3 ms·

Working without authorization is being an illegal migrant being an "illegal immigrant". They're doing things here not allowed by any kind of visa or authorizati

Working without authorization is being an illegal migrant being an "illegal immigrant". They're doing things here not allowed by any kind of visa or authorization they may or may not have. Kind of one of the problems with the term, you'll define it one way while others will define it another. You're showing your true colors suggesting this issue happened during Biden's term, and now you're both sides-ing the issue. One side's solution was passing an immigration reform bill and hiring more judges and administration to handle the influx in applications. The others is to send people to CECOT and other prison camps with no due process (even those with legal status) and ignore the courts. They're not the same.

reliabilityguy 1y ago
> Working without authorization is being an illegal migrant being an "illegal immigrant". No. Illegal immigrant is someone who entered without inspection, or someone who overstayed their visa (e.g., B1 tourist admitted for 90 days, and who failed to leave the US). See here, for example, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/illegal_immigrant https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/illegal_immigrant In contrast to that, the same individual on B1 visa admitted for 90 days who decided to work without authorization, and caught, will not be considered illegal immigrant, because they are in the country legally even though they violate some terms of their visa. Of course, when caught they probably will be deported, which again won't make them illegal immigrants. I do not know why can accept that these are two different definitions. I personally know F-2 visa holders who had to not work between EADs. It did not make them illegal immigrants, because they had a valid status. > You're showing your true colors suggesting this issue happened during Biden's term, and now you're both sides-ing the issue. One side's solution was passing an immigration reform bill and hiring more judges and administration to handle the influx in applications. The others is to send people to CECOT and other prison camps with no due process (even those with legal status) and ignore the courts. They're not the same. I am sorry, but I do not plan to engage in emotions and hypotheticals as it is not constructive and leads nowhere.
- vel0city 1y ago
  > someone who overstayed their visa Like, say, continuing to work the job even after their work visa expired? > I personally know F-2 visa holders who had to not work between EADs. It did not make them illegal immigrants I'm not talking about those people who lawfully stop working during that window, I'm talking about those who do not have that luxury to coast for 90+ some odd days. I do not know why you can't seem to understand it. Actually, I do. Because you're the kind of person who acts like our immigration woes happened 3-4 years ago. > will not be considered illegal immigrant You're narrowly defining "illegal immigrant" as someone without any visa status. Most others would include violating the terms of their lawful admission, aka working when they're on a tourist visa. There isn't an official government definition to "illegal immigrant" under the law. > engage in emotions and hypotheticals These statements are not hypotheticals. They are detaining those with lawful status. They are sending people to CECOT without due process. They are ignoring court opinions. The Republican party did vote down a bipartisan bill in the end because Trump didn't want it. You appear to not engage with reality.
  - reliabilityguy 1y ago
    > Like, say, continuing to work the job even after their work visa expired? Yes? I've literally wrote it in my comment. > I'm not talking about those people who lawfully stop working during that window, I'm talking about those who do not have that luxury to coast for 90+ some odd days. I do not understand what does it have to do with anything? Definitions are definitions, and reasons for violating the terms of the visa are reasons for violating the terms. Do you want to call anyone one who is not the citizen illegal immigrant? Be my guest. > Because you're the kind of person who acts like our immigration woes happened 3-4 years ago. I have no idea what are you talking about. If you can, please form a coherent argument. > These statements are not hypotheticals. They are detaining those with lawful status. They are sending people to CECOT without due process. They are ignoring court opinions. The Republican party did vote down a bipartisan bill in the end because Trump didn't want it. You appear to not engage with reality. What reality? How old are you? I am old enough to remember that in the beginning of Obama's administration Democrats controlled both the senate and the House, as well as the presidency. Was it Trump that prevented them from fixing the immigration system? This is hacker news, not reddit. Try to engage like an adult.

reliabilityguy 1y ago

> Working without authorization is being an illegal migrant being an "illegal immigrant". No. Illegal immigrant is someone who entered without inspection, or someone who overstayed their visa (e.g., B1 tourist admitted for 90 days, and who failed to leave the US). See here, for example, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/illegal_immigrant https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/illegal_immigrant In contrast to that, the same individual on B1 visa admitted for 90 days who decided to work without authorization, and caught, will not be considered illegal immigrant, because they are in the country legally even though they violate some terms of their visa. Of course, when caught they probably will be deported, which again won't make them illegal immigrants. I do not know why can accept that these are two different definitions. I personally know F-2 visa holders who had to not work between EADs. It did not make them illegal immigrants, because they had a valid status. > You're showing your true colors suggesting this issue happened during Biden's term, and now you're both sides-ing the issue. One side's solution was passing an immigration reform bill and hiring more judges and administration to handle the influx in applications. The others is to send people to CECOT and other prison camps with no due process (even those with legal status) and ignore the courts. They're not the same. I am sorry, but I do not plan to engage in emotions and hypotheticals as it is not constructive and leads nowhere.

vel0city 1y ago
> someone who overstayed their visa Like, say, continuing to work the job even after their work visa expired? > I personally know F-2 visa holders who had to not work between EADs. It did not make them illegal immigrants I'm not talking about those people who lawfully stop working during that window, I'm talking about those who do not have that luxury to coast for 90+ some odd days. I do not know why you can't seem to understand it. Actually, I do. Because you're the kind of person who acts like our immigration woes happened 3-4 years ago. > will not be considered illegal immigrant You're narrowly defining "illegal immigrant" as someone without any visa status. Most others would include violating the terms of their lawful admission, aka working when they're on a tourist visa. There isn't an official government definition to "illegal immigrant" under the law. > engage in emotions and hypotheticals These statements are not hypotheticals. They are detaining those with lawful status. They are sending people to CECOT without due process. They are ignoring court opinions. The Republican party did vote down a bipartisan bill in the end because Trump didn't want it. You appear to not engage with reality.
- reliabilityguy 1y ago
  > Like, say, continuing to work the job even after their work visa expired? Yes? I've literally wrote it in my comment. > I'm not talking about those people who lawfully stop working during that window, I'm talking about those who do not have that luxury to coast for 90+ some odd days. I do not understand what does it have to do with anything? Definitions are definitions, and reasons for violating the terms of the visa are reasons for violating the terms. Do you want to call anyone one who is not the citizen illegal immigrant? Be my guest. > Because you're the kind of person who acts like our immigration woes happened 3-4 years ago. I have no idea what are you talking about. If you can, please form a coherent argument. > These statements are not hypotheticals. They are detaining those with lawful status. They are sending people to CECOT without due process. They are ignoring court opinions. The Republican party did vote down a bipartisan bill in the end because Trump didn't want it. You appear to not engage with reality. What reality? How old are you? I am old enough to remember that in the beginning of Obama's administration Democrats controlled both the senate and the House, as well as the presidency. Was it Trump that prevented them from fixing the immigration system? This is hacker news, not reddit. Try to engage like an adult.