5 ms·

Something similar happened to me recently. I voluntarily left my job at a US employer, planning to move back home (to Sweden). But first I wanted to spend some

Something similar happened to me recently. I voluntarily left my job at a US employer, planning to move back home (to Sweden). But first I wanted to spend some time preparing for the move and waiting for my wife to wrap things up. The rules say you have to leave the country the last day of work, so I left for Canada to stay with a friend, and planned to come back on the visa waiver program. I consulted with the company's immigration lawyers and they said this shouldn't be a problem. The US border agents thought differently. After being held and interrogated for 4 hours like a criminal, they concluded that I was lying and they thought I would try to illegally immigrate to the US, because I didn't have enough financial ties to my home country. I had a green card on the way when I quit my job so why wouldn't I just stay if I wanted to immigrate so badly? They didn't care about that or anything else I said. I was sent back into Canada with most of my belongings still being in the US. "Entering the US is a privilege, not a right" I was told. Once you get denied entry it is very difficult to get in again, and you need a visa etc. I decided it was just easier to fly home at that point. I realize now that I was naive, and many of you would probably say it was my own fault. I thought that if I did something that is not against the rules, things would be fine. Afterwards I found out though that entry into the US is completely the discretion of the border guards. Even if you are legally following the rules, they can deny you on a whim. In this case, I believe they thought I was taking advantage by just leaving the US for a few days and coming back. Which is a valid concern I guess, but if that's so, why wouldn't they put a time limit on how long you have to be away? I think part of my naivety comes from my trusting upbringing in a rural part of a small country. Either way, it was not the best end to my 5 years in the US, and I doubt I'll be going back anytime soon. This experience just cemented once more that the US is not a country I wish to live in permanently, and have my kids grow up in.

nabla9 13y ago
Kafkaesque. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kafkaesque#Legacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kafkaesque#Legacy
vasilipupkin 13y ago
So the logic goes something like this: something bad happened to me once in country X. Therefore, I will not go back to country X. So, if something bad happens to you in Sweden, say a policeman is rude to you, or something like that, will you leave Sweden because of it ?
- pizza234 13y ago
  No, the logic goes like this: in "country X", this type of arrogant behavior is supported by the political background, while in "Sweden", there's no polical support for policeman rudeness. This is therefore a perfectly valid reason not to visit "country X".
  - vasilipupkin 13y ago
    Ok, but Sweden has its own problems, no? Didn't they have massive riots recently? So, let's rephrase country X has political support for some sort of bad thing Y, therefore I will never visit country X.
    - berntb 13y ago
      Every place has problems. E.g. Sweden is consensus oriented and has only one officially accepted opinion at a time, so much stuff just can't be discussed. This along with being a small duck pond (the elites, media etc generally know each others) means that problems might be a long time being corrected.
    - dagw 13y ago
      Didn't they have massive riots recently They where "massive" by Swedish standards, but tiny by any international standard you may care to use. Certainly much much smaller than riots that have happened recently in many other European countries
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
- markild 13y ago
  Having a policeman being rude to you is not even in the same order of magnitude as being denied entry to a country.
  - alan_cx 13y ago
    I don't even think it is about being denied entry. Its about how one is denied entry and the conduct of the officials.
netcan 13y ago
There are all sorts of things about immigration laws & policies that violate our sense of correctness or justice. All sorts of basic principles don't apply. There is no strict rule of law. The border guards' discretionary (arbitrary) power is an example of that. That applies on several levels. Policies & laws are not governed by higher laws/constitutions so the laws & policies themselves are discretionary & arbitrary. Basic principles like habeas corpus (right to be judged by a judge) and presumption of innocence don't apply. This is why 'privilege, not a right' is the approach. I think most of the rest is what we get when the basics aren't there. Equality before the law doesn't really apply when there is no rule of law so blatant discrimination is the norm with policies for different nationalities & cultural/ethnic/racial groups. Freedoms are profoundly violated by visa restrictions everywhere, almost by definition. If your visa is tied to your job or your profession, you are a lot less free. That kind of limit on freedom would be considered draconian if applied in other cases. When a country restricts immigrants' permission to work in certain professions or live in certain areas, we don't think twice about it. Up until the modern era Jews in Europe were restricted in such a way. Those were controversially oppressive laws even in the context of 17th center Czarist Russia/Eastern Europe. Anyway, to make lemonade from these experiences I think this should remind us how important basic principles of justice are. We need to protect them and make sure they don't lose ground. It's a horrible, naked feeling when you realize that they don't apply and the guy in the stupid hat has arbitrary power over you.
- userulluipeste 13y ago
  "There is no strict rule of law." That says it all. And also that, is the main factor for corruption (anytime anywhere).
tostitos1979 13y ago
Eep! I might be in a similar situation shortly. A couple of quick questions, if you don't mind? 1) Did you abandon your green card app? 2) How did you move your stuff out if you couldn't get back into the US again? Were the Canadians mean to you or were they understanding? 3) If you don't mind giving some info, I'm curious what motivated your family to leave? For us, the big reasons are we want to be close to family. Neither of us (myself or my wife) have found a job in our home country yet (have good jobs in the US) .. and I'm not doing any trips back to do job hunting because I fear I will get into the same situation as you :( So we are planning to go back home without jobs and live off of savings for the next few months. Tough beans but minimizes the chances of immigration screw ups. Best of luck!!
- lingoberry 13y ago
  Sure, no problem 1) Yes, I was on track for a green card within a year or two, but when I resigned I it was abandoned 2) I had some very nice friends who brought me some bags before I left Canada 3) The Canadian side of the border was immensely nicer. They tried to give advice, and let me back in after I explained what happened. The biggest difference is their demeanor. While the US people were extremely hostile from the start, the Canadian counterparts were nice and courteous. Talking to US officials was like being in a real interrogation, after this I'm much more sympathetic and get very uncomfortable watching people get interrogated on TV cop dramas etc... 3) Many reasons. Let me just also mention that we don't have children yet. Firstly, we felt our life would be better in Sweden in terms of work-life balance and family life. Especially having a family is much easier with longer vacations, maternity/paternity leave, heavily subsidized child care, socialized healthcare and a general safety net if anything goes wrong. Secondly, we're both immigrants, her being Chinese, so immigration would keep being a problem for many years, more so for her I think. Third, just like you, I have family and friends back home, which also adds a safety net, and of course I've missed them a great deal. Fourth, we're looking forward to doing traveling in Europe, there's just more to see in a smaller area, but that's not a major reason :). All that said, we both had great jobs, earning probably 50% more than for the same job back home, while cost of living is lower in the US, and we don't have jobs lined up. The US is just great for having a career, and there are more numerous and interesting jobs in our fields, so it's not easy leaving that behind.
otoburb 13y ago
>>I had a green card on the way when I quit my job so why wouldn't I just stay if I wanted to immigrate so badly? This phrase caught my eye. Based on this, you probably thought that you could leave and enter the US at will. Ironically, during this phase of the green card process (i.e. right after the I-485 is filed and awaiting final processing for denial or a GC in the mail), my understanding is that you'll have more difficulty entering and leaving the country without special dispensation (called Advance Parole). Assuming that your company lawyers handled your green card application, I'm surprised they didn't apply for Advance Parole for you at the same time as filing the I-485. That would have saved you a bunch of hassle, regardless of whether you quit the company or not. IANAL and all that, but I think this explains why they were so hostile. You didn't follow their strict procedures for these types of things. Of course, they're not going to tell you this during an interrogation, but this may have helped.
- lingoberry 13y ago
  I hadn't considered that possibility. I gave over a month notice before I left to my company as well as the immigration lawyers, but it's possible that my application was still in the system somehow.
grecy 13y ago
> so I left for Canada to stay with a friend, and planned to come back on the visa waiver program. I've tried to do this many, many times, and the rules specifically say you can't just cross a land border to Canada (or Mexico), then come back again. If you could, everyone would get their 90 day visa waiver, and just hop the border for a few hours then come back and get 90 days fresh. Last time, I flew to the Bahamas for a week, then came back, no problem.

nabla9 13y ago

Kafkaesque. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kafkaesque#Legacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kafkaesque#Legacy

vasilipupkin 13y ago

So the logic goes something like this: something bad happened to me once in country X. Therefore, I will not go back to country X. So, if something bad happens to you in Sweden, say a policeman is rude to you, or something like that, will you leave Sweden because of it ?

pizza234 13y ago
No, the logic goes like this: in "country X", this type of arrogant behavior is supported by the political background, while in "Sweden", there's no polical support for policeman rudeness. This is therefore a perfectly valid reason not to visit "country X".
- vasilipupkin 13y ago
  Ok, but Sweden has its own problems, no? Didn't they have massive riots recently? So, let's rephrase country X has political support for some sort of bad thing Y, therefore I will never visit country X.
  - berntb 13y ago
    Every place has problems. E.g. Sweden is consensus oriented and has only one officially accepted opinion at a time, so much stuff just can't be discussed. This along with being a small duck pond (the elites, media etc generally know each others) means that problems might be a long time being corrected.
  - dagw 13y ago
    Didn't they have massive riots recently They where "massive" by Swedish standards, but tiny by any international standard you may care to use. Certainly much much smaller than riots that have happened recently in many other European countries
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
markild 13y ago
Having a policeman being rude to you is not even in the same order of magnitude as being denied entry to a country.
- alan_cx 13y ago
  I don't even think it is about being denied entry. Its about how one is denied entry and the conduct of the officials.

netcan 13y ago

There are all sorts of things about immigration laws & policies that violate our sense of correctness or justice. All sorts of basic principles don't apply. There is no strict rule of law. The border guards' discretionary (arbitrary) power is an example of that. That applies on several levels. Policies & laws are not governed by higher laws/constitutions so the laws & policies themselves are discretionary & arbitrary. Basic principles like habeas corpus (right to be judged by a judge) and presumption of innocence don't apply. This is why 'privilege, not a right' is the approach. I think most of the rest is what we get when the basics aren't there. Equality before the law doesn't really apply when there is no rule of law so blatant discrimination is the norm with policies for different nationalities & cultural/ethnic/racial groups. Freedoms are profoundly violated by visa restrictions everywhere, almost by definition. If your visa is tied to your job or your profession, you are a lot less free. That kind of limit on freedom would be considered draconian if applied in other cases. When a country restricts immigrants' permission to work in certain professions or live in certain areas, we don't think twice about it. Up until the modern era Jews in Europe were restricted in such a way. Those were controversially oppressive laws even in the context of 17th center Czarist Russia/Eastern Europe. Anyway, to make lemonade from these experiences I think this should remind us how important basic principles of justice are. We need to protect them and make sure they don't lose ground. It's a horrible, naked feeling when you realize that they don't apply and the guy in the stupid hat has arbitrary power over you.

userulluipeste 13y ago
"There is no strict rule of law." That says it all. And also that, is the main factor for corruption (anytime anywhere).

tostitos1979 13y ago

Eep! I might be in a similar situation shortly. A couple of quick questions, if you don't mind? 1) Did you abandon your green card app? 2) How did you move your stuff out if you couldn't get back into the US again? Were the Canadians mean to you or were they understanding? 3) If you don't mind giving some info, I'm curious what motivated your family to leave? For us, the big reasons are we want to be close to family. Neither of us (myself or my wife) have found a job in our home country yet (have good jobs in the US) .. and I'm not doing any trips back to do job hunting because I fear I will get into the same situation as you :( So we are planning to go back home without jobs and live off of savings for the next few months. Tough beans but minimizes the chances of immigration screw ups. Best of luck!!

lingoberry 13y ago
Sure, no problem 1) Yes, I was on track for a green card within a year or two, but when I resigned I it was abandoned 2) I had some very nice friends who brought me some bags before I left Canada 3) The Canadian side of the border was immensely nicer. They tried to give advice, and let me back in after I explained what happened. The biggest difference is their demeanor. While the US people were extremely hostile from the start, the Canadian counterparts were nice and courteous. Talking to US officials was like being in a real interrogation, after this I'm much more sympathetic and get very uncomfortable watching people get interrogated on TV cop dramas etc... 3) Many reasons. Let me just also mention that we don't have children yet. Firstly, we felt our life would be better in Sweden in terms of work-life balance and family life. Especially having a family is much easier with longer vacations, maternity/paternity leave, heavily subsidized child care, socialized healthcare and a general safety net if anything goes wrong. Secondly, we're both immigrants, her being Chinese, so immigration would keep being a problem for many years, more so for her I think. Third, just like you, I have family and friends back home, which also adds a safety net, and of course I've missed them a great deal. Fourth, we're looking forward to doing traveling in Europe, there's just more to see in a smaller area, but that's not a major reason :). All that said, we both had great jobs, earning probably 50% more than for the same job back home, while cost of living is lower in the US, and we don't have jobs lined up. The US is just great for having a career, and there are more numerous and interesting jobs in our fields, so it's not easy leaving that behind.

otoburb 13y ago

>>I had a green card on the way when I quit my job so why wouldn't I just stay if I wanted to immigrate so badly? This phrase caught my eye. Based on this, you probably thought that you could leave and enter the US at will. Ironically, during this phase of the green card process (i.e. right after the I-485 is filed and awaiting final processing for denial or a GC in the mail), my understanding is that you'll have more difficulty entering and leaving the country without special dispensation (called Advance Parole). Assuming that your company lawyers handled your green card application, I'm surprised they didn't apply for Advance Parole for you at the same time as filing the I-485. That would have saved you a bunch of hassle, regardless of whether you quit the company or not. IANAL and all that, but I think this explains why they were so hostile. You didn't follow their strict procedures for these types of things. Of course, they're not going to tell you this during an interrogation, but this may have helped.

lingoberry 13y ago
I hadn't considered that possibility. I gave over a month notice before I left to my company as well as the immigration lawyers, but it's possible that my application was still in the system somehow.

grecy 13y ago

> so I left for Canada to stay with a friend, and planned to come back on the visa waiver program. I've tried to do this many, many times, and the rules specifically say you can't just cross a land border to Canada (or Mexico), then come back again. If you could, everyone would get their 90 day visa waiver, and just hop the border for a few hours then come back and get 90 days fresh. Last time, I flew to the Bahamas for a week, then came back, no problem.