forms). I wish they would just have a simple fast lane for the 100% legal, non-complicated case.

It would have been cheaper, and faster, for me to have come here from Australia on the visa waiver program (which says "no marrying a USC"), married my partner, said to USCIS "oops, my bad, can I stay anyway?" and go through -that- process, than the proper K-1.

[seanmcdirmid]

I’m pretty sure you can both be out of the country, at least me and my wife were. We were married long enough to get a fast track though, according to the rules at the time.

[jmyeet]

It sounds like your wife came to the US on an F1 visa, you got married and are now filing or have filed for I130+I485 for her. I assume too that you were a US citizen. These facts may not be correct. IANAL but I absolutely think you should be forking over the money for an immigraiton lawyer and that was true before this memo came out.

I've seen so many people who call their cases "simple" or "straightforward" but 2 minutes of fairly superficial questioning reveals there are actually huge minefields or deep, fundamental flaaws in their case. It's way cheaper to have a lawyer from the start than it is to screw up her case and then get a lawyer involved once she's in removal proceedings, which is a very real possibility.

So here are some base questions to ask:

- How did you get your citizenship? If you were born here or got a green card through an employer or parent, that's fine. If you got it from being sponsored in a previous marriage, that's what USCIS calls a "pivot case" and you will have a high level of scrutiny;

- Did you know your wife prior to her coming to the US? If so, USCIS might take the position that this was a scheme for her to come to the US and adjust status rather than consular processing and the burden of proof that it wasn't is on you;

- It sounds like your wife is on OPT. If so, she completed her studies, which is good. USCIS hates cases where someone comes on an F1, doesn't complete their studies and get married. They can accuse such people of committing immigration fraud;

- How soon after her last entry to the US did you get married? Too quick (generally under 60-90 days) and USCIS may accuse her of misrepresentation, which is a huge problem;

- Did she make any visa applications and misrepresent her status to you?

- Did she make any misrepresentations to CBP about her relationship to you when entering the US?

- Did she ever violate the terms of her F1 visa? For example, working without authorization;

- Has she been married before? If so, were there an I130 filed for her previously?

- Has your wife ever been arrested, charged or convicted of any crime other than traffic ticket citations? This can be a far bigger problem than you realize even if it's something "trivial" where she gets probation;

- Did she apply for an F1 for one school, come to the US then change schools? If so, USCIS might take the position she did a misrepresentation.

Also, anecdotally, USCIS seems to be taking advantage at interviews of people who don't have a lawyer by threatening the citizen to withdraw the case or by getting the citizen or immigrant to agree not facts that aren't in evidence or aren't true and then using those facts to deny or delay the case.

Are you prepared for the interview where the officer may separate you and then compare your answers?

There's more to an immigration attorney than just filling out forms. A good attorney will prepare you for the interview and identify (and hopefully solve) any potential issues before they become issues. People generally make bad witnesses. I'm reminded of the "do you know what time it is?" scene from the west Wing [1].

I'd strongly advise a lawyer.

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VChTiGcWsCs

[FireBeyond]

I would strongly advise for a lawyer, too, but some of your statements are less accurate, as someone who came here on a K-1 visa, in a genuine and sincere relationship, divorced and in the process of the divorce missed some filing deadlines and also hired a lawyer to clear it up.

> Did you know your wife prior to her coming to the US? If so, USCIS might take the position that this was a scheme for her to come to the US and adjust status rather than consular processing and the burden of proof that it wasn't is on you

Depending on status, per my lawyer, the assumption is that the visa is valid based on the initial application process. The burden on my "fixing" things, despite divorce, etc., was on USCIS to show that it wasn't sincere. That means they -did- ask for evidence (bank statements, insurance policies, financial instruments, cosigned leases, etc.) but they had to show that those "didn't sufficiently show an authentic relationship".

> Did she make any visa applications and misrepresent her status to you

This can be a challenge, but not usually a problem. After my visa was granted I started interviewing from Australia for jobs. When I did get a job, my new employer through a HR mixup set wheels in motion for a H-1B for me, which I hurriedly told them to cancel as I didn't need it.

> Are you prepared for the interview where the officer may separate you and then compare your answers?

Definitely will, not may. We faced questions like "what night is garbage night and who takes out the trash usually", "how long have they been working in the field they are currently employed in" (not just how long at current job). "Are both their parents alive, where do they live?" etc.

A lawyer is, especially now, a solid investment.

[KingMachiavelli]

1. Born in typical midwest American town from American parents also born in the US just as their parents (at least 4 generations) 2. Nope, met after arrival. 3. Studies completed and employed legally. 4. "How soon after her last entry to the US did you get married" - actually maybe an issue, we just happened to travel internationally before deciding to get married sooner. But it would be silly to not return to the country you live and work in just because you took a vacation. 5. CBP doesn't even ask questions when you re-enter with valid visa documentation. 6. No previous marriages of either party. 7. No criminal history, not even a speeding ticket. 8. Nope, went to school, graduated, started working, so on.

We live together and spend >90% of our non-working time together so I can't imagine an interview being a problem.

As you can see, besides maybe the "crime" of taking an international vacation, our case is as simple as it should be.

> Also, anecdotally, USCIS seems to be taking advantage at interviews of people who don't have a lawyer by threatening the citizen to withdraw the case or by getting the citizen or immigrant to agree not facts that aren't in evidence or aren't true and then using those facts to deny or delay the case.

I mean that's really the issue. USCIS appears to be intentionally adversarial.

[danaris]

> I wish they would just have a simple fast lane for the 100% legal, non-complicated case.

The explicit purpose of this is to reduce legal immigration, and reduce the number of people becoming citizens.

There is no world in which the same racist, fascist administration doing this does anything remotely like what you describe.

[pixel_popping]

I'm not from the US, but isn't it like almost every country in the world? Reducing immigration when it's already too much does increase job availability for locals (which should always be priority imo). Immigration to a country is a privilege, not really a right, but again I don't really know about the US, I just know that like Emigrating to Japan permanently or like in Dubai getting citizenship is very difficult and it does sound normal to me, why should it be easy? You want ultra motivated potential citizens, not the ones that just want to come for a few years to improve their CV or just pile up savings and then bail, they don't bring anything to the country as they'll not spend in the long-term within the US and will not really assimilate as well.

I don't think this is "racist", even Europeans are in the same boat to apply as far as I know, those are mostly white, I don't think racist is the right term here. Isn't America already heavily mixed?

[danaris]

Newsflash: Many European countries are, in fact, racist.

The French are virulently racist against Arabs and Muslims. Most of Western Europe is racist against the Romani, as well as against most Eastern European ethnicities (yes, even though they would be considered "white" in the US). It hasn't historically come up quite as much as in the US because most European countries are more homogeneous than the US is, but with the increase in migration—and particularly in asylum-seeking emigration from war-torn areas—it has become much more salient in recent times.

Japan is also racist, varying from moderately to horrifically depending on what the target group is.

These forms of racism don't always look the same as racism does in the US: for instance, the Western European bias against Eastern Europeans, IME, largely shows up as a widespread belief that they're lazy, and the bias against Romani is that they're seen as dirty, smelly thieves.

90% of all anti-immigrant sentiment, anywhere, is rooted in racism of varying types. Plenty of studies have made very clear that immigrants contribute more to the community and the nation, and have lower rates of crime, than people born in the country.

It is true that when a wave of immigrants first arrives in a new country, they take up more government resources for a period of time, because they literally have not had a chance to find jobs. But once that happens, they are likely to be working at lower-status, lower-paying jobs that the locals mostly didn't want in the first place. And once they have jobs, they aren't just somehow "taking up jobs that locals could have": they also create demand in the local economy, which creates more jobs. Because "number of jobs" isn't a fixed quantity.

And finally, in case you have been hiding under a rock for the last decade of American politics, this anti-immigrant sentiment is explicitly aimed at nonwhite immigrants. To the point that ICE routinely targets people based on the color of their skin, wholly disregarding their victims' status (many are legal immigrants or even citizens), and Trump actively seeks out white South Africans who want to come to the US.

[gottorf]

> Plenty of studies have made very clear that immigrants contribute more to the community and the nation, and have lower rates of crime, than people born in the country.

You should distinguish between the American model of immigration, which has long been the beneficiary of positive selection effects until recently, against the European model (which seems to be more relevant to the GP), which unfortunately seems to have been designed for the exact opposite.

It's trivially easy to find research from Europe that consistently shows immigrants and descendants of immigrants as having higher rates of criminality than the native population. Even a pro-refugee source has to admit that immigrants in Denmark commit crimes at a level 2-3x higher[0].

And taking a step back, your statement on immigrants contributing more than the native population is absurd on its face. Why are immigrants immigrating to begin with? To seek a better life. Who made a better life possible on the other side of the fence? The native population. The degree to which immigrants, especially to the US, outperform the native population, you're just looking at the aforementioned selection effects; you're comparing the cream of the crop of one group to the median of another.

[0]: https://refugeeswelcome.dk/en/information/focus/crime-among-...

[pixel_popping]

I'm not entirely sure I agree with the fact that 90% of anti-immigrant sentiment is racist, more of a protective culture thing which has nothing to do with race, actually color is different from race as well, I'm pretty sure people have no problem with Black americans that are completely assimilated, but they would have a problem with someone from Zambia that skipped a high part of its education and suddenly land in the US as an adult without the same set of values or education. That's not about color, that's about compatibility. Not recognizing that there is a drastic difference in behavior and education wouldn't be logical, some nations are seriously lagging behind, this is a fact, not an opinion or belief.

It's known that some EU nations such as France will have majority of Arab & Muslims in a few decades, this is a valid concern as we are talking about a potential replacement of culture, it has nothing to do with racism. Currently it's at 33% as per this source (Citizens coming from immigration): https://www.frontieresmedia.fr/societe/demographie-33-de-la-...

You wouldn't want to go in Japan and see that it's majority of Muslims, the same as you wouldn't want to fly to Qatar and see that it's a majority of French, it would feel out of the place and somehow disappointing as nations maintain their charm and alignment by actually having an identity, with the globalization of everything nowadays, we are streamlining the world as if we should all behave and believe the same things, at this stage, I don't think the world is ready to be entirely aligned on values. Some countries don't even recognize some fundamental rights that we take for granted, it's not about them being right or wrong, it's just not compatible.

I wouldn't want my daughter (of course she can, she is free to do as she pleases) to marry a Korean, or even a Japanese, or even someone who is Muslim, for reasons that it wouldn't align with our family values, all my friends are from different ethnicity/nationality (I live in SEA so I'm an immigrant, from EU, it took me 12 years to get a residency, and this is normal, I wouldn't want this process to be easier) and this isn't a racist take at all imo, just a recognition of difference of beliefs and even preferences. Actually in Asia we have no problem talking about color, ethnicity and especially difference in behavior depending on nationality and so-on. What I'm stating is exactly the same sentiment across Muslim nations, Indians, Koreans, Japanese..., they want to marry their "own" and give jobs to their own in absolute priority, the rest is secondary, it's not about racism (it can be for religious reasons only, which has nothing to do with racism, it's valid).

Regarding ICE, I'm just familiar about it when I sometimes check US news, but from what I understand it's just an agency that is made to arrest people that remain in the country illegally, to me entering a nation illegally or overstaying your welcome is definitely a crime, I don't really understand why people wants illegals to remain in the country, isn't that unfair for all the ones actually following the local laws & immigration regulations? I don't know, never it would cross my mind to just cross the border to Singapore or Thailand illegally, I would know for sure I'm committing a serious crime doing so. If ICE is arresting US citizens of course the agency needs to be prosecuted for it for sure, that's clearly wrong, but is this a decent percentage? Errors happen all the time in all fields of the law, it's not realistic to think we can enforce something at scale without some unfairness. Where I live, immigration deports all the time overstaying aliens and I really don't see anything wrong with it.

Again, this isn't from a US perspective so I don't really know the mindset of Americans, I however have many American friends that have similar opinions.

Edit: I just checked the statistics regarding ICE deportations [1] and it does seem that the number was higher during 2012 (Obama as per my search) era (record amount of deportations than recently, it doesn't seem to be a last decade issue but more like an always issue, but I just don't really understand what is the problem with deporting people that don't follow laws, that seems just rational.

Also, how do illegal aliens actually work? Doesn't it push employers to also break the law because they don't have a legal status?

[1] ICE Deportations by Fiscal Year (2000–2026): Fiscal Year Deportations Notes 2000 278,921 — 2001 189,026 — 2002 162,059 — 2003 168,767 — 2004 201,311 — 2005 256,066 — 2006 280,944 — 2007 319,258 — 2008 369,635 — 2009 389,834 — 2010 392,862 — 2011 396,906 Peak year 2012 409,849 Highest in the dataset 2013 368,644 — 2014 315,943 — 2015 235,413 — 2016 240,255 — 2017 226,119 — 2018 256,085 — 2019 267,258 — 2020 185,884 — 2021 142,750 Lowest in recent decades 2022 141,171 — 2023 243,735 — 2024 280,000–300,000 Range (final figures vary) 2025 300,000

[Starman_Jones]

> I'm pretty sure people have no problem with Black americans that are completely assimilated

This is incorrect in the US.

[pixel_popping]

Can you elaborate so I increase my knowledge? Give me practical and theoretical examples.

[arjie]

Jesus Christ, that's a bad situation. It seems extraordinarily risky to leave the country to return. I know a native-born American whose foreign-born wife has been waiting years now to come to the US. By contrast, I received my green card (through marriage) shortly after application. Considering the rapidity by which friends of mine (who were married after and applied after me) received their green cards in mid-2024, I wonder if the Biden administration anticipated losing the election a few months later.

I suppose little matters from the before days, but I've only been a permanent resident for 2 years so maybe this timeline helps: https://wiki.roshangeorge.dev/w/Green_Card_Application#Timel...

[bulbar]

Happens as well in Germany and it's pure insanity. The US at least does not depend on migration as much as Germany, I believe.

Even the current right wing party CDU doesn't seem to want to make migration harder, but when the extremist party AfD gets voted into office, an already highly damaged balance will break.

Sad how people become so detected from reality that they make their society irrelevant and destroying a lot of wealth in the process.

[ornornor]

> The US at least does not depend on migration as much as Germany, I believe.

To me it feels like the US pretends they don’t need immigrants when:

1. The overwhelming majority of current US residents were immigrants themselves at some point in the last 150 years (only natives were there, everyone else immigrated from somewhere)

2. The US wouldn’t function without illegal immigrants

3. Every country is short of workers in one domain or another. Encouraging immigration in these domains (see how Canada does it for instance) would be the smart move. But instead… yeah let’s make it even harder across the board

[seabird]

1. Appealing to the attitudes of 150+ years ago leads to all sorts of absurdities. We live in 2026.

2. The US not functioning without illegal immigrants is a bad thing. More often than not, employers like illegal immigrants because they can abuse them in some way or another. If you actually interact with illegal immigrants or the people that employ them, this is clear. “We need modern indentured servitude” is not the country I want to live in. I would rather these industries just be subsidized by the government to whatever extent it takes for US citizens to take the jobs with all of the protections we expect workers to have.

3. Not every country is short of workers. Employers may be short of workers that they can lord over, but refer back to point 2. Pointing to Canada’s policy as an example of a “smart move” is a strange play.

The current administration is certainly not working on the above premises, but I’m floored when I hear supposedly progressive people going on about who is going to work the psychologically scarring meatpacking plants if we don’t take on an undefined number of people who are only here to get shit on for a good paycheck. I have compassion for illegal immigrants, which is exactly why I don’t want them in the US.

[ornornor]

My point wasn’t that exploiting illegal immigrants is good.

My point was that with the sorely lacking rules already in place, illegal immigration is a problem and at the same time there is still a supply problem.

So acting even more high and mighty like it’s the greatest place on earth to be and require people who want in to grovel even more certainly isn’t good policy.

I’m also confused why you think Canada isn’t doing it better? You can immigrate but your profile needs to match what the country needs: its win win, because once you’re there you have a fair chance at a good life (integration, job, etc) vs taking anyone in and then having issues with people who can’t find jobs, be happy in the country, and integrate into society.

But the process around the US visa and immigration program is a lot more hostile than it needs to be. I had the displeasure to deal with this grinder and it’s really showing that the attitude is “you’re less than nothing, it’s up to you to prove you’re worthy of us even reading the forms you filled in and paid for, fuck you very much”

[bluecheese452]

Canada let an absurd level of unqualified immigrants from India who either can’t find jobs (or work min wage) aren’t happy and don’t assimilate.

Are we talking about the same Canada here?

[bulbar]

As far as I know agriculture works similar in Germany in the sense that it relies on cheap labor. Except, I believe it's mostly legal because they come from inside the EU, making it easier to work here. Also giving them the same rights, in theory at least. In practice it often doesn't work out like that, but that can't be easily changed I guess. Can't imagine they actually get German minimum wage. In that case and in that sense, they actually don't work here legally I guess.

From what I remember, most of them don't migrate though but return to their home country after a season. Back to their families and a country with much less living cost.

Was some time ago that I last read about that topic though.

[bulbar]

In the Netherland, as an immigrant - not sure if always, but definitely in tech - 30% of your income are tax free for the first 5 years. I am actually looking for jobs there right now because of that.

[hervature]

Here is the 1870 census of the USA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1870_United_States_census

Note, indigenous people were less than 1%. New York City had the largest proportion of immigrants at 45%. Your claims of "only natives were there" and "everyone else immigrated from somewhere" are demonstrably false.

[ornornor]

How is it false? “Natives: 25,731, total population: 38,925,598“

[hervature]

Are you being dense on purpose? The US has been a country for 250 years and the Mayflower landed 400 years ago. Most of the people were born in the US.

[ornornor]

Yes, that’s exactly it, I’m the one being dense on purpose.

[selimthegrim]

'*The constitutional population excludes the populations of Native Americans "maintaining their tribal relations and living upon Government reservations" and "the newly acquired district of Alaska."'

[hervature]

Yes. That is how they differentiated "True population" and "Constitutional population". They also have two "Indian population" line items for on and off reservation. That footnote does not mean they were not counted.

[lurk2]

> The overwhelming majority of current US residents were immigrants themselves at some point in the last 150 years (only natives were there, everyone else immigrated from somewhere)

Having an ancestor who immigrated to one’s country does not make one an immigrant.

[ornornor]

Depends who you ask.

[lurk2]

It’s irrelevant who you ask because it isn’t how the word is defined.

[bluecheese452]

You could take the unemployed workers you have and train them instead.

[chewz]

People are repelled by country shopping by 3rd worlders.

EU countries are working on imigration rules that would allow for bringing imigrant labour without ever extending citizen privileges to them. A sort of permanent uderclass. This is what voters want at this time.

[Glawen]

In EU, I don't think an underclass is what is wished. What we lack is being able to chose who is allowed to stay or not. Currently it's whoever manages to come illegaly is allowed to stay. It's madness

[bulbar]

And then, people who come to work and use the official processes for legal migration suffer from complicated and insane rules and huge inefficiency. I have seen it with people I know, it's unfathomable.

Administration trying to force somebody out of the country to apply for a work visa just after they finished their 3 year training ("Ausbildung") on a training visa.

Before, the mother was not allowed to bring her child (10 years old) even though legally she had the right to do so. Fighting for a year, then paying a lawyer to solve the problem within a few weeks.

All while we are in desperate need of those people. In healthcare and other security as well.

It's madness as well and unfortunately people fail to realize both sides of the story, only seeing one of them.

[warumdarum]

We need their eorkforce, we do not need their democracy and woman despising culture.