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

Should I go via H1B route or ?

Do you see the Administration taking on H1B changes in a big way or letting this slide?

- Conducting market research and customer discovery

- Discussing planned investments and purchases with prospective co-founders

- Attending and participating in business meetings

- Developing business relationships, such as meeting with investors and clients

- Negotiating contracts

- Incorporating a US company, applying for an EIN, establishing a mailing address, and applying for a business license

- Act as a passive shareholder or investor

However, my attempt to find the specific regulations or uscis policy memorandums that state these failed so I'm unsure.

[1] https://www.deel.com/blog/starting-your-own-business-h1b-vis...

We would like to incorporate in Delaware and I know this is no problem for me, but we are trying to figure out how the other two founders can legally work on the company when established.

Any advice? Thanks Peters.

For context, a Canadian woman recently tried to enter into the USA from Mexico and get TN-1 status. Instead of refusing her entry, officials detained her and she's been stuck for 10 days waiting for deportation.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-canadian-woma...

It's unclear to me how big of a risk this actually is for the average "Canadian goes to the USA" story because of her specific factual scenario. Presumably I don't want to enter from Mexico, but is it advisable to take flights from a TSA preclearance airport in Canada so I'm not actually in the USA if the classification is denied?

> The specific features of the constitutional guarantees of political freedom, due process, and equal protection further support their extension to foreign nationals living in the United States.

I was counted against the H1-B cap in 2017 and worked for about 3 months before I left the states.

Would I be able to use the rest of my time now if I were to get a job in the states?

Permanent Residents are also treated as a "US Person" for the purposes of FAA pilot licensing, up to the largest categories of multi-engine jet transport aircraft.

This doesn't address what recently happened with one specific Permanent Resident that's been in the news, but it's a very chilling effect if suddenly green card status people don't have the right to the 1st amendment.

Or is the general path: L1 -> Move -> Apply for EB-1C once migrated.

Yes, there were and are plenty of protestors that actually support Hamas. Fuck those guys. But automatically claiming that if you support Palestine that you must support Hamas is the exact sort of childish intellectual laziness that leads to and supports actual genocide.

Thank you very much for the feedback.

Edit Additional Question - Some of us like myself, came to the U.S. as children, following our parents after being forcibly removed from our home countries by authoritarian leaders who targeted us because of our "tribe". Despite this, the current climate often unfairly associates undocumented immigrants with criminal activity. How can someone in this situation avoid being wrongfully labeled as a “criminal immigrant,” especially in the event of an ICE raid?

I'm currently on a H1B and transitioning to an E3 visa. However, I did get married to a US Citizen and am also applying for my green card via marriage. I need to move to the E3 as my H1B maxes out before I can get a green card. I have a few questions:

* The E3 visa is a non-immigrant visa, but I assume getting married to a US citizen implies immigrant intent. My lawyers tell me it's not an issue as long as I wait 90 days after getting the E3 to apply for the green card. Does that sound right / any concerns?

* How long are you seeing current wait times for the marriage based green card end to end after applying? I'm mostly concerned about not being able to leave the country for 1-2 years (even with filing advanced parole)

* I'm also going for the employment based green card and we've filed my PERM (3 months ago). That doesn't really seem like it;s going to work out in time for it to matter. Does that sound right?

On an L1-A visa, can my company file my perm while I return home to get a new L1 visa (my visa is expiring and the date on I-129s is the same as the visa expiration date)?

The company applied for H1B visa lottery this year and awaiting the results for that.

My question is if I get through the H1B lottery

- How does it impact my options to switch employers in the future? Would I be able to work on H1B for future employers?

- My partner (Canadian citizen) is currently on a TD visa (which does not allow work) but actively searching for positions eligible under the TN categories. If my status changes to H1B, would she be ineligible for a TN visa?

Are there any obvious advantages of H1B other than eligibility for applying for a green card (which is a loooooong wait for people of Indian origin)

Is it possible to build a successful o1 case for a founder, who's been digital nomading for years and can't build his case based on achievements from one specific country? Any tips?

1. I currently do consulting for US clients through a Canadian corporation. If I accept a full-time job in the U.S. (e.g., on a TN or H-1B visa), can I continue consulting for other clients?

   - Does the answer depend on the visa type?  

   - Are there any restrictions on self-employment or side income?

   - Can I be a shareholder?  

   - Can I take dividends?  

   - Can I actively work in the business?

   - Would an O-1 visa allow for more flexibility?
  
   - If I move under a TN visa, can I later transition to an E-2 investor visa to run my own business?

   - Should I aim for a Green Card as soon as possible? 
 
   - Is there a specific visa category that would allow this?

According to "International Digital Nomads: Immigration Law Options In The United States Abroad" published in The Georgetown Law Journal[1] some jurisdictions have specifically said that it is not work which is what I'm leaning on for my current (optimistic?) view.

"Directors of the CBP office in South Florida, a leading winter locale for visiting “snow birds,” recognize that “[w]orking remotely from the US for a foreign employer, by itself, is not a violation of B visitor status” so long as “the work is incidental to the primary purpose of the trip,” which is a permissible visit."

[1] https://www.law.georgetown.edu/immigration-law-journal/wp-co...

I’m a cofounder of a startup in the US. Two of us are here on green cards, but our third cofounder is based in Switzerland. He has a PhD from a top university, previously founded a company, and has raised over $30M in the past.

At what stage would it be possible for us to bring him to the US on a visa? Would it be:

- As soon as we incorporate a C Corp?

- After raising funding?

- Once we have revenue?

Are there any specific visa pathways (O-1, L-1, E-2, etc.) that would be most relevant for him, given his background?

Appreciate any guidance on this!

I'm curious about LLMs for the legal system that can reference the law and help to guide individuals on the process they need to navigate. How much of Immigration Law do you think can be navigated independently by people? Obviously, unauthorized practices of the law would be illegal *but if it was permissible*, how critical are lawyers in Immigration Law when people are cheap and want to DIY?

I would never counsel against getting legal advice, because competent legal advice is going to be one of your best assets for planning every possible future outcome. But I would caution you that in this environment, you also need to plan for what to do when the legal advice can no longer predict or inform outcomes.

Separately, I know many startup founders who have long-term software developers ("contractors", apparently...) in other countries like India, Brazil, etc. Paying them with whatever random popular money transfer service. It's common practice but is it legal or risky on the U.S. side?

Background: I was a GC holder and the expiration date on the GC was past due by the time they processed my application for social security. BUT I had also already applied for citizenship, and when doing that online the website informed me that my CG status was automatically extended a year or so because I had applied for citizenship.

I showed the Social Security Administration the printout of the document that showed my GC status had been automatically extended. But they denied my social security application with the reason "We have not been able to determine your age is > 64".

I had been to the SS offices several times showing them my actual greencard and my valid passport from my country of origin. The government issued GC showed my birthdate. Also I showed them the printed social security statement they used to mail me every year or so, showing my age.

So it seems to me I was denied social security on totally false premises. They surely were able to easily and reliably determine my age.

How can this happen in USA? Why would they do this? Do they have a standing order saying "Deny every application you can if it is an immigrant?"

What should I do? Sue the government? (I understand you cannot give an exact recommendation what to do in this case, but would that be a viable practical option?)

Thanks

I have a general question that perhaps others can answer too. I am currently located in Switzerland but I plan to move to the US as my partner just got the medical license as a doctor in the state of New York.

My question is, as I am currently still located in Switzerland, does it make sense to already look/apply for jobs in the US from here? If yes, what's the best way to do so?

If there is a choice, does it make more sense for an immigrant visa to be sponsored by my partner or by an employer?

I have never been in the USA illegally but always had a valid visa until I got my citizenship. So where did Humana come up with the claim I was illegal? I can only assume that Social Security Administration told them so, perhaps to cover up their mistake that they had wrongly denied me social security.

Should I sue Humana or Social Security Administration?

8 USC 1451(a):

> a) Concealment of material evidence; refusal to testify It shall be the duty of the United States attorneys for the respective districts, upon affidavit showing good cause therefor, to institute proceedings in any district court of the United States in the judicial district in which the naturalized citizen may reside at the time of bringing suit, for the purpose of revoking and setting aside the order admitting such person to citizenship and canceling the certificate of naturalization on the ground that such order and certificate of naturalization were illegally procured or were procured by concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation

According to USCIS, the misrepresentation need not be but-for material. That is, you only need to show that the omission or misrepresentation was relevant to the naturalization inquiry. But you do not need to prove that the government would have denied naturalization had it known the true facts. In that respect, the standard is similar to 18 USC 1001, which has been applied extremely broadly in federal prosecutions. The second Trump administration has much smarter lawyers than the first one, and I'd count on them to be aggressive about using the full scope of section 1451(a).

- I entered on the E3 status in January but went to Canada for 2 days in February, does the 90 day rule restart from when I came back in February or when I initially entered in Jan?

- Can I continue working in my role after I apply to change my status after marriage to my LPR partner?

- Typically how long would I be unable to travel abroad while waiting for parole/adjustment of status? Thanks so much!

https://globalnews.ca/news/11080371/canadian-woman-detained-...

Edit : fix typo Also added context.

Thank you for doing these AMAs, it's really appreciated and very helpful.

What are the legal ways US graduates in F1-OPT and F1 STEM OPT start their startup in the form of LLC. I found conflicting information that F1 OPT holder can own/start a LLC but cannot actively work or mange it.

How do I even launch my startup if I legally cannot be the owner of it?

I do see in there a reference to Kymani James, so I did a search for him. I see that he posted incendiary comments online which he later recanted and were taken out of context when reported on. But, I don't see how your post indicates a connection to Mahmoud Khalil, and even if there was a connection, why this warrants detention and deportation?

1. Once you enter the US on a work visa, you are only authorized to work under the restrictions of that visa which are normally tied to a single employer. The "I was working remotely for a Canadian corp" does not fly legally speaking. Wherever your feet are are "where" you are working. That being said, one little known thing about the TN visa is that you are allowed to have multiple of them issued for multiple employers. If you get one from all of your clients, you can continue working for those clients while you are in the US. Practically speaking, they cannot tell you are working remotely and your clients are sending payment to the Canadian corp. However, if audited, do not expect to ever be allowed back into the US.

2. Anyone can start an LLC. You do not need a work visa. However, if you do not have work authorization to work for that company, then you cannot legally work on that business.

3. This is going to be a matter of preference and what you classify as flexible. TN visas are very convenient and issued at the port-of-entry which makes them quick to process. They are also indefinitely renewable and multiple can be issued for multiple employers. The other visas you mention will take months to process. The rules to transition to E-2 are clear "If the treaty investor is currently in the United States in a lawful nonimmigrant status, they may file Form I-129 to request a change of status to E-2 classification."

4. Consulting is one of the most scrutinized jobs under the TN classification. I do not like being the bearer of bad news but obtaining a Green Card is now a 5+ year process unless you qualify for EB-1 or marry a US citizen which you can get right away. However, you probably do not qualify based on the fact you are focused on consulting. I am not an expert on E-2 visas so I don't know how consulting is treated under that visa but it may very well be your best bet.

he and another founder are both technical cofounders.

he decided to be CTO and the other CEO but he is the only director in delaware c corp.

The CTO is Canadian and CEO is American.

However, CTO found out the CEO wasn't doing in his role. He wasn't committing code and also not contributing to executing, just sitting on his linked in private messages as some way to promise potential investor interest. So to protect the IP, CTO decides to block CEO from accessing github until he can explain and negotiate what to do next.

CEO used this as an excuse to terminate the CTO and acquire the IP by automatic buyback and claim ownership of the IP.

CTO is currently lawyering up and plans on filing injunction against CEO who acted in bad faith.

Will the CTO have trouble getting visas in the near future? It's clear the legal dispute will become public very soon.

Incorrect. GC holders are not "naturalized US citizens" and still need to apply for full US citizenship with the USCIS when they are eligible to do so.

Seriously though, if you are going to make a cheeky reference to race, at least get the reference right. Melanin is responsible for darker skin [2].

[1] - https://www.newsweek.com/ice-seeks-more-bed-space-detainee-n...

[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanin

For reference, I'm a Canadian who just moved to the US on a TN Visa and I've got a few questions:

- What would you say the percentage likelihood range is that the TN Visa is no longer an option for Software Engineers in 3 years time.

- With the news of USMCA talks reopening, is it advisable to switch to an H-1B visa?

- How long would it take for the government to eliminate the TN Visa, considering the complexity of the process?

- If the TN Visa is discontinued, is it safe to assume those already on it will be allowed to work in the US until their Visa expires?

Now, working to carry out a foreign governments interests against the best interests of the American public IS treason, but that’s okay when you’re the president I guess.

Do you also think a foreigner should be allowed to openly advocate for Nazism while on a green card, without consequence?

Not visas which are visitation permits. They are non-citizens who live in the United States. This is not visitation.

Revoking a green card is akin to expulsion from the country. And can only be used when laws are broken, treason is committed, or terrorism is waged.

In the case of the Columbia student, he was accused of terrorism without trial and had his revocation signed single handedly by the Secretary of State. This is a first time for the law to be used.

Given that the policy is in the very early stages of implementation we can expect those numbers to reach the hundreds, thousands and tens of thousands in the next few months.

A lot of people tend to equate foreign workers on work visas with "cheap labor", especially in the so called "white collar" jobs; even though there are things like labor market tests and/or minimum salary requirements which have to be satisfied for many employment based visas. Can you please dispel/corroborate this based on your experience with employment based visas?

Tomorrow it will be the "new normal".

Quick follow-up: In principle, would it be possible for them to keep their current job while working on the startup, or would they need to leave it entirely?

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c80y3yx1jdyo

"...when she reached the border [Canada], Mr Burke said the Canadian authorities denied her entry as they were concerned she may try to work illegally."

Thanks for doing this.

If the recent trend continues, the May 2025 visa bulletin might have my priority date (May 30, 2013) current for EB-3. Originally, I am on EB-2. I have two questions:

Is it worth downgrading to EB-3, or should I wait for my EB-2 date to become current? If my date becomes current, what are the next steps to getting a Green Card (GC)? Is there anything I can do to expedite the process?

I'm on H-1B with an approved EB-2 via my current employer and an approved EB-1A (self-petition). I want to switch employers or take a break. I expected my priority date to become current in Q3 or Q4 2025.

Questions

1. If I switch to an H-4 status for a break, can that affect I-485 via EB-1A?

2. I need to visit family urgently and I have got a few offers in hand. Can I quit and travel internationally while the H-1B transfer is in progress and re-enter the US? My stamp expires in 6 months and my partner can mail the approved I-797. What are the general risks here apart from the mail getting lost?

3. Can a change of employment lead to issues with an AOS application in the future using EB-1A?

It's also important to remember that the government follows the public, not the other way around. The legitimacy of preferences among belligerents in foreign conflicts is determined through the equilibration of public opinion, and it's the end state of the protests and discussions (whatever it is) that legitimizes or overturns the lists, not the other way around.

From the perspective of someone asking about immigration law, this doesn't pose the question "to what degree should I do things that the people around me like," it raises the question, "to what degree does my perception of the preferences of the current administration take precedence, due to personal risk, over what the people around me would like me to do for them."

Since E-3 is not dual intent, the safest option is to avoid international travel until I-485 is approved. Re-entering on approved advance parole is allowed, but not if your I-485 is suddenly denied.

I personally am not sure that pre-clearance should even continue given current diplomatic tensions. Having an armed foreign police force from a country whose official head of state says it wants to occupy you... doesn't seem wise.

The whole issue is that the current administration has determined that they are the sole arbiter of those "rules", and they can detain and attempt to deport green card holders without any due process.

Obvious question then does the employer and the job have to be similar to the job that they had (and how similar and what is the test)?

If this happens, my understanding is that this will immediately turn them into illegal aliens, subject to deportation.

Is my vague understanding true? Is there anything I can do to help them? I don't mind participating some civil disobedience if it means allowing them to stay in the country longer. Should I gate up my property? Any advice is appreciated.

Regardless, the prohibition for entry/approval is against people who were associated with the nazi party or nazi-allied parties between 1933 and 1945, which is basically obsolete already. Anybody for whom that prohibition applies would be 98+ years old now.

Mahmoud Khalil was arrested solely on the discretion of Marco Rubio (the arresting agents thought they were revoking his visa when he is in fact a green card holder), he has not been criminally charged, he was been provided with little to no contact with his lawyers, as far as I've read he lead protests but there is no evidence he has provided material support to Hamas.

Comparing his situation to the January 6th protestors is the "falsest" of false equivalences.

Note - I don't agree with it but I think this is the logic the current administration is using.

Show me the law that says only citizens can own NFA items - there is no special regulation in the gun control act of 1934 which specifies permanent residents or citizens. If you can buy a regular 4473 FFL item (any serialized firearm post-1968) and silencers are legal in your state, a permanent resident can buy a silencer, most typically on an eForm4 from a local dealer.

Similarly, a permanent resident can buy an NFA item, short barrel rifle (SBR, sub 16" barrel, rifled barrel, serialized firearm) on an eform4 from their local dealer, as long as the category of SBR is legal in their state of residence. A permanent resident in a state with few or no firearm restrictions such as Idaho could buy an AR-15 or AK/AKM semiauto action based based SBR. If the permanent resident is in a state with restrictive new assault weapon laws, such as WA, they could still buy an SBR, but it has to meet the other requirements of their state of not being a state-prohibited assault weapon (such as a 10 inch barreled bolt action chambered in 8.6 blackout, as bolt and lever actions are exempted from the recent WA state assault weapons ban)

That same theoretical permanent resident can even own what's casually called a double stamp item, two NFA items attached together, such as putting a silencer on an SBR, if they have enough money to buy both, pay the $400 total in NFA item tax stamps, and pay their local FFL SOT dealer for the transfer. Exactly the same financial cost to them as for a US citizen.

If you buy it online, it will go on an eform3 shipped from the originating vendor/manufacturer/dealer to the inventory and books of your local FFL SOT, and then an eform4 to you.

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/undefined/atf-national-fir...

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/form/form-4-application-ta...

You can see the "paper" version of the ATF form 4 there.

An alien admitted to the united states under a nonimmigrant class visa generally may not purchase firearms (except under certain exemptions) or NFA items. A permanent resident is an immigrant class status.

Quoting the ATF form 4:

Alien Admitted to the United States Under a Nonimmigrant Visa. An alien admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa includes, among others, persons visiting the United States temporarily for business or pleasure, persons studying in the United States who maintain a residence abroad, and certain temporary foreign workers. These aliens must answer “yes” to question 16.d.1 and provide the additional documentation required under question 16.d.2. Permanent resident aliens and aliens legally admitted to the United States pursuant either the Visa Waiver Program or to regulations otherwise exempting them from visa requirements may answer “no” to this question and are not required to submit the additional documentation under 16.d.2. An alien admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa is not prohibited from purchasing, receiving, or possessing a firearm if the alien: (1) is in possession of a hunting license or permit lawfully issued by the Federal Government, a State, or local government, or an Indian tribe federally recognized by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, which is valid and unexpired; (2) was admitted to the United States for lawful hunting or sporting purposes; (3) is an official representative of a foreign government who is accredited to the United States Government or the Government’s mission to an international organization having its headquarters in the United States; (4) is an official representative of a foreign government who is enroute to or from another country to which that alien is accredited; (5) is an official of a foreign government or a distinguished foreign visitor who has been so designated by the Department of State; (6) is a foreign law enforcement officer of a friendly foreign government entering the United States on official law enforcement business; (7) has received a waiver from the prohibition from the Attorney General of the United States.

----

You will note that the 4473 and the form 4 has a section for citizenship. Theoretically, a Canadian with permanent resident status typically provides their citizenship and alien number as part of the application.

See also, questions 35 through 38 on the FFL application form, which asks if you're an alien admitted to the united states under a nonimmigrant class visa. The FFL application form does not require you to be a US citizen. It does not allow for nonimmigrant class visa holders to be an FFL. Again, a PR is an immigrant class person.

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/apply-license

https://www.atf.gov/file/61506/download

Further reference: https://www.atf.gov/firearms/federal-firearms-licensee-quick...

1. The H-1B is easily transferrable to another company (as long as the position meets the H-1B requirements). 2. Yes, she still would eligible for the TN if you changed to H-1B. 3. That's the main reason; it's really impossible for Canadian citizens born in India (or China) to pursue a green card while in TN status (without jeopardizing that status). Also, under the current law, an H-4 spouse can apply for a work card if his or her spouse is in the green card process (specifically, has an approved I-140) and is from a backlogged category or country like India.

Was your partner also born in India? If not and you get married you can use their country of birth for the green card, even if the green card is being sponsored by your employer. Maybe you're aware of this but just to say if you're not.

Mahmoud Khalil has broken no laws, at least according to the accusations of the government. He hasn't even demonstrated support for Hamas...and it wouldn't be illegal even if he did. All he has done is said something that some people don't like. That is not a crime.

That's why this is egregious, where J6 protest convictions are completely logical and morally consistent.

It's the tourists and people who rarely cross that have never encountered CBSA that try to treat Canada like some kind of theme park. They're also often unprepared with appropriate ID, documents, receipts and stuff and get weird when CBSA starts asking them exactly the same nature of questions that CBP asks of people going southbound.

I would also emphasize that CBSA knows how often you cross, through a US-Canada data sharing agreement. An ALPR system takes a picture of your license plate on your car and very quickly queries a database, for information presented to the question-asking-person, as your vehicle approaches the window. This is assuming you're driving northbound of course. Even if that doesn't happen, they'll ask to see your drivers license along with your passport and immediately know you don't reside anywhere near the border.

They know immediately if the zip code where your car is registered is somewhere close to the border, or is very far away from the border. And if you have, or have not, crossed the border recently. It's people from very far away from the border that rarely if ever cross who also think they can take their guns, drugs, etc into Canada and won't get questioned about it.

One of the main hurdle is I cant go an seek customers, as my profile would show an employee with my current employer?

> Do you intend to engage in any activity that could endanger the welfare, safety, or security of the United States? > NOTE: If you answered "Yes" to any part of Item Numbers 42.a. - 45., explain what you did, including the dates and location of the circumstances, or what you intend to do in the space provided in Part 14. Additional Information

> Recruited members or asked for money or things of value for a group or organization that did any of the activities described in Item Numbers 43.b. - 43.e.

If you say 'yes' to these, you probably aren't getting a GC. If you falsely say 'no' to these, you may have committed fraud. The reference to Item Numbers 43.b - 43.e can be found by reading the I-485 - https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/forms/i-4... - but to save you time, it seems to apply to any group doing armed resistance.

That said, mere speech supporting Palestine is, as you say, legal. I also think that it had to be false at the time the statement was made, not something he only did afterwards. But if they can show that a person lied on these questions or any of the other several dozen questions in the application, they can accuse them of obtaining the GC fraudulently and go into removal proceedings.

Reading between the lines, this is what I believe is happening to Khalil based on statements given in articles like - https://reason.com/2025/03/13/mahmoud-khalil-is-an-easy-call... - compare the questions I quoted to their stated justifications in that article:

> The official said that Khalil is a "threat to the foreign policy and national security interests of the United States." > "The allegation here is not that he was breaking the law," said the official. "He was mobilizing support for Hamas and spreading antisemitism in a way that is contrary to the foreign policy of the U.S."

Now, I'm not exactly sure exactly how removal proceedings work, but from what I've read, it seems likely that he'll get some kind of hearing. Hopefully, this gets adjudicated properly, promptly and fairly in a way that respects his first amendment rights, though it is concerning that someone can just be held in detainment waiting for all this.

Providing material support to a terrorist organization is where it crosses into criminal territory.

CBP/ICE has a pretty detailed explanation on their website that you can lose permanent resident status by remaining outside of the country for more than one year and failing to retain a bona fide residence and presence in the USA (US job with annual 1040 tax filings, residence, identity documents, etc).

I would wager that a scenario such as remaining overseas for multiple years is a much more common way for people to lose US PR status through negligence/lack of action than for people to get their PR status revoked through some legal process initiated for treason, terrorism, etc.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-plans-revoke-legal-st...

> The planned rollback of protections for Ukrainians would be part of a broader Trump administration effort to strip legal status from more than 1.8 million migrants allowed to enter the U.S. under temporary humanitarian parole programs launched under the Biden administration, a senior Trump official and three sources familiar with the matter told Reuters.

> A move to revoke the Ukrainians' status could come as soon as April, all four said. They said the plans to revoke their status got underway before Trump publicly feudedwith Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy last week.

> White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt pushed back on the Reuters report in a post on X, saying "no decision has been made at this time."

I have been calling every single person I know that has a Republican congress person and begging them to please call their congressperson on the matter. I have no idea if it has any effect. It certainly feels like shouting into the void, and there's about 1000 other things that everyone is angry about.

Children were bombed. They knew the kids were there and they bombed them. Often happily doing it knowing they'd slaughter hundreds to get one supposed terrorist. They bulldozed bodies. They tiktoked the destruction of universities and hospitals.

"Hamas's eagerness to put them in harm's way" is such a tired lie to cover up for the slaughter of innocent people by the Israeli terror state.

#4 -> https://www.mea.gov.in/Speeches-Statements.htm?dtl/38990/Sta...

Israel's military operates according to the laws of war, which forbid targeting of civilians, but do not forbid civilian deaths.

In a sense you're right though. If by "left" you mean "peace movement", that was on life support after the second intifada, and Oct 7th pulled the plug. There will be no substantial peace movement in Israel for a generation. Many of those slaughtered on Oct 7th were from the hard left/peace movement bloc.

And to reiterate, yes, presenting things in those false terms makes you a bad guy.

That's great and all, but the problem still exists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statelessness

> Middle Eastern countries have strict laws regarding citizenship; in that case, the person would have the citizenship of their parents.

Well, when Palestine gets international recognition as a sovereign state, that'll solve the problem. Until then, he's stateless.

"Kuwait's Nationality Law is based on the citizenship of the parents, jus sanguinis, (Article 2) and does not provide for citizenship based on place of birth, jus soli, except in the case of foundlings (Article 3). For this reason Al-Kateb did not acquire Kuwaiti citizenship at birth, and was thus considered a stateless person. Al-Kateb left his country of birth after Kuwaiti authorities pressured nearly 200,000 Palestinians to leave Kuwait. In December 2000, Al-Kateb, travelling by boat, arrived in Australia without a visa or passport, and was taken into immigration detention under the provisions of the Migration Act 1958."

No.

One of the major distinctions being – CBP cannot deny a green card holder to enter the country. They can try pressure tactics to 'convince' the person to 'voluntarily' give up their green card but, if they don't sign anything, they will still be let in. If there's something off about their case, they may be referred to an immigration judge, which is the only way to revoke a green card (barring some fraud detected by USCIS).

Contrast that with visas. They are entirely at immigration discretion and can be canceled at any time, including at the port of entry, for any reason. Visas which grant work authorization still have the SSN restricted and it's tied to whatever authorization the person has. A green card holder can remove the SSN restriction and their SSN is exactly the same as a citizen.

Really, the main differences are that a citizen can hold some offices a LPR cannot, the ability to vote, and no requirement to renew anything. And, most importantly, no residency requirements for a citizen.

As you point out, naturalization is more difficult to remove, but green cards aren't that easy either.

The visa process and the person’s assertions to those visa questions

For example - did you every x? And the required answer is No

Let’s assume the person did commit X but answers No

Years go by and the person gets a green card.

The underlying assertion was a lie - therefore the whole stream of events later becomes questionable.

The second situation is a new item being added. For example consider the hypothetical scenario that

When the applicant filled out his forms - greenpeace was legit. And the applicant was a greenpeace member.

Years later the applicant becomes a green card holder.

Now years later. The govt classifies greenpeace a terror org.

Is the green card holder under threat?

For eg. Some green card holders live overseas. They are required to visit here periodically to keep status alive.

I know of cases where their green cards were revoked

That said, the GC will only be taken away if (a) you give it up (you can be pressured into doing so though) or (b) an immigration judge takes it away (CBP can send your case to one if they think you are not living in the US)

This is why a reentry permit exists and that's what OP is talking about. It allows one to leave the country for two years and can be renewed (not guaranteed though).

The malice, the excuses for this nonsensical system, and more have permanently damaged some of my close relationships. It's times like this when people show who they truly are at heart.

Unfortunately not true. Yes, it's a human right. Yes, there's all sorts of international agreements trying to prevent it (because it's a real mess that nobody wants to deal with), but it still happens.

This is more likely for countries that force one to renounce their birth citizenship. Not all those regimes want to take them back even if the option is statelessness.

That is untrue

They are far deeper than that.

They are primarily cultural, education is their main focus

The "basic US presence" requirement of green cards has always been present in the validity clause alongside the 5-10year expiry date, and not committing immigration fraud and other basic requirements to maintain green card -- a comical number of European green card holders gloss over/forget this clause every year, that is made explicit to them upon receiving the card and proceed to forfeit their green cards by not entering the US for over a year -- that is not a revocation (implies a subjective decision made by an official), it is a lapse of validity (implies some pre-stated condition was fulfilled).

Now, I think you're right that the statements are only required to be true at the time they were made. That said, if I can get you to look at the I-485 which one fills out to get a green card, and focus on the questions in Item Numbers 43.b. - 43.e, which cover what is essentially material support for a terrorist org, you will see that all of them relate to the group's actions. You can read the questions yourself here on p. 16 of the PDF for an I-485:

https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/forms/i-4...

So the only way the truth of someone's statements could change over time would be if the groups they had given material support to (e.g. money or recruitment) had only engaged in things like assassination, kidnapping, hijacking, sabotage, destroying people or property with weapons or dangerous devices, etc. after the person had already turned in their I-485 form.

This isn't very likely to be the case for various Palestine-related organizations that are doing armed resistance, since that armed resistance has been going on for a very long time now. But I suppose it's hypothetically possible in the abstract, and I presume one would argue this at an immigration hearing, since they have to establish immigration "fraud" and parts of that depend on what you knew and when you knew it.

is not what Mahmoud Kahill (sp?) was doing.

He's was protesting the University of Columbia's support of Israel, who were engaged in a wildly homicidal campaign against his kin.

Really?

That is frightening. I plan to be a tourist in the USA within a decade.

Can you expand on that?

80% of Israeli jews support the ethnic cleansing of Gaza. People are arrested for saying the oppressed have a right to defend themselves. You see videos of IDF troops calling for the death of all Arabs while they are on vacation. You see them doing crimes against humanity in Gaza war footage. That isn't a healthy society, it isn't a society with a leftist movement. It is a fascist bloodthirsty society, run by thugs like Bibi, Smotrich, and Ben-Gvir.

Supporting them means you either naive or that you lack any morals. Which makes your "bad guy" accusation meaningless.

And I never said it warrants detention and deportation. I'm just pointing out that Khalil is affiliated with a group that supports Hamas, and that he does not merely "protest for Palestine". It's well attested in the media that Khalil was a negotiator for the group but I can link a source below.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/03/13/columbia-s...

I'm just pointing out that painting falsehoods about Israel and its people (as you have continued to do in your most recent post) does indeed make you a bad guy. I don't expect you to agree with me!

Is there a policy that requires that people denied entry be returned to the country they are citizens of?

Now, I don't think it makes any sense that speech is "material" support, but I also think it doesn't make any sense that speech is "violence," and US culture seems to have repudiated my thoughts on what distinguishes speech from action.

But whatever I think, under current law, speech in support of a terrorist organization is no longer free speech. And certain pro-Palestinian organizations were defined by the previous administration to be terrorist organizations back in November. So it follows that certain pro-Gaza activism is no longer free speech. I don't think this should be the case, but this is the current state of the law.

The wording of 8 USC 1451(a) is not limited to particular questions on visa or green-card applications. The statute refers to how the "order and certificate of naturalization were ... procured" which arguably encompasses everything leading up to the order and certificate. Moreover, the statute has two separate prongs for revocation: (1) the "order and certificate of naturalization were illegally procured"; or (2) "were procured by concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation."

The way government prosecutors interpret these statutes is to push each of these terms and prongs as far as they can logically go. For example, you could argue that the phrase "illegally procured" encompasses any unlawful activity that has some arguable nexus to the visa or naturalization process.

As to the second prong, 8 USC 1427(a) sets forth extensive requirements for who qualifies for naturalization. The requirements are extremely vague and broad:

> No person, except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, shall be naturalized unless such applicant, (1) immediately preceding the date of filing his application for naturalization has resided continuously, after being lawfully admitted for permanent residence, within the United States for at least five years and during the five years immediately preceding the date of filing his application has been physically present therein for periods totaling at least half of that time, and who has resided within the State or within the district of the Service in the United States in which the applicant filed the application for at least three months, (2) has resided continuously within the United States from the date of the application up to the time of admission to citizenship, and (3) during all the periods referred to in this subsection has been and still is a person of good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States.

That third requirement is so broad that almost any fact about a person could be deemed material to the naturalization decision. Now, remember that 8 USC 1451(a) only allows naturalization to be revoked based on concealing or misrepresenting material facts. So it must be the case that you were arguably required to disclose the fact to the government at some point and either didn't or misrepresented the fact. But if you made an omission or misstatement on any government form ever, that could be fair game for bringing revocation proceedings.

I'm the founder of an early-stage company seeking to establish an office in Phoenix, Arizona. My situation has specific immigration complexities I hope you can maybe give some pointers on.

My spouse is currently subject to a 10-year bar from entering the United States due to an overstay....

We are exploring a hardship waiver (I-601/I-601A) but finding the process challenging while simultaneously managing my business responsibilities. I've been considering various visa pathways including TN, H-1B, and have begun the I-130 petition process for my spouse. Given these circumstances:

What strategies would you recommend for addressing my spouse's admissibility issues most effectively? Are there particular hardship waiver approaches that have proven successful in similar entrepreneurial situations? Could you advise on the comparative benefits of different visa pathways in our specific case? Are there any specialized resources or professionals with expertise in cases combining entrepreneurship with complex inadmissibility issues?

I was on a big road trip across the country visiting national parks. I went to Organ Pipe Nat. Monument in Arizona which literally touches the Mexican border.

On my way there I drove through a border patrol checkpoint 10 miles north of the border inside the US. They don't check southbound traffic, only northbound. I never entered Mexico. On the way back I had to stop at that border patrol checkpoint. The border patrol agent was basically yelling at me for my passport. I told him I didn't have it with me. He yelled to see my driver's license. I gave it to him and he yelled at me "Why do you have a North Carolina driver's license?" I replied that is where I live and that is my home address on the license. He then screamed at me "Don't you know this is a prime drug running area?!" I told him "I have no idea and I'm not interested in drugs. There is a national park area 5 miles away, don't you get a lot of tourists here going to see that?"

I then noticed in my rear view and side mirrors that another agent was going around my car with a dog sniffing around. After about 2 minutes I saw the dog agent give a thumbs up and the rude agent said "Okay, you can go but you should carry your passport"

I had less rude experiences in Texas and California but still overly suspicious border patrol agents. One guy asked me what all the stuff was in my car. I actually offered him granola bars and soda cans and then showed him landscape pictures on my cameras. He realized that I was really a tourist and not into drugs or helping immigrants cross.

If the company makes it - the venture can be in legal jeopardy.

The line for EB-2 and EB-3 (where most Indians are) is currently servicing those who applied in Summer 2012. So if your colleague got in the line in say Summer 2015, that's 36 months away. At the current pace it could easily be 20-40 years before their turn comes.

Also remember that there was a massive tech boom in the 2014 to 2019 period, so a LOT more people applied during that time so the movement of the line will slow down even beyond the current 1 month per year rate. If your colleagues applied in 2016 or beyond they are unlikely to get it in their lifetime unless the per-country caps are removed.

Finally, you'll sometimes hear the word "retrogression". That refers to the line actually moving "back". This happens because the date that the USCIS announces as the "pointer" to who is being issued cards is an estimate based on the recent green card issue rate.

Sometimes it can move back if they had to issue more green cards than they expected to (since people can apply for spouse and kids together when their turn comes).

Sometimes it moves forward faster if the number of people they expected to apply for the final processing stage turns out lower than their estimation.

Thanks for sharing the link. Yikes! It looks like all of part 9 is in play. Ie one had better be absolutely truthful - or self decline, who would ever do that?

Also, the problem with the legal definition of “a disqualification requirement” is it can be vague and subject to change.

Would I be correct in saying that a strict adherence to USA law is mandatory?

I doubt a few immigration officers with handguns (can't say for sure they even carry them or carry them out of the airport) are going to take over BC.

There's a tremendous amount of scaremongering, fearmongering, and misinformation being thrown about currently. Majority of it is very much over stated hyperbole.

I think most non legally inclined people (like me) would say CBP yanked my GC.

Your point being that - nope, they just enforced the law.

Right?

If you're looking for the harder but longer term route then try H1B.

Recent changes to H1B allowing any organization that conduct research "as a fundamental activity" to be eligible for cap exemption status. What's your comment on this?

Based on your work experience with startup, do they ever fit this criteria?

> She said the officer refused to allow her to go back to Mexico and ordered her to be detained. She was kept in a cold room at the border by CBP before being arrested by ICE, who placed her at the Otay Mesa Detention Center. Mooney claimed in the middle of the night she, along with a group of 30 other women, was rounded up to get transferred to a facility in Arizona. CBP wouldn’t tell Team 10 the reason for Mooney’s detention, citing privacy restrictions.

https://www.10news.com/news/local-news/never-seen-anything-s...

> A German tourist detained by US immigration authorities is due to be deported back to Germany on Tuesday after spending more than six weeks in detention, including eight days in solitary confinement. Both Germans were held at the Otay Mesa Detention Center, a prison in San Diego, California. Brösche and Lofving had attempted to enter the US from Tijuana in Mexico on 25 January.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/mar/11/german-tourist...

Funny, since half of U.S. citizens don't have a passport.

That sounds even more vague and broad than the definition given in the Constitution. But I'm pretty sure the one in the Constitution is talking about a clear and deliberate shift in allegiance from the United States to another group that is actively engaged in hostilities with the United States.

Best to get a citizenship asap

The article that you linked says he was a negotiator for Columbia pro-Palestine protestors. Painting them as supporters of Hamas is a tired tactic intended to silence anyone who doesn't support Israel's actions.

For all we know, the US was coordinating extradition or release into their home country. A person attempting to illegally crossing the border (such as the two in the article) have committed a crime and could be held on that alone - yet they were released back to their home country. Seems like a pretty good ending for them, unless you are advocating they should be charged and imprisoned here for longer?

They have her in their system, and she has no rights.

[edit] Found an article with more info "[her US friend] told CNN that her German friend was joining her in Los Angeles to tattoo her. She speculated that immigration officials may have misinterpreted Brösche’s statements about the project as a declaration that she’d come to the US to work." https://edition.cnn.com/2025/03/04/world/german-detained-ice...

As an IT worker I'm worried of cause because my 'gear' is a laptop and I usually travel with a laptop.

I've heard it said by lawyers that you're not qualified to know whether or not you've committed a federal crime and some of those are quite broad - see this illustration for a few ideas in that vein: https://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=1008 - but even then, one "out" is that my understanding is that you have to actually commit fraud here.

So maybe if you violated some incredibly broad provision, but were never charged or convicted and literally didn't even know it was a law, you could defend yourself by pointing that out and arguing that because of that, you haven't committed actual "fraud" even if your answer was wrong.

But in general, yes, you should be honest on all the forms and engage with a legal professional if you're ever in trouble. I've heard that this area of law is all that well tested, so we'll have to see what the courts do with it. In fact, we suffered some significant delays in our immigration journey due to being honest, but I don't regret that one bit.

That's...a new one. Are you sure you're talking about the same Hamas, aka the Islamic Resistance Movement? The one that, as of their 2017 charter, declares that "Hamas is a[...]national liberation and resistance movement"?

I'm not here to debate whether or not they're a terrorist organization, I just think it's pretty disingenuous to say that "education is their main focus".

So, going from Seattle up to Banff by way of the Sumas / Huntington crossing...

I went in and was asked for the purpose of my visit ("tourist"), duration of stay ("one to two weeks, no more than two"), for my occupation ("I am currently unemployed") and my permanent residence ("I am currently without a permanent residence")... and the officer looked at my car with camping equipment for more than two weeks... and I was sent to have a bit more of a discussion with an agent.

Parked my car and went in and waited. While waiting, another family was moving from Washington to Alaska... and they were having difficulties. Three vehicles, four possible drivers, though one was an older woman. One car contained a rifle and one of the drivers had a criminal record.

I got to the counter after an hour, explained, was denied entry but that could be rectified if I came back with proof of ties to the United States and proof that I had sufficient funds to be able to stay the duration of my stay without needing any employment.

So, got back in my car, got in line to go back to the US and called my parents on my iPhone (still a rather new tech). They happened to have been at the insurance company when I called, and so got insurance for the car that I was driving for Canada - and sent a photo of that insurance and their drivers licenses with the address clearly visible. Got to the US border agent who was confused that I hadn't entered Canada but was clearly coming from Canada and sat in that office for a little bit while they looked to see that yes, I was an American citizen.

After half an hour there went to the ATM and got a balance of my accounts. I had more than sufficient funds in the account, and then went back to the border crossing. It was the same agent at the crossing so I didn't need to explain again, but said I had the necessary proof (which surprised him that I got it that quickly) and had me park again and go in to the office.

In the office, the family was still trying to figure out what to do. An hour later after they decided that the brother with the criminal record was going to walk back to the US side and that they were going to pay an arm and a leg to register the rifle I got to the counter, showed my parents drivers licenses ("this is where I am going, I had some time without any responsibilities and so decided to tour North America"), the photo of the car insurance for Canada (they called that one in and verified it... again, surprised that I was able to get it so quickly), and matched the account on the ATM receipt with the account that I had for my card... and let me in with some paperwork in my passport noting that I needed to provide that paperwork when leaving the country otherwise entering again could be problematic.

Anyways... I had a great time in Canada. Loved Banff and later Waterton. Handed over the papers to ensure I was leaving at Chief Mountain. I'd love to do it again some day... the drive from Kamloops to Banff was one of the most enjoyable "just driving" days I've done.

It took a while, but trying to cooperate to the best of my ability and that new "sending pictures around" technology really helped.

A US citizen can also just renounce their citizenship, and the US won't care if they have another citizenship.

Other countries are more restrictive. For example, Russia (a signatory of that convention) requires people to prove that they have another citizenship ready before they allow the renunciation to proceed.

You can try https://o1pathways.com/ to evaluate your profile.

But border patrol has always been a bunch of small dick assholes, all the way back to Obama.

My wife and I adopted a child from another country. He was 18 months of age at the time.

We flew into LAX. We were exhausted from a long flight. We got to customs. Agents approached us and said that they had a few questions and said that I (the father) needed to collect our bags and they would escort my wife(us citizen), my oldest son (us citizen), and my youngest son(adopted foreign national) to the waiting area.

I got our bags and tried to rejoin my family. They denied me entry. Said they had questions for “them”. After an hour I started to have to raise hell because I had all the supplies for my family. Diapers. Food, etc. I was told it obviously took us a while to adopt this kid so we can wait longer.

I eventually stated that they were illegally holding two us citizens and I was going to call 911 for them to take me serious.

They acted like they didn’t know my wife and oldest wee US citizens. Bunch of bullshit. Fuck those assholes and every one of them that continues to violate our constitutional rights.

Signed

12 year US Navy Civilian.

In practice, that means "near the border with Mexico" where there are border patrol stations along highways well inside the US that do routine stops, but technically it applies to any port city as well.

_Technically_, if you're a US citizen, you're not required to have proof of citizenship on you. But a drivers license in the US does not show that you are a citizen, and they absolutely can stop you from leaving (at least long enough to mess up your day plans) if you cannot actually prove citizenship in practice. It's just a _lot_ easier to have a passport on you. Passport cards exist mostly for this purpose.

E.g. I lived in Texas for a long time and have a passport card for that specific reason. Driving down to the beach or just going on random trips involves passing through border control stations even though you never leave the US or even get particularly near the border. Your chances of just going to visit a friend in south Texas and winding up needing to pass through a border control checkpoint due to unplanned road closures/etc are pretty high, so it's best to have a card in your wallet at all times that counts. Most remote highways have them as soon as you get back near a town. Most of the time, they'll wave you through pretty quickly, but it's just a lot faster process if you have a passport card and not only a drivers license.

Side note: A friend of mine was a park ranger at Carlsbad Caverns. He picked me up at the El Paso airport and we were driving to Carlsbad. We went through a border control checkpoint. They threatened to arrest him on the spot because he had his park service uniform hanging up in the back, but no employee ID or other proof that he actually was a ranger. They said he was impersonating a federal officer. They made a big deal of it and made us wait while they called the park to verify he was employed (and that didn't work because it was about 8pm). We eventually got let go with a warning after he found random online photos of him giving cave tours and convinced them that he couldn't possibly have staged a ton of random folks on the internet to have him in the background of photos.... But still, it was kinda nuts...

Follow-up question: do US employers ever provide assistance with O-1 or E-2? What is considered "a relatively high level of achievement"?

Having seen what the US gov't did to Maher Arar 20 years ago, I have never felt comfortable crossing that border since, despite being a white middle class Canadian of no suspect at all. Just place, wrong time, wrong person, and it can go so, so badly, without any recourse.

Look up the line on nazis. On second look, The word advocacy is wrong. It is nazi persecution

Business records were filed falsely in the hush money scandal. That resulted in a criminal conviction. 34 counts total, because it was done over eleven transactions, and three filings made for each transaction. It was supposed to be noted and declared as hush money, but because it was labeled legal money, this was a lie.

If you want to argue that it is unfair , I am with you, but the bigger person you are and the bigger your pursuit the bigger your enemy and the more squeaky clean your record has to be. That’s the price of fame and fortune with envy.

A selection of some of the photos I took there. https://imgur.com/a/stdkS0c ... some are memories, some are trying to capture the beauty of the area. I don't have them on http://shagie.smugmug.com because technically I was a tourist rather than a photographer and selling the prints gets into potential future visa issues. The rock formation is a nice, compact chevron fold.

Those accounts document hatred against Jewish people in Columbia and other universities. How on Earth are these accounts "far right"? Can you link to at least one post from either of those accounts that you would characterize as "far right"?

Here, how about this article: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jasmine-mooney-canadian-detaine...

If this is not sufficient (It includes statements from an ICE spokesperson), then please do mention what type of evidence it is that you're looking for.

> For all we know, the US was coordinating extradition or release into their home country.

The evidence that we have does not indicate that, and in fact, indicates that these Jasmine Mooney was unnecessarily held for 6 days across two different locations, then unnecessarily transferred to Arizona for an additional period of time.

It seems like a very faulty thought process to pretend that there exists evidence to contradict what the current evidence suggests, rather than to simply base your judgement on available evidence.

> A person attempting to illegally crossing the border (such as the two in the article) have committed a crime and could be held on that alone

Jasmine Mooney - a Canadian citizen, was crossing the boarder, with the paperwork for a work visa, in order to turn them into the US consulate to apply for the visa. This isn't even required by the way under NAFTA: https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/temporary....

It specifically notes that Canadian citizens need not apply at the U.S. consulate, contrary to the information provided by the customs agent.

How reasonable is it to you, that a person would attempt to follow the correct procedure to apply for a work visa according to the U.S. government's own website, then be detained and transferred several times, one of them being literally to a detention facility 209 miles away simply because her visa was denied at the border of Mexico (Before she even entered the U.S. by the way)

Here's another source for this, which includes statements by an immigration lawyer noting how unusual the handling of this is: https://globalnews.ca/news/11080371/canadian-woman-detained-...

> Seems like a pretty good ending for them, unless you are advocating they should be charged and imprisoned here for longer?

How is it a good ending to be detained and transferred hundreds of miles because paperwork at the boarder isn't correct? Isn't the whole point that they shouldn't be in the U.S. at all? So why is it then that we waste so many resources to send them all over the U.S. instead of just denying entry?.. How does this make any sense to you?

If a non- citizen gave birth in an American embassy, would their child be entitled to US citizenship? What about US Antarctic Territory or aboard a boat within US coastal waters?

Which is why Trump should be banned from entering as he is a convicted felon.

My understanding is a US citizen could promote a terrorist organization like Al Queda and that would not be a crime (if no imminent threat) as it’s protected speech.

They could be investigated, but if no crime is committed the won’t be consequences.

If you’re a green card holder you most certainly could have your green card yanked for the same speech.

Green card holders are still immigrants and liable to be removed from the US for a host of reasons that aren’t actual crimes. Heck, “moral turpitude” is a reason for losing your green card, and that includes a whole host of speech that promotes things like war crimes.

Some people express concerns that the H-1B program might be used primarily to reduce labor costs rather than to fill genuine skill gaps. How do you view this issue from a legal and policy perspective?

Furthermore, supposing that no equivalent to the TN visa is proposed in its place, what would be you recommend to these TN visa holders?

I recall doing the long walk into town and dumping quarters in the Bubble Bobble machine they had in the arcade there.

Met a cute girl there.

If they aren't being charged with a crime, I don't know how this could be occuring for any other reason than speech.

No, they are officially being deported for being a foreign policy problem without being accused of any crime.

And the specific source of the foreign policy problem is the political content of their speech.

He's thinking of giving it up.

Is there an exit tax for him?

Is it only after 8 years?

How much is it?

Thank you?

"Material support" is logically defined as more than mere statements of support, and supporters of these groups may advocate for or participate in these organizations.

Specifically it's seems as though an organization was working with terrorist groups to provide training on how to seek non violent solutions with global humanitarian bodies.

Seems like for this to be similar it would require the government to show they individual engaged in direct actions to provide aid to Hamas greater than statements/speech to meet the current definition of "material support".

For statements of support of a terrorist organization to be considered "material support" I think it would require a new ruling from SCOTUS

Solitary is probably a bonus charge.

Many families with recent adoptees have terrible experiences. It’s sad, but it’s important to prepare for it.

Adoption and human trafficking can look very similar. And border guards are often assholes.

Not because they expect people to say “yes”, but because if they find out later you hide information about your involvement in WW2, they deport you for lying.

No need to prove you were an actual Nazi. You withheld information which is enough grounds for revoking citizenship.

US Citizenship used to be revoked for these things, but that’s not recent.

Check out these articles explaining https://www.theblaze.com/columns/opinion/a-free-speech-right...

https://www.theblaze.com/columns/opinion/a-green-card-is-not...

The courts said, “no.”

But the US State Department would still refuse to provide consular services.