4 ms·

What part of this memo changes the regulations? The punchline is this: “Where adjustment of status is in the discretion of USCIS, officers are reminded that the

by rayiner 5mo ago

What part of this memo changes the regulations? The punchline is this: “Where adjustment of status is in the discretion of USCIS, officers are reminded that they are to consider all relevant factors and information in the totality of the circumstances in exercising that discretion.” All the memo is saying is reminding USCIS officers that adjustment of status is an act of administrative grace and applicants aren’t entitled to have their status adjusted. That’s always been true.

varenc 5mo ago
That is what the memo is trying to say. That no regulations or laws are changing, but it's simply pushing for a certain interpretation of the law that doesn't seem to have been the status quo for awhile. Some stats I found online report that ~60% of greencards are granted to people already living the US. This memo makes it seem like that route will now be much harder. So while its true that the law as written has always been true, they're definitely pushing for a change that will result in past behaviors no longer being true.
DiogenesKynikos 5mo ago
> That's always been true. Except it is completely contrary to how the immigration system has worked in the US for decades. It is absolutely standard for people who are already in the US on other types of visas to apply for Green Cards.
- portmanteur 5mo ago
  [flagged]
  - DiogenesKynikos 5mo ago
    More like he's been given a political mandate to be needlessly cruel to non-citizens, and he's constantly finding new ways to do so - whether legal or illegal. The latest move even forces spouses of US citizens to leave the country before they can apply for a Green Card. Why? No reason except spite. Hating on foreigners is good politics. And then all sorts of people will come out of the woodwork to try to explain that this is all normal and fine, and that nobody should be upset by it.
    - rayiner 5mo ago
      It took decades of bait and switch and not enforcing the immigration laws to get to this point: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/29/podcasts/the-daily/election-immigration.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/29/podcasts/the-daily/electi... The last time the U.S. had this level of foreign born population, it enacted extremely restrictive immigration laws and the foreign born population dropped from 15% to under 5%.
      - DiogenesKynikos 5mo ago
        "Bait and switch"? Applying for a Green Card while in the US is allowed by the law, and has been the norm for decades. Yes, the US has had other xenophobic phases in its history. That doesn't justify the new wave of xenophobic politics.
        rayiner 5mo ago
        > Bait and switch"? Applying for a Green Card while in the US is allowed by the law, and has been the norm for decades. The law was marketed to voters as a temporary worker program. That’s not what it ended up being. That’s the bait and switch. > Yes, the US has had other xenophobic phases in its history. That doesn't justify the new wave of xenophobic politic The immigration restriction was necessary to Americanize the immigrants culturally and dissolve their foreign identities and affinity for their own cultural groups. It was fairly successful, too! It’s bizarre to have to explain this concept on HN. Silicon Valley companies spend so much time on culture and fit, and with good reason. Cultivating a successful culture is extremely important. It’s curation, not “xenophobia.”
        DiogenesKynikos 5mo ago
        A country is not a company. The central belief that defines Americans is that the country is open to immigrants, and that it will accept anyone who embraces the civic creed: democracy and civil rights, as defined by the Constitution. The attempt by Trump and his supporters (yourself included) to replace that American identity with a xenophobic, exclusionary identity is a major deviation from traditional American values.
  - nsonha 5mo ago
    not just de facto standard and not just in the US, it's a logical way to intepret the laws, in many western countries. The laws should streamline and welcome people who have already established connection and contributed to the success of America. It makes no sense for people to have to leave the country to apply for permanent resident, and be treated like all those to-be immigrants who have never lived in America.
    - rayiner 5mo ago
      > The laws should streamline and welcome people who have already established connection and contributed to the success of America The law should do what it was designed to do. The H1 system reflects a compromise between people who wanted skilled workers and those who didn’t want foreigners becoming permanent residents. So the compromise was a temporary worker program where most people would go home afterwards. The law should be interpreted to give effect to that compromise. Your approach of streamlining immigration wipes away that compromise.
      - nsonha 5mo ago
        they still need to file for permanent residency and you can still reject them. If the laws need to "wipe away that compromise", better just disqualify them from filing in the first place. It makes no sense to deport some of the people that you're going to give permanent residency to, while you're giving permanent residency to them.
  - mrgoldenbrown 5mo ago
    For him to have been given a mandate, he would have had to stick to one well defined, self consistent position for more than a day.

by rayiner 5mo ago

varenc 5mo ago

That is what the memo is trying to say. That no regulations or laws are changing, but it's simply pushing for a certain interpretation of the law that doesn't seem to have been the status quo for awhile. Some stats I found online report that ~60% of greencards are granted to people already living the US. This memo makes it seem like that route will now be much harder. So while its true that the law as written has always been true, they're definitely pushing for a change that will result in past behaviors no longer being true.

DiogenesKynikos 5mo ago

> That's always been true. Except it is completely contrary to how the immigration system has worked in the US for decades. It is absolutely standard for people who are already in the US on other types of visas to apply for Green Cards.

portmanteur 5mo ago
[flagged]
- DiogenesKynikos 5mo ago
  More like he's been given a political mandate to be needlessly cruel to non-citizens, and he's constantly finding new ways to do so - whether legal or illegal. The latest move even forces spouses of US citizens to leave the country before they can apply for a Green Card. Why? No reason except spite. Hating on foreigners is good politics. And then all sorts of people will come out of the woodwork to try to explain that this is all normal and fine, and that nobody should be upset by it.
  - rayiner 5mo ago
    It took decades of bait and switch and not enforcing the immigration laws to get to this point: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/29/podcasts/the-daily/election-immigration.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/29/podcasts/the-daily/electi... The last time the U.S. had this level of foreign born population, it enacted extremely restrictive immigration laws and the foreign born population dropped from 15% to under 5%.
    - DiogenesKynikos 5mo ago
      "Bait and switch"? Applying for a Green Card while in the US is allowed by the law, and has been the norm for decades. Yes, the US has had other xenophobic phases in its history. That doesn't justify the new wave of xenophobic politics.
      - rayiner 5mo ago
        > Bait and switch"? Applying for a Green Card while in the US is allowed by the law, and has been the norm for decades. The law was marketed to voters as a temporary worker program. That’s not what it ended up being. That’s the bait and switch. > Yes, the US has had other xenophobic phases in its history. That doesn't justify the new wave of xenophobic politic The immigration restriction was necessary to Americanize the immigrants culturally and dissolve their foreign identities and affinity for their own cultural groups. It was fairly successful, too! It’s bizarre to have to explain this concept on HN. Silicon Valley companies spend so much time on culture and fit, and with good reason. Cultivating a successful culture is extremely important. It’s curation, not “xenophobia.”
        DiogenesKynikos 5mo ago
        A country is not a company. The central belief that defines Americans is that the country is open to immigrants, and that it will accept anyone who embraces the civic creed: democracy and civil rights, as defined by the Constitution. The attempt by Trump and his supporters (yourself included) to replace that American identity with a xenophobic, exclusionary identity is a major deviation from traditional American values.
- nsonha 5mo ago
  not just de facto standard and not just in the US, it's a logical way to intepret the laws, in many western countries. The laws should streamline and welcome people who have already established connection and contributed to the success of America. It makes no sense for people to have to leave the country to apply for permanent resident, and be treated like all those to-be immigrants who have never lived in America.
  - rayiner 5mo ago
    > The laws should streamline and welcome people who have already established connection and contributed to the success of America The law should do what it was designed to do. The H1 system reflects a compromise between people who wanted skilled workers and those who didn’t want foreigners becoming permanent residents. So the compromise was a temporary worker program where most people would go home afterwards. The law should be interpreted to give effect to that compromise. Your approach of streamlining immigration wipes away that compromise.
    - nsonha 5mo ago
      they still need to file for permanent residency and you can still reject them. If the laws need to "wipe away that compromise", better just disqualify them from filing in the first place. It makes no sense to deport some of the people that you're going to give permanent residency to, while you're giving permanent residency to them.
- mrgoldenbrown 5mo ago
  For him to have been given a mandate, he would have had to stick to one well defined, self consistent position for more than a day.