| ▲ | hvb2 2 days ago |
| > I feel like I’ve said it a few times but - Yes, exactly. The country wants you to leave and then get’s to decide if you can come back. That’s how it’s designed. On purpose. That is how it's designed, and that's fine. But make a decision... They're pausing the decision making for an indefinite amount of time. That's not how it was designed, but it sure does look like that's on purpose. |
|
| ▲ | alphabeta3r56 2 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| That's on purpose too. To send a clear signal that we don't want you. It's just a mobster way of doing it. |
| |
| ▲ | bubblethink 2 days ago | parent [-] | | It's not a mobster way, more like a weasel way. The reason it is a weasel's move is because decisions at the consulate are made by consular officers who are career public workers and won't deny visas for arbitrary reasons. That is bad for the political leadership because they just don't want to issue visas. So they need to invent evasive moves to throttle the pipeline by adding trainings, background checks, and other bogus bureaucratic hurdles. | | |
| ▲ | alphabeta3r56 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > The reason it is a weasel's move is because decisions at the consulate are made by consular officers who are career public workers and won't deny visas for arbitrary reasons. No? Visa can be denied for arbitrary reasons based on what executive branch of US. there have been multiple cases where it has been clear that visas are a privilige not a right. Visa needs a reason to be granted, by default it is denied. | | |
| ▲ | mlazos a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Laws should not be executed on the whim of the executive branch. | | |
| ▲ | hammock a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Isn’t that the whole definition of “executive branch”? They are given (by we the people) the power to choose how to execute the laws. And we elect them. The alternatives I can think of are for laws to be executed at the whim of an algorithm, a king, a more local executive like the governors of each state, or a more distant foreign executive like the UN | | |
| ▲ | throwway120385 a day ago | parent [-] | | No, the executive branch has a responsibility to execute the law. It's not a privilege. We elected them to perform a duty on our behalf. Do you understand the difference? | | |
| ▲ | skinfaxi a day ago | parent [-] | | Isn't discretion a foundational principle in the exercise of the executive's functions? Or is discretion reserved only for the judiciary? | | |
| ▲ | estearum a day ago | parent | next [-] | | No. Article 2, Section 3 of the US Constitution: "[The President] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" The judiciary doesn't have discretion as in it has been "granted" discretion. It de facto has a high degree of discretion because the act of judging a case necessarily entails a judgment of the laws. Judicial review is a functional necessity. It's a necessary downstream consequence of simply having a Constitution as the supreme law. The analog to the executive is that the executive naturally has finite resources to enforce law, and so as a matter of functional necessity it has some degree of discretion. That is not discretion to say "I disagree with this law and so am choosing not to enforce it," but the discretion to say "there are other priorities that are more important." | | |
| ▲ | skinfaxi 19 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I was thinking about it more like if cops didn't have discretion, they would have to arrest for every minor offense and let the courts sort it out. After more reading it seems there are differing interpretations of the "Take Care" clause. Thank you for taking the time to explain. > Beyond these constraints, the Clause raises several vexing questions. For instance, must the President enforce those laws she believes are unconstitutional? Some scholars argue that Presidents must enforce all congressional laws, without regard to his or her own constitutional opinions. Yet modern Presidents occasionally exercise a power to ignore such enactments on the grounds they are not true “laws” subject to the faithful execution duty. In so doing, they somewhat mimic the arguments and practice of President Thomas Jefferson, who refused to enforce the Sedition Act on the grounds that it was unconstitutional. https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/art... | |
| ▲ | 19 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
| |
| ▲ | mixdup a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | The executive only has discretion if the law says they do. If the law says they must or shall do something, they must do that thing. If it says they MAY do something or otherwise explicitly gives them discretion in making a decision, then yeah, they have that discretion But it's not a given that they can just decide what laws they will or will not enforce or follow |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | skinfaxi a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | It's not always a bad thing though is it? Like when Obama stopped federal enforcement of weed laws. | | |
| ▲ | ryoshu a day ago | parent | next [-] | | That decision was expanding rights, not removing them. | | |
| ▲ | cheonc720 a day ago | parent | next [-] | | > That decision was expanding rights, not removing them. Theft of personal property under US$10,000 is no longer a crime. Survival of the fittest, as nature intended. Expanded rights, therefore good. | | |
| ▲ | mgkimsal a day ago | parent [-] | | Expanded rights for some at the direct expense of others. That's not the same as simply expanding rights, unless you count other people being 'offended' in the same category as someone being physically assaulted or killed. | | |
| ▲ | cheonc720 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | > That's not the same as simply expanding rights, unless you count other people being 'offended' in the same category as someone being physically assaulted or killed. Yes, they are the same category. In US$10,000 property damage, nobody is physically harmed. Here’s another example, expanded rights: Anyone holding a 401k, IRA, or pension can purchase single family homes and apartments inside the account, and pay zero capital gains tax and zero rental income tax. We expanded rights! Take a guess what this does to the homeless population. | | |
| ▲ | kappar 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Anyone holding a 401k, IRA, or pension can purchase single family homes and apartments inside the account, and pay zero capital gains tax and zero rental income tax. I am not sure on pensions, but this is not true for a 401k. Only an IRA can be used without paying capital gains taxes for a home purchase. Including first time home buyers. Speaking from experience, I learned the hard way the benefit you are describing applies only to an IRA. To be clear, you are saying that theft of <10k is not a crime..? If you steal an iPad in an airport, you are charged with theft. I don't know where you got that idea. People are charged with theft for much less than 10k daily. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | skinfaxi a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I asked if it was always bad. It seems you agree that it is not always bad. | |
| ▲ | koolba a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yes it’s only bad when Trump does it. Refusing to enforce drug laws or immigration laws is perfectly fine. Ditto for refusing to honor the 2nd amendment. | | |
| ▲ | r2_pilot a day ago | parent [-] | | >Ditto for refusing to honor the 2nd amendment. Honoring it, no doubt, by restricting firearms to duly registered militia personnel as written in the plain text for all to see? What about the 14th Amendment section 3, also written plainly? | | |
| ▲ | koolba a day ago | parent | next [-] | | The prefatory clause of the 2nd amendment’s usage of “well-regulated” means “well-equipped” (i.e., they should have lots of guns!). It’s been repeatedly established through multiple SCOTUS interpretations that it’s just one example of why such rights shall not be infringed. | |
| ▲ | disorder2025 a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | mrguyorama a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | That was still bad actually. A lot of "legal" weed business still lives in a state of weird limbo because of it. | |
| ▲ | philipwhiuk a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Honestly it's still bad - it creates long term problems. Ignoring the democratic system (i.e not changing the law) just creates chaos. |
|
| |
| ▲ | bubblethink 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | No, you are confusing discretion with whims of the executive branch. Consular officers have discretion to adjudicate the applications and they can deny them for reasons prescribed in the INA. Those decisions are not reviewable. They are still supposed to follow their training, the FAM, and the INA in making the decisions. If Rubio sends an email to the consulates that says, "deny all visas", that would be illegal as a matter of policy and will be overturned by the courts under the APA. Note that 212(f) (aka Muslim ban from Trump v. Hawaii) gives discretion to the president to bar entry into the country, not visa adjudications. Visa adjudications require individualized determination by the consular officer. |
| |
| ▲ | valianteffort a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [dead] | |
| ▲ | NoMoreNicksLeft a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > to throttle the pipeline by Why is there a "pipeline"? Does the United States owe immigration to the world, somehow? Does it owe it so much that there must be an avenue to immigration so large that you casually refer to that as a "pipeline"? | | |
| ▲ | throwway120385 a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Some of us have friends overseas who we think are deserving of residency and citizenship. You used to be able to just show up on a ship and they would make you a citizen if you were healthy. That's how my ancestors got here. | | |
| ▲ | inglor_cz a day ago | parent | next [-] | | "You used to be able to just show up on a ship and they would make you a citizen if you were healthy." Unless you were Chinese. Let's not romanticize that period, the Chinese Exclusion Act was enacted precisely over fears of too many people of a different culture and race moving into the US at once. It was only repealed in 1943, as Imperial Japan became the common enemy of both China and the US. And the Jews who were seeking shelter from Nazi Germany weren't particularly welcome either. There was an entire conference in Evian in 1938, ironically organized by none other than FDR, that sought a solution to increasing Jewish emigration from Germany. The end result was that no one was willing to increase or waive any quotas. History tends to repeat with some variations. Few political things are totally new under the sun. | |
| ▲ | NoMoreNicksLeft 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | >Some of us have friends overseas who we think are deserving of residency and citizenship. Sure, I have friends. But I'm not about to give my friends 50% of my house's equity just because we're friends. I'll invite them over temporarily, often even. But this doesn't entitle them to owning the property. I don't want to give them voting rights in my household budget. And it's very bizarre that you can't make the distinction here. I doubt that the thought has crossed your mind that this is equivalent. >You used to be able to just show up on a ship True. That was then. But I don't want 2 billion people showing up off a ship and getting automatically put into the formal partnership with the rest of us. We have a right to decide who can come, who can't, and we don't even have to justify why. And there's enough of us deciding they can't now to make things better. | | |
| ▲ | kelnos 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | What a weird analogy. That has nothing to do with allowing immigration. > We have a right to decide who can come, who can't, and we don't even have to justify why. "We" is a funny concept here. As a US citizen, I am a part of that "we", and I want lots more immigration, and much easier paths to citizenship. Why don't I get what I want here? At the very least, the current situation is inhumane, and treats non-citizens like an underclass. It's disgusting, and an embarrassment. Even if "we" decide we want fewer people living here or becoming citizens, there are better ways to do that. |
| |
| ▲ | conductr a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | I mean shit changes right? My ancestors showed up and were given/took large swaths of land. Where’s my land? Can I just take yours? |
| |
| ▲ | bubblethink a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | >Why is there a "pipeline"? Because Congress said so. Grep for shall in the INA. | | |
| |
| ▲ | philipallstar a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | > That is bad for the political leadership because they just don't want to issue visas America welcomes the most people in by percentage and by numbers in the world. If they don't want to issue visas, and they do it the most by political design, then no one does. | | |
| ▲ | dukeyukey a day ago | parent | next [-] | | The US has the lowest percentage of it's population being immigrants in the Western Anglosphere. Like it's beaten by all of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK, and Ireland. Germany and France too, plus a while host of smaller European countries. There's an argument that the US is the least immigrant friendly large Western nation. Maybe the medium sized ones too. | | |
| ▲ | hollerith 16 hours ago | parent [-] | | France’s foreign-born population is roughly 13% to 14%, which puts it about tied with or slightly lower than the U.S., depending on the specific year and census criteria used. |
| |
| ▲ | cycomanic a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Citation needed |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | conductr 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Pause is a silly way of saying No for now. You can try again later. But they’re not advising when that may be happening. To me, that tells you everything you need to know. That they don’t know themselves because it’s to be determined, maybe. Until then, no. |
| |
| ▲ | hvb2 2 days ago | parent [-] | | > You can try again later. Can they? Because one of the questions on these questionnaires is almost always 'have you had a prior request being denied'. > But they’re not advising when that may be happening. To me, that tells you everything you need to know. These are life altering decisions for people that might have put decades into doing their best for the US. This is not about what to have for dinner. This causes a LOT of uncertainty and chaos for no real reason. If they're so convinced it should all be denied, then issue those denials so they can be challenged. | | |
| ▲ | conductr a day ago | parent [-] | | So maybe you have stated a reason a pause is better than an explicit no. No history of a denial is maybe a better thing. I get the human component but I can separate that from policy. I have my own risk assessment on it and it’s that I couldn’t imagine ever making any material investment financial or community in a place like this. I’ve thought about doing the digital nomad thing in the past, and I don’t think anyone would be surprised if some random South East Asian country did this same thing and nobody would bat an eye. It to be expected that other countries can have wavering policies, it’s when the US does it that people cry about the humanity of it. I don’t think it would have hurt much to put some advanced warning out there. Let people plan for it. But I also know that probably has some blow back towards the intended outcome of this. Also, I don’t think you can challenge a blanket policy. I haven’t really dove into this but it doesn’t sound like they’re making any exceptions. The current administration loves creating chaos and uncertainty. Exactly why this should be less of a surprise to those that know how things work and that they may actually get locked out. Anyone who reads even just the headline of this and is perplexed by it has been living under a rock. To me, it is 100% on brand. | | |
| ▲ | hvb2 a day ago | parent [-] | | > I don’t think it would have hurt much to put some advanced warning out there. Let people plan for it. As with a lot of things this administration does, this is where the cruel part comes in. That would be the sensible thing to do, it's just a choice not to. > I don’t think anyone would be surprised if some random South East Asian country did this same thing and nobody would bat an eye. It to be expected that other countries can have wavering policies, it’s when the US does it that people cry about the humanity of it. Because those countries would typically do it with a warning period of some sort, the fallout won't be as much. In general these countries typically don't do this because the legal immigration system is how they pick and choose who to allow in, as the US does. So typically this would be to their advantage. Also, the US is the country that used to call themselves "leader of the free world and all that". So maybe they should hold themselves to high standards? > Also, I don’t think you can challenge a blanket policy. There isn't a policy here that has been changed. It's the executive branch stopping some function it was tasked with. We've seen in the past that they've tried such things many times for the courts to then come in and say that the law says they should do XYZ and so they're forced to resume their work. DOGE stopped a bunch of things that the courts later reinstated, including rehiring the people they fired. Thankfully the executive branch isn't completely unchecked, yet. > Exactly why this should be less of a surprise to those that know how things work and that they may actually get locked out So you would suggest that people cancel their lease, pack up their stuff, don't sign their kids up for school and all? Just on the off chance that this hits right when they're abroad? I think that's just arguing around the issue created here. | | |
| ▲ | conductr a day ago | parent [-] | | We’ve said a lot already and obviously have our own perspectives. I understand your side, you don’t seem to understand mine. Or can’t understand it without echoing back the same stuff, I hear you and can understand perspectives I don’t agree with. That seems to be missing on your end, or you just want to argue about things which I don’t. You quoted me without the “but…” part I already wrote. I don’t think it’s a given another country would give any notice. Political regime change and general volatility are higher in some other places. Big assumption on your part. Lack of policy and executive mandate is exactly why there’s really no formal dispute process either. Yes, it means you have to let the courts sort it for you. And that means hoping someone leads the charge. I have suggested that I never would have created a rooted life, with school aged children, financial obligations, assets, etc based on a visa that inherently has such weak grounding in my existence in a country. Those that have chosen to do so, have chosen the risk. They probably hoped for the best and considered historical precedent but we all know the past isn’t a crystal ball for the future. It’s like joining the armed forces after a long period of peace expecting peace to persist. But armed forces are kept because shit can change. Wars can start. And you’ll be involved if it does. The benefits that come with it are provided because that risk exists. Whether you serve at a time of peace or see active duty is not known (unless you join in wartime of course.) |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | j_maffe a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The Purpose of a System is What it Does. |
| |
| ▲ | vintermann 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | The Word Purpose was Invented Precisely to Distinguish Between What a System Does and What it Ought to Do. Less catchy, but damn, I hate that slogan. |
|
|
| ▲ | avazhi a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Of course it’s on purpose. That’s the point: to get temp migrants to leave. There’s nothing inhumane about that, and the government is acting within the scope of its authority. In the end this is 100% a political issue and who knows why it is on the HN front page. |
| |
| ▲ | simonw a day ago | parent [-] | | I imagine it's on the HN front page because it directly affects the technology careers of a large number of the people who are members of this community - or are coworkers of or employees/employers of members of this community. | | |
| ▲ | avazhi a day ago | parent [-] | | Yes, obviously. But it was rhetorical - this is not specifically tech related and there’s nothing about it that a ‘hacker’ would find innately interesting. It’s just people bitching about a US executive branch decision they disagree with and everybody’s downvoting the side they disagree with, which is exactly the sort of outcome this site ostensibly tries to avoid. | | |
| ▲ | MSFT_Edging a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Only if your definition of "hacker" is limited to "begging for VC money for your b2b SAAS". Through the entire history of the phrase "hacker", there have been hackers concerned about human rights, political causes, anti-corporate measures, etc. Personally I consider myself a hacker and will not abide by the narrow definition you set forth. I'm a hacker because I'm pissed off that money controls our lives and I seek out to regain control wherever I can. | |
| ▲ | simonw a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | It's important news for the members of this community independent of the politics. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | kevmo314 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| They did make a decision? The current decision is no, that’s what it means to pause applications. |
| |
| ▲ | hvb2 2 days ago | parent [-] | | I don't think you understand anything about an immigration process. All these cases are meticulously documented. So not making a decision is not at all the same as a 'no'. A 'no' you can challenge, a pause not so much. They probably cannot and don't want to actually deny all those applications as they'll be in hot water really quick. So this is just the childish, not wanting to really own it, way of trying to achieve the same result. | | |
| ▲ | kevmo314 a day ago | parent [-] | | I'll pause on the response for now since the condescension is not warranted. | | |
| ▲ | bubblethink a day ago | parent | next [-] | | A pause is different from a refusal which is different from a denial. They have different legal ramifications. It's a Kafkaesque hellscape. | |
| ▲ | forestry a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Ironic. |
|
|
|
