7 ms·

US Immigration on the Easiest Setting

110 points by headalgorithm 8mo ago

anovikov 8mo ago
Question is - why would anyone with cash immigrate to US? Doing business there does not require citizenship. What is it more than doing business that attracts people if one has a citizenship of just about any first world country? I mean, America is about making money, but those people already have money, what else? Citizenship for kids? Just give birth in US. Question again, is why. Top concern for the rich is taxes. US is unique by forcing people to pay taxes even if they live abroad full time as long as they hold citizenship. Why then?
- NotGMan 8mo ago
  Buy borrow die. It's possible it exists in other countries, I don't know that.
  - anovikov 8mo ago
    It exists everywhere, why not? Apart from countries with wealth tax but these are rare exceptions. As for taxation of income derived from business, these are either completely or mostly tax-exempt in many EU countries (Cyprus, Malta, Greece for 100K a year, Italy for 300K a year, Spain if you do a lot of paperwork, Portugal in some places, probably there's more). There's no US equivalent.
- petesergeant 8mo ago
  Higher salary jobs and some very attractive nature. I have chosen _not_ to move there despite those.
  - anovikov 8mo ago
    People with cash don't work for salary. You can travel without citizenship too.
- logicchains 8mo ago
  If you're rich America is one of the safest places in the world: you can access the best hospitals in the world and well-armed private security. Citizenship means you can't suddenly be kicked out for expressing your political views.
  - anovikov 8mo ago
    But there's absurd amount of crime... Best hospitals, true, but Israel has same or better ones and they are much cheaper too. Which again isn't a valid reason to live there let alone not to get citizenship. For any kind of acute/emergency care, you don't need "best" hospitals, just good ones are fine. For more complex conditions, you can always travel for treatment/live temporarily.
    - logicchains 8mo ago
      Israel's at very real risk of being hit by a neighbouring country's rocket, which is extremely unlikely to happen to the US. And the crime in the US isn't in the places where very rich people live.
xenospn 8mo ago
I’ve also gone through the US immigration system - got a green card, then naturalized. I did everything myself. And then I did everything for a friend who asked for my help. It’s not hard. It’s just time consuming and the wait times are very long. But it’s really not difficult to fill out the forms and I never used a lawyer.
- push0ret 8mo ago
  What about the N-600 form which the article highlights as an impossible barrier for many immigrants to attain their certificate of citizenship. That isn't hard?
- nullocator 8mo ago
  Would it have remained as easy if you were scooped up off the street one day by masked men, and deported to a country you've never been to? Your greencard or documentation may be of no consequence to these masked men, it's up to their mercy or their face scanning app to determine the status you actually have. They may accept your documents at face value OR just deport you no questions asked.
rayiner 8mo ago
[flagged]
- paxys 8mo ago
  Immigrants account for ~98% of the American population.
  - api 8mo ago
    100% if you go back a little further. Large hominids aren’t native to this continent. BTW have you ever thought about what incredible bad asses people had to be to cross the Bering strait during the ice age with Stone Age tech? We could definitely settle space if we had the will. It’d probably be more comfortable, safer, and easier, even in the early days, than that.
    - ksynwa 8mo ago
      [flagged]
    - graemep 8mo ago
      100% of the population of everywhere other than parts of Africa if you go back far enough.
      - rayiner 8mo ago
        But Japan is clearly different from India, right? So how useful is that out-of-Africa factoid for analyzing modern societies?
        graemep 8mo ago
        That is my point. The comment saying immigrants are 98% of the population of the US is not useful because they are people whose ancestors have been their for many generations. Defining anyone who has immigrant ancestry as an immigrant is pointless. Sometimes it is useful to talk about, say, second generation immigrants, but not endlessly. For one thing, after a generation or two the culture of people descended from immigrants diverges from that of their ancestors, even if their ancestry is limited to just one culture.
kreetx 8mo ago
Summary: legal immigration is very difficult to impossible. The solution, IMO, isn't "just enter illegally". When you're not a citizen then, quite frankly, the fact that you want to immigrate doesn't matter. It's the country that says whether you should get in or not.
- direwolf20 8mo ago
  It's the laws of physics that decide whether you actually get in or not.
  - nine_k 8mo ago
    It's the law of the land that determines how well are you doing once inside.
    - hn_acker 8mo ago
      > It's the law of the land that determines how well are you doing once inside. That continues to become less true, in the cruelest ways [1]: > One man told KBI that Border Patrol agents tore his birth certificate up in front of him. He managed to save his Mexican identity card because he had hidden it in his shoe. [1] https://www.aclu.org/news/immigrants-rights/border-patrols-abusive-practice-of-taking-migrants-property-needs-to-end?utm_source=chatgpt.com https://www.aclu.org/news/immigrants-rights/border-patrols-a...
  - kreetx 8mo ago
    They do, but also only physically.
- coloneljelly 8mo ago
  What a novel, insightful conclusion. Thanks for sharing.
  - kreetx 8mo ago
    Funny, how the anti ICE crowd wants people to immigrate illegally. What about voting somebody to the office and changing the laws instead?
MrSkelter 8mo ago
This is not the easiest setting. I became American as a previously British citizen. I had been employed in the UK, by a company in California who wanted to relocate me to the US and did (I was an early H1-B). I then moved to another company after 18 months. Both my first and second companies were applying for my green card and renewing my paperwork as needed for me. Later I stopped working for a US company but still had a VISA and married a US citizen. I then handled my green card application, and citizenship, myself without lawyers. As a highly qualified individual who had already been screened multiple times to get H1-Bs I knew I would pass further screening. I also knew I had no criminal records or adverse history globally. In short I got my green card and my citizenship without any further professional legal help. I paid nothing but my own costs. It took a couple of years but it is possible. The process is torturous and repetitive. You have to resubmit the same information multiple times, and some of the requirements are extremely expensive. To whit, I was required to produce a “Police letter” from every country I had lived in, signed by the local police, attesting to the fact I hadn’t broken any laws overseas. I had lived in 4 continents at that point. Thus I had to arrange to send my ID to multiple countries and to pay, in some cases, for letters to be written, delivered as originals on paper and then (hilariously) pay to have them translated for a US government who only wants to work in English and apparently trusts whatever translation you send (this was pre LLM). So though I could do all this, in one case paying an ex colleague to manage the police in Eastern Europe on my behalf, for many others this would be impossible and require lawyers and the huge markups they would charge for these services. I would guess them hiring another team of lawyers in another country with each stage doubling the costs of the ones beneath them meaning a single police letter ends up costing many thousands. The system is thus absolutely limited to those with connections, deep pockets or sponsorship. Also for those who think this is good insurance, I also know Central Europeans who bribed their local authorities to facilitate their green cards, covering adverse information and putting them at the tops of lists. Ie for $50k or so they got essentially instant residency status. Also the need for people to leave the US before re entering when processing paperwork (so that if rejected you have already self deported) means you need to be able to stop working, or work remotely, and to be able to fund living in your old home country for an indefinite period. I moved in with my parents but had they not been an option I would have had to rent a place in London - a vast expense - just to comply. The system is incredibly broken.
roenxi 8mo ago
Doctorow makes a lot of good points and I get how terrifying the state is when it gets riled up like this. That said... 1) There seems to be an assumption here that everyone in the US agrees there should be brisk immigration. To me, if the laws in-practice make it impossible to immigrate then that would suggest that the polity might not believe that. There also seems to be a common belief that just because the laws are unfair, stupid, counterproductive or destructive that they can be ignored and that isn't how laws work. If the law is terrible it is still the law. If it doesn't let you do what you want to do then that desired course of action is not a legal option. 2) A big part of the reason that the US is engaging in this (rather terrifying) deportation is because of the appearance that process ran, came up with a basic agreement about how immigration would work and then people started ignoring it on the basis that it was inconvenient. I don't see how a country can be run that way, there has to be a hard choice made about open migration vs. a welfare system. And while I'm commenting on the debacle that is the Trump anti-immigration campaign, I will just upset everyone and note that people have to accept that governments sometimes go on a rampage. It has happened before, it will happen again and it is really quite important to keep the reins on them and try not to give them control of important things like food, medicine, what people can say to each other, control of the financial system, etc, etc. A bit of principled strategic thinking goes a long way on this stuff.
- pm90 8mo ago
  > There also seems to be a common belief that just because the laws are unfair, stupid, counterproductive or destructive that they can be ignored and that isn't how laws work. If the law is terrible it is still the law. If it doesn't let you do what you want to do then that desired course of action is not a legal option. Well then explain to me how the US Marijuana industry exists despite it being a schedule 1 controlled substance. Laws are a social construct and their enforcement is based on what society thinks is ok. People don’t want to throw their community members is jail for marijuana. They do want to throw murderers in jail. They don’t want to throw upstanding community members who just don’t have the right immigration status in jail either.
TrackerFF 8mo ago
It must be said that immigration laws pretty much anywhere are rigid, and enforced equally seriously, so it's not just a US-exclusive thing. Very liberal European countries which the media portrays as "overrun" with immigrants will also throw (and ban) you out if you've done seemingly insignificant errors in your paperwork. WITH THAT SAID, one side-effect of having such extensive laws is that it really depends on how much you enforce them. If you make laws so difficult and hard that anyone can fail them, but remain quite selective on how you enforce them, that means you have a green light to deport the people that are deemed undesirable, while also having the option to turn a blind eye to desirable people. One small error can easily get some random Indian or Mexican worker deported, even if they've worked in the US for 20+ years, if the state feels so. Meanwhile I suspect they wouldn't do a damn thing if it turns out that some immigration billionaire outright lied on their paperwork. Also, I hate to pull the fascism card, but one hallmark of fascism is to make laws so rigid (and punishment draconian) that everyone is potentially a criminal, but then very selectively enforce those laws. I don't think US immigration laws are rooted in fascism, not at all - they're the product of decades / centuries of complex immigration...but how you enforce them, is a different thing.
- sillyfluke 8mo ago
  >It must be said that immigration laws pretty much anywhere are rigid, and enforced equally seriously, so it's not just a US-exclusive thing I'm puzzled how you came to this conclusion since its left completely unsubstantiated in your comment. It's not "enforced equally seriously" in the US itself let alone another country. European citizens for one had no fear of being sent to a detention camp or deported speedily prior to the latest Trump adminstration.
  - TrackerFF 8mo ago
    People in Europe are regularly deported for lying on their immigration application papers. Hell, even children of refugees are being deported for mistakes made by their parents. A quite common scenario is that someone applies for refugee status, but lie where they come from. Then years/decades later it is uncovered, and they are notified to leave the country within months. I guess the big difference here is that we don't have immigration officers roaming the streets, snatching up people and shipping them to random holding centers. But you can *absolutely* expect to be apprehended if you've received notice, and don't do anything about it. Same goes for criminals that roam around (which is easy due to Schengen), get caught, and are ordered to leave. From time to time you'll read stories here about people that came here as kids, their parents lied on the application (said the were from Afghanistan/Iraq or similar worn-torn countries back then, but in reality came from some neighboring countries), and now they too have been order to leave - even though they have zero connections with their birth countries. In Norway, a country with population 5.6 million, around 2500 people were deported in 2024. Per capita that's around 3-4 times less than the US - but we don't necessarily have the same types of immigrants.
graemep 8mo ago
He is a US citizen? Three nationalities? His reasons for leaving the UK make interesting reading in current circumstances: > The USA is putting curbs on surveillance, expanding its national healthcare, and there are mass parental boycotts of standardised testing in its public schools. The UK just elected a Tory majority government that's going to continue to slash and burn the welfare state, attack schools, health, legal aid and teachers, and impose mandatory cryptographic backdoors in the technology we use to talk to each other. They've even announced that merely not breaking the law is no reason to expect that you won't be arrested. https://boingboing.net/2015/06/29/why-im-leaving-london.html https://boingboing.net/2015/06/29/why-im-leaving-london.html Edit: improved wording below and added quote A lot of his other problems are London specific. Why do people forget the rest of the UK exists? > London is a city whose two priorities are being a playground for corrupt global elites who turn neighbourhoods into soulless collections of empty safe-deposit boxes in the sky, and encouraging the feckless criminality of the finance industry. These two facts are not unrelated. > My office rent has doubled this decade. We live in 600 square feet, up six flights of stairs, and can't possibly afford anything even remotely larger. > We've seen the writing on the wall: this is not a city for families. It's not a city for people running small firms. It's not a city for people who earn their living in the arts. We've given it the best we have, and we're getting out because we can.
- m_a_g 8mo ago
  At first, I couldn’t believe it, but Cory Doctorow did write that terrible blog post. (Un)Surprisingly, everything turned out quite differently than expected. London outshines LA in many ways, except for the weather.
  - graemep 8mo ago
    Yes, very unlike him to write something that bad. I would guess he might have misunderstanding the politics - you can get an exaggerated sense of how much difference a Conservative rather than Labour government makes from the media. Maybe also taking a short term view - the prime minister changed the following year, and Labour won last year's election. The odd thing is that he became a British citizen when the UK had a Conservative government and lived in London for another five years before deciding to move. I even agree with some of his criticisms of London and how it has developed, but a lot of his reasoning just does not make sense to me
Apreche 8mo ago
My family came to the US via Ellis Island. Compared to what people have to do today, their legal path to US citizenship was relatively easy. I see no reason that becoming a citizen today should be any more difficult today than it was in the early 20th century. Open a 21st century equivalent of Ellis Island, and let people become citizens.
- csmpltn 8mo ago
  Your family had to leave everything behind, risking a weeks-long journey at sea costing them everything they ever had, going into the unknown - at a time where nobody could travel. The US was not as rich, or built, or anything. People today get a 50$ plane ticket and move straight to the Bay Area. You don't see why things need to change?
  - tclancy 8mo ago
    Buddy, what are you on about? This sounds just like all those welfare queens in Cadillacs GHW Bush was telling us about.
    - hn_acker 8mo ago
      > This sounds just like all those welfare queens in Cadillacs GHW Bush was telling us about. I don't think George H. W. Bush did that. Do you mean Ronald Reagan [1]? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_queen#Origin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_queen#Origin
      - tclancy 8mo ago
        Interesting. I think the senior Bush must have used it during the '84 campaign at the RNC? My memory is slipping plus I would have been like 8. But I was a nerd who followed politics for a while before that.
  - astura 8mo ago
    Where can I buy a international plane ticket for $50 ?
fhkatari 8mo ago
I want to share a couple of stories of immigration. 1. Personal. In the aftermath of 9/11, a simple switch from F1 Student Visa to H1 work visa became a perfect Kafkaesque nightmare. The consulate denied the visa without giving a reason. After two months of non-response, my company reached out to the congressman's office. Apparently, the consulate wanted a copy of my transcript and they reached out to my university, but did not tell me that. The university would not release my transcript without my permission, but did not tell me that DHS was asking for it. It was an infinite loop that left me out. 2. In 2006-2007, I was consulting for Hormel Foods (this time with a legit green card). There was a raid at one of their plants, and I was talking to a couple of middle managers who commented how difficult the jobs are, and people only last for a short time. Only migrants are willing to do the job. I would later learn that meat packing jobs used to be unionized, and that put limits on the number of animals processed per shift. The deregulation of the eighties did away with unions and regulations, and created an untenable work situation. This can ONLY be done by disposable labor, which happens to be immigrants. A simple solution to the immigration problem would be to arrest the CEO of the company employing illegals. Perhaps that will percolate down to the line level to make the jobs humane.
- _DeadFred_ 8mo ago
  Imagine launching $75 billion dollar war on drugs where you didn't arrest drug dealers, only users. Yet the party of law and order and their supporters somehow aren't demanding these large scale abusers of employment law, and encouragers of illegal immigration be included in enforcement action. Really makes it look about racism more than smart/intentional/traditional law enforcement.
  - array_key_first 8mo ago
    The right requires the machine in order to maintain their propaganda about bringing down the machine. They don't want to get rid of drugs, or undocumented people. They want to take undocumented people one-by-one off the street, so there's a constant "need" to continuously ramp up authoritarism. The end of undocumented immigration would spell disaster for the Republicans, and they know that. For many red states, it would be literal economic disaster, even if we look past the messaging. So it's flashy non-solution after flashy non-solution.
keepamovin 8mo ago
I'm familiar with immigration in a few countries - in my experience, whatever the background of the country (Western, Eastern, Middle Eastern...) it's all "torturous". If I was an acolyte of Freud or Jung I would say that this dichotomy between "easygration" and "immigration" (im is for impossible, right?) is because easygration is the result of sex and being born in a country (yes yes pedants, that's changing now and not universal, but swallow your pedantry presently and persist with this a moment), and the "STATE" in its everquest to control all aspects of human existence, necessarily seeks to control and intermediate sex and all its analogs (as sex is the intimacy of individuals it seeks to control, it must get between there, too). So if sex-migration (by being born) is easy (as some concessions must be made), then the corresponding path must be a gauntlet gated by the difficulty proportional to how much the state wants to intermediate the individual's intimate affairs. The hard path of immigration, is then a mirror of the control the state ultimately seeks to exercise over every aspect of existence, but which for now, it is constrained by the modesty and norms of its people to resist. TL;DR - immigration is hard because states can't control yet sex and intimacy as much as they want, so they control the next best thing, that thing which is accepted to arise from the result of sex and intimacy - citizenship or right of abode by birth. Also one can make the obvious metaphors with borders, porosity, and penetration. One might be inclined to say: the state must currently tolerate the annoying promiscuity of its individuals, so it, in spite and compensation, becomes ultrachaste in turn, wrt its own intimate borders. But I am not an acolyte of Freud or Jung. Tho sometimes I think as above.
astura 8mo ago
I don't understand the premise of this. The author goes on and on (and on) about how "Americans have no idea how weird and tortuous their immigration system is" but doesn't really give any evidence. I wonder if they ever have spoken to an American? They must have some extremely out of touch social circles. Here in the real world, every American I know knows that the only way for "normal" (non-rich, non-connected, non-extraordinary) person to legally immigrate is to marry an American citizen and have them sponsor you. Literally everyone knows the average "illegal immigrant" living in the US isn't eligible for citizenship and couldn't obtain citizenship legally. Exactly zero people think that any (let alone most) "illegal immigrants" could have just "followed the rules" and been able to live here legally. The reason they are "illegal immigrants" is because there's no legal way, other than marrying an American. A lot of people would prefer if even family sponsorships didn't exist. Many people think of that as "gaming the system" because they allow "average" people to be immigrants. I assume Republicans want to get rid of this.
- cs_throwaway 8mo ago
  I have always thought of it like this: U.S. citizens have the right to marry and bring home anyone they want. It is not about the immigrant. For example, if you're stationed on a military base on Japan or Germany, you can meet a local girl, fall in love, and bring her back home. "Chain migration" however is more questionable.
- bubblethink 8mo ago
  The author is mostly correct. A lot of discourse in America revolves around, "Why don't they get come in legally?"
  - astura 8mo ago
    >A lot of discourse in America revolves around, "Why don't get come in legally?" Do you honestly believe that people who say "Why don't [they] come in legally?" are complaining about a lack of administrative process? Do you really, honestly believe that? Because if you do I have a bridge in Brooklyn I can give you a great deal on. "Why don't [they] come in legally?" is just conservative doublespeak for for "they don't belong here." It's begging the question and everyone knows that, even the person saying it. They know there's no legal avenue for the vast majority of "illegal immigrants."
hnsdev 8mo ago
The difficulties of the US immigration system is one of the reasons that made me give up of the US. I (unfortunately) moved to the US when I was younger on a tourist visa and had an overstay. After realizing I didn't have many options to become a legal resident, I gave up. Too hard to navigate it. Nowadays I live in the Netherlands, with my second citizenship (from another EU country). A lot easier. It feels quite contradictory that a country that has its history tied to immigration has a worst immigration system than countries that historically are not so tied to immigration.
cs_throwaway 8mo ago
It is counter-intuitive that the more accomplished you are, the more evidence you need to provide. The part about the child not getting a naturalization certificate even though they are naturalized is very weird -- that should be fixed administratively. Anyway, I don't think the O-1 / EB-1A is the easiest setting. An even easier setting is to become a tenure-track professor at a reasonable university in a technical field, e.g., computer science. That gives you an H1-B without any drama. An EB-1B green card requires a lot of evidence, but maybe a few pages less than an EB-1A green card. Finally, getting citizenship is trivial. It's the green card that is hard to get.
bubblethink 8mo ago
Cato maintains this fun flowchart for legal immigration : https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/styles/pubs_2x/public/2023-06/MicrosoftTeams-image.png https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/styles/pubs_2x/pub....
- mothballed 8mo ago
  I don't see VAWA derived visas on there. That's probably one of the most straightforward ones. Those who can credibly claim or frame sex trafficking, or in some cases domestic violence, against a US citizen can go straight to a visa. Obviously this has severe moral hazard.
jmyeet 8mo ago
Like the author, I have a lot of personal experience with this. Going through it basically forces you to become an expert in things don't really want to know anything about. What stuck out to me is that despite obviously being a smart and educated person and having the help of immigration lawyers, the author has made a mistake. Sepcifically this: > I checked in with our lawyers and was told that the kid couldn't get her certificate of citizenship until she turned 18 When you apply to be naturalized (N400) then your children become US citizens by operation of law as long as they are in your physical custody and are under 18. The "certificate of citizenship" the author is talking about is called Form N600 and it specifically doesn't require the child to be over 18. Go and read the instructions for it [1]. If you know nothing about this, you might be confused because the author says his daughter has a US passport. Isn't that the same thing? No. This comes up a lot when US citizens adopt children from outside the US. This essentially causes them to become US citizens (there's a whole process) but some parents fail to go through the application and formally recognize their child as a US citizen. But how does the child travel internationally before any of this happens? There's an allowance for them to get a US passport even though they may not be US citizens. Weird, huh? Some people mistakenly think just having a US passport is proof of US citizenship but it isn't. So here's my advice to anyone who has a child when they naturalize or adopts a child from overseas: IMMEDIATELY file an N600 for that child so they have proof they are a US citizen. This can be incredibly difficult and costly to reconstruct later when paperwork may have gone missing. [1]: https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/forms/n-600.pdf https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/forms/n-6...
gcanyon 8mo ago
Strong opinion loosely held, but the U.S. immigration (not refugee) policy should be: 1. You are going to school? Great! Go to the DMV with reasonable documentation (student ID and registration paperwork?) and you get a year-long visa. Renew each year, welcome to America! 2. You have a job? Great! Go to the DMV with reasonable documentation (a couple pay stubs?) and you get a year-long visa. Renew each year, welcome to America! 3. You don't have a job yet? Great! Go to the DMV with reasonable documentation of self-sufficiency (bank statement?) and you get a 3-month visa while you look for work. Renew each 3 months for as long as you can prove self-sufficiency, welcome to America! 4. You have none of the above, but you are the spouse/dependent on someone who does? Great! Go to the DMV with them, with proof of the relationship (marriage/birth certificate or the person signing an attestation) and you get a visa to match theirs, welcome to America! 5. You have none of the above but you are a refugee? Not great for you, but: go to the DMV to register yourself and get a date for review. With the money we save on enforcement, that review should be within weeks if not days. Welcome to America! (for now, subject to review) 6. You have none of the above and run out of money? I'm sorry about that, please return to your home country. 7. You're on the national list of Certified Bad People? You're going back to your home country, No America For You. And we have biometric information on you to ensure you never come back. Did I mention the DMV gets FaceID and DNA swabs? Kitting out the DMV will cost a fraction of what enforcement would cost. Oh, and quotas should be generous but not infinite.
- bubblethink 8mo ago
  Generally a sensible list, except I'm sure you have seen how the national list of "Certified Bad People" is used these days. A majority of people that ICE rounds up have no convictions or traffic type issues (https://www.cato.org/blog/5-ice-detainees-have-violent-convictions-73-no-convictions https://www.cato.org/blog/5-ice-detainees-have-violent-convi...).
  - gcanyon 8mo ago
    Yeah, I'd at least put the bad people list in some way under the control of the judiciary, but in the end you pretty much have to assume good faith when designing any system of supreme control.
Havoc 8mo ago
Literally just walked out of a language test for UK path on this. Even though they can technically use your uni degree as proof of English speaking ability that process seems designed to be unworkable. So off we go to do a grade 5 language test… And yeah also need years of travel history which is a pain in Europe where a cross border weekend getaway is a thing. Or worse via bus and ship. I don’t fuckin know what bus I was on years ago
readthenotes1 8mo ago
The immigration system for the USA is broken not only beyond repair, but IMO broken beyond reasonable discussion because it's so complex and multi-faceted. It doesn't need fixing, it needs replacing, and replaced by some mythical group that would put long-term good for the country over partisan gain

110 points by headalgorithm 8mo ago

Question is - why would anyone with cash immigrate to US? Doing business there does not require citizenship. What is it more than doing business that attracts people if one has a citizenship of just about any first world country? I mean, America is about making money, but those people already have money, what else? Citizenship for kids? Just give birth in US. Question again, is why. Top concern for the rich is taxes. US is unique by forcing people to pay taxes even if they live abroad full time as long as they hold citizenship. Why then?

NotGMan 8mo ago
Buy borrow die. It's possible it exists in other countries, I don't know that.
- anovikov 8mo ago
  It exists everywhere, why not? Apart from countries with wealth tax but these are rare exceptions. As for taxation of income derived from business, these are either completely or mostly tax-exempt in many EU countries (Cyprus, Malta, Greece for 100K a year, Italy for 300K a year, Spain if you do a lot of paperwork, Portugal in some places, probably there's more). There's no US equivalent.
petesergeant 8mo ago
Higher salary jobs and some very attractive nature. I have chosen _not_ to move there despite those.
- anovikov 8mo ago
  People with cash don't work for salary. You can travel without citizenship too.
logicchains 8mo ago
If you're rich America is one of the safest places in the world: you can access the best hospitals in the world and well-armed private security. Citizenship means you can't suddenly be kicked out for expressing your political views.
- anovikov 8mo ago
  But there's absurd amount of crime... Best hospitals, true, but Israel has same or better ones and they are much cheaper too. Which again isn't a valid reason to live there let alone not to get citizenship. For any kind of acute/emergency care, you don't need "best" hospitals, just good ones are fine. For more complex conditions, you can always travel for treatment/live temporarily.
  - logicchains 8mo ago
    Israel's at very real risk of being hit by a neighbouring country's rocket, which is extremely unlikely to happen to the US. And the crime in the US isn't in the places where very rich people live.

xenospn 8mo ago

I’ve also gone through the US immigration system - got a green card, then naturalized. I did everything myself. And then I did everything for a friend who asked for my help. It’s not hard. It’s just time consuming and the wait times are very long. But it’s really not difficult to fill out the forms and I never used a lawyer.

push0ret 8mo ago
What about the N-600 form which the article highlights as an impossible barrier for many immigrants to attain their certificate of citizenship. That isn't hard?
nullocator 8mo ago
Would it have remained as easy if you were scooped up off the street one day by masked men, and deported to a country you've never been to? Your greencard or documentation may be of no consequence to these masked men, it's up to their mercy or their face scanning app to determine the status you actually have. They may accept your documents at face value OR just deport you no questions asked.

rayiner 8mo ago

[flagged]

paxys 8mo ago
Immigrants account for ~98% of the American population.
- api 8mo ago
  100% if you go back a little further. Large hominids aren’t native to this continent. BTW have you ever thought about what incredible bad asses people had to be to cross the Bering strait during the ice age with Stone Age tech? We could definitely settle space if we had the will. It’d probably be more comfortable, safer, and easier, even in the early days, than that.
  - ksynwa 8mo ago
    [flagged]
  - graemep 8mo ago
    100% of the population of everywhere other than parts of Africa if you go back far enough.
    - rayiner 8mo ago
      But Japan is clearly different from India, right? So how useful is that out-of-Africa factoid for analyzing modern societies?
      - graemep 8mo ago
        That is my point. The comment saying immigrants are 98% of the population of the US is not useful because they are people whose ancestors have been their for many generations. Defining anyone who has immigrant ancestry as an immigrant is pointless. Sometimes it is useful to talk about, say, second generation immigrants, but not endlessly. For one thing, after a generation or two the culture of people descended from immigrants diverges from that of their ancestors, even if their ancestry is limited to just one culture.

kreetx 8mo ago

Summary: legal immigration is very difficult to impossible. The solution, IMO, isn't "just enter illegally". When you're not a citizen then, quite frankly, the fact that you want to immigrate doesn't matter. It's the country that says whether you should get in or not.

direwolf20 8mo ago
It's the laws of physics that decide whether you actually get in or not.
- nine_k 8mo ago
  It's the law of the land that determines how well are you doing once inside.
  - hn_acker 8mo ago
    > It's the law of the land that determines how well are you doing once inside. That continues to become less true, in the cruelest ways [1]: > One man told KBI that Border Patrol agents tore his birth certificate up in front of him. He managed to save his Mexican identity card because he had hidden it in his shoe. [1] https://www.aclu.org/news/immigrants-rights/border-patrols-abusive-practice-of-taking-migrants-property-needs-to-end?utm_source=chatgpt.com https://www.aclu.org/news/immigrants-rights/border-patrols-a...
- kreetx 8mo ago
  They do, but also only physically.
coloneljelly 8mo ago
What a novel, insightful conclusion. Thanks for sharing.
- kreetx 8mo ago
  Funny, how the anti ICE crowd wants people to immigrate illegally. What about voting somebody to the office and changing the laws instead?

MrSkelter 8mo ago

This is not the easiest setting. I became American as a previously British citizen. I had been employed in the UK, by a company in California who wanted to relocate me to the US and did (I was an early H1-B). I then moved to another company after 18 months. Both my first and second companies were applying for my green card and renewing my paperwork as needed for me. Later I stopped working for a US company but still had a VISA and married a US citizen. I then handled my green card application, and citizenship, myself without lawyers. As a highly qualified individual who had already been screened multiple times to get H1-Bs I knew I would pass further screening. I also knew I had no criminal records or adverse history globally. In short I got my green card and my citizenship without any further professional legal help. I paid nothing but my own costs. It took a couple of years but it is possible. The process is torturous and repetitive. You have to resubmit the same information multiple times, and some of the requirements are extremely expensive. To whit, I was required to produce a “Police letter” from every country I had lived in, signed by the local police, attesting to the fact I hadn’t broken any laws overseas. I had lived in 4 continents at that point. Thus I had to arrange to send my ID to multiple countries and to pay, in some cases, for letters to be written, delivered as originals on paper and then (hilariously) pay to have them translated for a US government who only wants to work in English and apparently trusts whatever translation you send (this was pre LLM). So though I could do all this, in one case paying an ex colleague to manage the police in Eastern Europe on my behalf, for many others this would be impossible and require lawyers and the huge markups they would charge for these services. I would guess them hiring another team of lawyers in another country with each stage doubling the costs of the ones beneath them meaning a single police letter ends up costing many thousands. The system is thus absolutely limited to those with connections, deep pockets or sponsorship. Also for those who think this is good insurance, I also know Central Europeans who bribed their local authorities to facilitate their green cards, covering adverse information and putting them at the tops of lists. Ie for $50k or so they got essentially instant residency status. Also the need for people to leave the US before re entering when processing paperwork (so that if rejected you have already self deported) means you need to be able to stop working, or work remotely, and to be able to fund living in your old home country for an indefinite period. I moved in with my parents but had they not been an option I would have had to rent a place in London - a vast expense - just to comply. The system is incredibly broken.

roenxi 8mo ago

Doctorow makes a lot of good points and I get how terrifying the state is when it gets riled up like this. That said... 1) There seems to be an assumption here that everyone in the US agrees there should be brisk immigration. To me, if the laws in-practice make it impossible to immigrate then that would suggest that the polity might not believe that. There also seems to be a common belief that just because the laws are unfair, stupid, counterproductive or destructive that they can be ignored and that isn't how laws work. If the law is terrible it is still the law. If it doesn't let you do what you want to do then that desired course of action is not a legal option. 2) A big part of the reason that the US is engaging in this (rather terrifying) deportation is because of the appearance that process ran, came up with a basic agreement about how immigration would work and then people started ignoring it on the basis that it was inconvenient. I don't see how a country can be run that way, there has to be a hard choice made about open migration vs. a welfare system. And while I'm commenting on the debacle that is the Trump anti-immigration campaign, I will just upset everyone and note that people have to accept that governments sometimes go on a rampage. It has happened before, it will happen again and it is really quite important to keep the reins on them and try not to give them control of important things like food, medicine, what people can say to each other, control of the financial system, etc, etc. A bit of principled strategic thinking goes a long way on this stuff.

pm90 8mo ago
> There also seems to be a common belief that just because the laws are unfair, stupid, counterproductive or destructive that they can be ignored and that isn't how laws work. If the law is terrible it is still the law. If it doesn't let you do what you want to do then that desired course of action is not a legal option. Well then explain to me how the US Marijuana industry exists despite it being a schedule 1 controlled substance. Laws are a social construct and their enforcement is based on what society thinks is ok. People don’t want to throw their community members is jail for marijuana. They do want to throw murderers in jail. They don’t want to throw upstanding community members who just don’t have the right immigration status in jail either.

TrackerFF 8mo ago

It must be said that immigration laws pretty much anywhere are rigid, and enforced equally seriously, so it's not just a US-exclusive thing. Very liberal European countries which the media portrays as "overrun" with immigrants will also throw (and ban) you out if you've done seemingly insignificant errors in your paperwork. WITH THAT SAID, one side-effect of having such extensive laws is that it really depends on how much you enforce them. If you make laws so difficult and hard that anyone can fail them, but remain quite selective on how you enforce them, that means you have a green light to deport the people that are deemed undesirable, while also having the option to turn a blind eye to desirable people. One small error can easily get some random Indian or Mexican worker deported, even if they've worked in the US for 20+ years, if the state feels so. Meanwhile I suspect they wouldn't do a damn thing if it turns out that some immigration billionaire outright lied on their paperwork. Also, I hate to pull the fascism card, but one hallmark of fascism is to make laws so rigid (and punishment draconian) that everyone is potentially a criminal, but then very selectively enforce those laws. I don't think US immigration laws are rooted in fascism, not at all - they're the product of decades / centuries of complex immigration...but how you enforce them, is a different thing.

sillyfluke 8mo ago
>It must be said that immigration laws pretty much anywhere are rigid, and enforced equally seriously, so it's not just a US-exclusive thing I'm puzzled how you came to this conclusion since its left completely unsubstantiated in your comment. It's not "enforced equally seriously" in the US itself let alone another country. European citizens for one had no fear of being sent to a detention camp or deported speedily prior to the latest Trump adminstration.
- TrackerFF 8mo ago
  People in Europe are regularly deported for lying on their immigration application papers. Hell, even children of refugees are being deported for mistakes made by their parents. A quite common scenario is that someone applies for refugee status, but lie where they come from. Then years/decades later it is uncovered, and they are notified to leave the country within months. I guess the big difference here is that we don't have immigration officers roaming the streets, snatching up people and shipping them to random holding centers. But you can *absolutely* expect to be apprehended if you've received notice, and don't do anything about it. Same goes for criminals that roam around (which is easy due to Schengen), get caught, and are ordered to leave. From time to time you'll read stories here about people that came here as kids, their parents lied on the application (said the were from Afghanistan/Iraq or similar worn-torn countries back then, but in reality came from some neighboring countries), and now they too have been order to leave - even though they have zero connections with their birth countries. In Norway, a country with population 5.6 million, around 2500 people were deported in 2024. Per capita that's around 3-4 times less than the US - but we don't necessarily have the same types of immigrants.

graemep 8mo ago

He is a US citizen? Three nationalities? His reasons for leaving the UK make interesting reading in current circumstances: > The USA is putting curbs on surveillance, expanding its national healthcare, and there are mass parental boycotts of standardised testing in its public schools. The UK just elected a Tory majority government that's going to continue to slash and burn the welfare state, attack schools, health, legal aid and teachers, and impose mandatory cryptographic backdoors in the technology we use to talk to each other. They've even announced that merely not breaking the law is no reason to expect that you won't be arrested. https://boingboing.net/2015/06/29/why-im-leaving-london.html https://boingboing.net/2015/06/29/why-im-leaving-london.html Edit: improved wording below and added quote A lot of his other problems are London specific. Why do people forget the rest of the UK exists? > London is a city whose two priorities are being a playground for corrupt global elites who turn neighbourhoods into soulless collections of empty safe-deposit boxes in the sky, and encouraging the feckless criminality of the finance industry. These two facts are not unrelated. > My office rent has doubled this decade. We live in 600 square feet, up six flights of stairs, and can't possibly afford anything even remotely larger. > We've seen the writing on the wall: this is not a city for families. It's not a city for people running small firms. It's not a city for people who earn their living in the arts. We've given it the best we have, and we're getting out because we can.

m_a_g 8mo ago
At first, I couldn’t believe it, but Cory Doctorow did write that terrible blog post. (Un)Surprisingly, everything turned out quite differently than expected. London outshines LA in many ways, except for the weather.
- graemep 8mo ago
  Yes, very unlike him to write something that bad. I would guess he might have misunderstanding the politics - you can get an exaggerated sense of how much difference a Conservative rather than Labour government makes from the media. Maybe also taking a short term view - the prime minister changed the following year, and Labour won last year's election. The odd thing is that he became a British citizen when the UK had a Conservative government and lived in London for another five years before deciding to move. I even agree with some of his criticisms of London and how it has developed, but a lot of his reasoning just does not make sense to me

Apreche 8mo ago

My family came to the US via Ellis Island. Compared to what people have to do today, their legal path to US citizenship was relatively easy. I see no reason that becoming a citizen today should be any more difficult today than it was in the early 20th century. Open a 21st century equivalent of Ellis Island, and let people become citizens.

csmpltn 8mo ago
Your family had to leave everything behind, risking a weeks-long journey at sea costing them everything they ever had, going into the unknown - at a time where nobody could travel. The US was not as rich, or built, or anything. People today get a 50$ plane ticket and move straight to the Bay Area. You don't see why things need to change?
- tclancy 8mo ago
  Buddy, what are you on about? This sounds just like all those welfare queens in Cadillacs GHW Bush was telling us about.
  - hn_acker 8mo ago
    > This sounds just like all those welfare queens in Cadillacs GHW Bush was telling us about. I don't think George H. W. Bush did that. Do you mean Ronald Reagan [1]? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_queen#Origin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_queen#Origin
    - tclancy 8mo ago
      Interesting. I think the senior Bush must have used it during the '84 campaign at the RNC? My memory is slipping plus I would have been like 8. But I was a nerd who followed politics for a while before that.
- astura 8mo ago
  Where can I buy a international plane ticket for $50 ?

fhkatari 8mo ago

I want to share a couple of stories of immigration. 1. Personal. In the aftermath of 9/11, a simple switch from F1 Student Visa to H1 work visa became a perfect Kafkaesque nightmare. The consulate denied the visa without giving a reason. After two months of non-response, my company reached out to the congressman's office. Apparently, the consulate wanted a copy of my transcript and they reached out to my university, but did not tell me that. The university would not release my transcript without my permission, but did not tell me that DHS was asking for it. It was an infinite loop that left me out. 2. In 2006-2007, I was consulting for Hormel Foods (this time with a legit green card). There was a raid at one of their plants, and I was talking to a couple of middle managers who commented how difficult the jobs are, and people only last for a short time. Only migrants are willing to do the job. I would later learn that meat packing jobs used to be unionized, and that put limits on the number of animals processed per shift. The deregulation of the eighties did away with unions and regulations, and created an untenable work situation. This can ONLY be done by disposable labor, which happens to be immigrants. A simple solution to the immigration problem would be to arrest the CEO of the company employing illegals. Perhaps that will percolate down to the line level to make the jobs humane.

_DeadFred_ 8mo ago
Imagine launching $75 billion dollar war on drugs where you didn't arrest drug dealers, only users. Yet the party of law and order and their supporters somehow aren't demanding these large scale abusers of employment law, and encouragers of illegal immigration be included in enforcement action. Really makes it look about racism more than smart/intentional/traditional law enforcement.
- array_key_first 8mo ago
  The right requires the machine in order to maintain their propaganda about bringing down the machine. They don't want to get rid of drugs, or undocumented people. They want to take undocumented people one-by-one off the street, so there's a constant "need" to continuously ramp up authoritarism. The end of undocumented immigration would spell disaster for the Republicans, and they know that. For many red states, it would be literal economic disaster, even if we look past the messaging. So it's flashy non-solution after flashy non-solution.

keepamovin 8mo ago

I'm familiar with immigration in a few countries - in my experience, whatever the background of the country (Western, Eastern, Middle Eastern...) it's all "torturous". If I was an acolyte of Freud or Jung I would say that this dichotomy between "easygration" and "immigration" (im is for impossible, right?) is because easygration is the result of sex and being born in a country (yes yes pedants, that's changing now and not universal, but swallow your pedantry presently and persist with this a moment), and the "STATE" in its everquest to control all aspects of human existence, necessarily seeks to control and intermediate sex and all its analogs (as sex is the intimacy of individuals it seeks to control, it must get between there, too). So if sex-migration (by being born) is easy (as some concessions must be made), then the corresponding path must be a gauntlet gated by the difficulty proportional to how much the state wants to intermediate the individual's intimate affairs. The hard path of immigration, is then a mirror of the control the state ultimately seeks to exercise over every aspect of existence, but which for now, it is constrained by the modesty and norms of its people to resist. TL;DR - immigration is hard because states can't control yet sex and intimacy as much as they want, so they control the next best thing, that thing which is accepted to arise from the result of sex and intimacy - citizenship or right of abode by birth. Also one can make the obvious metaphors with borders, porosity, and penetration. One might be inclined to say: the state must currently tolerate the annoying promiscuity of its individuals, so it, in spite and compensation, becomes ultrachaste in turn, wrt its own intimate borders. But I am not an acolyte of Freud or Jung. Tho sometimes I think as above.

astura 8mo ago

I don't understand the premise of this. The author goes on and on (and on) about how "Americans have no idea how weird and tortuous their immigration system is" but doesn't really give any evidence. I wonder if they ever have spoken to an American? They must have some extremely out of touch social circles. Here in the real world, every American I know knows that the only way for "normal" (non-rich, non-connected, non-extraordinary) person to legally immigrate is to marry an American citizen and have them sponsor you. Literally everyone knows the average "illegal immigrant" living in the US isn't eligible for citizenship and couldn't obtain citizenship legally. Exactly zero people think that any (let alone most) "illegal immigrants" could have just "followed the rules" and been able to live here legally. The reason they are "illegal immigrants" is because there's no legal way, other than marrying an American. A lot of people would prefer if even family sponsorships didn't exist. Many people think of that as "gaming the system" because they allow "average" people to be immigrants. I assume Republicans want to get rid of this.

cs_throwaway 8mo ago
I have always thought of it like this: U.S. citizens have the right to marry and bring home anyone they want. It is not about the immigrant. For example, if you're stationed on a military base on Japan or Germany, you can meet a local girl, fall in love, and bring her back home. "Chain migration" however is more questionable.
bubblethink 8mo ago
The author is mostly correct. A lot of discourse in America revolves around, "Why don't they get come in legally?"
- astura 8mo ago
  >A lot of discourse in America revolves around, "Why don't get come in legally?" Do you honestly believe that people who say "Why don't [they] come in legally?" are complaining about a lack of administrative process? Do you really, honestly believe that? Because if you do I have a bridge in Brooklyn I can give you a great deal on. "Why don't [they] come in legally?" is just conservative doublespeak for for "they don't belong here." It's begging the question and everyone knows that, even the person saying it. They know there's no legal avenue for the vast majority of "illegal immigrants."

hnsdev 8mo ago

The difficulties of the US immigration system is one of the reasons that made me give up of the US. I (unfortunately) moved to the US when I was younger on a tourist visa and had an overstay. After realizing I didn't have many options to become a legal resident, I gave up. Too hard to navigate it. Nowadays I live in the Netherlands, with my second citizenship (from another EU country). A lot easier. It feels quite contradictory that a country that has its history tied to immigration has a worst immigration system than countries that historically are not so tied to immigration.

cs_throwaway 8mo ago

It is counter-intuitive that the more accomplished you are, the more evidence you need to provide. The part about the child not getting a naturalization certificate even though they are naturalized is very weird -- that should be fixed administratively. Anyway, I don't think the O-1 / EB-1A is the easiest setting. An even easier setting is to become a tenure-track professor at a reasonable university in a technical field, e.g., computer science. That gives you an H1-B without any drama. An EB-1B green card requires a lot of evidence, but maybe a few pages less than an EB-1A green card. Finally, getting citizenship is trivial. It's the green card that is hard to get.

bubblethink 8mo ago

Cato maintains this fun flowchart for legal immigration : https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/styles/pubs_2x/public/2023-06/MicrosoftTeams-image.png https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/styles/pubs_2x/pub....

mothballed 8mo ago
I don't see VAWA derived visas on there. That's probably one of the most straightforward ones. Those who can credibly claim or frame sex trafficking, or in some cases domestic violence, against a US citizen can go straight to a visa. Obviously this has severe moral hazard.

jmyeet 8mo ago

Like the author, I have a lot of personal experience with this. Going through it basically forces you to become an expert in things don't really want to know anything about. What stuck out to me is that despite obviously being a smart and educated person and having the help of immigration lawyers, the author has made a mistake. Sepcifically this: > I checked in with our lawyers and was told that the kid couldn't get her certificate of citizenship until she turned 18 When you apply to be naturalized (N400) then your children become US citizens by operation of law as long as they are in your physical custody and are under 18. The "certificate of citizenship" the author is talking about is called Form N600 and it specifically doesn't require the child to be over 18. Go and read the instructions for it [1]. If you know nothing about this, you might be confused because the author says his daughter has a US passport. Isn't that the same thing? No. This comes up a lot when US citizens adopt children from outside the US. This essentially causes them to become US citizens (there's a whole process) but some parents fail to go through the application and formally recognize their child as a US citizen. But how does the child travel internationally before any of this happens? There's an allowance for them to get a US passport even though they may not be US citizens. Weird, huh? Some people mistakenly think just having a US passport is proof of US citizenship but it isn't. So here's my advice to anyone who has a child when they naturalize or adopts a child from overseas: IMMEDIATELY file an N600 for that child so they have proof they are a US citizen. This can be incredibly difficult and costly to reconstruct later when paperwork may have gone missing. [1]: https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/forms/n-600.pdf https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/forms/n-6...

gcanyon 8mo ago

Strong opinion loosely held, but the U.S. immigration (not refugee) policy should be: 1. You are going to school? Great! Go to the DMV with reasonable documentation (student ID and registration paperwork?) and you get a year-long visa. Renew each year, welcome to America! 2. You have a job? Great! Go to the DMV with reasonable documentation (a couple pay stubs?) and you get a year-long visa. Renew each year, welcome to America! 3. You don't have a job yet? Great! Go to the DMV with reasonable documentation of self-sufficiency (bank statement?) and you get a 3-month visa while you look for work. Renew each 3 months for as long as you can prove self-sufficiency, welcome to America! 4. You have none of the above, but you are the spouse/dependent on someone who does? Great! Go to the DMV with them, with proof of the relationship (marriage/birth certificate or the person signing an attestation) and you get a visa to match theirs, welcome to America! 5. You have none of the above but you are a refugee? Not great for you, but: go to the DMV to register yourself and get a date for review. With the money we save on enforcement, that review should be within weeks if not days. Welcome to America! (for now, subject to review) 6. You have none of the above and run out of money? I'm sorry about that, please return to your home country. 7. You're on the national list of Certified Bad People? You're going back to your home country, No America For You. And we have biometric information on you to ensure you never come back. Did I mention the DMV gets FaceID and DNA swabs? Kitting out the DMV will cost a fraction of what enforcement would cost. Oh, and quotas should be generous but not infinite.

bubblethink 8mo ago
Generally a sensible list, except I'm sure you have seen how the national list of "Certified Bad People" is used these days. A majority of people that ICE rounds up have no convictions or traffic type issues (https://www.cato.org/blog/5-ice-detainees-have-violent-convictions-73-no-convictions https://www.cato.org/blog/5-ice-detainees-have-violent-convi...).
- gcanyon 8mo ago
  Yeah, I'd at least put the bad people list in some way under the control of the judiciary, but in the end you pretty much have to assume good faith when designing any system of supreme control.

Havoc 8mo ago

Literally just walked out of a language test for UK path on this. Even though they can technically use your uni degree as proof of English speaking ability that process seems designed to be unworkable. So off we go to do a grade 5 language test… And yeah also need years of travel history which is a pain in Europe where a cross border weekend getaway is a thing. Or worse via bus and ship. I don’t fuckin know what bus I was on years ago

readthenotes1 8mo ago

The immigration system for the USA is broken not only beyond repair, but IMO broken beyond reasonable discussion because it's so complex and multi-faceted. It doesn't need fixing, it needs replacing, and replaced by some mythical group that would put long-term good for the country over partisan gain