4 ms·

It is worth familiarizing oneself with VISA rules in other countries and how they enforce them, before the automatic outrage. Let's take The Netherlands as an

It is worth familiarizing oneself with VISA rules in other countries and how they enforce them, before the automatic outrage. Let's take The Netherlands as an example to get a feel. - Pronouncement of undesirability: https://ind.nl/en/pronouncement-of-undesirability https://ind.nl/en/pronouncement-of-undesirability - Entry bans: https://ind.nl/en/entry-ban https://ind.nl/en/entry-ban If you have ever had to apply for a Schengen Visa to enter the EU, then you will know how strict the EU is (even hotels want to see your passport and record it).

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
Nobody is saying it should be as easy to immigrate to the US as it is to immigrate to The Netherlands, they are saying that immigrating to the US should be easier than this administration is making it.
- andsoitis 1y ago
  > Nobody is saying it should be as easy to immigrate to the US as it is to immigrate to The Netherlands, they are saying that immigrating to the US should be easier than this administration is making it. Ah, we're not talking about the same thing. I drew the comparison to The Netherlands' list of reasons for why they would revoke or deny your VISA (which is what the article is about w.r.t. the US), and it is not dissimilar. I wasn't contrasting ease of immigration between the two countries. It is a mixed bag, but for educated immigrants the it is generally easier to immigrate to The Netherlands than the US (if you are doing so outside the law, I'm going to guess it is much easier "to make it work" in the US than in The Netherlands - both in terms of getting in but also to make a living). There are some notable barriers like you cannot have dual citizenship (the US allows). On the other hand, demand for immigration to the US is much higher, which, together with more arcane and byzantine regulations result in other structural barriers.
  - boston_clone 1y ago
    It sounds like you're moving goalposts. You started by saying: > Nothing really to see here. Normal course of business [...] And now you're shifting your position by saying "well, its more difficult elsewhere so this must be fine". You shouldn't worry, though - as long as the visa holders support the KKK and not a free Palestine, they can stay.
    - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
      > Nothing really to see here. Normal course of business [...] > well, its more difficult elsewhere so this must be fine I don't see a difference between these. The "more difficult elsewhere" in the supposedly shifted goalposts is the "normal course of business" in the first comment.
      - boston_clone 1y ago
        How can you not? Changing our policies to make the process more chaotic is not our normal course of business, nor is it “nothing to see” as it will directly affect people. I feel that both of those are plainly evident.
        andsoitis 1y ago
        > Changing our policies FWIW, part of my engagement is to try to understand the real risk vs. alarmism (i.e. as reported). My understanding is that the material change is that there is somewhat more leeway for the government to interpret what it means to be "to be of good moral character". You should know that when you apply for citizenship, for example, they have for many years asked you about traffic violations, which, theoretically have always been allowable as input in deciding "of good moral character". Another is whether you have ever supported the Communist Party or been involved in prostitution, and a whole host of other things. Check out page 14 ("General Eligibility and Inadmissability Grounds") on the form: https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/forms/i-485.pdf https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/forms/i-4... I have not read the actual policy change, so I don't know whether it has actually changed or whether it is just being more rigorously applied AND/OR targeted (biased) more. If you can articulate it precisely, that would be nice for all of us here since the article is not sufficiently objective or illuminating.
LargoLasskhyfv 1y ago
That recording is actually unlawful. They can look at it, and compare it with your face, write up the address in their systems, and that should be it. This practice of copying passports/id-cards is malpractice. The (european) issuers actually say so!

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago

Nobody is saying it should be as easy to immigrate to the US as it is to immigrate to The Netherlands, they are saying that immigrating to the US should be easier than this administration is making it.

andsoitis 1y ago
> Nobody is saying it should be as easy to immigrate to the US as it is to immigrate to The Netherlands, they are saying that immigrating to the US should be easier than this administration is making it. Ah, we're not talking about the same thing. I drew the comparison to The Netherlands' list of reasons for why they would revoke or deny your VISA (which is what the article is about w.r.t. the US), and it is not dissimilar. I wasn't contrasting ease of immigration between the two countries. It is a mixed bag, but for educated immigrants the it is generally easier to immigrate to The Netherlands than the US (if you are doing so outside the law, I'm going to guess it is much easier "to make it work" in the US than in The Netherlands - both in terms of getting in but also to make a living). There are some notable barriers like you cannot have dual citizenship (the US allows). On the other hand, demand for immigration to the US is much higher, which, together with more arcane and byzantine regulations result in other structural barriers.
- boston_clone 1y ago
  It sounds like you're moving goalposts. You started by saying: > Nothing really to see here. Normal course of business [...] And now you're shifting your position by saying "well, its more difficult elsewhere so this must be fine". You shouldn't worry, though - as long as the visa holders support the KKK and not a free Palestine, they can stay.
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
    > Nothing really to see here. Normal course of business [...] > well, its more difficult elsewhere so this must be fine I don't see a difference between these. The "more difficult elsewhere" in the supposedly shifted goalposts is the "normal course of business" in the first comment.
    - boston_clone 1y ago
      How can you not? Changing our policies to make the process more chaotic is not our normal course of business, nor is it “nothing to see” as it will directly affect people. I feel that both of those are plainly evident.
      - andsoitis 1y ago
        > Changing our policies FWIW, part of my engagement is to try to understand the real risk vs. alarmism (i.e. as reported). My understanding is that the material change is that there is somewhat more leeway for the government to interpret what it means to be "to be of good moral character". You should know that when you apply for citizenship, for example, they have for many years asked you about traffic violations, which, theoretically have always been allowable as input in deciding "of good moral character". Another is whether you have ever supported the Communist Party or been involved in prostitution, and a whole host of other things. Check out page 14 ("General Eligibility and Inadmissability Grounds") on the form: https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/forms/i-485.pdf https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/forms/i-4... I have not read the actual policy change, so I don't know whether it has actually changed or whether it is just being more rigorously applied AND/OR targeted (biased) more. If you can articulate it precisely, that would be nice for all of us here since the article is not sufficiently objective or illuminating.

LargoLasskhyfv 1y ago

That recording is actually unlawful. They can look at it, and compare it with your face, write up the address in their systems, and that should be it. This practice of copying passports/id-cards is malpractice. The (european) issuers actually say so!