6 ms·

How an undocumented immigrant from Mexico became a star at Goldman Sachs

39 points by dpc59 9y ago

trendia 9y ago
Congrats to her for making it in the US! However, it would have been exceptionally easy to get the required visas. Once she was accepted into university, she can apply for an F student visa. It's practically guaranteed for this visa to be granted -- there's no limit to the number of admitted foreign students in the US. Then, with good grades and an acceptance to Goldman Sachs (which she got), she would have had little trouble getting a work visa. I know plenty of people who have done that. It's not necessary to go through the 10+ year process to become a citizen in order to be able to study and work in the US. And getting the visas would have been far less stressful and allowed her to travel to see family in Mexico.
- wbl 9y ago
  Not so fast. The F would only happen if she was an international student paying full tuition. The instate tuition required she not legalize her status like that.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- chrisper 9y ago
  You are still bound to the 65,000 visa cap of H1B. Nothing to do with skills (sadly). For any non immigration visa you have to prove you will leave the country after you finish school (= visa expires). If she is here illegally that's hard to prove. You also have to prove you can financially sustain yourself here.
Banthum 9y ago
An undocumented immigrant? So she was legally in the country, but with paperwork incomplete? Or a refugee? Oh no, they mean illegal immigrant - in this case, someone who violated the law to make more money. Got it. Every time I see the term "undocumented immigrant" I am horrified at how easily people will thoughtlessly toss away the rule of law to serve their own self-indulgent empathy. Mexico today has more GDP/capita than New Zealand did in 1990. There's no justification for encouraging the human trafficking and dangerous cross-desert trips (often ending in death or rape or robbery) this way. Immigration should be orderly and safe. If someone wants everybody on Earth to have free access to America, they should campaign to make that the law, and face the real consequences. This "let it be illegal but keep the border-jumpers as our empathy pets" stuff is self-indulgent and self-defeating on so many levels. Ugh.
- dsacco 9y ago
  > Mexico today has a higher GDP than New Zealand did in 1990. ??? What an oddly specific comment...and I don't think it helps your point.
- elbasti 9y ago
  The mood affiliation is strong here... do you feel as strongly about the rule of law when it comes to, I don't know, medical marihuana (the smoking of which is a federal crime, since it's a schedule I drug). The analogy is not entirely facetious: immigration is--like pot--a crime with real economic benefit, and where any negative externalities are exacerbated by knee-jerk prohibition. Take as an example wage depression due to immigration. The less that undocumented immigrants can report unfair labor practices, the more they are likely to be exploited for extra-depressive wages. The same dynamic is present, for example, when it comes to prostitution (also a crime). If you punish the prostitute instead of the john, prostitutes are more likely to be abused, exacerbating the negative consequences of prostitution. (Again, the analogy goes deeper: the answer to immigration is the same as prostitution or drugs or whatever: _tax the externalities_. If you really think that some honduran woman scrubbing toilets for less than minimum wage at a motel 6 is "bad for america", then you should jus _tax her_). One other comment: you seem quite upset about the use of the phrase "undocumented immigrant" instead of "illegal." There are Really Good reasons why the first term is preferred: 1. Not all undocumented immigrants are criminals. The only criminal act is crossing the border without permission. Overstaying a visa, or coming here as a child, is emphatically not criminal. Yes, it's a deportable condition, but not a criminal one. Undocumented seems to be a better description of that situation--and unless someone has been tried, how do you know? 2. Semantics matter. Undocumented immigrants have rights, just like all people in America. To refer to a human as as being "illegal" anchors the situation in a way which makes it easier to treat them in a way where those rights are violated, and _no one cares_. For example, alleged illegal immigrants are not offered counsel in immigration courts. Flagrant violation of their sixth amendment rights. It somehow seems to be ok in the public consciousness because they are "illegal." I'm not advocating for open borders, or for amnesty or whatever. I'm just asking you to think, critically, about the situation, and leave your mood affiliation aside.
  - 9y ago
throwinator9000 9y ago
She's pitched here as an ideal success story, and an example for why we should just forget having a law and borders and stuff. She did much better than the average under-the-table elote-selling "entrepreneur", but I'm not so sure that a few hundred thousand in income tax from working in finance, and then working for a non-profit committed to undermining the rule of law and harassing publications who refuse to use the Newspeak of "undocumented" is the best possible return for 10-plus years of subsidized public education.
Oxitendwe 9y ago
Pro-illegal immigration propaganda. We should not be celebrating that illegal aliens are now apparently working in white-collar jobs with stolen documents, because they are finite resources and should be given to Americans. Do you guys think that this article would get a positive response here if she had an IT job? If Goldman Sachs wants South American talent, why don't they open an office there? It's disgusting that this is celebrated - American jobs should be filled by Americans. I'm reminded of some things I hear a lot about illegal aliens: "They only do the jobs that Americans won't do." "Who will scrub your toilet, Donald Trump?" Tell that to the person whose job at Goldman Sachs she stole.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
cowardlydragon 9y ago
ccc Horatio Alger lives, all hail Ayn Rand
briandear 9y ago
She committed identity theft or fraud and this should be celebrated? "She bought fake papers." That's a crime. How is she get SEC licenses as someone who has admitted to fraud? Why would Goldman not catch her fraud during their due diligence when hiring her? She's being trusted with financial instruments as someone with a flagrant disregard for the law? She should be deported. If she's any good, she can trade derivatives on Goldman's Mexico City desk. For those here that would defend her -- are you suggesting we only follow laws we agree with?
- hzgg 9y ago
  Stop living in a dreamland. The law exists to prevent people from doing harm to themselves and each other. Which is why when we start wars or shoot people out of the sky without trial or prop up institutions to big to fail or run mass surveillance programmes the law bends. As it should. Cause people are too dumb to realize the dangers that exist. Whether its Google or Goldman in todays competitive world smart competent people are the premium. Why should they send her to Mexico City if she can make 10-20x more for them sitting at the centre of the action.
  - slackingoff2017 9y ago
    War? Too big to fail? NSA? Surely all of this ties back to illegal immigration. Maybe scale back the FUD factor a bit? Immigration is regulated for a good reason. If we allowed free resettlement from Mexico what do you think would happen? The US would be flooded by 100 million people that don't speak English, know almost nothing about our country, have little or no marketable skills, and are therefore wholly dependent on government support. It's better to have a controlled amount of people enter to help them assimilate without a huge government burden. Letting in too many low skilled immigrants is bad for US citizens and the immigrants already here. We've already seen huge wage suppression for low skilled jobs. There's already clear paths to the US for skilled immigrants that speak English because they're not a burden on government funds. The US is not a charity, the government exists to benefit US citizens. Letting in unskilled immigrants that don't speak English does not benefit US citizens so the government has no business making it a priority.
- 9y ago

39 points by dpc59 9y ago

Congrats to her for making it in the US! However, it would have been exceptionally easy to get the required visas. Once she was accepted into university, she can apply for an F student visa. It's practically guaranteed for this visa to be granted -- there's no limit to the number of admitted foreign students in the US. Then, with good grades and an acceptance to Goldman Sachs (which she got), she would have had little trouble getting a work visa. I know plenty of people who have done that. It's not necessary to go through the 10+ year process to become a citizen in order to be able to study and work in the US. And getting the visas would have been far less stressful and allowed her to travel to see family in Mexico.

wbl 9y ago
Not so fast. The F would only happen if she was an international student paying full tuition. The instate tuition required she not legalize her status like that.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
chrisper 9y ago
You are still bound to the 65,000 visa cap of H1B. Nothing to do with skills (sadly). For any non immigration visa you have to prove you will leave the country after you finish school (= visa expires). If she is here illegally that's hard to prove. You also have to prove you can financially sustain yourself here.

Banthum 9y ago

An undocumented immigrant? So she was legally in the country, but with paperwork incomplete? Or a refugee? Oh no, they mean illegal immigrant - in this case, someone who violated the law to make more money. Got it. Every time I see the term "undocumented immigrant" I am horrified at how easily people will thoughtlessly toss away the rule of law to serve their own self-indulgent empathy. Mexico today has more GDP/capita than New Zealand did in 1990. There's no justification for encouraging the human trafficking and dangerous cross-desert trips (often ending in death or rape or robbery) this way. Immigration should be orderly and safe. If someone wants everybody on Earth to have free access to America, they should campaign to make that the law, and face the real consequences. This "let it be illegal but keep the border-jumpers as our empathy pets" stuff is self-indulgent and self-defeating on so many levels. Ugh.

dsacco 9y ago
> Mexico today has a higher GDP than New Zealand did in 1990. ??? What an oddly specific comment...and I don't think it helps your point.
elbasti 9y ago
The mood affiliation is strong here... do you feel as strongly about the rule of law when it comes to, I don't know, medical marihuana (the smoking of which is a federal crime, since it's a schedule I drug). The analogy is not entirely facetious: immigration is--like pot--a crime with real economic benefit, and where any negative externalities are exacerbated by knee-jerk prohibition. Take as an example wage depression due to immigration. The less that undocumented immigrants can report unfair labor practices, the more they are likely to be exploited for extra-depressive wages. The same dynamic is present, for example, when it comes to prostitution (also a crime). If you punish the prostitute instead of the john, prostitutes are more likely to be abused, exacerbating the negative consequences of prostitution. (Again, the analogy goes deeper: the answer to immigration is the same as prostitution or drugs or whatever: _tax the externalities_. If you really think that some honduran woman scrubbing toilets for less than minimum wage at a motel 6 is "bad for america", then you should jus _tax her_). One other comment: you seem quite upset about the use of the phrase "undocumented immigrant" instead of "illegal." There are Really Good reasons why the first term is preferred: 1. Not all undocumented immigrants are criminals. The only criminal act is crossing the border without permission. Overstaying a visa, or coming here as a child, is emphatically not criminal. Yes, it's a deportable condition, but not a criminal one. Undocumented seems to be a better description of that situation--and unless someone has been tried, how do you know? 2. Semantics matter. Undocumented immigrants have rights, just like all people in America. To refer to a human as as being "illegal" anchors the situation in a way which makes it easier to treat them in a way where those rights are violated, and _no one cares_. For example, alleged illegal immigrants are not offered counsel in immigration courts. Flagrant violation of their sixth amendment rights. It somehow seems to be ok in the public consciousness because they are "illegal." I'm not advocating for open borders, or for amnesty or whatever. I'm just asking you to think, critically, about the situation, and leave your mood affiliation aside.
- 9y ago

throwinator9000 9y ago

She's pitched here as an ideal success story, and an example for why we should just forget having a law and borders and stuff. She did much better than the average under-the-table elote-selling "entrepreneur", but I'm not so sure that a few hundred thousand in income tax from working in finance, and then working for a non-profit committed to undermining the rule of law and harassing publications who refuse to use the Newspeak of "undocumented" is the best possible return for 10-plus years of subsidized public education.

Oxitendwe 9y ago

Pro-illegal immigration propaganda. We should not be celebrating that illegal aliens are now apparently working in white-collar jobs with stolen documents, because they are finite resources and should be given to Americans. Do you guys think that this article would get a positive response here if she had an IT job? If Goldman Sachs wants South American talent, why don't they open an office there? It's disgusting that this is celebrated - American jobs should be filled by Americans. I'm reminded of some things I hear a lot about illegal aliens: "They only do the jobs that Americans won't do." "Who will scrub your toilet, Donald Trump?" Tell that to the person whose job at Goldman Sachs she stole.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

cowardlydragon 9y ago

ccc Horatio Alger lives, all hail Ayn Rand

briandear 9y ago

She committed identity theft or fraud and this should be celebrated? "She bought fake papers." That's a crime. How is she get SEC licenses as someone who has admitted to fraud? Why would Goldman not catch her fraud during their due diligence when hiring her? She's being trusted with financial instruments as someone with a flagrant disregard for the law? She should be deported. If she's any good, she can trade derivatives on Goldman's Mexico City desk. For those here that would defend her -- are you suggesting we only follow laws we agree with?

hzgg 9y ago
Stop living in a dreamland. The law exists to prevent people from doing harm to themselves and each other. Which is why when we start wars or shoot people out of the sky without trial or prop up institutions to big to fail or run mass surveillance programmes the law bends. As it should. Cause people are too dumb to realize the dangers that exist. Whether its Google or Goldman in todays competitive world smart competent people are the premium. Why should they send her to Mexico City if she can make 10-20x more for them sitting at the centre of the action.
- slackingoff2017 9y ago
  War? Too big to fail? NSA? Surely all of this ties back to illegal immigration. Maybe scale back the FUD factor a bit? Immigration is regulated for a good reason. If we allowed free resettlement from Mexico what do you think would happen? The US would be flooded by 100 million people that don't speak English, know almost nothing about our country, have little or no marketable skills, and are therefore wholly dependent on government support. It's better to have a controlled amount of people enter to help them assimilate without a huge government burden. Letting in too many low skilled immigrants is bad for US citizens and the immigrants already here. We've already seen huge wage suppression for low skilled jobs. There's already clear paths to the US for skilled immigrants that speak English because they're not a burden on government funds. The US is not a charity, the government exists to benefit US citizens. Letting in unskilled immigrants that don't speak English does not benefit US citizens so the government has no business making it a priority.
9y ago