←back to thread

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

245 points proberts | 6 comments | 17 Oct 24 16:01 UTC | HN request time: 1.198s | source | bottom

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
aaronbrethorst ◴[17 Oct 24 16:54 UTC] No.41871372[source]▶
How are you thinking about the potential effects of a second Trump administration on immigration and how it might affect tech companies?
replies(1): >>41871481 #
proberts ◴[17 Oct 24 17:06 UTC] No.41871481[source]▶
There's a lot to worry about but to keep the worry/analysis grounded, I think it makes sense to review what his administration did last time. And most of the damage was done to those who were illegal or seeking asylum or were from certain countries and seeking to travel to the U.S. It was awful and very disruptive to the lives of many. On the legal business immigration side, the main damage was the result of changes in policy and the way regulations were interpreted and applied. This included doing away with the deference given to previously approved applications when extensions/renewals were sought. This was disastrous, resulting in the denial of applications for people who had been employed in the U.S. by the same employer for years. The Biden administration immediately undid this when it took office. The other major change was in changing/increasing the requirements for getting H-1B and O-1 visas and extraordinary ability green cards. The Biden administration undid some but not all of these changes. There is concern that a Trump administration would undermine the H-1B program as well.
replies(2): >>41871539 #>>41877665 #
tombert ◴[17 Oct 24 17:14 UTC] No.41871539[source]▶
Is there any reason to think that Trump will ramp things up if he gets a second term? Particularly since the Supreme Court is so thoroughly conservative now?
replies(1): >>41873534 #
shimon ◴[17 Oct 24 20:40 UTC] No.41873534[source]▶
It would make sense to expect some ramp up because immigration is a stronger electoral issue than it was previously, and because a second Trump administration will probably be more coordinated and effective in implementing its goals than the first one was. Given how laden with unintended consequences any change in immigration policy is, though, there are probably some limits on the rate of change that would be possible and politically prudent.

For example, without undocumented immigrants, milk would be a lot more expensive (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/15/magazine/milk-industry-un...). The current election is showing us quite starkly how significant grocery staple prices are in shaping public perception of a nation's economic health.

replies(1): >>41874388 #
Eumenes ◴[17 Oct 24 22:20 UTC] No.41874388[source]▶
> For example, without undocumented immigrants, milk would be a lot more expensive (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/15/magazine/milk-industry-un...). The current election is showing us quite starkly how significant grocery staple prices are in shaping public perception of a nation's economic health.

This strikes me as a bit tone deaf. These people are paid slave wages to do this work. They have unsafe housing conditions. They pay cartel fees to get across the border. Their "employers" are breaking the law. The government looks the other way. Personally, I'd be willing to pay more for milk (or any grocery product) if Americans were doing the jobs and getting paid fair wages with good benefits.

It gives me Kelly Osbourne on The View vibes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8INEYLFWwc

replies(1): >>41876032 #
1. tinco ◴[18 Oct 24 03:07 UTC] No.41876032[source]▶
Are you saying American voters are tone deaf for prioritizing food availability over ethical sourcing of food?

I mean sure, but I don't think that judgement has any consequence unless anyone grabs a soapbox and starts chastising people for wanting cheaper food. I haven't seen any of the candidates do that yet.

replies(2): >>41879293 #>>41879768 #
2. tombert ◴[18 Oct 24 13:31 UTC] No.41879293[source]▶
I think even with a soapbox it wouldn’t be terribly effective.

We all know where our laptops and smartphones come from and the questionable-at-best labor practices associated with them, and nearly all of us continue to use them.

(To be clear, I’m no better. If a smartphone was released that was controversy-free but cost twice as much, I doubt I would buy it.)

I think food prices would be the same. People would complain about (and vote around) the prices rising, even if the higher prices were the result of more ethical labor laws.

I’m not saying that we shouldn’t fix bad labor practices, I’m just saying that people will invariably be hypocritical about it.

replies(1): >>41879788 #
3. Eumenes ◴[18 Oct 24 14:26 UTC] No.41879768[source]▶
This isn't about food availability or ethnical sourcing of food. Apparently the business model of the dairy industry has illegal labor baked into how they do things. They have the gall to threaten Americans with higher prices if their workforce is eliminated. Sounds like extortion to me. This is a problem of crony capitalism.
4. Eumenes ◴[18 Oct 24 14:28 UTC] No.41879788[source]▶
Smartphones/laptops/hardware is slightly different because its manufactured/assembled overseas. The dairy industry is domestically based and acting like its workers are based in the 3rd world. Threatening the population with higher prices if they can't continue to break the law is extortion and it needs to be treated as such. If you can't run a legit business with legal labor, you need to be shut down. Someone else will find a way to do it.
replies(1): >>41879910 #
5. tombert ◴[18 Oct 24 14:45 UTC] No.41879910{3}[source]▶
I don't really disagree, I'm against exploitative labor, and I agree that if you can't do things legally you probably shouldn't be in business, especially in an extremely rich country like the US. [1]

I'm arguing that most people are hypocrites on this, and the last two years have proven that they'll blame the current president if their food prices go up. I'm not claiming that this is accurate, I'm claiming that that's what people seem to think.

[1] Exploitive labor is wrong everywhere obviously, but it's much easier to justify a more "relative morality" in a place with much more limited resources.

replies(1): >>41880120 #
6. Eumenes ◴[18 Oct 24 15:08 UTC] No.41880120{4}[source]▶
Agreed, politics is a team sport and someone is going to get the blame on grocery costs or gas prices. Its really the medias fault because people don't have the interest/time/intellect to dig into these issues - its all on headlines/clickbait. Illegal labor practices in farming/dairy/meat processing have been going on forever but they only seem to be front and center every 4 years, or < 3 weeks out from a national election cycle.