[danielrmay]

I had 10 years of work experience and had been married to my wife for two years, together for five, when I applied for my spousal visa. We had already gone through the UK visa process to bring her there, but decided we wanted to try the USA.

Despite being able to show 10 years of consistent working history with income far exceeding the minimum, because I didn’t have a job lined up in the US (who would, or could, in that scenario?) we had to ask my wife's elderly parents to sign affidavits of support to prove I wouldn’t become a "public charge".

There were several times where we felt so insulted by the process, the length, the cost, the targeting from scammy law firms, that we almost gave up. People who have never been through the legal immigration process don't quite understand the amount of work it requires and stress it causes. I feel for the thousands of people who now have little certainty over their futures, and it feels necessary to say: people who come here to contribute their skills and experience don't all come along on an H1-B/L1, nor do they only come from white or european countries.

[philipallstar]

This is pretty normal for most countries' visa processes. You often have to leave to renew a visa.

[hvb2]

A green card is NOT a visa my friend. Getting a green card is a very involved process.

So why would you need to leave the country, if you couldn't figure out why you don't want to issue one in the year+ it takes to jump through the hoops

Just a fun fact, getting a green card means signing up for ten YEARS of tax liabilities in the US. And those 10 years start, AFTER you relinquished it...

[bluesea]

Wrong - green card is visa

[sushid]

https://guides.sll.texas.gov/immigration-law/visas-green-car...

A green card is literally not a visa

[rc1]

A green card is literally not a visa in US Law.

In other contexts, it literally is.

[pxc]

"Green card" literally refers to US permanent residency cards; it's called that because the physical cards issued by the US are/were green. "Other contexts" are riffing on actual green cards as a metaphor, and if speakers in other contexts want to talk about legal specificities, they should use an accurate term...

[jmspring]

It’s a type of visa with benefits afforded a more temporary form.

A green card like a visa can be revoked. Citizenship gets a bit more interesting with the current administration.

[cheschire]

OK so apparently when you file for an IR-1 visa, the IR-1 is the sticker they put in your passport that gets you into the country. But once you get the card, it replaces the visa. So the card is not the visa.

Today I learned. Before this thread, I was under the same impression as bluesea.

[matwood]

Correct and it's a typical process for many countries. You get a visa so you can stay past the tourist time (often 90 days and with an intent to apply for residency), and then while in country you apply for residency (the green card). One of the issues in the US is the process can take so long you end up overstaying your visa. Logically you should be able to extend the visa or the gov. shouldn't care since it's their fault it's taking so long. But, it's better for one side to simply declare these people illegal.

[p_l]

The equivalent of greencard in most countries (permanent residency) usually requires that you're in the country, not outside, and the process is heavily reliant on you being present in country and able to show history of legal (temporary) residence.

[gventura18]

The majority of people granted greencards are family/relative sponsored who apply outside the US. Only in the past 15 years have employee sponsored greencards surged, most of whom have temporary visas.

[jimkleiber]

I think the biggest question the US needs to ask itself is do we want to be normal like most countries or better?

[WesolyKubeczek]

At this point the US is the kid eating glue, it looks like.

[philipallstar]

I think it's more like: the US is the most generous country in the world regarding immigration, funding global health, funding global defence, funding global aid, but Europeans and others (including a lot of the young American left) talk about it as though it's the worst country in the world. So why bother, when you can just spend your money on your own citizens the way most countries do and fund loads of internal benefits?

[jimkleiber]

Because I think we've been generous because we recognize the benefits that come to us for being so generous. Proper generosity recognizes that the other's well-being relates to our well-being.

For example, giving funding to USAID to try to stop the spread of Ebola helps people in DRC, Uganda, and other countries directly affected, but can also help the US not have Ebola spread here.

Helping Mexico improve their economy can help people in Mexico not immigrate to the US.

I believe our generosity also benefits us much more than we can see when our perspective collapses and we see life from fewer and fewer dimensions. And I think we can collapse into the "us vs them" mindset that so many others have collapsed into or we can go the other direction and realize it's "us with them" and then we look at generosity differently.

[petcat]

USA has been far better for over 100 years. But that had to end at some point. So now we're seeing it end.

[epistasis]

It did not "have" to end, it's merely a political choice by one political faction being forced upon the entire nation.

[solid_fuel]

It's unfortunate, by and large the republican voters seem to have looked at the wreckage of the USSR and the continual looting and decline in quality of life that countries like Russia are enjoying under a kleptocratic regime, and they took their fingers out of their collective noses for just long enough to say "yeah I want that for here!".

[throw-the-towel]

Even with the cleptocrats in charge, the quality of life in Russia is incredibly better that it used to be in the USSR.

[lazide]

You mean the elected one?

[root_axis]

People hate to be reminded of this, but that "faction" is the voters, in record numbers for the party.

[epistasis]

Not really, voters didn't want this, and they hate it when they are told what's happening. The media silently accepted Trump's lie at face value when he said he knew nothing about Project 2025, despite anybody with half a brain realizing it was a lie. Reporters acted like they had less than half a brain, so that they wouldn't get bopped on their nose by their editors, who in turn were already bowing down to Trump.

The "faction" lied about their intentions in order to be elected. That in itself isn't uncommon, but what is uncommon is the degree to which it lied. Most Republican voters, when told about the actual policies being implemented by elected Republicans, don't believe the reports, and assume that nobody would be enacting such stupid policy. Yet the voters keep voting for them.

[fcarraldo]

100 years?

In the 1920s and 1930s the US had:

- Forced labor

- Peonage

- Debt servitude

- Jim crow laws

The 19th amendment was ratified in 1920, so that barely missed the cutoff.

The US has not been some beacon of moral righteousness for the majority of its existence.

[petcat]

USA accepted more immigrants between 1900 and 1980 than every other western country combined.

[nephihaha]

A hundred years? Maybe after WW2. The Great Depression was pretty rough over there.

[behringer]

Far better than who?

[platevoltage]

DO you have a good reason why?

[petcat]

Because the industrialization of America is over, and has been for decades. USA doesn't need low-wage, immigrant workers anymore. The railroads have already been built, the fields have been plowed, and now that's all done by big automated machines. Everything that cheap workers used to do that was valuable is now automated.

[striking]

Who does the farming? Who does the cleaning? Who builds the buildings? Who are the line cooks? That should be obvious.

But it should be just as obvious that there are plenty of immigrants who are also necessary because they bring new ideas, their education, their incredible work ethic, to fill in the gaps that the US clearly has.

There is one thing that unites all of us (and I do mean us, as I am one of them). We all dream of a society where our hard work can become prosperity for ourselves and for everyone else, a plot of fertile soil that is worth sowing. We all come here with a dream.

And I personally don't mind so much that I'm uplifting people that don't agree with my existence. I just wish that they could stay out of our way so we could all benefit.

[yongjik]

You're putting the cart in front of the horse. If the US economy didn't need low-wage immigrant workers, we wouldn't be complaining about them in the first place, because they would've gone somewhere else where the jobs are.

The fact they're coming the US literally means its economy needs them.

Of course we could all wax philosophical and say "Nobody needs a Frappuccino every other day, we just want it," but then nobody needs to live in a prosperous economy anyway.

[jmspring]

I wish i could ill find the video, the farms in CA certainly do need labor. In the 90s when there was another - people south of the border are taking jobs bs - an interview er asked people waiting for for support at a welfare office in Salinas (lots of farms) offering jobs in the fields. Unanimous nope.

They are needed and often do more than those that are citizens.

[huxley]

Nah, there was just more economic activity to draw people in. By every other measure it’s been more hostile than average.

But you are right that it is ending, just wrong about what: it’s the high economic activity that attracted people which is disappearing thanks to the same people that hate migrants.

[woodruffw]

> By every other measure it’s been more hostile than average.

I'm not sure there's a "just" here: compared to peer countries, the US is either middle-of-the-pack[1] or significantly more accepting of immigrants[2] depending on which number you pick.

(This isn't to somehow imply that the US isn't hostile to its immigrants, because it is. But the question is whether it's more hostile.)

[1]: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/charted-the-share-of-foreig...

[2]: https://www.oecd.org/en/data/indicators/stocks-of-foreign-bo...

[antalis]

The parent post says it’s the high economic activity that attracted people even though the US has been more hostile than average by every other measure. So it's as if the US was a honeypot with a flyswatter.

By the way, your [2] is useless to prove your point: you can't compare absolute numbers (for instance Iceland vs the US).

[bryanrasmussen]

I would suggest that the proper metric is not the number of immigrants, which after all the parent commentator implied would be the case because of higher economics drawing them in, but a combination of the following

1. the amount of violence directed against immigrants legally allowed in by governmental forces.

2. the chance of legally allowed in immigrants will have immigration status changed without due process.

3. what percentage of Immigrants fear that 1 or 2 will happen to them.

I believe these two conditions seem to exist in the United States currently, although not sure how many immigrants it affects.

I am unsure if there are other countries that have a similar situation, I would expect if there are they must be relatively few in number.

The closest type of situation would be, I suppose, racial oppression focused on particular groups that have become undesirable according to a country's government.

[jmyeet]

Sorry but this is just patently untrue. Are you American? Because in my experience, most Americans just don't realize how arbitrary and capricious the US immigration system is.

Pick any other developed country and the process is generally fairly simple. With some you can just apply for a temporary work visa (possibly without a job) or just apply to immigrate. If you stay in many places long enough on a temporary visa you pretty much get residency and ultimately citizenship.

Beyond what's possible, the time frames for doing anything with US immigration is ridiculously long. Like if you, as a US citizen marry someone overseas it can take upwards of 4 years to get a green card for your spouse and they won't be able to visit the US at all in that time. Why? Because filing a marriage petition means you've shown "immigrant intent" so you'll never get a visit visa (B1/B2) again. Also, the president may well just ban your country from getting any visa. 75 countries are currently on that list.

It's also incredibly easy to make a mistake at some point in the process and that may end up getting an approvable case denied or, worse, you end up with an improvidently granted benefit that cannot be repaired, even if it was an honest mistake.

[thesmtsolver2]

Sweden is portrayed as beacon of human rights, let's use them as an example.

https://www.reuters.com/world/sweden-tighten-citizenship-rul...

The rules now are tougher than US rules for citizenship. Sweden (like e.g., Norway) has a 8 year wait vs US's 5 year wait.

Sweden has minimum income requirements, none in the US.

[enaaem]

That is for a different scenario. It means that if you already have a residence permit, you have to wait 8 years before you can apply for citizenship. OP is talking about marriage green card. For 75% of cases in Sweden it is less than 15 months to get a residence permit.

[1] https://www.migrationsverket.se/en/you-want-to-apply/live-wi...

[thesmtsolver2]

And for US green cards for marriage you can get them in 10 to 24 months (Before this change).

https://www.boundless.com/immigration-resources/how-long-doe...

Funnily, I had a German friend complain about this change and then I came across this Reddit thread.

  Many European countries actually adopt a similar policy. Off the top of my head, the Netherlands requires those who want to become a resident to obtain an MVV visa from a consulate abroad, even if you are already in the Netherlands legally, except for a small list of allied countries.

  Germany also has similar rules, forbidding short stay individuals from becoming a long-term resident without interviewing abroad. It also ensures that any individuals who are denied are already abroad, without the need to enforce their departure.

https://old.reddit.com/r/immigration/comments/1tks87l/trump_...

[lazyasciiart]

That’s not true. Germany explicitly allows you to stay in the country to transition from a temporary visa to long term.

> However, the law provides several exceptions where you can apply for the new residence title while staying in Germany with your current permit. These exceptions allow a switch from a temporary purpose (like studies) to a more permanent one

[jmyeet]

These timelines are wildly optimistic. Boundless is selling a service and I'd recommend nobody actually uses it because you're really paying for nothing. Things like "you are responsible for the information you provide". Part of the reason you get an immigration attorney is to identify likely issues, go with you for your interview, know when (or even if) to apply for an immigration benefit and to put their name as the preparer (ie putting their reputation and career on the line for their advice).

Boundless seems like knowing a guy in the neighbourhood who helps you fill out immigration forms, typically called "notarios". Some will call themselves "paralegals" without working for an actual lawyer. It's a scammy business.

So here's the general process.

1. Petitioner (US citizen or LPR) files an I130 and I130A for their overseas spouse. That requires a lot of documentation to prove your status, that it's a bona fide marriage, biographic information for your spouse, proof that you're both free to marry (ie evidence of previous marriages and that you're divorced/single);

2. USCIS spends 12-15 months processing this. It then gets sent to the National Visa Center ("NVC") who spend another 3+ months looking at the documents, after which you're "documentarily qualified" ("DQ");

3. At this point, your foreign spouse can now make an appointment with an embassy or consulate for an immigrant visa interview. Depending on their country this may be realtively quick (within 1-2 months) or really long (12+ months);

4. The foreign spouse will need to get a medical exam done to check for vaccines, communicable diseases (eg TB), etc. This has to be done within a certain period of the interview;

5. The interview happens and the officer asks whatever they want to ask. If it's approved, your pay the fee and your passport is stamped. You're given a packet to hand over to CBP when you enter the US. It can be denied. The officer may ask for more information, which can add months of delay. Or it can go into a limbo called "admin processing";

6. The spouse travels to the US and is now a permanent resident, assuming CBP lets them in (they have discretion not to btw). You may then have to wait for months for your green card and you're waiting for that to get your SSN so you can work, get a bank account, get on a lease, etc.

It's more realistic to say this will take 2-2.5 years and maybe take 4+. In that entire time the foreign spouse won't get any kind of visa to visit the US so if you want to be with your spouse, you need to live in another country or visit often for a very long time.

So how can go wrong? Lots of ways. Here's a non-exhaustive list:

1. The foreign spouse's entire immigration history is under scrutiny. If they visited their then partner(before getting married) and didn't tell the embassy or CBP about that, it can raise misrep[resentation] issues. and may just cause delays;

2. If they've ever applied for a visa and been denied, this too will be scrutinized;

3. Ideally you only need a police report for the country you live in (to prove no criminal history) and that's relatively easy to get. It might not be. Or you may need it for a bunch of countries if you've lived in multiple over the previous 5 years;

4. USCIS gets to decide where your interview is going to be. Prior to this administration, that could be where you were living. For example, if you were from Mali but living and working in the UK, then you could schedule it in the UK. Now the administration has decided you must be interviewed in your country of birth. If that country has no US embassy (eg Afghanistan) then maybe your country of residence can be used or it might be a country neighbouring your country of birth;

5. What if you applied for asylum from that country? Let's say you are from belarus but claimed (and received) asylum in the UK. You might spend a year trying to tell USCIS that you can't travel to Belarus for your interview;

6. How did the US citizen (or LPR) get their green card? Was it through marriage? This is what USCIS calls a "pivot case" and they view it harshly, particularly if, for example, a Ghana man was married in Ghana, travelled to the US, got divorced in the US, married a US citizen, got citizenship themselves, got divorced and then married somebody else from Ghana. USCIS is increasingly taking the position that this may well be immigration fraud, arguing the man had multiple wives, the divorce was a sham and the second spouse was their spouse all along. It's up to you to prove that's not the case. In this administration that can lead to revocation of their green card or even denaturalization;

7. Was the foreign spouse ever in a cultural or religious marriage? This gets real tricky because what counts as "married" and "divorced" varies by country and, depending on the country, can be hard to prove. Also, some countries have a lot of falsified divorce decrees (eg Nigeria). This can add months as you have to prove they were free to marry;

8. The president may come along and decide to ban visa issuance to your foreign spouse's country. USCIS seemingly takes the broadest definition of this. So if you were born in one of those countries OR have ever had citizen, you're covered by the ban. There's no judicial recourse for this, thanks to Trump v. Hawaii. If so, you're just in limbo probably until Trump leaves office;

9. The black hole after the interview can be "administrative processing". This can mean anything. It can mean something as simple as "we don't like this case". IIRC I heard that 85% of cases in admin processing ultimately get approved but the case may sit in limbo for years and may take a court challenge to resolve it;

10. If you end up taking too long after your interview, your medical exam may expire and you have to do it again. Hopefully the embassy officer asks you for an updated copy but they don't have to be that nice;

11. Between the interview and coming to the US things can happen that USCIS or CBP argue are of material interest. Maybe you get charged with something, even if it's just a traffic offense. You might not fill out the forms correctly. You might not even be aware of it. It might not stop USCIS or CBP making a big deal out of it; and

12. CBP can arbitrarily decide to deny you entry at a port-of-entry even with a valid immigrant visa stamp in your passport for pretty much any reason.

I dare you to find any marriage immigration benefit that's as capricious, arbitrary, time-consuming, restrictive and Byzantine as the US system.

[array_key_first]

Sweden is a white hegemony, the US is not and has never been. It's not a fair comparison when the US has literally always been composed of immigrants.

If you want a white hegemony, move to goddamn Sweden and leave us alone. That's not the US and to suggest otherwise is anti-American and ahistorical. If you clearly hate what this country stands for, then please do yourself and everyone else a favor and leave. Jesus Christ.

[jleyank]

As I recall, we had to drive to the US border and turn around to "enter Canada" to process our landed immigrant letters. That was a while ago, so it's possible that there is more involved now... Was curious as they asked about our stuff and car(s), and we pointed out "at home, in Canada" which got a smile.

[dghlsakjg]

Canada requires you to (re)enter under your newly granted status in some circumstances, but that is entirely different from requiring you to leave the country before you can apply for a change of status, and to remain outside of the country while the application is processed. I was free to come and go from Canada as a temporary visitor while I waited to get my PR, and I had the option of applying from within the country as a non resident as well, with some caveats.

[jleyank]

Think my European buddy had to go back home to renew his work permit. Could not do that within Canada.

[grishka]

Indeed, but there are counterexamples as well. In the UAE you enter as a tourist and get a resident visa while you're there. They take away your passport for at least a couple of weeks so you can't leave either.

[dizhn]

This is how it has been in the US too. You have to go to an embassy abroad to get a new visa, renew, change status etc. (There are exceptions)

[sega_sai]

It is false. It is not the case for UK and several EU countries at the very least

[nialv7]

is that normal? in UK you can extend a visa or apply for ILR without leaving the country.

[beAbU]

Simila in Ireland: you are not allowed to seek work while in Ireland on a holiday visa, you can only apply for work permissions/visas from outside the country, and depending on the type of visa you get (general work vs critical skills), your spouse might have to wait a year before they can join you.

[rcxdude]

Sure, but AFAIK a green card is more like indefinate leave to remain: it's not a visa as such, but a thing you can apply for after you have already lived in the country for some amount of time (on a visa of some other form, generally one which allows you to legally stay for the required time in the country) which gives the right to stay permanently. So it doesn't make a lot of sense to require leaving the country to apply first.

[beAbU]

I see, that is different indeed, and rather silly to force you to apply from abroad!

Seems like it's a ploy to get all the undesirables out of the country, then it's "oops your application was denied, or it takes years to be approved, you can't come back. Sorry not sorry!"

[garbawarb]

Green card is completely independent of whether you're in the US. You can get one without ever having set foot in the US, and you can live in the country for 15+ years and still not be able to get one.

[CalRobert]

Note - I immigrated to Ireland from the US and went through the visa process (including huddling in the cold in January at 4 AM at burgh quay, and years later, writing a scraper for their insanely bad appointment system that managed to actually be worse than huddling in the cold)

It's pretty normal not to be able to look for work on a tourist visa in most countries - are you suggesting this is unusual? As far as spouses, they used to have an incredibly asinine system where they told you your spouse _could_ work, without sponsorship, if they got a special form, but getting this form was de facto impossible. It was a very Irish approach, in retrospect. The campaign to fix this was, eventually, successful. (https://reformstamp3.wixsite.com/home)

[AnotherGoodName]

Fwiw I’ve seen confused or misleading posters reply to this change with statements along the lines of ‘this only means that they don’t allow tourist to apply for greencards in the country’.

Which is nonsense, it applies to all non immigrant visas such as work visas. But it’s a line you’ll see various people try to claim as if this isn’t devastating to every spouse of a us citizen who now can’t get a greencard without leaving their us based job and family.

[thrownthatway]

Do they have yo quit their job to leave the county?

[AnotherGoodName]

If you’re on a work visa you can’t work from a foreign country.

[thrownthatway]

That doesn’t answer my question.

[csomar]

How is this the same? You can't apply for a green card on a holiday/tourist/non-working visa. You have to be already in the country for many years before you can do that.

[rayiner]

> people who come here to contribute their skills and experience don't all come along on an H1-B/L1, nor do they only come from white or european countries.

But out of the pool of people who come from poor countries, who don't have jobs lined up in the U.S, and aren't here on a skilled worker visa, a large fraction of them will end up relying on welfare benefits.

Family-based visas are a huge loophole in U.S. If you look at most of the immigrant ghettos in the country, they're fueled by family reunification. In my own extended family we have several people, who came here based on my dad's sponsorship, who are a drain on the government. (The sponsorship commitment is basically never enforced.)

[k8sToGo]

The uncertainty is one of the main reasons why I didn't bother to go the F1->H1B route and ended up leaving the US again.... but that was a decade ago.

[tsss]

The USA don't owe you citizenship. It's on you to prove that your presence there would be of benefit to the other citizens.

[danielrmay]

Given the opportunity, at the time, I would have happily taken steps to prove my presence would be of benefit. Instead, I had to spend my time asking family to give me their pension statements.

Later, I was recognized for that potential benefit. Last December, I became a citizen.

[platevoltage]

Green Cards aren't citizenship.

[JCTheDenthog]

They're permanent residency, so other than voting rights effectively the same thing.

[qurren]

Lots of other differences.

1. Citizens have a right to enter at ports of entry, can refuse to hand over social media accounts, etc. Greencard holders are still at the discretion of border officials.

2. Citizens can wander the world and live abroad for however long they fancy and always be allowed to return to their country of citizenship when things go awry. Greencard holders can't do that.

3. Citizens get consular protection, greencard holders don't.

[hvb2]

I suggest you go and try out an immigration system. You have no idea.

[JCTheDenthog]

I lived in central Europe for two years. Had to wait in line for 20 hours halfway through my time there to renew my visa, otherwise it wasn't much of an issue.

[hvb2]

Ok so you know what a visa is then.

So on your visa if you did anything bad, what would happen? Get your visa taken?

Here's one big difference. Do something bad, your green card might be taken. When you're a citizen? Nothing happens

And that's just one example...

[blindriver]

No, you're wrong. You can lose their Green Card.

If you leave the country for more than 6 months, you need to seek prior approval, and you definitely can lose it. I was on Green Card and when I crossed the border, I was questioned by the customs officer as to why I didn't get my citizenship yet because it was 15 years I was on GC and the point of the GC wasn't to be literally permanent. I quickly got my citizenship after that just in case the same thing happened again.

If you get arrested for a major crime, you can lose your GC but you can only lose your citizenship if you lied or committed fraud at the time of your application, or if you committed treason against the government.

[JCTheDenthog]

>No, you're wrong. You can lose their Green Card.

Didn't know that.

>If you leave the country for more than 6 months, you need to seek prior approval, and you definitely can lose it.

Doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

>If you get arrested for a major crime, you can lose your GC but you can only lose your citizenship if you lied or committed fraud at the time of your application, or if you committed treason against the government.

That sounds eminently reasonable to me.

[alterom]

It doesn't matter that it sounds reasonable to you.

The point wasn't that these difference are unreasonable.

It was that they are substantial, and absolutely exist, making your "green card is pretty much the same as citizenship" statement false.

>Didn't know that.

We know. This is why we're telling you these things.

Now you know.

And there's much more for you to find out.

[platevoltage]

First of all, not true, but second of all, thats a pretty important difference in a so called democracy.

[axpy906]

Well, based on the state your in you can still vote citizenship or not.

[platevoltage]

Which state allows this?

[axpy906]

California and New York are the most famous examples but asking perplexity I got:

As of the current 2026 rules, the states that do not require ID at the polls are: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin, plus Delaware has a special affidavit process if you do not have ID

https://www.usvotefoundation.org/2026-in-person-voter-id-pol...

[etc-hosts]

this is not true.

[abalashov]

... no. As someone who has had both, I can tell you there's _quite_ a difference.

[Terr_]

Wish granted: You are no longer a citizen because you never "proved you were beneficial". Please remit $100,000 to the Citizenship Payment Service immediately to avoid being downgraded to serfdom. /s

Framing it that way is backwards and anti-democratic. Democratic citizenship is something the government "owes" you because it is imposing control on your life. It is not some kind of magnanimous gift of club membership, you already deserved to have a say in what's being done to you.

That's why most Americans (and their children) have never once been required to "prove" that they are "beneficial", and it's why people the government is controlling in jails are still citizens rather than objects.

[garyfirestorm]

They undid public charge from my memory. It doesn’t exist anymore.

[danielrmay]

I looked it up, and we were required to complete form I-864 "Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the INA". My wife, her grandmother, and her grandfather all needed to complete one, and when considered together, prove that they earned 125% of the HHS poverty guidelines. As my wife didn't have provable income (we were moving together), we needed to dig into their social security income and complete the forms. I remember feeling sad that I needed to ask for such personal information from them.

My salary in the UK was many multiples of this guideline, but _earning potential_ is not considered. Pragmatism is not really a service offered by USCIS, it's too political. To be on-topic: this move will disincentivize smart but not-yet-wealthy people from immigrating to the "land of opportunity". It was already harder than it had to be.

[SlightlyLeftPad]

How recently? As of about 2010, it was very much still there. I understand that is 16 years ago.

[tmp10423288442]

It has always existed, but how strictly it’s interpreted (i.e., just cash welfare, or also Medicaid, SNAP, and other means-tested benefits) has shifted between administrations. If you applied during Biden’s administration, I could believe the public charge rule was applied very laxly, particularly because it’s rare to get direct cash welfare in the US these days, and even less for an extended period.

[sleepyguy]

Under what administration was your process?

[danielrmay]

Trump, early 2017. I'm aware there was some attempt by the Trump admin to change "public charge" terminology in late 2018.

[d--b]

I am pretty sure you’re talking about the time when the doctor asks you to lift your dick to check that you don’t have an STD or something .

Best moment of the process.

[qingcharles]

Whoah. I never had that bit LOL. You got special treatment :) They did an eye test and made me get some vaccination records from when I was a kid.

The craziest bit I found was the GC interview where they test your spousal relationship. Expected questions like "What side of the bed do you sleep on?", "Who takes out the garbage?" -- instead they spent 30 minutes interrogating my wife about the military base she was born on and spent the first 6 months of her life at ("Who was the commanding officer at the time?"). It was like something out of a KGB script.

[d--b]

Yeah, I have yet to find someone else who had this.

Maybe it’s a New York thing.

[0xy]

This is complete nonsense. All other countries, including the UK, Australia and most of Europe has immigration systems that are just as stringent if not more so.

Notably, and very relevant, the UK recently made it substantially harder for UK citizens to bring over spouses to the point that even teachers don't meet the income thresholds necessary to qualify.

Australia is more expensive AND takes longer than the United States for the equivalent spousal visa.

[danielrmay]

Sorry, which part of my personal experiences was nonsense? Immigration is hard, and yes, I'm aware of challenges in the UK as I moved my spouse over there in 2014. Do you have an experience with immigration that you can speak to?

[0xy]

Your implication is that the US has an outsized level of difficulty in immigration. This is nonsense. The UK, Australia and Europe are harder.

Notably, the exact same UK visa you used has been made substantially harder to get since you applied.

I am very familiar with the US, UK and Australian immigration systems. The US is the easiest, cheapest and fastest of those 3.

[danielrmay]

I think you're responding to a comparison I didn't make. My point wasn't that the US is uniquely difficult compared with the UK or Australia. My point was that legal immigration is difficult, stressful and often misunderstood, including for people who are clearly trying to contribute and follow the rules. I'm aware the UK system has become much harder since I used it, and I'm not disputing that. But "other countries are harder" doesn’t make my experience nonsense.

[blindriver]

Your experience wasn't nonsense. Your expectations are nonsense. If you think immigrating to another country should be straightforward and easy, then it's your expectations that are wrong. I also immigrated to the US and it was just as tough, even though I came well before Trump and from Canada.

[ninalanyon]

It should be straightforward and easy to make the application. That doesn't mean that it has to be especially likely that it is approved. There is no reason for it to be so byzantine in any country.

[sunshowers]

Is the goal here to be the same as others or to be better than others? The US immigration system is far from great at the best of times, but it's becoming worse over time.

[michaelmrose]

Did you just pick other generally racist countries with unfriendly immigration policies to prove that all other countries have such systems?

[declan_roberts]

It's a two tier system where the best outcome appears to be to simply break the law completely and illegally.

[neither_color]

It's not an ideal outcome it's a very non-enviable multi-decade process working menial jobs and being at risk of something benign like a traffic stop escalating to imprisonment at any time. This fantasy that illegals are living in luxury is how they boiled the frog on people who "did it the right way." They want to get rid of everyone.

[michaelmrose]

To support your position the official DHS Twitter account tweeted a picture of an island paradise with the caption America after 100 million deportations. There are only an estimated 12M undocumented immigrants a 37M legal immigrants including 23M naturized citizens.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/07/22/what-we-k...

100M is closer to the Total number of nonwhites including citizens than the number of immigrants legal or illegal.

[redeeman]

however, though, how about those people that are illegals just... dont?

[neither_color]

There's too much demand for their labor. You'd have to go after the businesses that hire them in a way that would hurt certain constituents. TPTB have given themselves the Sisyphean task of rounding up enough of them to appease a nativist base that's been riled up with conspiracies about people invading them, but not so many that it would make economic number go down.

[thrownthatway]

> Despite being able to show 10 years of consistent working history with income far exceeding the minimum, because I didn’t have a job lined up in the US (who would, or could, in that scenario?) we had to ask my wife's elderly parents to sign affidavits of support to prove I wouldn’t become a "public charge".

This seems entirely reasonable. You had as much time as you could have liked to apply for jobs after deciding to try the USA. Fortunately you were able to take advantage of an alternative that didn’t require that.

I’m not really sure what you were going for writing that. You think 10 years working in country A should entitle you to a work permit from country B?

> nor do they only come from white or european countries.

Why should that matter? If country B decides to only allow white and / or Europeans to apply to live and work in country B, that is entirely fair. It’s not people-from-outside-country-B’s privilege to decide what country B does or doesn’t do.

Discrimination is a human right.

[kakacik]

Or you can simply move to a country that actually apreciates you and doesnt treat you like unwanted subhuman garbage. We have few in Europe, with QoL and happiness higher than US average, sometimes much higher. Just dont make the mistake of comparing salaries directly, US is massively more expensive if you plan to stay long term (ie healthcare) and/or have kids.

You would also have enough time to actually enjoy life, not just work till death/health issues come in some empty prestige rat race.

[sssilver]

Most people come here for the economic and professional opportunities. I imagine that very few people move to the United States for the lifestyle.

Where else would people get opportunities that could match the United States? I can't think of any country that would even come close.

[pixelatedindex]

> Where else would people get opportunities that could match the United States? I can't think of any country that would even come close.

Isn’t that comparative?

If you are in the EU then the US seems like a holy grail because pay is higher. If you have dual citizenship you can probably avail of the EU safety nets if you had to go back.

If you’re in South East Asia, any EU choice is a huge improvement. Lately there has been strong immigration to Germany for example instead of coming to the US.

After naturalization and giving up my original citizenship, I am a little envious of people with dual citizenship of US + any EU country. It really doesn’t get better than that.

[JuniperMesos]

> If you are in the EU then the US seems like a holy grail because pay is higher. If you have dual citizenship you can probably avail of the EU safety nets if you had to go back.

One of the reasons pay in the US is higher is because the EU taxes ordinary people fairly heavily to pay for those social services. But also because of systematic cultural differences between the US and EU that lead to the US having a more dynamic economy that generally pays people more.

> If you’re in South East Asia, any EU choice is a huge improvement. Lately there has been strong immigration to Germany for example instead of coming to the US.

Lately Alternative für Deutschland has been getting a lot of votes in Germany; what kinds of rules (on top of the existing ones) do they think should be in place for people in southeast asia trying to immigrate to Germany?

[Longhanks]

> Lately Alternative für Deutschland has been getting a lot of votes in Germany; what kinds of rules (on top of the existing ones) do they think should be in place for people in southeast asia trying to immigrate to Germany?

The AfD is in no position to put legislation regarding immigration in place, that is federal law. Nevertheless, southeast asian immigrants are not particularly in the eyes of the public.

[Longhanks]

> After naturalization and giving up my original citizenship, I am a little envious of people with dual citizenship of US + any EU country. It really doesn’t get better than that.

Depends on whether you actually want to enter the US. If you don't, its citizenship is a burden like no other citizenship: Banks want nothing to do with you and you pay extra taxes that no other nation requires from you. Oh, and should you decide on giving it up - that's cumbersome and costs a bunch of dollars, from what I've heard.

So from someone that at a max would want to visit the US only as a tourist: Having only european citizenship is better than dual european/US citizenship to me.

[iugtmkbdfil834]

Dunno man.. while there are nicer places, I used to live in EU country and, while I do have some fond memories, US lifestyle is soooo much more comfy.

[silver_silver]

What is it about the US you enjoy so? As someone who migrated to Europe from another country (and has never had the privilege of visiting the states) I can certainly think of ways I’d imagine America is better, and vice versa, but comfy is a surprising description. Genuinely curious

[iugtmkbdfil834]

Well, while it does seem to be changing now, I will tell you the parts I learned to appreciate:

- Great food -- especially if you live anywhere near one of the major metropolitan areas, but holes in the wall are aplenty ( I still remember that one ridiculous medley in SD )

- It is huge -- it is hard to explain to people how big US is, which has its own benefits and drawbacks. The obvious benefit is that if you really don't like somewhere, you pick up your toys and move somewhere else. As an immigrant myself, I appreciate that. Doing route 66 properly will take you more than 2 weeks.

- Shit is designed for the lazy -- there is an obvious diclaimer that goes along with that. The design relies on the lazy to extract as much money as possible, but it is effectively designed to be convenient. I used to hate how wasteful dishwasher is until 1) I used it 2) read up on data supporting the approach

- Access -- Most of everything I possibly want ( though - without going into details - thanks to Trump that has changed somewhat ) as long as I can ship it here

- Vibe -- This may be the hardest to actually ingest unless you spent some time here. It is hard to explain the ability to be excessive should you so desire. I think the closest I can get to explain it is the 'merica meme, which is not so far from reality once you get to a certain point ( as in, if you are really into something, you can absolutely get into some crazy level stuff, which may include and I am just listing random encounters with people here: own a tank, have a pet alligator, ride a doom buggy to work, build an indoor range in your house ). I know it is changing in EU, but I think most excess/hobbies there are kinda.. not limited exactly, but they don't often seem to reach the same level of crazy.

All small things and there is plenty to complain about, but I stand by my comfy. I do not think I would be able to do half the stuff there I did here.

[kakacik]

Great food is very relative, we are exposed a lot to French and Italian cuisine and US one... not up to the task to be polite. Quality of ingredients, taste, also portion size.

Its bigger but then there are bigger places. It takes cca 4 days to travel from one side to another, but thats rather meaningless quality. I can hop in a car and be in 30 minutes in France, in 1.5h in Italy (living in Switzerland). I can be in top notch ski resort like Verbier in 1.5h. Thats a positive to me anyhow I look at it. Massive exposition to properly different cultures rather than US mono culture.

I wouldn't call excess a positive, being lazy positive, being deep in comfy/comfort zone an achievement in life, in contrary. But that's up to everybody how they setup their lives.

[xdennis]

> Or you can simply move to a country that actually apreciates you and doesnt treat you like unwanted subhuman garbage. We have few in Europe, with QoL and happiness higher than US average.

Please don't. Europe has enough ethnic tensions. At least the US is built to be an ethnic melting pot. It's much better to go there.

[CalRobert]

Ehhhhhh I like Europe, a lot, but when you're in you're 20's or 30's and looking at $300k in SF or €80k in Paris (and better access to investment products and lower taxes in the US to boot), suddenly clocking off at 16:00 on Fridays doesn't seem as nice as being able to retire in your 40's.

[mancerayder]

300k in SF or NYC is FAR from early retirement unless you live 'frugally' - Manhattan average rents are 5K for 1 bed. You pay city, state and federal tax. Food and alcohol are 30-50 percent higher than Paris. And no one talks about property taxes.

In the US, local and federal taxes plus property taxes are easily 50-60 percent of your income.

Inflation runs higher in NYC than the rest of the country, as well.

[Swizec]

> 300k in SF or NYC is FAR from early retirement unless you live 'frugally' - Manhattan average rents are 5K for 1 bed

You don’t have to retire in the US. As others have pointed out, nobody comes here for the lifestyle.

Immigrants like us are literally the holy grail of immigration. Come in during our most productive years, work hard for 10 to 20 years, go back home before you need any of the social and health care stuff you paid into.

[elzbardico]

Yeah, assuming you don't marry in the US, and don't have kids. But surely, you can think about it in your home country after working 20 of the best years of your life.

[Swizec]

You can marry in the US and have kids and still move somewhere else 20 years later. Don’t Americans move to Florida or whatever to retire? If you’re moving that far you can just as well leave the country lol

[thrownthatway]

Does the US allow duel citizenship in both counties? Does the other!

What exit taxes exist in the US if you cannot maintain citizenship in both?

[cj]

$300k is also on the high end. Most devs have a very difficult time getting hired at companies that pay that much.

$300k is probably in the top 10-15% for software engineers if I had the guess. And I assume the top 10-15% in Paris is substantially more than 80k?

Edit: Okay, I guess $300k is near the median in SF if you’re including stock options. (Media base salary in SF is 150-160k)

[joe_mamba]

>$300k is also on the high end.

Of course, but 80k is also on the high-end for Paris jobs as well and buying an apartment in or around Paris is not cheap at all. And most companies in France, even in tech, except maybe the few high-end international ones like FANGS or Mistral and Datadog, explicitly request French language for their workers, whereas English is enough for most US jobs.

I'm EU citizen and looked towards working in France even for the lower wages, but the French language mandates for most jobs are really off putting, even in European companies like Airbus.

Like I'm willing to learn the language, but I'd need at least 2-3 years to get remotely fluent, and it's just not worth the added effort, just for the opportunity to get the average Europoor wages that I can anyway get with just English and my mother tongue anywhere else in EU without any additional effort.

Even in my small Eastern European home town I hear more and more french speakers in the city center every year, and when I talk to them I understand they're all here to study medicine or get junior tech jobs, which is insane to me and speaks volumes on how bad the French jobs market must be for the youth when Eastern Europe is now an immigration hotspot for the french when 20 years ago it was the opposite.

So no, Paris/France is no European SV equivalent, not by a long shot, even by the low European standards. Amsterdam is probably the closest thing to SV the EU has, after London left, but housing and CoL there is insane and even that has significantly fewer VC funding than SV and even London, which highlight just how poor the EU is by comparison to the US at tech funding.

Like I want to get the EU to the top an catch up to the US, but I don't see how that's possible with such limited tech funding and glass ceilings based on having the right nationality and language requirements. EU will never beat the US, at least not in my lifetime.

[markvdb]

> Even in my small Eastern European home town I hear more and more french speakers in the city center every year, and when I talk to them I understand they're all here to study medicine or get junior tech jobs, which is insane to me and speaks volumes on how bad the French jobs market must be for the youth when Eastern Europe is now an immigration hotspot for the french when 20 years ago it was the opposite.

It's often mere fiscal arbitrage. Look at the Belgians in Sofia for example. Euro zone, simpler and more stable administration, much cheaper, better climate, good food. Ridiculously lower taxes. Work remotely for Belgian customers. Pay 10% tax instead of 53.5% + 25+% employer social security contributions + 13.07% employee side. Even in a junior position, working for a Belgian client, you are so much cheaper to them while your net income is so much higher.

[juliie]

From personal experience, in Paris 80k would be a very good salary for a senior engineer at a startup with solid funding. AI startups/big tech would pay around 50% more, but those roles are very rare.

Most people would make way less, at big French companies you won't make 80k until late in your career as an IC (they don't have a staff+ track).

So 80k sounds like a decent guess for the top 10-15%.

[aborsy]

Top graduates in France make 40-50k. This is the reality I have seen. Salaries are often tabulated with limited range.

[sdthjbvuiiijbb]

>And I assume the top 10-15% in Paris is substantially more than 80k?

I don't think that's a good assumption. 80k is rather high for Paris. That's a Google salary at their small office there (or it was when I checked a few years ago). I think the OP's comparison was pretty reasonable.

[root_axis]

It's definitely on the high end. Besides the fact that most startup equity ends up being worthless, you can't wait on a four year cliff to pay your rent.

[throw-the-towel]

Parisian rents are not exactly cheap either, maybe 1/3 of your Manhattan number.

[CalRobert]

I meant retiring in France actually.

[kevin_thibedeau]

Most American's don't have that opportunity either or don't want to make the sacrifice of living in soul crushing circumstances.

[expedition32]

Nobody in my European country needs to work at 70.

But there are VERY few countries on this planet that actually saved for retirement.

[PlanksVariable]

The reality is many people come on temporary visas, as tourists, as students, etc., and overstay. This policy is some attempt to address flows of quasi-legal immigration.

It's unfortunate there's friction to the process, but it's by design. 15% of American citizens and permanent residents are foreign born, the highest it's been in 50+ years, so people are successfully making it through the process. Ideally we'd have better levers to (1) modulate the rate of immigration, (2) simplify the process of legal immigration, and (3) still somehow limiting illegal immigration, quasi-legal immigration, overstays, etc. This is not the ideal solution.

> it feels necessary to say: people who come here to contribute their skills and experience don't all come along on an H1-B/L1

Do people migrate to "contribute their skills" to a foreign country, or to improve their lives? Maybe I'm a cynic, but I suspect the vast majority of people throughout history have migrated to improve their lives, not to altruistically benefit a foreign country. And that's fine, that's normal. It's what motivates people, and the U.S. has a long history of being shaped by ambitious people, especially immigrants, who wanted to improve their lot in life.

> nor do they only come from white or european countries.

I don't know if that's necessary to be said, because who thinks that? In recent decades, 85%-90% of immigrants to the U.S. are not white. >90% if you include undocumented immigrants. The trajectory of America from a white majority to white minority country is fueling at least some of the immigration backlash today. But I think for most people, it's a feeling (right or wrong) that jobs becoming harder to find, houses are becoming harder to afford, and more and more people are competing for fewer resources.

[simonw]

> This policy is some attempt to address flows of quasi-legal immigration.

Is it though? This administration doesn't exactly have a track record of decisions based on carefully thought out policy implications.

[danielrmay]

> Do people migrate to "contribute their skills" to a foreign country, or to improve their lives?

I think the two are often linked.

> I don't know if that's necessary to be said, because who thinks that?

Effective January 21, 2026, the Department of State paused all visa issuance to immigrant visa applicants who are nationals of seventy-five countries. The overwhelming majority of the affected countries are not predominantly white and are not European.

[blindriver]

You do realize that the overwhelming majority of countries in the world at not predominantly white, do you?

[paulryanrogers]

When Trump explicitly invites only white people from South Africa, a majority black nation, I think the intention is pretty clear.

[thrownthatway]

Are you trying to claim that the white people in Zimbabwe and South Africa are responsible for wrecking those countries?

White people are, and have been, target and killed in those place.

[paulryanrogers]

Apparently there is no white genocide going on in SA [0], and in farm attacks the victims are quite often black.

Perhaps you can enlighten me on the Zimbabwe situation?

That said, I think the centuries of colonialism and slavery--of which whites in the US greatly benefited--makes this exclusion of immigrants from predominantly brown nations disgusting. Pulling up the ladder, even from some of those who built it for you.

[0] https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2025-03-19-we-must-b...

[BurningFrog]

> Do people migrate to "contribute their skills" to a foreign country, or to improve their lives?

People come to improve their lives.

Their employers hire them to improve their lives.

Both end up better off!

[PlanksVariable]

More people are impacted by mass immigration than immigrants and employers.

[dgellow]

Correct, and it is overall a positive impact. There is marginal increased competition for a limited number of professions, and a meaningful boost to local economies

[thrownthatway]

> overall a positive impact.

Wrong. Australia imports foreigners at a rate of 2:1 against local births.

That replacement.

Overall a positive impact so long as you’re not the group being replaced.

Are there any examples of white-minority countries that have worked well for white people?

[dgellow]

It helps that I’m not racist and couldn’t care less about skin color leaderboards

[BurningFrog]

I used to have a more naive libertarian view, but after the last decade, observing both my countries (US and Sweden), I agree that you need to keep the immigration at a level where they have to adapt to your existing culture, not the opposite.

That said, importing smart engineers and entrepreneurs from the world is so absurdly beneficial for the US that... I can't find words right now.

[qurren]

> have migrated to improve their lives, not to altruistically benefit a foreign country

These are not mutually exclusive. I want a better life, and I also have career ambition and skills that I'm willing to deploy in a place that will give me a better life in return.

[kcplate]

Well…your motivation is not altruistic to the host country in that case, it’s selfish.

You want a better life, the country providing it is arbitrary as long as it accepts the currency that you can provide for that better life by your skill set.

If it was altruistic you would emigrate because you believe in the country you are emigrating to even if it meant your life was worse.

[qurren]

> your motivation is not altruistic to the host country in that case, it’s selfish

There is nothing wrong with that. I'm selfish, you're selfish, the government is selfish, everyone in the host country is selfish. It's human nature. We all want good lives. That's the reason a transactional economy exists. It's good for the country's GDP and overall economy to welcome outside talent, and that outside talent enjoys being rewarded for their contributions, and over time, their new place of residence becomes a part of their cultural identity. That's how things usually work.

Not everyone is a saint.

> If it was altruistic you would emigrate because you believe in the country you are emigrating to even if it meant your life was worse.

Reality check: 99% of people would take a better life over a worse life. And there's nothing wrong with that. The entire world is built with this as a base assumption.

Also, reality check: Life in the US kinda sucks unless you have a well-paying skilled job or a lot of money. In either case you'll be contributing to the economy.

[kcplate]

I made no claim that selfishness is wrong or altruism is right. Nor did i make any claims as to what life is like in the US—so I don't need any “reality checks” about what your personal beliefs are about life in the US at specific income levels, it’s not relative here. Being poor in the US probably sucks compared to being rich in the US. I am also sure that you can say that about literally every country on this planet.

My comment was about why this was not a “it’s both” type of situation. So just own your motivation for what it is—you emigrate so you can get a better life in a new country than you can get in your old country. That’s honorable enough.

[thrownthatway]

Fine. No one’s likely to argue you’re wrong.

And it seems you agree: people don’t move to a new place to contribute their skills.

They move because of the potential upsides for themselves.

[PlanksVariable]

I'm saying most people are motivated by self interest, not that you have nothing to offer in return.

[mbgerring]

This policy is a further extension of this administration’s public, explicit and frequently repeated goal of ethnic cleansing. Acting like this is a rational policy response to any real problem is ridiculous.

[PlanksVariable]

Both the far right and far left throw around accusations of "ethnic cleansing." Both are ridiculous, but considering the U.S. population shifted from 85% white to 55% white in the last few decades, and even today most immigrants come from Mexico, India, China, etc., there really doesn't seem to be much evidence that we're actively trying to limit the flow of non-white people into America. Besides that, there are valid reasons why people want to limit or increase immigration that don't justify hysterical accusations of ethnic cleansing.

[thuridas]

Ethic cleansing is something much worse when that race you are "cleansing" is already living there (Israel removing Palestinian from Gaza)

The accusations is just racism. The fact that Trump gave extra fast visas to white South Afrikaans makes you think that there were some racial reasoning there.

In the last decades the whole world is more global.

[Arun2009]

> The accusations is just racism. The fact that Trump gave extra fast visas to white South Afrikaans makes you think that there were some racial reasoning there.

What is wrong if white people want to help other white people escape persecution?

[thuridas]

Nothing wrong in their to help.

But if you only help based on the colour of the skin... That's a little bit racist.

Also, as far as I know there is not persecution in South Africa. Trump used photos from the wrong conflict. And there are really bad things happening in Africa... but not to white people

[thrownthatway]

What now?

White South Africans, white Zimbabweans too, have been executed.

It’s like the dark skinned people in South Africa looked at what happened in Zimbabwe and decided they wanted to live in shit too.

Now the rest of the Western world seems to want to follow suit.