6 ms·

This is just reckless without any responsibility. A number of people, especially in tech sector, legally stay in US while their GC is being processed. They hav

This is just reckless without any responsibility. A number of people, especially in tech sector, legally stay in US while their GC is being processed. They have kids born in the USA. If such people were to leave USA to seek green card: - the kids must first get visas to their parent's countries - once reaching the other country, consular offices now have multi year wait lines for getting an appointment with a office to even hear your case. - parents may stay in that country but what if kids run out of their visa? A number of countries offer citizenship via parents e.g. Indian parents can obtain Indian citizenship for their kids but it also means letting go of the kids' US citizenship. And what if the parent's country does not have such mechanism? It's completely illogical that a person must first stay in a country for 5 years to become eligible for a green card and then leave for x years to get a green card to come back !! this is just a tactic to get non-immigrant visa holders out of the country.

thesmtsolver2 4mo ago
> It's completely illogical that a person must first stay in a country for 5 years to become eligible This is wrong. There is no minimum time in the country for a green card. You are thinking of citizenship. That is different.
- thesmtsolver2 4mo ago
  Wow. Downvotes for stating an obviously verifiable fact. HN is now filled with agenda pushers peddling obvious fake information about the US.
  - ohyoutravel 4mo ago
    Can you think of any other reasons why you might have been downvoted? It seems a little conspiracy-minded to jump to “agenda pushing” I think.
  - FireBeyond 4mo ago
    Because while the green card itself has no minimum requirements on time spent in the US, with the exception of the DV program, all of the visas with green card pathways have one. So yes, there is - it's just attached to the visa pathway that determines green card eligibility, not the green card itself.
- chimeracoder 4mo ago
  > This is wrong. There is no minimum time in the country for a green card. You are thinking of citizenship. That is different. You are incorrect. What you said is technically true in that there is no statute that requires it, but in practice, OP is correct. It varies depending on the country of origin, but in the case of immigrants who hold citizenship from India, which is the country OP mentioned, you can likely expect to have to wait that period or even much longer before becoming eligible, unless you have a way to otherwise jump the queue.
  - morpheuskafka 4mo ago
    You absolutely have to wait several years, but the point they were making is, there is no requirement to have ever worked IN the US or held any nonimmigrant visa to get a green card. The way the law was originally written, both the employment and family green card categories are standalone. They require work/research accomplishments, but there is zero requirement that that work was ever done in the US or for a US company. Because it takes so long, in practice the issue is that for anyone to sponsor you, they want you working for them during that time, and so that's why it often looks like someone gets an H1B and then "graduates" to a green card.
- airstrike 4mo ago
  While you are correct, that's a minor issue in an otherwise cogent post by the parent, so addressing those other more substantial points first would have made the debate better.
nairboon 4mo ago
> the kids must first get visas to their parent's countries In this situation, wouldn't the kids already have citizenship of their parents countries?
- seanmcdirmid 4mo ago
  A lot of countries don’t provide citizenship automatically without condition by blood. China for example, a kid only inherits citizenship if one parent is a chinese citizen and not a PR of any other country (so kids born to Chinese parents with green cards don’t count, which doesn’t really matter in this case). Also the USA used to have weird rules about young mothers not transferring citizenship automatically (which the whole Obama birther myth relied on).
  - throwaway2037 4mo ago
    What happens if two Chinese parents are living and working in the Netherlands with permanent residence. If they have a child, what is the nationality? I don't think it will be Dutch because the Netherlands does not have automatic birth right, unless to prevent statelessness.
    - morpheuskafka 4mo ago
      The child has Chinese citizenship (and presumably some kind of Dutch PR) from birth in that case. > Any person born in China whose parents are both Chinese nationals or one of whose parents is a Chinese national shall have Chinese nationality. > Any person born abroad whose parents are both Chinese nationals or one of whose parents is a Chinese national shall have Chinese nationality. > But a person whose parents are both Chinese nationals and have both settled abroad, or one of whose parents is a Chinese national and has settled abroad, and who has acquired foreign nationality at birth shall not have Chinese nationality. - "Settled abroad" means having unrestricted, legal permanent residence. Recently, it was clarified that the two-year conditional US green card does not count, for example. - Due to an "interpretation," as this law was written pre-handover, the "settled abroad" limitation sentence does not apply where (one of) the Chinese parents is a HK/MO resident. - A parent from HK/MO pre-handover, or Taiwan, is still a Chinese citizen and will transmit citizenship to their children. If both/the only Chinese parent is a mainland or Taiwan resident, not settled abroad, the child would get a Travel Document to enter mainland China. They cannot get a visa to do so inside the foreign passport. Foreign passport can still be used for HK/MO/TW. The child cannot get the ordinary red Chinese passport (unless they "resolve the conflict" by abandoning the other citizenship). They can, IIRC, still get a resident ID card if their parents still have hukou and register them? In your scenario (not overseas citizen at birth), the child does have a regular red Chinese passport. Because they live overseas, they can get a permit from the Chinese embassy inside the passport to visit HK/MO, and they can also get an entry permit from the Taiwan authorities to visit for two weeks at a time, which is a loose leaf paper. If one Chinese parent is a permanent resident of HK/MO, the child generally gets both Chinese nationality and HK/MO residence. Thus they are issued a full HK/MO passport. These passports still cannot enter the mainland directly, so they can ALSO get a Travel Document OR first visit HK/MO and then apply for the Home Return Permit using the domestic procedures.
robofanatic 4mo ago
> e.g. Indian parents can obtain Indian citizenship for their kids but it also means letting go of the kids' US citizenship This is not true, India has something called “Overseas Citizenship of India” which is technically not a citizenship even though the name says, but its a life time visa available for US citizens of Indian origin. And you don’t have to give up US citizenship
- Aniket-N 4mo ago
  It’s a visa that you do need to apply for. And it’s not a guaranteed thing. If it doesn’t work out. Kids stay in the US and parents get kicked out?
  - saguntum 4mo ago
    I know you are asking rhetorically, but this occurs routinely under the current US immigration regime. There have been over 100,000 children separated from their parents in the United States due to immigration enforcement since 2025. The feature story in the linked article is about a now 2 year old whose parents were not there for them beginning to walk or talk. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/18/us/brookings-institution-report-family-separations.html https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/18/us/brookings-institution-...
- chimeracoder 4mo ago
  > This is not true, India has something called “Overseas Citizenship of India” which is technically not a citizenship even though the name says, but its a life time visa available for US citizens of Indian origin. And you don’t have to give up US citizenship The OCI card is better thought of as a green card that you have to reapply for once at the age of 65. It provides the ability to live and work, with some minor restrictions, but none of the typical benefits of citizenship that wouldn't come with permanent residency in the US.
qurren 4mo ago
> the kids must first get visas to their parent's countries The bigger issue honestly is that the kids may already have grown up in the American culture and fluent in English and it could massively disrupt their education and well-being to throw them into another system somewhere else, depending on how they were raised and whether they are fluent in the language of the country of their parents. In many cases they are not.
- AlecSchueler 4mo ago
  > it could massively disrupt their education and well-being to throw them into another system I'm curious: If these changes aren't designed to be harmful in these ways, then what do we imagine is the intention?
  - ruszki 4mo ago
    A monthly reminder, that they don't want smart people over there.
cybercatgurrl 4mo ago
cruelty is the point in case it wasn’t obvious
- deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
- portly 4mo ago
  Yes and one step further: it is attention, ultimately to extract wealth. Trump is a distractor and can make a whole country forget about <insert recent insanity>. Passing a judge is a minor detail here. Of course it is stupid to talent-leak your country but he just needs you to forget about $LATEST_SCANDAL. That's the value for him. Trump doesn't care about the future of US. And distracting does not take skill. It only takes a mind poisoned to the core. He will throw anything in his chaos machine to extract wealth. And US has an endless supply of those juicy valuables and values that you can sacrifice and shed. Let's see what next week has in store!
johndevor 4mo ago
How is it logical that their kids get birth right citizenship when their parents don't have it?
- godelski 4mo ago
  This is over a hundred year old rule and common in "the new world". You can guess why it is common if you think about the phrase I put in quotes. All these countries are composed of immigrants... Here's a short and incomplete list: USA, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Chile. The logic is that the culture is what makes you part of the country, not the blood in your veins. The other side of that logic is that you're not guaranteed citizenship to the country of your parents. It certainly isn't automatic.
  - declan_roberts 4mo ago
    Birthright citizenship is an astonishingly rare policy. Nonexistent in Europe and the developed world. Canada has it since the 1950s only.
    - kaashif 4mo ago
      It's not astonishingly rare. The comment you're replying to contains examples, here are some more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli
    - godelski 4mo ago
      > is an astonishingly rare policy Let me repeat for you part of the *FIRST SENTENCE* in my comment >> common in "the new world" So > Nonexistent in Europe Last I checked, Europe was not "the new world". > the developed world Considering that the US and Canada are developed countries, you'll need to rephrase. If you want to make jokes about the US not being a developed world then we'll be forced to make jokes about your lack of literacy and inability to use Google. Please, for the love of god, just read the comments you're replying to. It's like the absolute bare minimum requirement.
fuddle 4mo ago
It's only logical if you are anti-immigration, which is what the US is now.
- throwaway85825 4mo ago
  The population has always been anti immigration. But what the population wants is barely considered.
  - crummy 4mo ago
    This makes it seem like roughly an even split: https://imgur.com/a/4W9Ub2t https://imgur.com/a/4W9Ub2t
    - throwaway85825 4mo ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_Nothing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_Nothing
    - seivan 4mo ago
      [dead]
culopatin 4mo ago
Look, I’m an immigrant. You know the risks you take when you come to the US on a non immigrant visa. We all choose to play the game and nothing is guaranteed. I would’ve considered reckless to have a kid in the US knowing that my status is not stable without having an alternative plan. We need to face the facts and stop acting like we immigrants were victims of some bait and switch and must be protected from any fallout of this process. The rules of the game are transparent.
- deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
- 999900000999 4mo ago
  But Republicans also don’t believe in abortion and have made it illegal in half the country. So what’s a pregnant immigrant to do ?
  - culopatin 4mo ago
    Use a condom. If you’re smart enough to figure out a temporary visa, you’re smart enough to understand conception.
    - 999900000999 4mo ago
      Condoms are often up to the male partner to use correctly. Personally I have no problem giving people at a minimum permanent status if they decide to add to our declining population. I like to imagine when I'm old and weak someone there to provide my medical care. I'm not picky on where their parents are from.
      - culopatin 4mo ago
        This is a completely different discussion. One can be responsible, if you’re not, there are consequences. It’s not just this. Zone out a bit driving and go too fast? Ticket. Left weed in your jacket by accident and went to the airport to fly internationally? Well… Everything has consequences, all I’m trying to say is that people know what those are and we shouldn’t be “aw but what if they don’t read the rules?” Uncertainty is clear from the start.
randyrand 4mo ago
Birthright citizenship is on the chopping block too. It’s only a matter of time.
JuniperMesos 4mo ago
The most important immigration reform that the US ought to do is a constitutional amendment eliminating the birthright citizenship clause of the 14th amendment. The children of people who are not citizens or even permanent residents of the US should not be allowed to become US citizens just because they were born on US soil. Foreigners should not be able to reside in the US for so long that they have kids, and then use those kids as a justification for why the US is obliged to let them become citizens too.
- HPMOR 4mo ago
  Holy shit, I cannot believe this is an actual belief people currently hold. We fought a war for this amendment.
  - JuniperMesos 4mo ago
    I think that if you went back in time to 1868 and told Senator Jacob M. Howard that a century and a half in the future, the primary consequence of the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment would be that foreigners from all over the world would attempt to immigrate to the US, even on temporary work visas or explicitly contrary to federal immigration law, with the intent of bearing or begetting a child on US soil who would be legally counted as a fellow-citizen who, upon coming of age, would go to the polls and vote with all other citizens; and that further the parents of this child and their political sympathizers would use the very presence of that child as a justification for why it was immoral to restrict the federal government's lawful authority to control immigration to the United States - that he would've spent a bit more time considering the exact wording of the text.
  - gottorf 4mo ago
    The "birthright" citizenship clause of the 14th amendment was intended to clarify the citizenship status of the recently freed black slaves. That intent is clear by contemporary written material. Now, you could absolutely argue that whatever the intent of the amendment was, it still protects the present-day state of Chinese mothers having zero ties to this country popping over for a few months and giving birth to a fully-fledged American citizen, because the law says what it says. That's a much better argument than saying that the Civil War was fought for the right of transient visitors or illegal immigrants to this country to birth citizens, because that's just absurd.

thesmtsolver2 4mo ago

> It's completely illogical that a person must first stay in a country for 5 years to become eligible This is wrong. There is no minimum time in the country for a green card. You are thinking of citizenship. That is different.

thesmtsolver2 4mo ago
Wow. Downvotes for stating an obviously verifiable fact. HN is now filled with agenda pushers peddling obvious fake information about the US.
- ohyoutravel 4mo ago
  Can you think of any other reasons why you might have been downvoted? It seems a little conspiracy-minded to jump to “agenda pushing” I think.
- FireBeyond 4mo ago
  Because while the green card itself has no minimum requirements on time spent in the US, with the exception of the DV program, all of the visas with green card pathways have one. So yes, there is - it's just attached to the visa pathway that determines green card eligibility, not the green card itself.
chimeracoder 4mo ago
> This is wrong. There is no minimum time in the country for a green card. You are thinking of citizenship. That is different. You are incorrect. What you said is technically true in that there is no statute that requires it, but in practice, OP is correct. It varies depending on the country of origin, but in the case of immigrants who hold citizenship from India, which is the country OP mentioned, you can likely expect to have to wait that period or even much longer before becoming eligible, unless you have a way to otherwise jump the queue.
- morpheuskafka 4mo ago
  You absolutely have to wait several years, but the point they were making is, there is no requirement to have ever worked IN the US or held any nonimmigrant visa to get a green card. The way the law was originally written, both the employment and family green card categories are standalone. They require work/research accomplishments, but there is zero requirement that that work was ever done in the US or for a US company. Because it takes so long, in practice the issue is that for anyone to sponsor you, they want you working for them during that time, and so that's why it often looks like someone gets an H1B and then "graduates" to a green card.
airstrike 4mo ago
While you are correct, that's a minor issue in an otherwise cogent post by the parent, so addressing those other more substantial points first would have made the debate better.

nairboon 4mo ago

> the kids must first get visas to their parent's countries In this situation, wouldn't the kids already have citizenship of their parents countries?

seanmcdirmid 4mo ago
A lot of countries don’t provide citizenship automatically without condition by blood. China for example, a kid only inherits citizenship if one parent is a chinese citizen and not a PR of any other country (so kids born to Chinese parents with green cards don’t count, which doesn’t really matter in this case). Also the USA used to have weird rules about young mothers not transferring citizenship automatically (which the whole Obama birther myth relied on).
- throwaway2037 4mo ago
  What happens if two Chinese parents are living and working in the Netherlands with permanent residence. If they have a child, what is the nationality? I don't think it will be Dutch because the Netherlands does not have automatic birth right, unless to prevent statelessness.
  - morpheuskafka 4mo ago
    The child has Chinese citizenship (and presumably some kind of Dutch PR) from birth in that case. > Any person born in China whose parents are both Chinese nationals or one of whose parents is a Chinese national shall have Chinese nationality. > Any person born abroad whose parents are both Chinese nationals or one of whose parents is a Chinese national shall have Chinese nationality. > But a person whose parents are both Chinese nationals and have both settled abroad, or one of whose parents is a Chinese national and has settled abroad, and who has acquired foreign nationality at birth shall not have Chinese nationality. - "Settled abroad" means having unrestricted, legal permanent residence. Recently, it was clarified that the two-year conditional US green card does not count, for example. - Due to an "interpretation," as this law was written pre-handover, the "settled abroad" limitation sentence does not apply where (one of) the Chinese parents is a HK/MO resident. - A parent from HK/MO pre-handover, or Taiwan, is still a Chinese citizen and will transmit citizenship to their children. If both/the only Chinese parent is a mainland or Taiwan resident, not settled abroad, the child would get a Travel Document to enter mainland China. They cannot get a visa to do so inside the foreign passport. Foreign passport can still be used for HK/MO/TW. The child cannot get the ordinary red Chinese passport (unless they "resolve the conflict" by abandoning the other citizenship). They can, IIRC, still get a resident ID card if their parents still have hukou and register them? In your scenario (not overseas citizen at birth), the child does have a regular red Chinese passport. Because they live overseas, they can get a permit from the Chinese embassy inside the passport to visit HK/MO, and they can also get an entry permit from the Taiwan authorities to visit for two weeks at a time, which is a loose leaf paper. If one Chinese parent is a permanent resident of HK/MO, the child generally gets both Chinese nationality and HK/MO residence. Thus they are issued a full HK/MO passport. These passports still cannot enter the mainland directly, so they can ALSO get a Travel Document OR first visit HK/MO and then apply for the Home Return Permit using the domestic procedures.

robofanatic 4mo ago

> e.g. Indian parents can obtain Indian citizenship for their kids but it also means letting go of the kids' US citizenship This is not true, India has something called “Overseas Citizenship of India” which is technically not a citizenship even though the name says, but its a life time visa available for US citizens of Indian origin. And you don’t have to give up US citizenship

Aniket-N 4mo ago
It’s a visa that you do need to apply for. And it’s not a guaranteed thing. If it doesn’t work out. Kids stay in the US and parents get kicked out?
- saguntum 4mo ago
  I know you are asking rhetorically, but this occurs routinely under the current US immigration regime. There have been over 100,000 children separated from their parents in the United States due to immigration enforcement since 2025. The feature story in the linked article is about a now 2 year old whose parents were not there for them beginning to walk or talk. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/18/us/brookings-institution-report-family-separations.html https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/18/us/brookings-institution-...
chimeracoder 4mo ago
> This is not true, India has something called “Overseas Citizenship of India” which is technically not a citizenship even though the name says, but its a life time visa available for US citizens of Indian origin. And you don’t have to give up US citizenship The OCI card is better thought of as a green card that you have to reapply for once at the age of 65. It provides the ability to live and work, with some minor restrictions, but none of the typical benefits of citizenship that wouldn't come with permanent residency in the US.

qurren 4mo ago

> the kids must first get visas to their parent's countries The bigger issue honestly is that the kids may already have grown up in the American culture and fluent in English and it could massively disrupt their education and well-being to throw them into another system somewhere else, depending on how they were raised and whether they are fluent in the language of the country of their parents. In many cases they are not.

AlecSchueler 4mo ago
> it could massively disrupt their education and well-being to throw them into another system I'm curious: If these changes aren't designed to be harmful in these ways, then what do we imagine is the intention?
- ruszki 4mo ago
  A monthly reminder, that they don't want smart people over there.

cybercatgurrl 4mo ago

cruelty is the point in case it wasn’t obvious

deleted 4mo ago
[deleted]
portly 4mo ago
Yes and one step further: it is attention, ultimately to extract wealth. Trump is a distractor and can make a whole country forget about <insert recent insanity>. Passing a judge is a minor detail here. Of course it is stupid to talent-leak your country but he just needs you to forget about $LATEST_SCANDAL. That's the value for him. Trump doesn't care about the future of US. And distracting does not take skill. It only takes a mind poisoned to the core. He will throw anything in his chaos machine to extract wealth. And US has an endless supply of those juicy valuables and values that you can sacrifice and shed. Let's see what next week has in store!

johndevor 4mo ago

How is it logical that their kids get birth right citizenship when their parents don't have it?

godelski 4mo ago
This is over a hundred year old rule and common in "the new world". You can guess why it is common if you think about the phrase I put in quotes. All these countries are composed of immigrants... Here's a short and incomplete list: USA, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Chile. The logic is that the culture is what makes you part of the country, not the blood in your veins. The other side of that logic is that you're not guaranteed citizenship to the country of your parents. It certainly isn't automatic.
- declan_roberts 4mo ago
  Birthright citizenship is an astonishingly rare policy. Nonexistent in Europe and the developed world. Canada has it since the 1950s only.
  - kaashif 4mo ago
    It's not astonishingly rare. The comment you're replying to contains examples, here are some more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli
  - godelski 4mo ago
    > is an astonishingly rare policy Let me repeat for you part of the *FIRST SENTENCE* in my comment >> common in "the new world" So > Nonexistent in Europe Last I checked, Europe was not "the new world". > the developed world Considering that the US and Canada are developed countries, you'll need to rephrase. If you want to make jokes about the US not being a developed world then we'll be forced to make jokes about your lack of literacy and inability to use Google. Please, for the love of god, just read the comments you're replying to. It's like the absolute bare minimum requirement.

fuddle 4mo ago

It's only logical if you are anti-immigration, which is what the US is now.

throwaway85825 4mo ago
The population has always been anti immigration. But what the population wants is barely considered.
- crummy 4mo ago
  This makes it seem like roughly an even split: https://imgur.com/a/4W9Ub2t https://imgur.com/a/4W9Ub2t
  - throwaway85825 4mo ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_Nothing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_Nothing
  - seivan 4mo ago
    [dead]

culopatin 4mo ago

Look, I’m an immigrant. You know the risks you take when you come to the US on a non immigrant visa. We all choose to play the game and nothing is guaranteed. I would’ve considered reckless to have a kid in the US knowing that my status is not stable without having an alternative plan. We need to face the facts and stop acting like we immigrants were victims of some bait and switch and must be protected from any fallout of this process. The rules of the game are transparent.

deleted 4mo ago
[deleted]
999900000999 4mo ago
But Republicans also don’t believe in abortion and have made it illegal in half the country. So what’s a pregnant immigrant to do ?
- culopatin 4mo ago
  Use a condom. If you’re smart enough to figure out a temporary visa, you’re smart enough to understand conception.
  - 999900000999 4mo ago
    Condoms are often up to the male partner to use correctly. Personally I have no problem giving people at a minimum permanent status if they decide to add to our declining population. I like to imagine when I'm old and weak someone there to provide my medical care. I'm not picky on where their parents are from.
    - culopatin 4mo ago
      This is a completely different discussion. One can be responsible, if you’re not, there are consequences. It’s not just this. Zone out a bit driving and go too fast? Ticket. Left weed in your jacket by accident and went to the airport to fly internationally? Well… Everything has consequences, all I’m trying to say is that people know what those are and we shouldn’t be “aw but what if they don’t read the rules?” Uncertainty is clear from the start.

randyrand 4mo ago

Birthright citizenship is on the chopping block too. It’s only a matter of time.

JuniperMesos 4mo ago

The most important immigration reform that the US ought to do is a constitutional amendment eliminating the birthright citizenship clause of the 14th amendment. The children of people who are not citizens or even permanent residents of the US should not be allowed to become US citizens just because they were born on US soil. Foreigners should not be able to reside in the US for so long that they have kids, and then use those kids as a justification for why the US is obliged to let them become citizens too.

HPMOR 4mo ago
Holy shit, I cannot believe this is an actual belief people currently hold. We fought a war for this amendment.
- JuniperMesos 4mo ago
  I think that if you went back in time to 1868 and told Senator Jacob M. Howard that a century and a half in the future, the primary consequence of the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment would be that foreigners from all over the world would attempt to immigrate to the US, even on temporary work visas or explicitly contrary to federal immigration law, with the intent of bearing or begetting a child on US soil who would be legally counted as a fellow-citizen who, upon coming of age, would go to the polls and vote with all other citizens; and that further the parents of this child and their political sympathizers would use the very presence of that child as a justification for why it was immoral to restrict the federal government's lawful authority to control immigration to the United States - that he would've spent a bit more time considering the exact wording of the text.
- gottorf 4mo ago
  The "birthright" citizenship clause of the 14th amendment was intended to clarify the citizenship status of the recently freed black slaves. That intent is clear by contemporary written material. Now, you could absolutely argue that whatever the intent of the amendment was, it still protects the present-day state of Chinese mothers having zero ties to this country popping over for a few months and giving birth to a fully-fledged American citizen, because the law says what it says. That's a much better argument than saying that the Civil War was fought for the right of transient visitors or illegal immigrants to this country to birth citizens, because that's just absurd.