>I also understand that our immigration system is hopelessly broken, and oftentimes the best one can hope to do is "hack" the system.
Just because something is difficult/time-consuming != "hopelessly broken". (No, kids, the Reason magazine "What Part of Legal Immigration Don't You Understand?" flowchart is not ipso facto proof of this, either.)
There is no obligation for the US, or any country, to turn something as important as determining whether someone is eligible to enter the country into a one-click online process. One might say that the country would benefit by making the process easier, and that may or may not be correct, but that is not the same argument.
When I read "the immigration system is broken," I don't think of the arduous process of filing paperwork. I highly doubt GP was whining about the difficult and time-consuming process of filling out reams of paperwork, especially considering the context of the rest of their post where they talked about exploiting loopholes and the letter of the law to abuse the system. Context is important! No matter how high your horse is.
In any case, the instant you fall just a little outside the prescribed lines is when things start to get hairy. Have a talk with any DACA recipient and you will quickly learn how broken the system can be. Or someone seeking refugee status around the time the annual ceiling is being reached.
>especially considering the context of the rest of their post where they talked about exploiting loopholes and the letter of the law to abuse the system.
I didn't read the original post that way. If the poster stayed within the rules and—more importantly—immigration officials agreed with his interpretation of the rules, who am I to gainsay their decisions? To put another way, this is why my response was to hn_throwaway_99's comment, not to the original post itself.
>Have a talk with any DACA recipient and you will quickly learn how broken the system can be. Or someone seeking refugee status around the time the annual ceiling is being reached.
Again, you are coming at this from the perspective that something like DACA must exist, and therefore ought to be improved/eased/etc. The a priori argument that a country must accept refugees, and the only answer to the question of "How many?" is "As many as possible". This is the same entitled line of thinking as hn_throwaway_99's declaration that a complex system with many moving parts that operate over a long period of time must therefore be "broken", with the implication that the "fix" must be to make it as close to a one-button process as possible.
1. They didn't say ANY refugees in the country is entitled thinking. They meant as MANY as possible is entitled. Wich is a reasonable take.
2. Also, just because a UNHCR convention says it, doesn't mean it isn't entitled. (I would say the UN is an exemplar of entitlement. The US provides the largest budget while countries like China get an equal vote in vetoing.)
3. Everyone coming illegally is either a) a refugee, b) an economic migrant or c) a threat. Every country has the right to a reasonable process to determine which bucket someone falls into. Even the 1951 convention you linked allows for that. The US's process is actually less onereous than the EU's. The EU won't grant you asylum if you come through a safe country. The US has no such concept. You can be a single military aged male from China but you will still be validly considered for asylum just like a child or 80 year old from Afghanistan.
The entitled line of thinking is that everyone who comes from a country where things are shitty is a "refugee". That's the problem with the way this discussion is framed.
> In any case, the instant you fall just a little outside the prescribed lines is when things start to get hairy. Have a talk with any DACA recipient and you will quickly learn how broken the system can be.
DACA is an exception for people who were already in violation of the law, no? So even if that subsystem is inconsistent, unreliable, or totally nonfunctional, it wouldn't be a reason to say the system as a whole is broken.
> Or someone seeking refugee status around the time the annual ceiling is being reached.
Refugee status is meant to be a last resort for people who flee in fear for their lives. For people who legitimately need it, it's ok if the process is slow or unclear as long as it's safe (frankly, the process of granting refugee status should be slow and cautious; if the system allows economic migrants to gain an advantage by claiming a refugee status that they're not entitled to, that makes the whole system worse for everyone). The system would only be broken if legitimate refugees were getting sent back into places where their lives were in danger.
> DACA is an exception for people who were already in violation of the law, no?
Are you really going to try to tell me that a 2-year-old who was brought to the US by their parents and then stayed here into adulthood was "in violation of the law"?
While I agree that DACA isn't representative of common situations US immigrants (legal and illegal) end up in, I think it's a fine illustration of how our immigration system is broken. If we can't even find a pathway to permanent residency and citizenship for people in that situation (not to mention the constant threat of DACA being scrapped entirely if political winds change), who have only ever known the US as a home... well, it's pretty easy to question the rest of the system then.
> Refugee status is meant to be a last resort for people who flee in fear for their lives
I think you underestimate the quantity of political persecution outside the US. Remember that this isn't just prominent public figures who have tried to stand up against an oppressive regime and failed. Any average citizen in a situation like that could end up in a precarious situation like that. And political persecution is just one reason someone might fear for their lives to the point where they believe they need to leave their country.
But really, we don't need to limit ourselves to DACA or refugees to find serious issues with the US immigration system. The H1-B visa is broken; it's gamed by "consulting" companies to mint modern-day indentured servants. The green card process is ridiculous; imagine applying for permanent residency and being told that the wait time meant you'd get it after you were dead, just because you were born in a particular country, not because of anything else about you that actually matters.
> Are you really going to try to tell me that a 2-year-old who was brought to the US by their parents and then stayed here into adulthood was "in violation of the law"?
Yes. You can blame their parents for giving them an upbringing unsuited to their citizenship, but that doesn't make their position any more legitimate. It's no different from a child raised in a mafia family, who was brought up to break the law before they even knew they were doing so, for whom criminality is the only way they know to live - we don't hold them responsible for their crimes from back when they were too young to know what they were doing, but we do expect them to stop.
> I think you underestimate the quantity of political persecution outside the US. Remember that this isn't just prominent public figures who have tried to stand up against an oppressive regime and failed. Any average citizen in a situation like that could end up in a precarious situation like that. And political persecution is just one reason someone might fear for their lives to the point where they believe they need to leave their country.
I don't see how any of that changes what I wrote? Yes, there may be any number of reasons someone might end up in legitimate fear for their lives. But either they are genuinely fleeing for their lives (for whatever reason) or they are not refugees.
> Are you really going to try to tell me that a 2-year-old who was brought to the US by their parents and then stayed here into adulthood was "in violation of the law"?
> DACA is an exception for people who were already in violation of the law, no? So even if that subsystem is inconsistent, unreliable, or totally nonfunctional, it wouldn't be a reason to say the system as a whole is broken.
Let me make sure I understand the point I think you're trying to make. Because people with DACA status were in violation of the law at some point in their lives, it's acceptable to thrust upon them a broken system? So, they deserve it? I just want to be sure because it sounds like you're saying it's acceptable for this system to mistreat or otherwise neglect a subset of people because reasons.
Setting aside the fact that DACA status is Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, namely, people brought to this country as children at a time in their lives when they could not have known what was happening let alone had the agency to say, "hey wait, have you tried the normal way to immigrate into this country, mom and / or dad?"
The point I was trying to make with DACA is that the system is broken, not because of long wait times for paperwork, but because at any point the entire thing can be taken away. DACA status has been threatened multiple times. Imagine living a life you didn't ask for, not native to the land in which you live, and not native to the one you were forcibly taken from, and living under the shadow of the threat of being forcibly taken back to a strange country. That's one part of the system that is fundamentally broken, and because these people are "in violation of the law", they deserve it?
The machine doesn't work unless the parts do. Or to quote Solomon Burke, if "one of us are chained, none of us are free."
It's easy to dismiss a single piece that doesn't impact your life directly. "Great! The illegals have a hard time with immigration. Maybe they should not have broken the law, then!"
But to many it is their entire lives, and through no fault of their own. It's this contentment with injustice elsewhere that's utterly infuriating and really shines a light on the privilege of some on this forum.
Not even going to touch the "economic migrant" bit. Sounds a little too close to a dog whistle to me. Not even sure why I felt the need to engage this much.
> "Great! The illegals have a hard time with immigration. Maybe they should not have broken the law, then!" But to many it is their entire lives, and through no fault of their own.
This is the thing that really gets me. There's all this hand-wringing about how people in the country illegally should just accept that they did it "the wrong way", and oops, well, I guess that means they're not worthy of being treated as a human with wants and needs and dreams anymore. Because what, they crossed an imaginary line on the ground someone drew, in a way that didn't match up with the rules a bunch of out-of-touch people decided on? Not just out-of-touch, but people who actively use immigration reform (or the lack thereof) as a political weapon.
It's so easy for someone (such as myself) who was born in the US, whose family has been in the US for generations, to just not get what a big deal all this is. I will likely never have to worry about feeling unsafe in my own country, feeling like I have absolutely no opportunity to house, clothe, and feed myself. And if I did, I'd still have options! I know it can be hard for some of us to try on the shoes of someone who believes that the only way for them (and their family) to have a future is to pack up whatever they can carry and risk their lives to "sneak" into another country where they will have better chances. But I really wish people would show more sympathy and empathy toward people in that situation.
>actively use immigration reform (or the lack thereof) as a political weapon.
You criticize this but then do the exact same thing. You try to manipulate the reader by stating that if you don't agree with your view point they lack sympathy. This is exactly what politicians do.
Read the reply above yours that states facts and law, there is no politics, manipulation or appeals for sympathy.
> Let me make sure I understand the point I think you're trying to make. Because people with DACA status were in violation of the law at some point in their lives, it's acceptable to thrust upon them a broken system? So, they deserve it? I just want to be sure because it sounds like you're saying it's acceptable for this system to mistreat or otherwise neglect a subset of people because reasons.
Not "at some point in their lives". DACA is for people who are remaining in the country in continual violation of the law. Short of human rights violations like torture, it's acceptable for any system that permits them to remain in the country despite the illegality of their presence to be "broken", because the very existence of any such system is supererogatory.
> The point I was trying to make with DACA is that the system is broken, not because of long wait times for paperwork, but because at any point the entire thing can be taken away. DACA status has been threatened multiple times. Imagine living a life you didn't ask for, not native to the land in which you live, and not native to the one you were forcibly taken from, and living under the shadow of the threat of being forcibly taken back to a strange country. That's one part of the system that is fundamentally broken, and because these people are "in violation of the law", they deserve it?
What I would call "broken" is a system where you can do an end run around all our immigration laws by breaking them a day before your (claimed) 16th birthday. Yes, bad parents can place their children in an arbitrarily awful position, but there are any number of other ways they can do that; it's not the state's responsibility to pick up the pieces (and making it so creates perverse incentives) outside exceptional circumstances like orphans/foundlings (who I believe do have a path to citizenship).
> It's easy to dismiss a single piece that doesn't impact your life directly. "Great! The illegals have a hard time with immigration. Maybe they should not have broken the law, then!"
> But to many it is their entire lives, and through no fault of their own. It's this contentment with injustice elsewhere that's utterly infuriating and really shines a light on the privilege of some on this forum.
I'd say that applies double to the wealthy PMC who promote illegal immigration because it doesn't hurt them.
I think the hopelessly broken is referring to things like a 50-70 year waits for qualified people to get a green card if they're born in india, or stuff like it taking 1-2 years for someone married to a us citizen to be allowed to join their spouse in the country (and there's a decent chance they'll be denied a visitor visa to see their spouse during the wait) and the situation is even worse if you have a green card and marry a non-us citizen.
Everything to do with immigration (outside the happy path) is going to feel "hopelessly broken" if it isn't fast and efficient. US Citizenship for many in the world is basically a life lottery ticket.
Our immigration system is indeed hopelessly broken. While there's a lot here about O-1 being fairly objective and checklist-based (no idea if that's actually true, just taking some comments here at face value), other visa situations can be arbitrary and opaque. And don't get me started on the ridiculous, arbitrary, capricious green card process.
> There is no obligation for the US, or any country, to turn something as important as determining whether someone is eligible to enter the country
I have the opposite opinion. Borders should be much more open, and people should stop whining so much about immigration. Nearly everyone -- aside from the relatively small number of Native peoples -- in the US is an immigrant, or the descendant of immigrants. We are all here because our ancestors forced their way here, killing and destroying wherever they went.
The idea that we have some natural right to decide who comes and goes is entirely laughable to me. I get that we should have some controls in place for at least logistical and security reasons. But our immigration restrictions go far beyond that. And again, let's not pretend it's some natural right of ours to do. We get to do it because we've had more guns than other people who wanted to be here and "own" the land.
Also remember that this is not the normal or common state of things. The internationally-recognized passport system we take for granted has existed for barely a century[0]. Before that it was a patchwork of various systems (sometimes just the honor system) and much of what we'd call "illegal immigration" today was the status quo. On top of that, the US's restrictive immigration system has existed for an even shorter time; when my great-grandparents immigrated about 115 years ago, all that was required was they enter through an official port of entry and truthfully declare who they were and where they were from. They didn't have to have a visa, or apply for permanent residency. My great-grandfather became a citizen about 15 years later shortly after applying and providing a record of his original arrival in the country.
Meanwhile, today, adults who were brought here by their parents as toddlers ("illegally" -- like a 2 year old has the capacity to do something illegal) can't even get legal residency or citizenship. If that's not hopelessly broken, I don't know what is.
The funny thing is that we're talking about this in the context of someone suggesting that OP "hacked" a broken system to get a visa. But it sounds like the O-1 system is pretty functional and is working as designed. There's a list of criteria, and a lot of explanation as to what is and isn't covered under those criteria. You document, make your case for why you fit the criteria, and apply. USCIS makes a decision (and pretty quickly, at least in this case!), probably based on a checklist, by people who likely don't really understand the nuances of any particular industry or profession or academic discipline to make any sort of value judgment on the application, beyond the checklist and the case being made. That... seems exactly how it should be? A transparent process with well-defined criteria for acceptance? (You may disagree with the criteria, or the list of things that qualify, but that's a different matter.)
[0] (The idea of passports have existed at least for a couple thousand years, of course, but in the earliest days they were more like a hand-written letter asking, "please allow my subject, Bob, to pass safely through your lands, signed, King Larry".)
I don't disagree! I think the US ought to have open borders with Canada, for example, with immediate work rights for anyone who has been a citizen for, say, 18 years.
In an ideal world we would be able to institute the Wall Street Journal's longtime mantra of "We shall have open borders". But that cannot happen without corresponding changes to domestic welfare policies, among other things.
>I have the opposite opinion. Borders should be much more open, and people should stop whining so much about immigration. Nearly everyone -- aside from the relatively small number of Native peoples -- in the US is an immigrant, or the descendant of immigrants. We are all here because our ancestors forced their way here, killing and destroying wherever they went.
Sorry, you are going to have to do better than this sort of "We live in a society"-level rhetoric. If Burundi tomorrow invades the US with superior military forces and every Burundian moves here, I may not like it but that's how things have worked for the entirety of human history minus the last few decades.
>On top of that, the US's restrictive immigration system has existed for an even shorter time; when my great-grandparents immigrated about 115 years ago, all that was required was they enter through an official port of entry and truthfully declare who they were and where they were from.
Those stories always omit the details. Every single person who came through Ellis Island
* had passed a medical inspection
* had proof of having enough resources to pay for their upkeep in the US, or a US financial sponsor guaranteeing same
* was turned away if failing any of the above tests, with no possibility of appeal
I, for one, am very much in favor of reinstating such barriers to entering the US.
PS - One more thing: Every single person who came through Ellis Island was coming to a country with an enormous demand for unskilled labor. This is no longer true.
>Meanwhile, today, adults who were brought here by their parents as toddlers ("illegally" -- like a 2 year old has the capacity to do something illegal) can't even get legal residency or citizenship. If that's not hopelessly broken, I don't know what is.
The parents of those toddlers broke the law, for themselves and for children they brought along. That does not mean that the toddlers themselves are criminals. That also does not mean that they are entitled to the legal and financial rewards of US residency, either. Or that a president can with the stroke of a pen but without the concurrence of Congress create an entire legal infrastructure permitting their legal residency, one which the subsequent president somehow cannot dismantle in the same way. I hope that some process can be devised to grant such people legal US residency, but it has to occur through a law duly passed by Congress, and in the context of other changes; especially, but not only, a strengthening of the southern border and crackdowns on visa overstays.
>The funny thing is that we're talking about this in the context of someone suggesting that OP "hacked" a broken system to get a visa. But it sounds like the O-1 system is pretty functional and is working as designed.
As I said elsewhere, I don't disagree with this either! My disagreement was and is with the reply by hn_throwaway_99 to the original post stating that someone being able to use the O-1 system in this way is proof that the US immigration system is "hopelessly broken", by which of course he means "Requiring such steps is outrageous and unfair". I would love a system in which everyone entering the US had to comply with the O-1 or some equivalent thereof.
> tip: Government must spread its legs and accept the fate willingly otherwise it just gets harder for the government. In the context of government this is a good thing.
This is an off-putting analogy. It sounds like the rape of a woman.
It accomplishes the opposite of what they're trying to say. "You may as well let it happen" isn't what you should say to someone worried about getting raped.
Just because something is difficult/time-consuming != "hopelessly broken". (No, kids, the Reason magazine "What Part of Legal Immigration Don't You Understand?" flowchart is not ipso facto proof of this, either.)
There is no obligation for the US, or any country, to turn something as important as determining whether someone is eligible to enter the country into a one-click online process. One might say that the country would benefit by making the process easier, and that may or may not be correct, but that is not the same argument.