←back to thread

I'm Peter Roberts, immigration attorney who does work for YC and startups. AMA

183 points proberts | 1 comments | 17 Oct 24 16:01 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source

I'll be here for the few hours and then again at around 1 pm PST for another few hours. As usual, there are countless possible topics and I'll be guided by whatever you're concerned with. Please remember that I can't provide legal advice on specific cases for obvious liability reasons because I won't have access to all the facts. Please stick to a factual discussion in your questions and comments and I'll try to do the same in my answers. Thanks!

Previous threads we've done: https://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=proberts.

Show context
tired-turtle ◴[17 Oct 24 18:45 UTC] No.41872533[source]▶
Hi Peter. I know a little about H1B1 visas and the process of getting one, having worked with many colleagues who are in the US on one, but I don’t fully understand the pros/cons of the H1B1 program from the perspective of the average American.

As one presidential candidate will likely direct his ire at the program if he wins, can you explain why such a program is compelling or vital for our tech industry? My H1B1 colleagues seem happy to be in the US (and have indicated such) but nonetheless appear exploited. My naive economic analysis is that the visa program depresses wages to the benefit of corporations, but I’m sure the situation is far more nuanced.

(I’d like something to offer my conservative friends/family who increasingly think all immigration should be verboten.)

replies(3): >>41872887 #>>41875405 #>>41875599 #
robertlagrant ◴[17 Oct 24 19:22 UTC] No.41872887[source]▶
> (I’d like something to offer my conservative friends/family who increasingly think all immigration should be verboten.)

Not proberts, but observing left wing media in the States over the last 8-10 years I've seen a carpet bombing of the same concept: eliding the difference between immigration and illegal immigration. If you want to talk to your conservative friends and family I'd start by checking whether or not it's illegal immigration they're against. Even the Democrats seem to be noticing that people don't like open border policies and are scrambling to adjust campaign promises in light of this.

replies(1): >>41872986 #
greenthrow ◴[17 Oct 24 19:34 UTC] No.41872986[source]▶
Oh yes it's just illegal immigrants that Republicans hate. That's why they spread lies about refugees and other legal immigrants, right?
replies(1): >>41873225 #
robertlagrant ◴[17 Oct 24 20:04 UTC] No.41873225{3}[source]▶
The context was getting on with friends and family.

I understand you might not able to think in these terms when it comes to the hated enemy, but if you think of all people as people, even Republicans, then you might notice that they don't all think the same things. Or even that they don't hate illegal immigrants, but think that laws are a good idea and criminals should be punished, not rewarded. This is just understanding both sides 101, in case you do break out of this mindset.

replies(2): >>41873313 #>>41874312 #
1. cscheid ◴[17 Oct 24 20:16 UTC] No.41873313{4}[source]▶
> if you think of all people as people, even Republicans

The OP didn't accuse Republicans of being non-people. They specifically made a -- true, incidentally -- factual claim:

> > That's why they spread lies about refugees and other legal immigrants, right

It is notable, though, that it is the Republican candidate that has very directly been using dehumanizing language. And you are here asking people to get into a both-sides argument. The situation isn't symmetric: the arguments shouldn't have to be.

> I understand you might not able to think in these terms when it comes to the hated enemy

Also notable it is that one specific candidate is using the term "enemy within" to describe US residents. It's not the Democrat.

> Or even that they don't hate illegal immigrants, but think that laws are a good idea and criminals should be punished, not rewarded.

Again, your statement has nothing to do with what you're responding to.