4 ms·

> 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 designe

by 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.
    - hvb2 1mo ago
      > I don’t think it would have hurt much to put some advanced warning out there. Let people plan for it. As with a lot of things this administration does, this is where the cruel part comes in. That would be the sensible thing to do, it's just a choice not to. > 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. Because those countries would typically do it with a warning period of some sort, the fallout won't be as much. In general these countries typically don't do this because the legal immigration system is how they pick and choose who to allow in, as the US does. So typically this would be to their advantage. Also, the US is the country that used to call themselves "leader of the free world and all that". So maybe they should hold themselves to high standards? > Also, I don’t think you can challenge a blanket policy. There isn't a policy here that has been changed. It's the executive branch stopping some function it was tasked with. We've seen in the past that they've tried such things many times for the courts to then come in and say that the law says they should do XYZ and so they're forced to resume their work. DOGE stopped a bunch of things that the courts later reinstated, including rehiring the people they fired. Thankfully the executive branch isn't completely unchecked, yet. > Exactly why this should be less of a surprise to those that know how things work and that they may actually get locked out So you would suggest that people cancel their lease, pack up their stuff, don't sign their kids up for school and all? Just on the off chance that this hits right when they're abroad? I think that's just arguing around the issue created here.
      - conductr 1mo ago
        We’ve said a lot already and obviously have our own perspectives. I understand your side, you don’t seem to understand mine. Or can’t understand it without echoing back the same stuff, I hear you and can understand perspectives I don’t agree with. That seems to be missing on your end, or you just want to argue about things which I don’t. You quoted me without the “but…” part I already wrote. I don’t think it’s a given another country would give any notice. Political regime change and general volatility are higher in some other places. Big assumption on your part. Lack of policy and executive mandate is exactly why there’s really no formal dispute process either. Yes, it means you have to let the courts sort it for you. And that means hoping someone leads the charge. I have suggested that I never would have created a rooted life, with school aged children, financial obligations, assets, etc based on a visa that inherently has such weak grounding in my existence in a country. Those that have chosen to do so, have chosen the risk. They probably hoped for the best and considered historical precedent but we all know the past isn’t a crystal ball for the future. It’s like joining the armed forces after a long period of peace expecting peace to persist. But armed forces are kept because shit can change. Wars can start. And you’ll be involved if it does. The benefits that come with it are provided because that risk exists. Whether you serve at a time of peace or see active duty is not known (unless you join in wartime of course.)
kevmo314 1mo ago
They did make a decision? The current decision is no, that’s what it means to pause applications.
- hvb2 1mo ago
  I don't think you understand anything about an immigration process. All these cases are meticulously documented. So not making a decision is not at all the same as a 'no'. A 'no' you can challenge, a pause not so much. They probably cannot and don't want to actually deny all those applications as they'll be in hot water really quick. So this is just the childish, not wanting to really own it, way of trying to achieve the same result.
  - kevmo314 1mo ago
    I'll pause on the response for now since the condescension is not warranted.
    - bubblethink 1mo ago
      A pause is different from a refusal which is different from a denial. They have different legal ramifications. It's a Kafkaesque hellscape.
    - forestry 1mo ago
      Ironic.
alphabeta3r56 1mo ago
That's on purpose too. To send a clear signal that we don't want you. It's just a mobster way of doing it.
- bubblethink 1mo ago
  It's not a mobster way, more like a weasel way. The reason it is a weasel's move is because decisions at the consulate are made by consular officers who are career public workers and won't deny visas for arbitrary reasons. That is bad for the political leadership because they just don't want to issue visas. So they need to invent evasive moves to throttle the pipeline by adding trainings, background checks, and other bogus bureaucratic hurdles.
  - alphabeta3r56 1mo ago
    > The reason it is a weasel's move is because decisions at the consulate are made by consular officers who are career public workers and won't deny visas for arbitrary reasons. No? Visa can be denied for arbitrary reasons based on what executive branch of US. there have been multiple cases where it has been clear that visas are a privilige not a right. Visa needs a reason to be granted, by default it is denied.
    - bubblethink 1mo ago
      No, you are confusing discretion with whims of the executive branch. Consular officers have discretion to adjudicate the applications and they can deny them for reasons prescribed in the INA. Those decisions are not reviewable. They are still supposed to follow their training, the FAM, and the INA in making the decisions. If Rubio sends an email to the consulates that says, "deny all visas", that would be illegal as a matter of policy and will be overturned by the courts under the APA. Note that 212(f) (aka Muslim ban from Trump v. Hawaii) gives discretion to the president to bar entry into the country, not visa adjudications. Visa adjudications require individualized determination by the consular officer.
    - mlazos 1mo ago
      Laws should not be executed on the whim of the executive branch.
j_maffe 1mo ago
The Purpose of a System is What it Does.
- vintermann 1mo ago
  The Word Purpose was Invented Precisely to Distinguish Between What a System Does and What it Ought to Do. Less catchy, but damn, I hate that slogan.
avazhi 1mo ago
Of course it’s on purpose. That’s the point: to get temp migrants to leave. There’s nothing inhumane about that, and the government is acting within the scope of its authority. In the end this is 100% a political issue and who knows why it is on the HN front page.
- simonw 1mo ago
  I imagine it's on the HN front page because it directly affects the technology careers of a large number of the people who are members of this community - or are coworkers of or employees/employers of members of this community.
  - avazhi 1mo ago
    Yes, obviously. But it was rhetorical - this is not specifically tech related and there’s nothing about it that a ‘hacker’ would find innately interesting. It’s just people bitching about a US executive branch decision they disagree with and everybody’s downvoting the side they disagree with, which is exactly the sort of outcome this site ostensibly tries to avoid.
    - simonw 1mo ago
      It's important news for the members of this community independent of the politics.
    - MSFT_Edging 1mo ago
      Only if your definition of "hacker" is limited to "begging for VC money for your b2b SAAS". Through the entire history of the phrase "hacker", there have been hackers concerned about human rights, political causes, anti-corporate measures, etc. Personally I consider myself a hacker and will not abide by the narrow definition you set forth. I'm a hacker because I'm pissed off that money controls our lives and I seek out to regain control wherever I can.

by hvb2 1mo ago

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.
  - hvb2 1mo ago
    > I don’t think it would have hurt much to put some advanced warning out there. Let people plan for it. As with a lot of things this administration does, this is where the cruel part comes in. That would be the sensible thing to do, it's just a choice not to. > 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. Because those countries would typically do it with a warning period of some sort, the fallout won't be as much. In general these countries typically don't do this because the legal immigration system is how they pick and choose who to allow in, as the US does. So typically this would be to their advantage. Also, the US is the country that used to call themselves "leader of the free world and all that". So maybe they should hold themselves to high standards? > Also, I don’t think you can challenge a blanket policy. There isn't a policy here that has been changed. It's the executive branch stopping some function it was tasked with. We've seen in the past that they've tried such things many times for the courts to then come in and say that the law says they should do XYZ and so they're forced to resume their work. DOGE stopped a bunch of things that the courts later reinstated, including rehiring the people they fired. Thankfully the executive branch isn't completely unchecked, yet. > Exactly why this should be less of a surprise to those that know how things work and that they may actually get locked out So you would suggest that people cancel their lease, pack up their stuff, don't sign their kids up for school and all? Just on the off chance that this hits right when they're abroad? I think that's just arguing around the issue created here.
    - conductr 1mo ago
      We’ve said a lot already and obviously have our own perspectives. I understand your side, you don’t seem to understand mine. Or can’t understand it without echoing back the same stuff, I hear you and can understand perspectives I don’t agree with. That seems to be missing on your end, or you just want to argue about things which I don’t. You quoted me without the “but…” part I already wrote. I don’t think it’s a given another country would give any notice. Political regime change and general volatility are higher in some other places. Big assumption on your part. Lack of policy and executive mandate is exactly why there’s really no formal dispute process either. Yes, it means you have to let the courts sort it for you. And that means hoping someone leads the charge. I have suggested that I never would have created a rooted life, with school aged children, financial obligations, assets, etc based on a visa that inherently has such weak grounding in my existence in a country. Those that have chosen to do so, have chosen the risk. They probably hoped for the best and considered historical precedent but we all know the past isn’t a crystal ball for the future. It’s like joining the armed forces after a long period of peace expecting peace to persist. But armed forces are kept because shit can change. Wars can start. And you’ll be involved if it does. The benefits that come with it are provided because that risk exists. Whether you serve at a time of peace or see active duty is not known (unless you join in wartime of course.)

kevmo314 1mo ago

They did make a decision? The current decision is no, that’s what it means to pause applications.

hvb2 1mo ago
I don't think you understand anything about an immigration process. All these cases are meticulously documented. So not making a decision is not at all the same as a 'no'. A 'no' you can challenge, a pause not so much. They probably cannot and don't want to actually deny all those applications as they'll be in hot water really quick. So this is just the childish, not wanting to really own it, way of trying to achieve the same result.
- kevmo314 1mo ago
  I'll pause on the response for now since the condescension is not warranted.
  - bubblethink 1mo ago
    A pause is different from a refusal which is different from a denial. They have different legal ramifications. It's a Kafkaesque hellscape.
  - forestry 1mo ago
    Ironic.

alphabeta3r56 1mo ago

That's on purpose too. To send a clear signal that we don't want you. It's just a mobster way of doing it.

bubblethink 1mo ago
It's not a mobster way, more like a weasel way. The reason it is a weasel's move is because decisions at the consulate are made by consular officers who are career public workers and won't deny visas for arbitrary reasons. That is bad for the political leadership because they just don't want to issue visas. So they need to invent evasive moves to throttle the pipeline by adding trainings, background checks, and other bogus bureaucratic hurdles.
- alphabeta3r56 1mo ago
  > The reason it is a weasel's move is because decisions at the consulate are made by consular officers who are career public workers and won't deny visas for arbitrary reasons. No? Visa can be denied for arbitrary reasons based on what executive branch of US. there have been multiple cases where it has been clear that visas are a privilige not a right. Visa needs a reason to be granted, by default it is denied.
  - bubblethink 1mo ago
    No, you are confusing discretion with whims of the executive branch. Consular officers have discretion to adjudicate the applications and they can deny them for reasons prescribed in the INA. Those decisions are not reviewable. They are still supposed to follow their training, the FAM, and the INA in making the decisions. If Rubio sends an email to the consulates that says, "deny all visas", that would be illegal as a matter of policy and will be overturned by the courts under the APA. Note that 212(f) (aka Muslim ban from Trump v. Hawaii) gives discretion to the president to bar entry into the country, not visa adjudications. Visa adjudications require individualized determination by the consular officer.
  - mlazos 1mo ago
    Laws should not be executed on the whim of the executive branch.

j_maffe 1mo ago

The Purpose of a System is What it Does.

vintermann 1mo ago
The Word Purpose was Invented Precisely to Distinguish Between What a System Does and What it Ought to Do. Less catchy, but damn, I hate that slogan.

avazhi 1mo ago

Of course it’s on purpose. That’s the point: to get temp migrants to leave. There’s nothing inhumane about that, and the government is acting within the scope of its authority. In the end this is 100% a political issue and who knows why it is on the HN front page.

simonw 1mo ago
I imagine it's on the HN front page because it directly affects the technology careers of a large number of the people who are members of this community - or are coworkers of or employees/employers of members of this community.
- avazhi 1mo ago
  Yes, obviously. But it was rhetorical - this is not specifically tech related and there’s nothing about it that a ‘hacker’ would find innately interesting. It’s just people bitching about a US executive branch decision they disagree with and everybody’s downvoting the side they disagree with, which is exactly the sort of outcome this site ostensibly tries to avoid.
  - simonw 1mo ago
    It's important news for the members of this community independent of the politics.
  - MSFT_Edging 1mo ago
    Only if your definition of "hacker" is limited to "begging for VC money for your b2b SAAS". Through the entire history of the phrase "hacker", there have been hackers concerned about human rights, political causes, anti-corporate measures, etc. Personally I consider myself a hacker and will not abide by the narrow definition you set forth. I'm a hacker because I'm pissed off that money controls our lives and I seek out to regain control wherever I can.