10 ms·

This is insane. I cannot fathom how I, nor educated and talented people I know, could have possibly stayed in the US back in the day if this requirement had bee

This is insane. I cannot fathom how I, nor educated and talented people I know, could have possibly stayed in the US back in the day if this requirement had been in place then. Applying for a greencard while working on an H, J or O-class visa is extremely common. Far from a loophole, applying from inside the US is the only reasonable way to apply for a greencard. Depending on the country of origin, there may not even _be_ a US consulate, and where it exists, the wait can stretch into years, and the odds of approval much lower. You can't reasonably get a job at a US firm while being physically located somewhere else and on the other side of an uncertain and greatly attenuated greencard application process. That's just not how this works. Whoever thought of this is either intentionally malevolent or inexcusably incomprehending of the immigration process.

hibgymnb 5mo ago
It’s intentional malevolence that’s a given from this admin
- abalashov 5mo ago
  I take that as a given, too, especially considering the diabolical architecture of Miller Thought.
- Gibbon1 5mo ago
  The secret sauce is bad faith and crime.
  - BLKNSLVR 5mo ago
    Thankfully, malevolence, bad faith, and crime are unsustainable as governmental motivations. Unfortunately, they do stir the populace in a cadence long enough that prior examples are are only fragments of memory. More unfortunately, however, is that the time it takes to heal from such governments is similar to said cadence.
hvb2 5mo ago
When you're in your visa or green card process it's not uncommon to be advised not to travel out of the country... Yep. You're kind of in jail. It doesn't mean that you cannot, it just means that it might complicate your already complicated application. So if a family member dies, maybe... But that's it
- abalashov 5mo ago
  This is true. But you might be conflating two different issues: having to apply for a greencard from outside the country, and being restricted in traveling outside the US during the (potentially very lengthy) pendency of that application.
  - hvb2 5mo ago
    No, I'm aware of the difference. I just wanted to write this down as 'being told you cannot do something' is not something the typical American likes. Yet, when going through immigration, it's common...
- qingcharles 5mo ago
  I've known people who left for a brief period during the GC process on emergency basis and then were put into a literal jail on their return to the USA.
  - QuantumFunnel 5mo ago
    [flagged]
    - array_key_first 5mo ago
      This maybe doesn't feel like an lol type comment. It really stinks that our processes are this broken, and frankly it's a bit embarrassing.
  - deleted 5mo ago
    [deleted]
jmyeet 5mo ago
> Far from a loophole, applying from inside the US is the only reasonable way to apply for a greencard. So that's kind of the point, to make the system arbitrary and capricious. It's to make the lives of immigrants more difficult. For example, when one applies for adjustment of status ("AoS", meaning the I485), there are several things you can also apply for, most notably an Employment Authorization Document ("EAD", I765) and/or Advance Parole ("AP", I131) to allow you to travel. In years gone by, you'd get the temporary documents in 3-4 months typically and your green card in under a year (after filing the I485, not for the entire process, which can be substantially longer). So this administration has seemingly started a process for marriage cases where you file an I130 and I485 concurrently (the I130 is to prove you're free to marry and you have legally married, the I485 is to adjust status) where USCIS will approve the I130 but then just sit on the I485, not approving or denying the case, and never issue the EAD or AP so you can't work. Lots of people can't afford to not work for 1-2 years while this all plays out. But that's the point. Also, there are rumors that Palantir is getting invovled here. Rumor is that USCIS is sitting on I485 approvals while they wait for a new system to come online that will let USCIS look at way more data, likely including social media data, to find reasons to deny cases, so they don't want to approve cases before it's available. This is uncofirmed but there's a lot of anecodtal data for approved I130, no decision on the I485. For marriage cases, this administraiton clearly wants people to consular process instead because the administration has broad powers that can't be challenged to simply withhold visas to nationals of certain countries and those bans can't be challenged in court, as per Trump v. Hawaii [1]. This is a problem for people who have made asylum claims because they realistically can't use the passport from whcih they've claimed asylum (if they even have it) and they certainly couldn't or shouldn't go back to their home country. A separate rule generally requires people to use the embassy of their country of birth. Again, that's to make life difficult. It's not clear to me yet how this rule change affects those on H1Bs that want to adjust. Is the Trump admin going to require H1B holders to leave the country to adjust? That's going to create problems if so. The asylum case and the home country embassy rule mentioned above are two big reasons. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._Hawaii https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._Hawaii
confuseddesi 5mo ago
These are all non-immigrant visa classes. The understanding is that you are temporarily immigrating to the United States. Why should it be surprising then that it is hard to become a permanent resident/immigrant if you explicitly came on a non-immigrant visa?
- MagicMoonlight 5mo ago
  There is no immigrant visa by that logic. Unless you count the one that costs a million dollars.
  - sjhatfield 5mo ago
    Spousal one? I got it outside the US
    - abalashov 5mo ago
      Yeah, that's one notable exception. Doesn't invalidate the generalisation.
      - hluska 5mo ago
        I’m pretty sure it did.
        PaulDavisThe1st 5mo ago
        Perhaps you're the exception that proves some rule?
        Auracle 5mo ago
        That's a pretty big exception.
- 05 5mo ago
  H1B and O1 are dual intent..
susiecambria 5mo ago
This. I cannot be this calm about the administration that is all about the chaos and harm. Thank you for writing what I can't.
napierzaza 5mo ago
[dead]
plombe 5mo ago
Not surprised. There are worse things in the works.
Arete314159 5mo ago
Intentionally malevolent.
cloche 5mo ago
Unfortunately, I think this is the point. They want to push the needle so that even legal immigration is restricted or difficult (unless you happen to pay them directly) https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/23/us/politics/trump-legal-immigration.html https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/23/us/politics/trump-legal-i...
- joe_mamba 5mo ago
  [flagged]
  - blizdiddy 5mo ago
    [flagged]
    - joe_mamba 5mo ago
      @dang, @tomhow, how about application of HN rules here please?
  - rohansood15 5mo ago
    Let's say the government can't care for 100M people because of lack of doctors. Now they could train one over 10 years, or you could have one of the smartest doctors in the world come be 100M+1. Would you take that? Now expand that across socio-economic spectrum (not enough plumbers, teachers, AI experts, researchers etc). That is what legal immigration is meant for.
    - joe_mamba 5mo ago
      >Let's say the government can't care for 100M people because of lack of doctors. Then the government is proven to be severely incompetent and shouldn't be trusted with more migration because it will guaranteed fumble that too. Barring mass migration, populations don't naturally just explode overnight for you to suddenly end up with 100 million people and no doctors. Governments have all the tools and data at their disposal to see population trends, piramid, emigration, immigration, job statistics, housing, etc. all this data you can use and plot out to determine how many doctors you'll need in the future as the population follows the trajectory and plan training and recruitment of doctors ahead of time so that when population reaches 100 million or 500 million there will be an proportional number of doctors. So then why didn't the government do this preemptively when they had all the info and levers at their disposal? Could it be because they simply don't give a shit and they only care about winning the next election and not what happens in 20+ years when the population reaches 100 million and there's no doctors? Because they won't be in charge then when the shit hits the fan so they don't care to be preemptive for something that's not a pressing issue now. So then given this, why would you trust these same people with enabling mass migration on your behalf? They clearly don't care about the long term future planning and second order effects of their actions. > or you could have one of the smartest doctors in the world come be 100M+1. Would you take that? In which case do 1 million of doctors and only doctors and nothing else but doctors show up at your borders because if that were the case I guarantee you everyone would take them in no questions asked. That's the classic bait and switch. Merkel also told Germans they're getting "doctors and engineers" in 2015 and the only thing that increases is sexual assaults rates, crime and welfare spending to the point where "doctors and engineers" became a meme phrase for migrant crime in the news. >That is what legal immigration is meant for. In theory yes, but just like Germany, in practice the system has always been abused to dupe voters to accept anything other than doctors so that corporations can get cheap labor and landlords more tenants. The overton window has gotten so bad on this topic that if you complain about migrant crime, they'll maliciously ask you back "but what about doctors, you don't want them either?". No, we want doctors, We just want the doors shut to people who aren't doctors, it's really that simple.
runjake 5mo ago
> Whoever thought of this is either intentionally malevolent or inexcusably incomprehending of the immigration process. It’s the former: intentionally malevolent. Trump cabinet members, including Stephen Miller have said this is exactly why.
radsj 5mo ago
I don't think it applies to folks on H or L visas. Wording from the site: "Nonimmigrants, like students, temporary workers, or people on tourist visas, come to the U.S. for a short time and for a specific purpose. Our system is designed for them to leave when their visit is over. Their visit should not function as the first step in the Green Card process. "
- abalashov 5mo ago
  I'm not sure I share your optimism. What is a worker on an H-class visa, if not a "temporary worker"? I read this with the assumption that "nonimmigrant visa" applies to every category of visa listed here under "Nonimmigrant Visa Categories": https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/visa-information-resources/all-visa-categories.html https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/visa-inf...
  - conartist6 5mo ago
    It specifically lists H1B as non-immigrant visa on that page, so if you are here working at Google you must leave the country.
  - rayiner 5mo ago
    A “non-immigrant” is everything under 8 USC 1101(a)(15): https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:8%20section:1101%20edition:prelim) https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:8%20section:1... Includes H and J. The letters used to refer to those visas comes from the subsections under 1101(a)(15)
  - refurb 5mo ago
    If you read the actual policy (it’s on the ISCIS website), it specifically says dual-intent visa are appropriate for AOS in the US. This is a pretty broad swath of immigrants - H visa (worker and family), L1 (corporate transfer and family) and K1/3 (spouses of US citizen or green card holder). What this limits are the truly temporary visitors - tourists, students, etc
- nnutter 5mo ago
rajup 5mo ago
"intentionally malevolent" -> Stephen Miller's second name. The cruelty is and always was the point.
- tahoemph999 5mo ago
  I thought his second name was Goebbles?
- abalashov 5mo ago
  This is true. I resisted this conclusion for a long time, imagining it was tendentious, but there is really no other way to understand his rhetoric and his actions.
- mycall 5mo ago
  You should double check Project 2025 before solely blaming Miller.
  - xethos 5mo ago
    They called Miller out as one aspect, not the totality of the problem.
    - deleted 5mo ago
      [deleted]
  - platevoltage 5mo ago
    There will be plenty of blame to go around when the trials start.
    - bluecheese452 5mo ago
      There never will be trials. Assuming things actually swing back the new admin will talk about healing and looking forward.
      - 5mo ago
thallium205 5mo ago
The UK, the EU, Japan, and Australia all have identical rules to this policy.
- cinntaile 5mo ago
  In the EU you can apply for a permanent residency card when you're in the country. One of the prerequisites is how long you have been in the country where you're applying. It seems unlikely the other countries have the same policy as the US has now.
- sigmar 5mo ago
  UK's 'indefinite leave to remain' (closest thing to a green card) requires that you apply from within the UK. https://www.gov.uk/long-residence/apply-to-settle https://www.gov.uk/long-residence/apply-to-settle
- brandelune 5mo ago
  You apply for permanent residency in Japan from Japan.
  - cinntaile 5mo ago
    Which is also the only way that makes sense... Permanent residency but you have to be... Outside the country? lol
- sega_sai 5mo ago
  It is false for the UK. The whole system of US of needing to leave the country to even renew visas is absolutely bizarre and does not have analogues in most other countries (at least EU/UK)
  - robotresearcher 5mo ago
    The logic of it is that if your visa renewal is rejected they don’t have to catch you and deport you. You already deported yourself. Having to go abroad when a visa/PR has already been granted is totally pointless. Green cards are mailed to your home in the US right now.
ourmandave 5mo ago
intentionally malevolent Everything anti-immigration under both Trump terms comes directly from the fascist Stephen Miller. From blocking Muslim countries to trying to end birth right citizenship. Of course he has full support from Trump who usually lies about knowing fascists he's had lunch with or tells to "stand back and stand by." And endlessly lies to demonize immigrants. "They're not sending their best." "They're eating the cats and dogs." SPLC has an article on Miller if you want to waste your time. https://www.splcenter.org/resources/extremist-files/stephen-miller/ https://www.splcenter.org/resources/extremist-files/stephen-...
ycui7 5mo ago
I think what this actually means is that you can apply permanent residency in the US, but you can only get the physical green card outside of the US when the case is approved. So, the last step to get the card need to from outside the country.
- robotresearcher 5mo ago
  What is the point of that? They might as well mail it to your home. That’s what happens today.
nielsbot 5mo ago
Don't assume incompetence at this point--Miller (and Trump) are anti-immigrant, full stop.
TehCorwiz 5mo ago
The cruelty is the point. They want people to leave so they can refuse to allow them back in. That's the goal. It's not more complicated than that.
- rayiner 5mo ago
  If you come to the U.S. on a visa that’s explicitly labeled a “nonimmigrant” visa for people who are “coming temporarily to the United States to perform services,” then it’s not “cruel” to actually enforce that. Those words are literally in the law.
  - kelnos 5mo ago
    The law doesn't describe reality, though. The so-called "non-immigrant" visas are really not that. "Non-immigrant" has a specific legal meaning, and like many legal terms, they don't match up with what you might consider everyday usage of the term. And even if they were truly non-immigrant, who cares? If someone comes to the US, does good, useful work, and stays out of trouble, I want them to be given the opportunity to stay permanently. You may not, perhaps, but, well... I don't care.
    - rayiner 5mo ago
      When the reality doesn’t match what the law says, that’s a bad thing! > The so-called "non-immigrant" visas are really not that. "Non-immigrant" has a specific legal meaning The legal meaning here is the same as the common usage. For example, H1B is defined as someone “who is coming temporarily to the United States to perform services.” The words here are being used in their ordinary way. > And even if they were truly non-immigrant, who cares? You should care that the actual operation of the immigration system reflects the laws Congress actually passed through the democratic process. Congress didn’t have the votes to pass a permanent immigration pathway back then, and it doesn’t have the votes today. If you want to make your case to change the law, be my guest. There’s zero appetite for it in the GOP, and very little willingness to use political capital on the issue by Democrats. Think about the fuss Democrats have made over deporting illegal immigrants. But they’ve said almost nothing about Trump’s attempts to restrict legal immigration.
indianwashlet 5mo ago
[dead]
rayiner 5mo ago
> Applying for a greencard while working on an H, J or O-class visa is extremely common. But it’s not supposed to be extremely common to apply for a green card on an H or J visa. Those visas are explicitly “nonimmigrant” visas for people “temporarily” in the U.S. who have “no intention of abandoning” their foreign residence. Read the statute: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:8%20section:1101%20edition:prelim) https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:8%20section:1.... It’s subsections (a)(15), (a)(15)(H)(i)(b) and (a)(15)(J). The people who thought of this are trying to return the practice to the actual intent of the law. The law was sold to the American public as a temporary worker program. It was not billed as a pathway for permanent residency.
- beering 5mo ago
  Sure, it’s temporary. But what if you’ve been working in the US for a while, like your job, and want to go permanent? Does it make sense to have to give up your job, move back home where there may not be a US consulate, and then apply from there? Or just apply for permanent residency? Why does your physical location matter if you’re in the country legally already? If the intention was to limit the number of people becoming permanent residents, then they could have done that explicitly. But by doing it this way, they are just fucking with people. And the talent that built our tech will take all their knowledge and skills back to their home country. If the intention is to strengthen other countries by stopping their brain drain, then this would be a good move.
  - rayiner 5mo ago
    Why are you looking at the law from the viewpoint of the foreign worker? Obviously what they want is a quick and easy path to citizenship. But they don’t get a vote. The question is what was the intention of the H1B program when the law was enacted by duly elected legislators? It was never sold to the public as a path to permanent residency. It certainly wasn’t sold to the public as a system where each H1B granted would lead to citizenship, followed by bringing several family members with them through uncapped family reunification visas.
    - 5mo ago
vkou 5mo ago
They are intentionally malevolent, and at this point, it's safe to assume that anyone making excuses for it is as well.
pea 5mo ago
I agree with mostly everything you’re saying; but it’s not uncommon to be processed via your local consulate, even if you are already living in the US. This is usually just for the final issuing of the GC, and where USCIS approval has already happened (for instance, on an EB1A). People frequently do this so they don’t have the travel restriction. Source: I just did it.
- khuey 5mo ago
  > but it’s not uncommon to be processed via your local consulate, even if you are already living in the US. It's relatively unusual. 84% of EB1s adjusted rather than apply at consulates in the last quarter USCIS released data for. Maybe it made sense for your circumstances. https://ohss.dhs.gov/system/files/2025-07/2025_0725_ohss_legal-immigration-adjustment-of-status-fy-2025q1.xlsx https://ohss.dhs.gov/system/files/2025-07/2025_0725_ohss_leg...
2muchcoffeeman 5mo ago
This is the point. Welcome to America.
skeeter2020 5mo ago
GC issuances were already way down because DHS has basically stopped working on processing them. Now they're taking the next step and saying the ability to apply for a GC while in the US was a "loophole" which is utter horse shit; "adjustment of status" has been part of immigration since the 50's, and was expanded in the 90's and 2000 with support from all parties to increase efficiency, reduce the backlog and keep strong economic players in the US. You may notice that this adminstration has figured out they could weaponize inefficiency and a huge backlog if you don;t give a shit about the economic health of the country. This is a long winded way of saying you're right with "intentionally malevolent"; this is the next step in a pretty transparent plan.
LeoPanthera 5mo ago
> Whoever thought of this is either intentionally malevolent or inexcusably incomprehending of the immigration process. Have you not been paying attention?
mathfailure 5mo ago
> You can't reasonably get a job at a US firm while being physically located somewhere else and on the other side of an uncertain and greatly attenuated greencard application process. That's just not how this works. For IT jobs - why can't you?
- antiframe 5mo ago
  I believe there are tax/nation border issues. Can a Polish citizen work for a US company while in Poland. They need to pay Polish income tax. Does the company need to withhold their taxes. Usually companies will have a Polish subsidiary so the employee is working for a Polish company in Poland. Not to mention what does the company do for the I-9. The emploee has no authorization to work for a US company.
spl757 5mo ago
There are people with billions of dollars that want the population of the US to drop significantly. It's hard to control 300+ million people, and that many people can just remove unpopular governments by marching in the millions. Also, I believe the "Georgia Guidestones" if I'm not mistaken, that have writing about reducing the population of the USA to 500,000. I much more manageable number. Or maybe I'm just reading too much into things.
- rossjudson 5mo ago
  Yes, you are reading too much into things. The ultrawealthy are supporting the current MAGA nonsense because they wish to permanently lock up the massive wealth transfer they've engineered over the past two decades, and the only way to do that is through a combination of nationalism, populism, and fascism. Every part of the MAGA platform is a smokescreen of outrage, intended as cover for policies that favor the ultrawealthy. An aware and motivated population legislates and taxes their way out of the establishment and perpetuation of dynasties; this has been done in the past.
whattheheckheck 5mo ago
After 10 years of his bs I can't imagine anyone not realizing trump, maga, and heritage foundation people aren't intentionally malevolent
MPSimmons 5mo ago
Intentionally malevolent is kind of their thing in this administration
kelnos 5mo ago
> Whoever thought of this is either intentionally malevolent or inexcusably incomprehending of the immigration process. It's always weird to me to see confusion/uncertainty such as this. It's intentionally malevolent. Obviously. MAGA types hate immigration. They make a lot of noise about illegal immigration, but the fact is that they hate all kinds of immigration (unless you're white-looking and conservative enough). Anything they can do to make it harder for non-citizens to stay in the US is exactly the point for them. And more the better if they can sow fear and threat of cruelty while doing it. That's their playbook. It's MAGA 101.
- abalashov 5mo ago
  It was more a bit of rhetorical flourish than serious doubt as to which motivation is the true explanation. :-)
ordu 5mo ago
> Whoever thought of this is either intentionally malevolent or inexcusably incomprehending of the immigration process. It surprises me a lot. You can be a politician making a career on a hatred of immigrants, but your prosperity is bound to the prosperity of USA, so why to destroy it? It cannot be just malevolent, it is plain sheer stupidity. It seems to me even worse than roman elites fighting their civil wars while Rome itself was crumbling. They were in a situation of a tragedy of commons, stupid but understandable. But USA politicians really going against immigration is just something else. You can always look tough on immigrants while not hurting brain drain from all over the world. There were dumb rumors that Trump is a Kremlin agent, but now I don't think they are so dumb. It is not enough to be a fool to inflict so much damage to USA.
cjfd 5mo ago
Well, the short summary of it all is that the US is the very curious case of a superpower attempting to become a third world country.
refurb 5mo ago
I’d encourage you to read the policy before you get too upset. The policy specifically calls out immigration violations as the problem. It doesn’t seem crazy to me to restrict the benefit of AOS in the US to people who have NOT committed immigration violations. In addition, the policy specifically calls out that AOS in country is entirely appropriate where immigrants hold dual intent visas. This would include H1-B (skilled workers and family), L1 (corporate transfer) and K1/3 (spouses of citizens).

hibgymnb 5mo ago

It’s intentional malevolence that’s a given from this admin

abalashov 5mo ago
I take that as a given, too, especially considering the diabolical architecture of Miller Thought.
Gibbon1 5mo ago
The secret sauce is bad faith and crime.
- BLKNSLVR 5mo ago
  Thankfully, malevolence, bad faith, and crime are unsustainable as governmental motivations. Unfortunately, they do stir the populace in a cadence long enough that prior examples are are only fragments of memory. More unfortunately, however, is that the time it takes to heal from such governments is similar to said cadence.

hvb2 5mo ago

When you're in your visa or green card process it's not uncommon to be advised not to travel out of the country... Yep. You're kind of in jail. It doesn't mean that you cannot, it just means that it might complicate your already complicated application. So if a family member dies, maybe... But that's it

abalashov 5mo ago
This is true. But you might be conflating two different issues: having to apply for a greencard from outside the country, and being restricted in traveling outside the US during the (potentially very lengthy) pendency of that application.
- hvb2 5mo ago
  No, I'm aware of the difference. I just wanted to write this down as 'being told you cannot do something' is not something the typical American likes. Yet, when going through immigration, it's common...
qingcharles 5mo ago
I've known people who left for a brief period during the GC process on emergency basis and then were put into a literal jail on their return to the USA.
- QuantumFunnel 5mo ago
  [flagged]
  - array_key_first 5mo ago
    This maybe doesn't feel like an lol type comment. It really stinks that our processes are this broken, and frankly it's a bit embarrassing.
- deleted 5mo ago
  [deleted]

jmyeet 5mo ago

> Far from a loophole, applying from inside the US is the only reasonable way to apply for a greencard. So that's kind of the point, to make the system arbitrary and capricious. It's to make the lives of immigrants more difficult. For example, when one applies for adjustment of status ("AoS", meaning the I485), there are several things you can also apply for, most notably an Employment Authorization Document ("EAD", I765) and/or Advance Parole ("AP", I131) to allow you to travel. In years gone by, you'd get the temporary documents in 3-4 months typically and your green card in under a year (after filing the I485, not for the entire process, which can be substantially longer). So this administration has seemingly started a process for marriage cases where you file an I130 and I485 concurrently (the I130 is to prove you're free to marry and you have legally married, the I485 is to adjust status) where USCIS will approve the I130 but then just sit on the I485, not approving or denying the case, and never issue the EAD or AP so you can't work. Lots of people can't afford to not work for 1-2 years while this all plays out. But that's the point. Also, there are rumors that Palantir is getting invovled here. Rumor is that USCIS is sitting on I485 approvals while they wait for a new system to come online that will let USCIS look at way more data, likely including social media data, to find reasons to deny cases, so they don't want to approve cases before it's available. This is uncofirmed but there's a lot of anecodtal data for approved I130, no decision on the I485. For marriage cases, this administraiton clearly wants people to consular process instead because the administration has broad powers that can't be challenged to simply withhold visas to nationals of certain countries and those bans can't be challenged in court, as per Trump v. Hawaii [1]. This is a problem for people who have made asylum claims because they realistically can't use the passport from whcih they've claimed asylum (if they even have it) and they certainly couldn't or shouldn't go back to their home country. A separate rule generally requires people to use the embassy of their country of birth. Again, that's to make life difficult. It's not clear to me yet how this rule change affects those on H1Bs that want to adjust. Is the Trump admin going to require H1B holders to leave the country to adjust? That's going to create problems if so. The asylum case and the home country embassy rule mentioned above are two big reasons. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._Hawaii https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._Hawaii

confuseddesi 5mo ago

These are all non-immigrant visa classes. The understanding is that you are temporarily immigrating to the United States. Why should it be surprising then that it is hard to become a permanent resident/immigrant if you explicitly came on a non-immigrant visa?

MagicMoonlight 5mo ago
There is no immigrant visa by that logic. Unless you count the one that costs a million dollars.
- sjhatfield 5mo ago
  Spousal one? I got it outside the US
  - abalashov 5mo ago
    Yeah, that's one notable exception. Doesn't invalidate the generalisation.
    - hluska 5mo ago
      I’m pretty sure it did.
      - PaulDavisThe1st 5mo ago
        Perhaps you're the exception that proves some rule?
        Auracle 5mo ago
        That's a pretty big exception.
05 5mo ago
H1B and O1 are dual intent..

susiecambria 5mo ago

This. I cannot be this calm about the administration that is all about the chaos and harm. Thank you for writing what I can't.

napierzaza 5mo ago

[dead]

plombe 5mo ago

Not surprised. There are worse things in the works.

Arete314159 5mo ago

Intentionally malevolent.

cloche 5mo ago

Unfortunately, I think this is the point. They want to push the needle so that even legal immigration is restricted or difficult (unless you happen to pay them directly) https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/23/us/politics/trump-legal-immigration.html https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/23/us/politics/trump-legal-i...

joe_mamba 5mo ago
[flagged]
- blizdiddy 5mo ago
  [flagged]
  - joe_mamba 5mo ago
    @dang, @tomhow, how about application of HN rules here please?
- rohansood15 5mo ago
  Let's say the government can't care for 100M people because of lack of doctors. Now they could train one over 10 years, or you could have one of the smartest doctors in the world come be 100M+1. Would you take that? Now expand that across socio-economic spectrum (not enough plumbers, teachers, AI experts, researchers etc). That is what legal immigration is meant for.
  - joe_mamba 5mo ago
    >Let's say the government can't care for 100M people because of lack of doctors. Then the government is proven to be severely incompetent and shouldn't be trusted with more migration because it will guaranteed fumble that too. Barring mass migration, populations don't naturally just explode overnight for you to suddenly end up with 100 million people and no doctors. Governments have all the tools and data at their disposal to see population trends, piramid, emigration, immigration, job statistics, housing, etc. all this data you can use and plot out to determine how many doctors you'll need in the future as the population follows the trajectory and plan training and recruitment of doctors ahead of time so that when population reaches 100 million or 500 million there will be an proportional number of doctors. So then why didn't the government do this preemptively when they had all the info and levers at their disposal? Could it be because they simply don't give a shit and they only care about winning the next election and not what happens in 20+ years when the population reaches 100 million and there's no doctors? Because they won't be in charge then when the shit hits the fan so they don't care to be preemptive for something that's not a pressing issue now. So then given this, why would you trust these same people with enabling mass migration on your behalf? They clearly don't care about the long term future planning and second order effects of their actions. > or you could have one of the smartest doctors in the world come be 100M+1. Would you take that? In which case do 1 million of doctors and only doctors and nothing else but doctors show up at your borders because if that were the case I guarantee you everyone would take them in no questions asked. That's the classic bait and switch. Merkel also told Germans they're getting "doctors and engineers" in 2015 and the only thing that increases is sexual assaults rates, crime and welfare spending to the point where "doctors and engineers" became a meme phrase for migrant crime in the news. >That is what legal immigration is meant for. In theory yes, but just like Germany, in practice the system has always been abused to dupe voters to accept anything other than doctors so that corporations can get cheap labor and landlords more tenants. The overton window has gotten so bad on this topic that if you complain about migrant crime, they'll maliciously ask you back "but what about doctors, you don't want them either?". No, we want doctors, We just want the doors shut to people who aren't doctors, it's really that simple.

runjake 5mo ago

> Whoever thought of this is either intentionally malevolent or inexcusably incomprehending of the immigration process. It’s the former: intentionally malevolent. Trump cabinet members, including Stephen Miller have said this is exactly why.

radsj 5mo ago

I don't think it applies to folks on H or L visas. Wording from the site: "Nonimmigrants, like students, temporary workers, or people on tourist visas, come to the U.S. for a short time and for a specific purpose. Our system is designed for them to leave when their visit is over. Their visit should not function as the first step in the Green Card process. "

abalashov 5mo ago
I'm not sure I share your optimism. What is a worker on an H-class visa, if not a "temporary worker"? I read this with the assumption that "nonimmigrant visa" applies to every category of visa listed here under "Nonimmigrant Visa Categories": https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/visa-information-resources/all-visa-categories.html https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/visa-inf...
- conartist6 5mo ago
  It specifically lists H1B as non-immigrant visa on that page, so if you are here working at Google you must leave the country.
- rayiner 5mo ago
  A “non-immigrant” is everything under 8 USC 1101(a)(15): https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:8%20section:1101%20edition:prelim) https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:8%20section:1... Includes H and J. The letters used to refer to those visas comes from the subsections under 1101(a)(15)
- refurb 5mo ago
  If you read the actual policy (it’s on the ISCIS website), it specifically says dual-intent visa are appropriate for AOS in the US. This is a pretty broad swath of immigrants - H visa (worker and family), L1 (corporate transfer and family) and K1/3 (spouses of US citizen or green card holder). What this limits are the truly temporary visitors - tourists, students, etc
nnutter 5mo ago

rajup 5mo ago

"intentionally malevolent" -> Stephen Miller's second name. The cruelty is and always was the point.

tahoemph999 5mo ago
I thought his second name was Goebbles?
abalashov 5mo ago
This is true. I resisted this conclusion for a long time, imagining it was tendentious, but there is really no other way to understand his rhetoric and his actions.
mycall 5mo ago
You should double check Project 2025 before solely blaming Miller.
- xethos 5mo ago
  They called Miller out as one aspect, not the totality of the problem.
  - deleted 5mo ago
    [deleted]
- platevoltage 5mo ago
  There will be plenty of blame to go around when the trials start.
  - bluecheese452 5mo ago
    There never will be trials. Assuming things actually swing back the new admin will talk about healing and looking forward.
    - 5mo ago

thallium205 5mo ago

The UK, the EU, Japan, and Australia all have identical rules to this policy.

cinntaile 5mo ago
In the EU you can apply for a permanent residency card when you're in the country. One of the prerequisites is how long you have been in the country where you're applying. It seems unlikely the other countries have the same policy as the US has now.
sigmar 5mo ago
UK's 'indefinite leave to remain' (closest thing to a green card) requires that you apply from within the UK. https://www.gov.uk/long-residence/apply-to-settle https://www.gov.uk/long-residence/apply-to-settle
brandelune 5mo ago
You apply for permanent residency in Japan from Japan.
- cinntaile 5mo ago
  Which is also the only way that makes sense... Permanent residency but you have to be... Outside the country? lol
sega_sai 5mo ago
It is false for the UK. The whole system of US of needing to leave the country to even renew visas is absolutely bizarre and does not have analogues in most other countries (at least EU/UK)
- robotresearcher 5mo ago
  The logic of it is that if your visa renewal is rejected they don’t have to catch you and deport you. You already deported yourself. Having to go abroad when a visa/PR has already been granted is totally pointless. Green cards are mailed to your home in the US right now.

ourmandave 5mo ago

intentionally malevolent Everything anti-immigration under both Trump terms comes directly from the fascist Stephen Miller. From blocking Muslim countries to trying to end birth right citizenship. Of course he has full support from Trump who usually lies about knowing fascists he's had lunch with or tells to "stand back and stand by." And endlessly lies to demonize immigrants. "They're not sending their best." "They're eating the cats and dogs." SPLC has an article on Miller if you want to waste your time. https://www.splcenter.org/resources/extremist-files/stephen-miller/ https://www.splcenter.org/resources/extremist-files/stephen-...

ycui7 5mo ago

I think what this actually means is that you can apply permanent residency in the US, but you can only get the physical green card outside of the US when the case is approved. So, the last step to get the card need to from outside the country.

robotresearcher 5mo ago
What is the point of that? They might as well mail it to your home. That’s what happens today.

nielsbot 5mo ago

Don't assume incompetence at this point--Miller (and Trump) are anti-immigrant, full stop.

TehCorwiz 5mo ago

The cruelty is the point. They want people to leave so they can refuse to allow them back in. That's the goal. It's not more complicated than that.

rayiner 5mo ago
If you come to the U.S. on a visa that’s explicitly labeled a “nonimmigrant” visa for people who are “coming temporarily to the United States to perform services,” then it’s not “cruel” to actually enforce that. Those words are literally in the law.
- kelnos 5mo ago
  The law doesn't describe reality, though. The so-called "non-immigrant" visas are really not that. "Non-immigrant" has a specific legal meaning, and like many legal terms, they don't match up with what you might consider everyday usage of the term. And even if they were truly non-immigrant, who cares? If someone comes to the US, does good, useful work, and stays out of trouble, I want them to be given the opportunity to stay permanently. You may not, perhaps, but, well... I don't care.
  - rayiner 5mo ago
    When the reality doesn’t match what the law says, that’s a bad thing! > The so-called "non-immigrant" visas are really not that. "Non-immigrant" has a specific legal meaning The legal meaning here is the same as the common usage. For example, H1B is defined as someone “who is coming temporarily to the United States to perform services.” The words here are being used in their ordinary way. > And even if they were truly non-immigrant, who cares? You should care that the actual operation of the immigration system reflects the laws Congress actually passed through the democratic process. Congress didn’t have the votes to pass a permanent immigration pathway back then, and it doesn’t have the votes today. If you want to make your case to change the law, be my guest. There’s zero appetite for it in the GOP, and very little willingness to use political capital on the issue by Democrats. Think about the fuss Democrats have made over deporting illegal immigrants. But they’ve said almost nothing about Trump’s attempts to restrict legal immigration.

indianwashlet 5mo ago

[dead]

rayiner 5mo ago

> Applying for a greencard while working on an H, J or O-class visa is extremely common. But it’s not supposed to be extremely common to apply for a green card on an H or J visa. Those visas are explicitly “nonimmigrant” visas for people “temporarily” in the U.S. who have “no intention of abandoning” their foreign residence. Read the statute: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:8%20section:1101%20edition:prelim) https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:8%20section:1.... It’s subsections (a)(15), (a)(15)(H)(i)(b) and (a)(15)(J). The people who thought of this are trying to return the practice to the actual intent of the law. The law was sold to the American public as a temporary worker program. It was not billed as a pathway for permanent residency.

beering 5mo ago
Sure, it’s temporary. But what if you’ve been working in the US for a while, like your job, and want to go permanent? Does it make sense to have to give up your job, move back home where there may not be a US consulate, and then apply from there? Or just apply for permanent residency? Why does your physical location matter if you’re in the country legally already? If the intention was to limit the number of people becoming permanent residents, then they could have done that explicitly. But by doing it this way, they are just fucking with people. And the talent that built our tech will take all their knowledge and skills back to their home country. If the intention is to strengthen other countries by stopping their brain drain, then this would be a good move.
- rayiner 5mo ago
  Why are you looking at the law from the viewpoint of the foreign worker? Obviously what they want is a quick and easy path to citizenship. But they don’t get a vote. The question is what was the intention of the H1B program when the law was enacted by duly elected legislators? It was never sold to the public as a path to permanent residency. It certainly wasn’t sold to the public as a system where each H1B granted would lead to citizenship, followed by bringing several family members with them through uncapped family reunification visas.
  - 5mo ago

vkou 5mo ago

They are intentionally malevolent, and at this point, it's safe to assume that anyone making excuses for it is as well.

pea 5mo ago

I agree with mostly everything you’re saying; but it’s not uncommon to be processed via your local consulate, even if you are already living in the US. This is usually just for the final issuing of the GC, and where USCIS approval has already happened (for instance, on an EB1A). People frequently do this so they don’t have the travel restriction. Source: I just did it.

khuey 5mo ago
> but it’s not uncommon to be processed via your local consulate, even if you are already living in the US. It's relatively unusual. 84% of EB1s adjusted rather than apply at consulates in the last quarter USCIS released data for. Maybe it made sense for your circumstances. https://ohss.dhs.gov/system/files/2025-07/2025_0725_ohss_legal-immigration-adjustment-of-status-fy-2025q1.xlsx https://ohss.dhs.gov/system/files/2025-07/2025_0725_ohss_leg...

2muchcoffeeman 5mo ago

This is the point. Welcome to America.

skeeter2020 5mo ago

GC issuances were already way down because DHS has basically stopped working on processing them. Now they're taking the next step and saying the ability to apply for a GC while in the US was a "loophole" which is utter horse shit; "adjustment of status" has been part of immigration since the 50's, and was expanded in the 90's and 2000 with support from all parties to increase efficiency, reduce the backlog and keep strong economic players in the US. You may notice that this adminstration has figured out they could weaponize inefficiency and a huge backlog if you don;t give a shit about the economic health of the country. This is a long winded way of saying you're right with "intentionally malevolent"; this is the next step in a pretty transparent plan.

LeoPanthera 5mo ago

> Whoever thought of this is either intentionally malevolent or inexcusably incomprehending of the immigration process. Have you not been paying attention?

mathfailure 5mo ago

> You can't reasonably get a job at a US firm while being physically located somewhere else and on the other side of an uncertain and greatly attenuated greencard application process. That's just not how this works. For IT jobs - why can't you?

antiframe 5mo ago
I believe there are tax/nation border issues. Can a Polish citizen work for a US company while in Poland. They need to pay Polish income tax. Does the company need to withhold their taxes. Usually companies will have a Polish subsidiary so the employee is working for a Polish company in Poland. Not to mention what does the company do for the I-9. The emploee has no authorization to work for a US company.

spl757 5mo ago

There are people with billions of dollars that want the population of the US to drop significantly. It's hard to control 300+ million people, and that many people can just remove unpopular governments by marching in the millions. Also, I believe the "Georgia Guidestones" if I'm not mistaken, that have writing about reducing the population of the USA to 500,000. I much more manageable number. Or maybe I'm just reading too much into things.

rossjudson 5mo ago
Yes, you are reading too much into things. The ultrawealthy are supporting the current MAGA nonsense because they wish to permanently lock up the massive wealth transfer they've engineered over the past two decades, and the only way to do that is through a combination of nationalism, populism, and fascism. Every part of the MAGA platform is a smokescreen of outrage, intended as cover for policies that favor the ultrawealthy. An aware and motivated population legislates and taxes their way out of the establishment and perpetuation of dynasties; this has been done in the past.

whattheheckheck 5mo ago

After 10 years of his bs I can't imagine anyone not realizing trump, maga, and heritage foundation people aren't intentionally malevolent

MPSimmons 5mo ago

Intentionally malevolent is kind of their thing in this administration

kelnos 5mo ago

> Whoever thought of this is either intentionally malevolent or inexcusably incomprehending of the immigration process. It's always weird to me to see confusion/uncertainty such as this. It's intentionally malevolent. Obviously. MAGA types hate immigration. They make a lot of noise about illegal immigration, but the fact is that they hate all kinds of immigration (unless you're white-looking and conservative enough). Anything they can do to make it harder for non-citizens to stay in the US is exactly the point for them. And more the better if they can sow fear and threat of cruelty while doing it. That's their playbook. It's MAGA 101.

abalashov 5mo ago
It was more a bit of rhetorical flourish than serious doubt as to which motivation is the true explanation. :-)

ordu 5mo ago

> Whoever thought of this is either intentionally malevolent or inexcusably incomprehending of the immigration process. It surprises me a lot. You can be a politician making a career on a hatred of immigrants, but your prosperity is bound to the prosperity of USA, so why to destroy it? It cannot be just malevolent, it is plain sheer stupidity. It seems to me even worse than roman elites fighting their civil wars while Rome itself was crumbling. They were in a situation of a tragedy of commons, stupid but understandable. But USA politicians really going against immigration is just something else. You can always look tough on immigrants while not hurting brain drain from all over the world. There were dumb rumors that Trump is a Kremlin agent, but now I don't think they are so dumb. It is not enough to be a fool to inflict so much damage to USA.

cjfd 5mo ago

Well, the short summary of it all is that the US is the very curious case of a superpower attempting to become a third world country.

refurb 5mo ago

I’d encourage you to read the policy before you get too upset. The policy specifically calls out immigration violations as the problem. It doesn’t seem crazy to me to restrict the benefit of AOS in the US to people who have NOT committed immigration violations. In addition, the policy specifically calls out that AOS in country is entirely appropriate where immigrants hold dual intent visas. This would include H1-B (skilled workers and family), L1 (corporate transfer) and K1/3 (spouses of citizens).