2 ms·

Apparently visa overstays are the primary route for illegal immigration, much more common than illegal border crossing: https://www.npr.org/2019/01/16/686056668

• ceejayoz 10mo ago
  Dems have been pointing this out for years, yes. You didn't want to listen, though. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32051452 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32051452
  • bitshiftfaced 10mo ago
    It's ok to change your mind. Kind of a lame move to go digging through someone's history to try to prove them wrong like that.
    • ceejayoz 10mo ago
      > It's ok to change your mind. I don't disagree. Some users on here, though, are a little notorious, and my spidey sense went off given past interactions. One search on https://hn.algolia.com/ https://hn.algolia.com/ and here we are.
      • AlexeyBelov 10mo ago
        Yeah, rayiner is quite famous for his.. umm.. views.
    • TimorousBestie 10mo ago
      Persistence of memory—limited deletion of old comments, easy searching through archives—is a key feature of HN that distinguishes it from other forums. I think it’s worth noting that he doesn’t believe that his mind has changed.
  • rayiner 10mo ago
    You should quote what I said: > Visa overstays are a “bigger problem” according to whom? Could someone reasonably consider illegal border crossings a bigger problem because they involve completely unvetted people, as opposed to visa overstays which involve people who were at least minimally vetted in getting a visa? All I said was that you could reasonably consider illegal border crossings to be a “bigger problem,” even accepting that visa overstays account for a larger volume. You’re tacitly assuming that “bigger problem” and “bigger volume” are the same, but my point there was that those aren’t the same. And four years later, of course, we’re in a different factual scenario. The level of border crossings is down to almost zero now.
    • ceejayoz 10mo ago
      > And four years later, of course, we’re in a different factual scenario. The article you linked is from 2019 and says "for the seventh consecutive year". This is not new info.
      • rayiner 10mo ago
        Quote my whole point! > And four years later, of course, we’re in a different factual scenario. The level of border crossings is down to almost zero now. Border crossings can be a higher priority even if visa overstays account for more volume, because of the different level of vetting for those two routes. But now that border crossings are down, it makes sense to focus on visa overstays. How is any of that inconsistent?
• JKCalhoun 10mo ago
  It's strange to simply make it cost more to do so.
  • ceejayoz 10mo ago
    Eh, I can at least sorta see the logic of that; it presumably costs money to find, process, and fly you out. Making you front those costs avoids having to chase you post-deportation (with very little chance of collecting).
    • chrneu 10mo ago
      Nah, this is a filtering criteria. This is pay-to-illegally-immigrate. Republicans are fine with over staying visas or that kind of illegal immigration, half their spouses do it. Iirc milania did it. They only want rich criminals. Not poor ones.
      • bradlys 10mo ago
        This isn't true. Republicans love illegal immigration because you can underpay people and avoid a lot of regulation. It is trivial to implement e-verify for employment for everyone. It would nearly eliminate illegal workers. If Republicans (or anyone) cared about stopping the hiring of illegal workers, it is a trivial process to implement. No one wants to do it because then Americans would unionize.
  • deleted 10mo ago
    [deleted]
• OGEnthusiast 10mo ago
  Which is odd since visa overstays should be more "legible" to the government in terms of at least knowing their name and when they entered, which should make them easier and more efficient to deport. Unlike illegals who hop the border where you don't even know how many or who they are at all.
  • undeveloper 10mo ago
    well, both are "illegals", one's just more likely to be white i suppose
    • FireBeyond 10mo ago
      Yup. My immigration attorney said that (when I was dealing with a brief lapse in status, due to a divorce and moving and due dates) "as a white person, and a man working in a high paying job", I was "pretty much at the bottom of the totem pole for USCIS enforcement efforts" while we resolved my case. And sorry, given ICE's mandates, ruled temporarily okay by SCOTUS, that color of skin, accent, name are effectively "probable cause" for detention, I'd say her perspective is absolutely aligned with current enforcement priorities.
      • rayiner 10mo ago
        If the government was prioritizing people with darker skin, it would go after visa overstays first, because that’s the primary illegal immigration route for asia and africa. (There is virtually zero illegal immigration from Europe. E.g. only 0.6% of DACA recipients are European. They don’t factor into this discussion at all.) Instead, the government has been focused on border crossings from latin america, where the average person is half white. Maduro’s wife whom they just arrested is a white blonde lady! Kilmar Garcia and his wife are whiter than anyone on The Jersey Shore. Meanwhile, illegal Indians are flying under the ICE radar. Clearly the distinguishing factor is money, not melanin.
        • OGEnthusiast 10mo ago
          It seems odd that the US government doesn't have enough resources to just go after everyone whose in the country illegal, and instead has to prioritize and triage based on e.g. money or melanin. I think people would find it more fair if they just went after everyone whose illegal.
• onraglanroad 10mo ago
  Yes, this has always been true. I'm astonished to hear you realise it though. This is you being "left -wing" as you acknowledge something you actually know about is true.
  • deleted 10mo ago
    [deleted]
• mapontosevenths 10mo ago
  The last budget included another $4.5 Billion for the wall. That ought to put a stop to it!