9 ms·

The leaving part is not the issue, as you try to immigrate into a country you're subject to the rules that country sets. You're always free to not immigrate int

by hvb2 1mo ago

The leaving part is not the issue, as you try to immigrate into a country you're subject to the rules that country sets. You're always free to not immigrate into that country (this is not about asylum). The issue here is that, if you just left the country to do everything the country asked you, you are now in limbo. For how long? No one can tell. Does this mean you lose your job? Maybe. And when you decide it's no longer worth it, you might even have issues getting back in to get your stuff... Retraining your people CAN be done without it being so disruptive, they chose not to.

sidewndr46 1mo ago
You just described most if not all government functions in the US. Applied for a permit? Better know the right person to call if you ever want it to get approved
conductr 1mo ago
> The issue here is that, if you just left the country to do everything the country asked you, you are now in limbo. I feel like I’ve said it a few times but - Yes, exactly. The country wants you to leave and then get’s to decide if you can come back. That’s how it’s designed. On purpose. You’re approaching it from a perspective where you’re being asked to leave and your reentry is a right. It’s not. They never said, if you leave you can come back. They said, leave and we’ll see. The risk of being blocked out is inherent by anyone residing in a country that has this similar process; there are many.
- hvb2 1mo ago
  > I feel like I’ve said it a few times but - Yes, exactly. The country wants you to leave and then get’s to decide if you can come back. That’s how it’s designed. On purpose. That is how it's designed, and that's fine. But make a decision... They're pausing the decision making for an indefinite amount of time. That's not how it was designed, but it sure does look like that's on purpose.
  - conductr 1mo ago
    Pause is a silly way of saying No for now. You can try again later. But they’re not advising when that may be happening. To me, that tells you everything you need to know. That they don’t know themselves because it’s to be determined, maybe. Until then, no.
    - hvb2 1mo ago
      > You can try again later. Can they? Because one of the questions on these questionnaires is almost always 'have you had a prior request being denied'. > But they’re not advising when that may be happening. To me, that tells you everything you need to know. These are life altering decisions for people that might have put decades into doing their best for the US. This is not about what to have for dinner. This causes a LOT of uncertainty and chaos for no real reason. If they're so convinced it should all be denied, then issue those denials so they can be challenged.
      - conductr 1mo ago
        So maybe you have stated a reason a pause is better than an explicit no. No history of a denial is maybe a better thing. I get the human component but I can separate that from policy. I have my own risk assessment on it and it’s that I couldn’t imagine ever making any material investment financial or community in a place like this. I’ve thought about doing the digital nomad thing in the past, and I don’t think anyone would be surprised if some random South East Asian country did this same thing and nobody would bat an eye. It to be expected that other countries can have wavering policies, it’s when the US does it that people cry about the humanity of it. I don’t think it would have hurt much to put some advanced warning out there. Let people plan for it. But I also know that probably has some blow back towards the intended outcome of this. Also, I don’t think you can challenge a blanket policy. I haven’t really dove into this but it doesn’t sound like they’re making any exceptions. The current administration loves creating chaos and uncertainty. Exactly why this should be less of a surprise to those that know how things work and that they may actually get locked out. Anyone who reads even just the headline of this and is perplexed by it has been living under a rock. To me, it is 100% on brand.
- pjc50 1mo ago
  > That’s how it’s designed. On purpose. The cruelty is the point. (The UK system requires initial applications from overseas but I believe doesn't require you to leave for renewals)
  - ifwinterco 1mo ago
    Not at the moment, but the result of the current UK system has been huge uncontrolled levels of immigration leading to deep public resentment, so that may change in the future
    - mschuster91 1mo ago
      > leading to deep public resentment That "public resentment" mostly was fueled by a rabid, out of control yellow press and a healthy dose of Russian propaganda spread by Russia-financed entities (Brexit, UKIP and Reform UK all have been shown to have very suspicious links to Russian money).
      - deleted 1mo ago
        [deleted]
    - jarym 1mo ago
      ‘Uncontrolled’ - surely the control point was the initial application being submitted from abroad? It was very much ‘controlled’. We lost SO many European workers due to the obsession with EU Freedom of Movement that entire sectors like nursing were about to implode without a source of new workers.
    - room271 1mo ago
      The system has already been changed and numbers are falling (and have already fallen) quite dramatically. See Fig 2 here: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/bulletins/longterminternationalmigrationprovisional/yearendingdecember2025 https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populati...
- pnt12 1mo ago
  That's a disfuncional view: "we set the rules, take it or leave it". In Switzerland there are strict requirements, but if you're a law abiding and employed migrant, ie contributing to the country, the services help you fill the paperwork so you can stay. Even considering the disfuncional way, one thing it's to say "you only stay if we allow". The other is to say "you only leave if you allow": that's a much more authoritarian position. These policies will work and immigration will lower for sure. Let's see the outcome in a few years.
- aprilthird2021 1mo ago
  Rather than rights and privileges, think about the economic consequences of this. People will stop coming here for advanced study for advanced research and for advanced industry jobs. And most institutions and companies will accommodate this and try to have such people work from where they are vs fight an onerous government to bring them here. The net result will be damage to the US economy
  - mapontosevenths 1mo ago
    Our scientists are already leaving. Now we're preventing new ones from entering. This is how you become the Kingdom Of Dumbasses.
    - 1718627440 1mo ago
      It's has been renamed to 'Trump' now.
- deleted 1mo ago
  [deleted]
- bossyTeacher 1mo ago
  > You’re approaching it from a perspective where you’re being asked to leave and your reentry is a right. It’s not. They never said, if you leave you can come back. They said, leave and we’ll see. This so much. Ultimately, you are a guest and the host country can kick you out with no notice. UPDATE: Looks like I ruffled some feathers here
- malfist 1mo ago
  I thought we were more civilized that trite "might makes right" philosophy towards other humans.
- fearmerchant 1mo ago
  You're right but I think you're running into the emotional side of the issue for some folks. The "not coming back" angle is a feature not a bug. Saves having to track folks down, potentially detain them, etc.
  - estearum 1mo ago
    Well no, you're running into the fact that this administration has shown capricious (and often illegal) determination logic of who gets to come in or not. People haven't always complained about this feature/bug/whatever because the US has generally not had people in charge who allow in people charged with sex trafficking (like the Tate brothers) but stop and harass even American citizens who are accused of saying mean things about Israel on the Internet.
    - fearmerchant 1mo ago
      I don't follow presidential administrations closely. What's the "often illegal" bit you mentioned?
      - estearum 1mo ago
        https://www.npr.org/2026/08/22/nx-s1-5941765/trump-immigration-visa-ban-75-countries https://www.npr.org/2026/08/22/nx-s1-5941765/trump-immigrati... https://apnews.com/article/trump-asylum-appeals-court-ed8f8f193579b757d7f384cd7f9e9e60 https://apnews.com/article/trump-asylum-appeals-court-ed8f8f...
deadbabe 1mo ago
Technically you should be taking your stuff with you when you leave the country, and not assume you will just be allowed back in. If anything, there are services that can deliver your stuff back to you, so this is not the big deal it seems to be.
- mobelkh 1mo ago
  oh yea, let me just uproot myself because immigration took too long and my company didn't want to wait. I'll just cancel my rental agreement, move my furniture across continents, cancel my other subscriptions, oh wait that's got a few month notice period so I'll have to pay up for months I don't need anymore, let alone all the friendships and social connections I made that I never got to say a proper goodbye to. This is extremely unappealing to skilled workers, and the loss of trust will extend past this current administration, if all it takes is one idiot in office to upend your life, you can't trust that country and its people anymore.
  - 999900000999 1mo ago
    That’s the point. The current people in power don’t want immigrants because the vast majority of immigrants are non white. The tall blond nordics they really want have no real motivation to deal with this bizarre BS as they usually already have a great standard of living in say Norway. So you end up with a ton of folks from places where running water is still a luxury. A lot of these people are even excellent church attending Christians. Not white though. I really do think this country is ran by idiots. No one will be there to pick the crops, prisoners make poor farm hands. The price of food will skyrocket, and if the rest of the world wants to punish us they could just suspend food imports to the US. This was all predictable, and while the Democrats are far from perfect, at least you don’t have chaos. Every country has the government it deserves.
    - dcow 1mo ago
      I find the idea the only immigrants can do low skill labor kinda… obtuse. Maybe Americans should pick their own crops instead of living in a delusion that certain labor is beneath them. Boomer era “all my kids are going to get white collar jobs” type thinking isn’t sustainable.
RobotToaster 1mo ago
> And when you decide it's no longer worth it, you might even have issues getting back in to get your stuff... Do they refuse tourist visas for someone who recently had an immigrant visa?
- EliRivers 1mo ago
  They sure do. US law presupposes that a tourist is secretly planning to stay in the US, and must demonstrate otherwise to the satisfaction of the assessor. There are a number of factors assessed, including things like ties to the applicant's home country - an existing job, ownership of property, family demands; basically, clearly having a life in that country that the applicant wants and needs to get back to. Someone applying for a tourist visa, who recently had an immigration renewal denied, who has no life to get back to in their country of origin (because they built a life in the US) but clearly has a life in the US (owns property in the US, has family in the US, has work ties -maybe even still has a job in the US); that applicant is an enhanced overstayer risk and this increases the chances of being denied a tourist visa.
  - RobotToaster 1mo ago
    Thanks for explaining, I thought it would be something like that but having never visited the USA I didn't want to assume.
motbus3 1mo ago
when you treat immigrants like they were not people with lifes, you are just one step away from treating poor people as they were not people and then too treat all common people as they were not people. also it has been quite convenient explanation for adopting systems such as Flock and allowing all kinds of para-police actions which seems very similar to what happened in germany circla 1930-1934
- locknitpicker 1mo ago
  > when you treat immigrants like they were not people with lifes, you are just one step away from treating poor people as they were not people and then too treat all common people as they were not people. "The way that a society treats its prisoners is one of the sharpest reflections of its character." - Nelson Mandela http://www.mandela.gov.za/mandela_speeches/1998/980625_dcshr.htm http://www.mandela.gov.za/mandela_speeches/1998/980625_dcshr...
  - motbus3 1mo ago
    I did not know this but true. I would point out that when you are talking about criminals there is still a layer of judgment from society given the crimes. When talking about legal immigrants and refugees there is even less space.
    - wood_spirit 1mo ago
      The US is an outliner on prison terms and sizes etc. Under the surface it is hard to tell if the public lead the prisons or if the big prison business shapes public opinion but from the outside it seems crazy. Different societies are at different places on the prison is for punishment to prison is for rehabilitation spectrum, and their reoffending rates reflect that.
    - locknitpicker 1mo ago
      > I would point out that when you are talking about criminals there is still a layer of judgment from society given the crimes. That's exactly what the citation is about: how a society opts to treat its most vulnerable also shows what that society is truly about. Often times we see USians criticize Nordic countries because they lack cruelty in their prison system. How is that not a demonstration of the cruelty imbued in US culture?
bossyTeacher 1mo ago
> The leaving part is not the issue, as you try to immigrate into a country you're subject to the rules that country sets. The ultimate uncertainty is that regardless of who you are and what you do, a country always has the right to kick you out when you are there on a visa regardless of what the rights and rules of that visa. Nothing is guaranteed ultimately.
- lotsofpulp 1mo ago
  Your claim could be shortened to: >The ultimate uncertainty is that regardless of who you are and what you do, a country always has the right to kick you out...Nothing is guaranteed ultimately. Which is what makes the actions of the government so disturbing. What made the USA so attractive (the rules, the decorum, the civility) is gone. While there were a great many injustices, in general, it trended toward getting better over the years, until recently. The craziest part is with globally declining total fertility rates, a country would be fortunate to have productive, younger people be banging on their door to be let in.
  - philipwhiuk 1mo ago
    > Your claim could be shortened to: > > The ultimate uncertainty is that regardless of who you are and what you do, a country always has the right to kick you out...Nothing is guaranteed ultimately. Depends on whether you think international law still exists and is followed - statelessness isn't allowed under that.
    - rmah 1mo ago
      There's no single set of "international law" in the sense of national laws, state laws or local laws. There are only agreements and treaties between nations that are applied within those nations. As such, what "international law" applies depends on which nation you're in or from or if some nation's law enforcement have jurisdictional reach. More to the point, nothing about this decision implies statelessness. Every visa applicant is a citizen of another foreign, non-American, nation. Being booted out doesn't make them stateless. They couldn't have applied for a visa if were stateless. Note, I do agree that this suspension is unfair and a bad idea. But tossing out random accusations that imply that international law is being violated or causing people to become stateless doesn't help our case.
buckle8017 1mo ago
> The leaving part is not the issue, as you try to immigrate into a country you're subject to the rules that country sets These are non immigrant work visas. So maybe just don't engage in immigration fraud?
valianteffort 1mo ago
[dead]
SV_BubbleTime 1mo ago
> as you try to immigrate into a country you're subject to the rules that country sets Always written and followed up with “but…” If only the millions and millions of people that NGOs were shuffling in over the Biden years could have had some obvious and expected pushback… I don’t remember anyone here saying “geez, this could effect more than a response to illegal border crossings down the road!”

by hvb2 1mo ago

sidewndr46 1mo ago

You just described most if not all government functions in the US. Applied for a permit? Better know the right person to call if you ever want it to get approved

conductr 1mo ago

> The issue here is that, if you just left the country to do everything the country asked you, you are now in limbo. I feel like I’ve said it a few times but - Yes, exactly. The country wants you to leave and then get’s to decide if you can come back. That’s how it’s designed. On purpose. You’re approaching it from a perspective where you’re being asked to leave and your reentry is a right. It’s not. They never said, if you leave you can come back. They said, leave and we’ll see. The risk of being blocked out is inherent by anyone residing in a country that has this similar process; there are many.

hvb2 1mo ago
> I feel like I’ve said it a few times but - Yes, exactly. The country wants you to leave and then get’s to decide if you can come back. That’s how it’s designed. On purpose. That is how it's designed, and that's fine. But make a decision... They're pausing the decision making for an indefinite amount of time. That's not how it was designed, but it sure does look like that's on purpose.
- conductr 1mo ago
  Pause is a silly way of saying No for now. You can try again later. But they’re not advising when that may be happening. To me, that tells you everything you need to know. That they don’t know themselves because it’s to be determined, maybe. Until then, no.
  - hvb2 1mo ago
    > You can try again later. Can they? Because one of the questions on these questionnaires is almost always 'have you had a prior request being denied'. > But they’re not advising when that may be happening. To me, that tells you everything you need to know. These are life altering decisions for people that might have put decades into doing their best for the US. This is not about what to have for dinner. This causes a LOT of uncertainty and chaos for no real reason. If they're so convinced it should all be denied, then issue those denials so they can be challenged.
    - conductr 1mo ago
      So maybe you have stated a reason a pause is better than an explicit no. No history of a denial is maybe a better thing. I get the human component but I can separate that from policy. I have my own risk assessment on it and it’s that I couldn’t imagine ever making any material investment financial or community in a place like this. I’ve thought about doing the digital nomad thing in the past, and I don’t think anyone would be surprised if some random South East Asian country did this same thing and nobody would bat an eye. It to be expected that other countries can have wavering policies, it’s when the US does it that people cry about the humanity of it. I don’t think it would have hurt much to put some advanced warning out there. Let people plan for it. But I also know that probably has some blow back towards the intended outcome of this. Also, I don’t think you can challenge a blanket policy. I haven’t really dove into this but it doesn’t sound like they’re making any exceptions. The current administration loves creating chaos and uncertainty. Exactly why this should be less of a surprise to those that know how things work and that they may actually get locked out. Anyone who reads even just the headline of this and is perplexed by it has been living under a rock. To me, it is 100% on brand.
pjc50 1mo ago
> That’s how it’s designed. On purpose. The cruelty is the point. (The UK system requires initial applications from overseas but I believe doesn't require you to leave for renewals)
- ifwinterco 1mo ago
  Not at the moment, but the result of the current UK system has been huge uncontrolled levels of immigration leading to deep public resentment, so that may change in the future
  - mschuster91 1mo ago
    > leading to deep public resentment That "public resentment" mostly was fueled by a rabid, out of control yellow press and a healthy dose of Russian propaganda spread by Russia-financed entities (Brexit, UKIP and Reform UK all have been shown to have very suspicious links to Russian money).
    - deleted 1mo ago
      [deleted]
  - jarym 1mo ago
    ‘Uncontrolled’ - surely the control point was the initial application being submitted from abroad? It was very much ‘controlled’. We lost SO many European workers due to the obsession with EU Freedom of Movement that entire sectors like nursing were about to implode without a source of new workers.
  - room271 1mo ago
    The system has already been changed and numbers are falling (and have already fallen) quite dramatically. See Fig 2 here: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/bulletins/longterminternationalmigrationprovisional/yearendingdecember2025 https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populati...
pnt12 1mo ago
That's a disfuncional view: "we set the rules, take it or leave it". In Switzerland there are strict requirements, but if you're a law abiding and employed migrant, ie contributing to the country, the services help you fill the paperwork so you can stay. Even considering the disfuncional way, one thing it's to say "you only stay if we allow". The other is to say "you only leave if you allow": that's a much more authoritarian position. These policies will work and immigration will lower for sure. Let's see the outcome in a few years.
aprilthird2021 1mo ago
Rather than rights and privileges, think about the economic consequences of this. People will stop coming here for advanced study for advanced research and for advanced industry jobs. And most institutions and companies will accommodate this and try to have such people work from where they are vs fight an onerous government to bring them here. The net result will be damage to the US economy
- mapontosevenths 1mo ago
  Our scientists are already leaving. Now we're preventing new ones from entering. This is how you become the Kingdom Of Dumbasses.
  - 1718627440 1mo ago
    It's has been renamed to 'Trump' now.
deleted 1mo ago
[deleted]
bossyTeacher 1mo ago
> You’re approaching it from a perspective where you’re being asked to leave and your reentry is a right. It’s not. They never said, if you leave you can come back. They said, leave and we’ll see. This so much. Ultimately, you are a guest and the host country can kick you out with no notice. UPDATE: Looks like I ruffled some feathers here
malfist 1mo ago
I thought we were more civilized that trite "might makes right" philosophy towards other humans.
fearmerchant 1mo ago
You're right but I think you're running into the emotional side of the issue for some folks. The "not coming back" angle is a feature not a bug. Saves having to track folks down, potentially detain them, etc.
- estearum 1mo ago
  Well no, you're running into the fact that this administration has shown capricious (and often illegal) determination logic of who gets to come in or not. People haven't always complained about this feature/bug/whatever because the US has generally not had people in charge who allow in people charged with sex trafficking (like the Tate brothers) but stop and harass even American citizens who are accused of saying mean things about Israel on the Internet.
  - fearmerchant 1mo ago
    I don't follow presidential administrations closely. What's the "often illegal" bit you mentioned?
    - estearum 1mo ago
      https://www.npr.org/2026/08/22/nx-s1-5941765/trump-immigration-visa-ban-75-countries https://www.npr.org/2026/08/22/nx-s1-5941765/trump-immigrati... https://apnews.com/article/trump-asylum-appeals-court-ed8f8f193579b757d7f384cd7f9e9e60 https://apnews.com/article/trump-asylum-appeals-court-ed8f8f...

deadbabe 1mo ago

Technically you should be taking your stuff with you when you leave the country, and not assume you will just be allowed back in. If anything, there are services that can deliver your stuff back to you, so this is not the big deal it seems to be.

mobelkh 1mo ago
oh yea, let me just uproot myself because immigration took too long and my company didn't want to wait. I'll just cancel my rental agreement, move my furniture across continents, cancel my other subscriptions, oh wait that's got a few month notice period so I'll have to pay up for months I don't need anymore, let alone all the friendships and social connections I made that I never got to say a proper goodbye to. This is extremely unappealing to skilled workers, and the loss of trust will extend past this current administration, if all it takes is one idiot in office to upend your life, you can't trust that country and its people anymore.
- 999900000999 1mo ago
  That’s the point. The current people in power don’t want immigrants because the vast majority of immigrants are non white. The tall blond nordics they really want have no real motivation to deal with this bizarre BS as they usually already have a great standard of living in say Norway. So you end up with a ton of folks from places where running water is still a luxury. A lot of these people are even excellent church attending Christians. Not white though. I really do think this country is ran by idiots. No one will be there to pick the crops, prisoners make poor farm hands. The price of food will skyrocket, and if the rest of the world wants to punish us they could just suspend food imports to the US. This was all predictable, and while the Democrats are far from perfect, at least you don’t have chaos. Every country has the government it deserves.
  - dcow 1mo ago
    I find the idea the only immigrants can do low skill labor kinda… obtuse. Maybe Americans should pick their own crops instead of living in a delusion that certain labor is beneath them. Boomer era “all my kids are going to get white collar jobs” type thinking isn’t sustainable.

RobotToaster 1mo ago

> And when you decide it's no longer worth it, you might even have issues getting back in to get your stuff... Do they refuse tourist visas for someone who recently had an immigrant visa?

EliRivers 1mo ago
They sure do. US law presupposes that a tourist is secretly planning to stay in the US, and must demonstrate otherwise to the satisfaction of the assessor. There are a number of factors assessed, including things like ties to the applicant's home country - an existing job, ownership of property, family demands; basically, clearly having a life in that country that the applicant wants and needs to get back to. Someone applying for a tourist visa, who recently had an immigration renewal denied, who has no life to get back to in their country of origin (because they built a life in the US) but clearly has a life in the US (owns property in the US, has family in the US, has work ties -maybe even still has a job in the US); that applicant is an enhanced overstayer risk and this increases the chances of being denied a tourist visa.
- RobotToaster 1mo ago
  Thanks for explaining, I thought it would be something like that but having never visited the USA I didn't want to assume.

motbus3 1mo ago

when you treat immigrants like they were not people with lifes, you are just one step away from treating poor people as they were not people and then too treat all common people as they were not people. also it has been quite convenient explanation for adopting systems such as Flock and allowing all kinds of para-police actions which seems very similar to what happened in germany circla 1930-1934

locknitpicker 1mo ago
> when you treat immigrants like they were not people with lifes, you are just one step away from treating poor people as they were not people and then too treat all common people as they were not people. "The way that a society treats its prisoners is one of the sharpest reflections of its character." - Nelson Mandela http://www.mandela.gov.za/mandela_speeches/1998/980625_dcshr.htm http://www.mandela.gov.za/mandela_speeches/1998/980625_dcshr...
- motbus3 1mo ago
  I did not know this but true. I would point out that when you are talking about criminals there is still a layer of judgment from society given the crimes. When talking about legal immigrants and refugees there is even less space.
  - wood_spirit 1mo ago
    The US is an outliner on prison terms and sizes etc. Under the surface it is hard to tell if the public lead the prisons or if the big prison business shapes public opinion but from the outside it seems crazy. Different societies are at different places on the prison is for punishment to prison is for rehabilitation spectrum, and their reoffending rates reflect that.
  - locknitpicker 1mo ago
    > I would point out that when you are talking about criminals there is still a layer of judgment from society given the crimes. That's exactly what the citation is about: how a society opts to treat its most vulnerable also shows what that society is truly about. Often times we see USians criticize Nordic countries because they lack cruelty in their prison system. How is that not a demonstration of the cruelty imbued in US culture?

bossyTeacher 1mo ago

> The leaving part is not the issue, as you try to immigrate into a country you're subject to the rules that country sets. The ultimate uncertainty is that regardless of who you are and what you do, a country always has the right to kick you out when you are there on a visa regardless of what the rights and rules of that visa. Nothing is guaranteed ultimately.

lotsofpulp 1mo ago
Your claim could be shortened to: >The ultimate uncertainty is that regardless of who you are and what you do, a country always has the right to kick you out...Nothing is guaranteed ultimately. Which is what makes the actions of the government so disturbing. What made the USA so attractive (the rules, the decorum, the civility) is gone. While there were a great many injustices, in general, it trended toward getting better over the years, until recently. The craziest part is with globally declining total fertility rates, a country would be fortunate to have productive, younger people be banging on their door to be let in.
- philipwhiuk 1mo ago
  > Your claim could be shortened to: > > The ultimate uncertainty is that regardless of who you are and what you do, a country always has the right to kick you out...Nothing is guaranteed ultimately. Depends on whether you think international law still exists and is followed - statelessness isn't allowed under that.
  - rmah 1mo ago
    There's no single set of "international law" in the sense of national laws, state laws or local laws. There are only agreements and treaties between nations that are applied within those nations. As such, what "international law" applies depends on which nation you're in or from or if some nation's law enforcement have jurisdictional reach. More to the point, nothing about this decision implies statelessness. Every visa applicant is a citizen of another foreign, non-American, nation. Being booted out doesn't make them stateless. They couldn't have applied for a visa if were stateless. Note, I do agree that this suspension is unfair and a bad idea. But tossing out random accusations that imply that international law is being violated or causing people to become stateless doesn't help our case.

buckle8017 1mo ago

> The leaving part is not the issue, as you try to immigrate into a country you're subject to the rules that country sets These are non immigrant work visas. So maybe just don't engage in immigration fraud?

valianteffort 1mo ago

[dead]

SV_BubbleTime 1mo ago

> as you try to immigrate into a country you're subject to the rules that country sets Always written and followed up with “but…” If only the millions and millions of people that NGOs were shuffling in over the Biden years could have had some obvious and expected pushback… I don’t remember anyone here saying “geez, this could effect more than a response to illegal border crossings down the road!”