
Are We Welcome Entrepreneurs or Unwanted Criminals? - ladydi
https://medium.com/@aurora/are-we-welcome-entrepreneurs-or-unwanted-criminals-7c105b9fbc9c
======
patio11
I sympathize with this lady. Not because I don't have my paperwork in order --
God willing, the 100 pages currently sitting at the immigration office will
again meet with their approval -- but because if you hit any snag it is an
instant Kafka-esque nightmare.

If the IRS accused me of underreporting my income by $200,000 and threatened
me with jail time, I'd be stressed, but I'd call my accountant, get some
paperwork together, and be assured of vindication. If the most junior employee
of the Ministry of Justice has a bad morning and decides I look shifty, he has
an instant Ruin My Life button on his computer. The appeals process would take
place with me being across an ocean from my family and de-facto homeless. The
threshhold for him hitting that button is not even "articulable suspicion."
And that is _with_ all the social advantages which come along with being,
relative to most immigrants, rich, educated, savvy, and connected.

This assumes that the agents you're dealing with are merely zealously applying
the law with regards to the facts as they perceive them. This does not
describe 100% of the interactions between agents of government and people
subject to their administrative authority. Immigrants have a _uniquely_
difficult problem in the failure cases implied in that sentence, because they
don't have access to many of the toothy, enshrined-for-generations remedies
that citizens have with regards to overreach by agents of the government.

~~~
enraged_camel
>>Immigrants have a uniquely difficult problem in the failure cases implied in
that sentence, because they don't have access to many of the toothy,
enshrined-for-generations remedies that citizens have with regards to
overreach by agents of the government.

I was wondering about this as I read the article. She was technically on US
soil (I think), which means most Constitutional protections apply to her
regardless of whether she's a citizen. So she must have had the right to
remain silent and ask to see a lawyer.

edit: I guess we can no longer have polite conversations on HN without getting
downvoted.

~~~
patio11
That conversation goes something like:

"Tell me why you are coming to the United States."

"I refuse to answer, on the basis of the Constitution."

"I find that you have no legitimate purpose to be in the United States. You
are accordingly denied entry, and will be briefly detained while we arrange
for you to be sent to the last country you were in."

"I would like to speak with an attorney. You have to do that when you arrest
people."

"You are not under arrest. This is not a criminal matter."

"My lawyer will disagree."

"He is welcome to take it up with the Supreme Court. It didn't work out that
well the last three times. 'The power of the state is at it's zenith at the
border.' I love that word zenith. Zenith, zenith, zenith. That implies your
legal privileges are at their nadir, by the way."

"I will call him immediately. I get a call, right?"

"That's a convention in US movies, for some reason, but it has never been a
legal requirement. Funny thing, movies."

~~~
JoeAltmaier
All too true. Even though our founding documents say 'all men' have
'inalienable rights', somehow they don't apply to our neighbors. Because they
are not men, or not deserving of rights. Always seemed hypocritical to me.

~~~
tptacek
The Declaration of Independence isn't a binding legal document.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
"American Consitutionalism rests on four pillars: the Declaration of
Independence; the Articles of Confederation; the Northwest Ordinance of 1787;
and the Constitution. These fundamental documents, which have the collective
title "The Organic Laws of the United States of America", are the first
section of THE UNITED STATES CODE, the official text of the statute laws of
the federal government."

~~~
tptacek
And? The Declaration of Independence is not a binding legal document. It's
legal significance is _exclusively_ as an input to the Constitution. (Well,
that and severing us from England).

You probably ought to make the provenance of that quote known, too:

[http://candst.tripod.com/doinotlaw.htm](http://candst.tripod.com/doinotlaw.htm)

Or, just read more of his site; the most recent SCOTUS decision he cites on it
includes the text:

"The Declaration of Independence, however, is not a legal prescription
conferring powers upon the courts"

I have to ask... if you believe that the Declaration is a binding legal
document, do you also believe, as the Declaration asserts, that all our rights
come from God?

~~~
JoeAltmaier
So, the statement of our founding principles are just verbal chaff to be
ignored? Hypocrisy isn't a legal state; its a moral one.

------
htormey
While it sucks that the author was verbally mistreated by the CBP officers
it’s kind of difficult to feel a lot of sympathy for her without knowing the
details of her case. I feel the article would have been more instructive if
she had provided information like:

What exactly was the technicality that prevented her from getting a visa? How
has she been living in the states for the last seven years? What visa was she
traveling on?

I'm an Irish guy living in SF, everytime I leave the country I always make
sure I have my paperwork in order. The article would have been much more
valuable to people like me if she had answered the above questions. Anyway, I
hope things work out for her.

~~~
goodcanadian
With these stories, it is usually pretty obvious to me what the person did
wrong. It is not always clear that they should have been denied, but it is
often clear why they were denied (and my sympathy is therefore tempered).

In this case, the lack of details makes it hard to say. However, as you
pointed out, she mentioned a "visa technicality."

She also says, "I further explained that my current work visa application had
been complicated due to a filing mistake and that I had been waiting on a
decision."

Generally, if you leave the country with an application outstanding, that
application is considered abandoned. So, if I had to guess, it looks like she
was attempting to enter the U.S. to live and work without a visa. Anybody
surprised at the result?

~~~
htormey
+1 this. I've been on a student visa and several work visa's during my time in
the USA, on each occasion it was made clear to me when I could and could not
travel without risk of not being readmitted. It really feels like this person
got into trouble due to something like this. Of course we can't say for sure
because she provides no details in her account of what happened.

------
parennoob
For all the people that are thinking, "Oh yeah, of course it happened because
she didn't have a visa. If she did, it would be fine." — similar things can
happen even if you do have a perfectly valid visa. I had one valid for more
than a year when this happened to me on my latest trip back to the States. I
was stopped, and escorted into a room by a couple of burly officers with
automatic pistols on their hips. The room was filled with a bunch of other
South Asian people, all of whom had been mysteriously stopped.

They made me wait for 2 hours, and finally said, "Oh, there was an error with
our database. You're all good." (Apparently, their system had flagged my
student visa for the States that I had held before my work visa, as having
expired, even though it should have been automatically "Invalided without
Prejudice" when I transferred to the work one. User 'henningo in the comments
seems to have gone through a similar sort of procedure). No apologies, no
cursory, "Sorry about that. Welcome to X" sort of nice talk I've heard in
other countries. They looked grim, forbidding, and had a "Do we _have_ to do
this?" look on their faces.

To sum up, even as a perfectly legal immigrant, I'm usually apprehensive about
the combination of a screwed-up computer system (unfortunately, I see how
_that_ sausage is made) and an immigration officers who seem to have a
"Seriously guys, why are you even here? Hmmm, let's see what we can do.."
attitude causing me massive problems every time I enter the States. That is
why I heavily sympathize with the experiences of the author, if not her
logical or moral case.

~~~
whorleater
I didn't downvote, but I think the issue is that you made a comment where you
stated an absolute, then proceeded to follow it up anecdotal evidence. As
former visa holder, this never happened to me, and I moved between countries
all the time.

~~~
parennoob
"...where you stated an absolute, then proceeded to follow it up anecdotal
evidence."

If this is about the "similar things happen..." part of my comment, I guess
you're right. I changed it to "similar things can happen...". I'm trying to
point out that the fact that she had a visa problem could also have been due
to a technical fault (though it sounds like it wasn't, in her specific case).
It still doesn't change the feeling of intimidation and unwelcomeness that is
most apparent at the CBP.

"...As former visa holder, this never happened to me, and I moved between
countries all the time."

By their nature, such incidences are going to be rare. If this was the
experience of every person at immigration, it would change pretty quickly. In
fact the problem is that because it is relatively rare, there tends to be an
air of disbelief towards people who speak up about it.

------
tn13
Immigration system is totally broken from top to bottom, there is probably
strong political incentive to keep it that way.

Here are some tips that I got from people before I arrived in US.

\- Immigration officers are not the kind of people you are used to in your
classroom or work environment. \- They are mostly moderately educated, stuck
in a clerical job without any purpose and do not know much about the outside
world. \- They might be jealous of people who might be younger and far more
successful/high achievers then them. \- Their job is to enforce rules within
their powers. They dont give a damn about you and how good your intention is.

Getting past them involves optimizing on the following variables.

\- That you have got impeccable paperwork. This needs to be conveyed using
important keywords that they are looking for instead of other rubbish. For
example for H1B workers if the officer asks, why you were in US on B1 via a
year back you should say "For last 4 years I was a student in India doing my 4
year graduation in CS, I had arrived in US on B1 visa to publish my paper at
Standford University" compared to "I was in US to publish my paper on Cost
Effective Real Time Systems for Greenhouses". The officer might think that you
were publishing newspaper or something.

\- Other important keywords for H1B immigrants are "specialized engineering",
"4 year graduate program", "part of engineering team responsible for highly
scalable/ specialized system in Java, Databases systems". "working out of XYZ
company".

\- One should totally avoid words like "Hacker", "Startup", "small company",
"disruptive change", "Venture Capital", "seed funding", "angel investors",
"entrepreneurs". I remember when one H1B guy told the officer that he works
for a Venture Capital he asked if it is the same company that has Capital One
credit cards.

\- One should also use influential words that the officer is familiar with.
For example "Director of our Company is Mr. X, who was a Vice President of
Google Inc.", "Microsoft has invested X in us". "Our Company has turnover of
100M dollars" and so on. Keep the evidence handy.

I think the lady here got into trouble because of she mentioned of Hackathon,
Social Entrepreneurship, evolution as an individual etc. etc. If she had said
that she works on a program recognized by UN and given the evidence to officer
she would have probably got away with this.

~~~
patio11
I'd quibble with some of these, but in general, you want to a) provide exactly
as much information required to _exactly match_ the published requirements of
the relevant legislation and b) _provide nothing else_. You're not attempting
to be persuasive, you're attempting to manipulate a state machine. Provide
exactly the required input required to trigger transitions from the start to
Approved then provide no other input except for such pleasantries as are
proper in polite society.

(Works in Japan, too.)

~~~
enraged_camel
I disagree with the last part. _Avoid pleasantries._ Don't ask the officer how
they are doing today. Don't compliment them. Don't comment on the weather.
These are considered proper pleasantries in polite society, but they can make
the officer think you're being overly friendly in order to hide something.

When you arrive at the counter, simply say "hello sir/ma'am", hand your
documents, carefully listen to and obey instructions (such as fingerprints),
answer any questions in a clear, concise manner, and then end the interaction
with "thank you sir/ma'am."

~~~
jlees
I've always had great, pleasant conversations with my CBP officers (is that
the correct term?). I remember having a long chat with one of them (there was
no line) about Google Books and how his wife loved ebooks. Another talked
about his Android phone. Didn't start out with that of course, but usually
once they realised I worked for Google it was off to the races. Being a native
English speaker (Brit) and entering via SFO probably had huge amounts to do
with it as well -- just wanted to point out that sometimes they can be pretty
nice people and you can have a friendly conversation!

(On the flip-side my husband was very nearly deported because the border agent
at LAX found my Safeway card in his wallet when he was re-entering on a visa
waiver. Agent told him if he'd come along later in the day it would have been
over, but he was the first borderline case and seemed like a nice guy.)

~~~
smsm42
I'd say it's probably the same reason as "don't talk to the police". There's
very few things that you can tell to make you better (usually those will be
asked from you anyway - like where you're working, where you live, where
you're going, etc. - and even there precise concise answers probably better
than vague verbose ones) but a real lot of things that you can tell to make
you worse, even without realizing it.

~~~
jlees
Oh gosh, great point. This video on not talking to the police totally changed
my perspective on doing that.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc)

------
smm2000
There are several issues with her story that make me much less sympathetic to
her

1\. She thinks about herself as some special snowflake and thinks that denying
her entry to US for one year is a huge loss to US. It's not. She is not
special snowflake and denying her entry is not a loss. The country will be
fine without her.

2\. Entry and right to work in US is privilege and not a right. I can stop
inviting to my dinner party without any explanation and the same way US can
deny you entry at any time unless you are citizen (and to lesser extent green
card holder).

3\. She was living dangerously. She spent last 7 years in and out of US on
tourist visas. Officer was absolute right that she was abusing the system. US
system is built on discretion. On B1/B2 visa at airport you are automatically
granted right to live in US for six month but USCIS does not expect you to do
it. Anything over one month is suspicious.

4\. She applied for work visa but it did not get through. At that moment she
looses key assumption for B1/B2 visa - she has no intention to live in US. The
moment she applied for work visa she manifested desire to live in US which
means that could not be granted B1/B2.

5\. Social entrepreneur and organizing hackathons sounds like work. You could
not work on visitor visa.

6\. Where did she get money to live in US for 7 years? This is legitimate
question if she lived on visitor visa.

PS. I think immigration system in US is borked but this is example where it
worked as it is expected to work.

~~~
jlees
How do you know which visas she had, or if she was on a visitor visa? She
doesn't mention the specifics in the article, nor does she say that she
applied for a work visa and was denied. (She is still waiting for a decision
on her current work visa application due to a filing mistake.)

~~~
smm2000
It's pretty easy to figure out looking at her LinkedIn and story. She was on
F1/J1 visa to study English for two years (2009-2010) and then attended
Foothill College (2010-2012). I am surprised that they allowed her to go to
community college when she already had B.A. for University of Bogota. I was
told that this loophole was closed. I have several friends who used ESL
courses and community colleges to maintain legal status in US. Usually you pay
around 1k/month in tuition and it gives you legal status. Sometimes attendance
is required and sometimes attendance is more or less optional. She said in
story that she had four different visas - probably mix of F1/J1/B1 visas.

The only work visa she can reasonably qualify for is H1B and I am not sure
what decision she is waiting for - FY2014 started 10 month ago and FY2015
starts only in October. If you look at her LinkedIn she clearly worked while
in US so she broke visa rules even if she was not paid (you could not even
legally volunteer while on F1/J1/B1 visa if somebody can reasonably pay for
that work to US citizen). CBP officers have internet and they can certainly
search FB/LinkedIn too. Unless she is wealthy enough to live 7 years in US
without any income, she clearly made money somewhere.

It's dangerous to built your life on those types of visas if you do not have
clear end game (marriage to USC or work visa). She played the system and she
lost. I am immigrant myself and I was very careful not to have long term plans
in US before I got green card because I understood that I may have to move
back to my home country at any moment with only 30 day notice.

~~~
jlees
That's fair. Your original comment would have read better if you had mentioned
any of this supporting evidence initially.

I could have done the same homework myself, but I felt no need to. In my
opinion her visa situation is her business and although we can make
assumptions, we also don't know the exact details. To me, starting from the
point of view that she was in the wrong and drawing on evidence to support
that assumption is a form of victim-blaming that doesn't help further the
overall agenda -- immigration reform is desperately needed. Unless as an
immigrant who successfully got through the system, one feels others must, in
turn, dutifully pay their way. I don't feel this way, but I had an unusually
easy immigration experience by all accounts.

------
seizethecheese
This article is stuffed full of a tone where the author seems to feel that she
deserves to be treated better than the other "common criminals" who were
denied access to the US. I am engaged to a U.S. resident immigrant from Peru,
and she is absolutely paranoid every time we leave the country to make sure
all her paperwork is in order. She doesn't assume that in the event of a
'filing mistake' she will be whisked through and given special treatment.

~~~
schoen
I was also struck by this aspect.

The author seems to have some trouble empathizing with people who don't have
the education, money, and connections that she does, and who are also being
treated cruelly by U.S. immigration authorities (maybe _also_ as a result of
misunderstandings, clerical errors, cultural differences, hard-to-foresee
technicalities, ...!).

I guess in the author's situation I would also be shocked that immigration
restrictions had actually ensnared _me_ , who had never ever encountered any
immigration-related troubles before -- even given my opposition to those
restrictions, I don't expect them to have a concrete effect on my life.

~~~
seizethecheese
Yeah, I think these feelings are natural. Many natural feelings beg for
reflection however, and the OP missed that boat completely.

------
raverbashing
"I further explained that my current work visa application had been
complicated due to a filing mistake and that I had been waiting on a decision.
This fell on deaf ears. "

No, I bet that didn't fall on deaf ears, quite the contrary.

The person doesn't have a visa corresponding to their status.

Yes it sucks, yes I don't agree. But that's how things work, and someone that
prides themselves in being an Enterpreneur, they should know better.

~~~
visarga
Or she could just take her entrepreneurial creativity elsewhere, a place where
she is welcomed.

~~~
keerthiko
Let's be honest here. Entrepreneurs are not welcomed anywhere, but your home
country, if that (several countries are terrible to start businesses in, like
India, Australia, etc). I could talk about this at length, but just wanted to
say that this is a trite and dismissive comment you have made without any
experience or understanding of the issues at hand. You think people like the
author and myself haven't considered this?

~~~
zamalek
> your home country, if that

I can vouch for this: I'm a white male with no physical disabilities or
impairments, as an entrepreneur (and employee) I am not welcome in my home
country [1]. In this climate many have "resigned to their fate" which means
there is a somewhat substantial amount of South African expatriates. This has
resulted in us not being welcome in the 1st world countries that we assume our
hard work will be appreciated in.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Economic_Empowerment#Crit...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Economic_Empowerment#Criticism)

------
b_emery
>We spoke two totally different languages. Mine, the language of reasoned hope
and optimism. Theirs, the language of suspicious cynicism, fear and ignorance.

Another word for their language would be the language of security, threat
assessment, and law enforcement. It's probably safe to assume that anyone with
a badge speaks this language and to act accordingly. At some level, it's a
function of their training, experience as an officer, possibly of their
upbringing. I have relatives who live in that world and it's always
interesting to hear their perspective on things.

Edit to add:

>Are we truly welcome here as budding foreign entrepreneurs or will we forever
be perceived as unwanted immigrants?

Unfortunately, the answer is both. I hope this person can get the visa
situation figured out and going forward, get the sense that people like her
are welcome in the US.

~~~
icambron
> Another word for their language would be the language of security, threat
> assessment, and law enforcement.

If deporting social entrepreneurs on the basis of their nationality and the
word "hacker" is what's meant by "security" and "threat assessment", I submit
that these people are incompetent. Sure, everyone is a product of their
environment, but to the extent to which that environment allows them to make
terrible, destructive decisions with other people's lives without meaningful
accountability, they are very much operating out of fear and ignorance, and we
should condemn them accordingly. I don't see how throwing around flimsy terms
like "threat assessment" does anything but give a broken process an air of
artificial legitimacy.

~~~
yongjik
I'm no fan of the current system (being an immigrant worker in the US myself),
but I don't understand your proposal. Are you saying that immigration officers
should have the authority to selectively apply rules because someone is a
"social entrepreneur" instead of, say, a farm worker?

That sounds like a recipe for corruption and disaster.

~~~
icambron
Not at all. It's not even clear what rules they were even applying here, other
than their own discretion. My point was that if "security" and "threat
assessment" were the operative parts of their decision, they couldn't possibly
been doing it right.

------
Taek
One thing that bothers me about this article is the clear line between herself
and the criminals. In general, there seems to be a tendency to classify
criminals as a completely different type of human being. I think that this is
a lot of where the problem comes from in the first place. It's drawing a firm
"us vs. them" line that justifies your actions and motivations while
disregarding the motivations of the people who have committed crimes.

Yes, they may have committed crimes (and even maybe they haven't), but they're
still human, and they have justifications for the things that they did. They
have paths that led them to their choices, and it's foolish to completely
disregard their humanity by sweeping them into a 'them' category that isolates
their decisions and way of life from your own decisions and way of life.

------
MisterBastahrd
You need to prioritize things based upon importance. If being in the US is
vitally important to your company and your career, then that should take
precedent over leaving the country until you get your visa situation resolved.
Federal immigration services are tasked with making sure that people obey the
laws of the country. A 'snafu' does not lift the burden of you handling your
own responsibilities, and being an entrepreneur shouldn't matter to them.

The system needs to be reformed, but until it is you need to abide by its
rules.

~~~
cryptophile
I personally think that companies should avoid asking anybody to physically
come over. Working or even partnering up remotely is perfectly possible.

------
ChrisBland
I understand your frustration and there is no excuse to be dehumanized, and
treated like cattle during your proceeding. After saying that...a visa oops,
snafu, miscommunication, is still your responsibility. A great quote is
'Ignorantia juris non excusat' which translates out to 'ignorance of the law
excuses no one'. Upon hearing stories like this, I can't help but wonder, if
you had your visa taken care of before you tried to re-enter the country,
would this situation have happened? Were you singled out for your race, sex,
behavior, or were you singled out because you were not legally allowed to be
there? I know that may come off cruel, and like I said, no one should have to
endure how we treat detainees, however this issue seems to resolve around your
mistake.

~~~
rayiner
This is pretty much the gist of it. I found this bit annoying:

> We spoke two totally different languages. Mine, the language of reasoned
> hope and optimism. Theirs, the language of suspicious cynicism, fear and
> ignorance.

It's CPB's job to be cynical. For every "hopeful optimist" there are hundreds
of people seeking to abuse the system. It's simply a confusion as to the
delegation of power. Even if you're someone in favor of accelerating legal
residency for skilled people like the author, you have to acknowledge that
that's a plea to be made to the political figures, not to CPB agents.

~~~
enraged_camel
>>For every "hopeful optimist" there are hundreds of people seeking to abuse
the system.

Citation needed.

Seriously, Americans need to stop perceiving foreigners as _unwashed masses_ ,
most of whom are seeking to abuse the system.

~~~
smm2000
15 million illegal immigrants are a damn good reason to perceive foreigners as
unwashed masses seeking to abuse the system.

~~~
enraged_camel
But most of those immigrants are sneaking into or being smuggled into the
country, as opposed to trying to cheat their way through immigration and
border security. The former involves a backpacking trek through the desert
whereas the latter involves years if not decades of expensive, arduous
bureaucracy.

~~~
smm2000
Around 40% of illegal immigrants in US had valid visa when they initially
entered the country but overstayed. Also significant number of people came
into US on tourist visa but then exploited the system to change status through
genuine or fake marriage to USC, asylum, study, etc.

[http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142412788732391630...](http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323916304578404960101110032?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424127887323916304578404960101110032.html)

~~~
enraged_camel
How does changing status via genuine marriage count as "exploiting" the
system?

~~~
smm2000
Technically if you get married or plan to get married you are supposed to
leave the country and get either fiancee visa or immigrant visa by applying at
the consulate abroad. Many (most) people ignore this rule because there is no
penalty and many immigration violation (like visa overstay) are waived if you
get married to US citizen and change status inside US. You can also appeal
immigration decisions. On the other hand if you leave the country with visa
overstay, you can be banned for three or ten years from getting any type of
visa (even marriage-based one) and the right to appeal is pretty much non-
existent.

Overall immigration law is illogical mess with conflicting rules that can
often be exploited if you have money and a good lawyer. But even with a good
lawyer the system can fuck you over as in the case of that woman.

------
Taniwha
I must admit I'm terrified this will happen to me every time I visit the US, I
lived in the Bay Area, working in the Valley for 20 years and visit for work
and fun a few times a year .... but every time I go through immigration I';m
on the edge of panic.

I've never overstayed a visa, the only trouble I ever got into was for not
physically handing back my green card when I moved away, I stopped using it
for travel when I was no longer a US resident (I almost got kicked out that
time, then couldn't figure how to actually hand it back, the US consulate had
no online information on how to to do it, and charge by the minute for phone
calls from people who want to ask questions, I called up, spent my money and
they didn't know either).

The whole US system is baroque and arbitrary, I live in NZ I know people who
choose to fly to Europe west rather than east simply because they are scared
of traveling through the US (AirNZ now provides a route through Vancouver),
even though they would love to visit, there's an impression is that it's just
to risky and could ruin your vacation

~~~
Mandatum
LAX is possibly the worst Airport I've ever been in.On the flipside, I've
found Auckland Intnl/Amsterdam Intnl are the best..

~~~
Taniwha
I have to agree - LAX and JFK are my own personal bete noirs.

AKL isn't that wonderful - the blatant duty-free product placement at both
ends of the process is (as a kiwi) frankly embarrassing, it's terribly "exit
through the gift shop" sort of experience that reflects badly on us all (and
always leaves me in tears from being forced to walk through all the perfume -
not unlike being stuck next to that little old lady who's lost her sense of
smell on the bus)

~~~
Mandatum
Stepping off that plane and getting a whiff of the fresh clean air.. It's
something I always pick up on.

~~~
Taniwha
that was not really what I meant, more the opposite

~~~
Mandatum
Sorry, was just having a moment..

------
henningo
>"my current work visa application had been complicated due to a filing
mistake"

Making a mistake is not an acceptable excuse for these people (even Brad Feld
experienced this [1]).

Having been in the "backroom" twice I can attest how stressful it is and like
many other stories, the lack of information is quite scary indeed. In my case,
it was just a secondary screening triggered by me having had a student visa in
2006, a similar type of visa that the Boston bomber had had [2]. The officer
told me that anyone who had held a student visa in the past 10 years had to go
through this, so I'd imagine a fair few people here must have had the same
experience.

[1] [http://www.feld.com/archives/2013/03/the-joy-of-being-
detain...](http://www.feld.com/archives/2013/03/the-joy-of-being-detained-by-
u-s-customs-and-border-protection.html)

[2] [http://blog.ogletreedeakins.com/dhs-orders-verification-
of-f...](http://blog.ogletreedeakins.com/dhs-orders-verification-of-foreign-
student-visas-in-wake-of-boston-marathon-bombing/)

~~~
something324
I've been in secondary a number of times (business related, frequent border
crossings).

They're not interested in you as a person, nor are they interested in holding
anyone. They're entirely interested in detecting fraud and crime, and the
people are secondary to that.

When you're in there, keep that in mind. They don't care about you as an
individual, in a completely neutral sense. Just take in the surroundings (ever
notice that it's just a normal workplace to them? Seems weird, but they're
mostly relaxed at the office), and answer questions comfortably and
respectfully. You'll be out in good time, depending on the lineup.

------
fredsanford
>>> We spoke two totally different languages. Mine, the language of reasoned
hope and optimism. Theirs, the language of suspicious cynicism, fear and
ignorance.

>>>I slowly explained that I’m a social entrepreneur promoting global change
through the concept of ‘hackathons’ where attendees work together and find
solutions to community issues within a tight time constraint. They were
dismissive and didn’t seem to want to hear an explanation.

If even a hint of this attitude got through, you would be denied... Have you
seen the flood of shit the CBP people have to put up with? Have you seen the
news of the massive floods of people trying to get in through Texas recently?

The CBP officers are going to be suspicious of anyone and everyone just like
most people are suspicious of used car salesmen. Giving the CBP rank-and-file
reason to suspect you (hacker? ..., obvious disdain for their function etc)
will lead to nothing but bad. They do not make the rules, they enforce them
and are given little leeway in how they can help. You're lucky to have found a
sympathetic supervisor.

~~~
EdwardDiego
>>I slowly explained that I’m a social entrepreneur promoting global change
through the concept of ‘hackathons’ where attendees work together and find
solutions to community issues within a tight time constraint. They were
dismissive and didn’t seem to want to hear an explanation.

> If even a hint of this attitude got through, you would be denied.

Even without the attitude, I'd be dismissive of that too. It's buzzwords and
puffery. Oh! You're in the Global Change industry? Silly me, I didn't realise.
Come on in, they just opened a big Change The World By Writing An iPhone App
In A Weekend factory in San Diego so we'll need all the skilled global change
promoters we can get.

------
mrgriscom
Still not entirely clear from the article, but, sounds like you were working
in the US without a work visa? What did you expect?

------
bww
I would be very sympathetic if this article described a situation in which the
U.S. wouldn't give this person a visa and so they couldn't travel there.

However, I struggle to find much sympathy for the actual case in which the
U.S. didn't "technically" (?) give this person a visa but they tried to cross
the border anyway, border control wasn't amused by this (shocker), they had to
wait around a little bit and explain themselves, and then they basically got
the best outcome they could have possibly hoped for in trying to cross an
international border knowingly without the correct paperwork.

~~~
MaysonL
Note that this is a person who has been living in the U.S. legally for the
past seven years.

------
rwallace
I sympathize with the author, but I disagree with the focus of the discussion
that always surrounds such cases. It strikes me as akin to discussing the best
tactics to overrun the Maginot Line by frontal assault.

When faced with a huge obstacle maintained by forces stronger than oneself,
the correct solution is usually not to attack it head on, but to examine the
assumptions under which it is an obstacle in order to find a way around.

The assumption under which the Maginot Line was an obstacle was 'you can't go
through the Ardennes'. The assumption under which immigration law is an
obstacle is 'you have to sleep in physical proximity to the people you're
working with'. In each case, technology has rendered the assumption obsolete.

Remote study and remote work are not just matters of convenience, productivity
and quality of life for those of us living in developed countries. They are
key to enabling more of our species to fulfill its potential and contribute to
the future. And I don't believe that's optional. I think the problems we are
facing as a species are hard enough that we can't afford to have only a small
fraction of us contributing.

Yes, I know employers will say 'we don't hire remote for reasons' and venture
capitalists will say 'we don't invest in people outside Silicon Valley for
reasons'. The mere existence of reasons _does not make it okay_ to give up in
the face of this obstacle.

If there are procedural or technical obstacles to working remotely, they are
problems that _need to be solved_ not surrendered to. We need to get to the
stage where being denied entry to the US has no more significance than a
change in holiday plans.

------
joshdance
Sorry this happened. The US really needs to get immigration figured out. As a
country we need and want skilled workers, dreamers, entrepreneurs etc.

------
nugget
Does anybody else see the irony in the contrast between this story and the
current US-Mex border situation?

We expend so much time and effort to harass people who fly in, while every day
thousands of other people simply walk over the border without permission and
are then relocated within the US with very little threat of deportation[1],
and eventual amnesty in the cards. I'm not for a border fence or massive
forced deportations, but the imbalance here sticks out to me like a sore
thumb.

[1] [http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-obama-
deportations-20140...](http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-obama-
deportations-20140402-story.html#page=1)

~~~
maxerickson
There's plenty of time and effort spent harassing people coming in over the
land border too. I expect there would be more people coming in that way
without that effort.

I don't think I agree with the current U.S. border policy, but I don't see how
we get from where we are to not having one. There is also probably some sense
in aligning enforcement with stated policy.

(I'm not sure that last bit is clear, but I mean if the rule says you have to
have a visa, it makes sense for the guards/agents/whatever to just enforce
that, not try to decide if the visa is really needed in each different
situation)

~~~
nugget
The United States is a nation of immigrants and as a US citizen I have no
problem welcoming more people in. One of my all-time favorite poems is The New
Colossus by Emma Lazarus, made famous by its association with the Statue of
Liberty, where it is now stamped on the base of the granite pedestal:

 _" Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she

With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"_

At the same time, I work twenty feet from an extremely talented British
product manager who wants nothing more than to qualify for a green card and
become a US permanent resident. I've watched him jump through hoop after hoop
for years, spending thousands of dollars in the process, afraid to travel
overseas for a family funeral because of re-entry concerns. Meanwhile he
watches hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants cross the border, settle,
and start vocally advocating for their rights. My heart breaks sometimes for
him and his family. Our system is totally broken and I don't know what the
answer is either.

~~~
T-hawk
Tell him he's looking at selection bias. The immigrants he sees here represent
a very small fraction of those who have tried to enter the US. Those are the
few that succeeded in either satisfying or dodging the process, not the bulk
that get rejected by it or sit on waiting lists.

He should be comparing himself to the typical outcome of a would-be immigrant
(never passing the border at all), not to outliers cherrypicked to only be
observed after they have already succeeded.

------
jrockway
I'm a US citizen, and I dread going through immigration when returning to the
US. I understand the psychological techniques they use to trip up people that
are lying, but really? I have a valid US passport. What are you going to do,
deport me? I'd love to see that.

(I've always wanted to get in a state where country A wants to deport me to
country B, but country B wants to deport me to country A. I guess I always
answer the questions right, though. "Did you come in contact with any soil on
your trip?" "Oh no sir." "Welcome back.")

------
suprgeek
American Immigration and American Healthcare are two of the most F*d up
systems in an otherwise "developed" country. The rank hostility with which the
CBP treats visitors continually amazes me - having traveled to China, Japan,
Australia, Most of Europe & South east Asia.

Is it the volume of people that arrive in US vs the smaller number of CBP
officers available to process them that makes for such a system?

Or is it some training aspect or something else?

~~~
lilsunnybee
Those are just the most fucked up systems you are aware of. The justice system
(criminal matters/incarceration/probation/plea bargaining) is really bad and
much more threatening imo. Also what about politics, budgeting, government
contracts? That's just off the top of my head.

------
utunga
I'd urge Aurora Chiste to use this as a galvanizing opportunity to work for
good in places of the world other than silicon valley. US needs to learn the
lesson, here, clearly. But until then don't be bitter, let this painful
separation become an opportunity to guide you to something much, much better,
somewhere else.

------
EugeneOZ
I thought USA is country of immigrants.

------
nulldozer
Stop whining and come to Canada.

------
Bangladesh1
Wonderful writings, like

------
mark_edward
unwelcome foreigners

------
cryptophile
To some extent, you may still need to be physically present in the US/Silicon
Valley in order to join in on some of the startup fun. However, it is often
possible to do that without moving over.

I personally only participate in a startup, if I don't have to come over. It
is expensive over there and your simple living expenses will add to the burn
rate of the startup's seed capital; in addition to having to face unpleasant
bureaucracy concerning your attempts at immigration.

There are just too many people who are desperate to move there and who are not
bringing anything that the local population would be interested in.

Why not pick a cheap and easy country to live in, and work remotely with your
colleagues from all over the world? Why physically move to the US/Silicon
Valley?

------
voidlogic
Paper work snafus can be a big deal- or not, is hard to know without knowing
the details. BUT everyone knows bureaucracy is seldom sympathetic to paper
work problems in any country.

After reading:

>I had time to reflect on the past _seven years_ of my life in America.

>The US and Silicon Valley had become my true home. The opportunities in this
country never cease to amaze me.

My questions was, why didn't the author become a U.S. citizen?

A person who has no intent on citizenship is not a immigrant, should their
visa expire, they are simply an illegal alien outstaying their welcome... I
have no problem with immigrants (in fact I support them), all my ancestors
immigrated after all, but I do have problems with people who think its
acceptable to be an illegal alien. I want people like the author to immigrate
to this country...

P.S. If you are going to downvote me, please do me the courtesy of explaining
the error of my ways.

~~~
john_b
> _" My questions was, why didn't the author become a U.S. citizen?"_

Her personal motivations and desires really have no bearing on her legal
status here. Questions like these imply that the only people the US can accept
into its borders are:

1) Citizens

2) Non-citizen short term visitors

3) Non-citizens committed to obtaining citizenship

Yet, historically, many of our most valued and productive members of society
have been immigrants who did not obtain citizenship right away (not to mention
the labrynthine and expensive process required to get _just a green card_
today [1])

> _" A person who has no intent on citizenship is not a immigrant, should
> their visa expire, they are simply an illegal alien outstaying their
> welcome"_

The issue is not legality, but proportionality. If you forget to renew your
drivers license and drive with it expired, you will get a ticket. You then pay
your fine, renew your license, and in the few days this process takes, you are
inconvenienced by not being able to drive. At no time have you "outstayed your
welcome on the road" and no sensible person will accuse you of "thinking it's
acceptable to drive without a license". Sensible people recognize an honest
mistake in a byzantine system and give people the benefit of the doubt.

On the other hand, if your visa status is in any way imperfect for a single
minute you can be deported and barred from ever reentering the country. The OP
was "lucky" to be allowed to be able to reenter 18 months later. Welcome to
the land of the free.

[1] [http://immigrationroad.com/green-card/immigration-
flowchart-...](http://immigrationroad.com/green-card/immigration-flowchart-
roadmap-to-green-card.pdf)

~~~
voidlogic
Wow, that document does show the process to be quite a labyrinthine... I would
definitely support simplification of the process. I also think 5 years is too
long (so long as the other requirements are met) and I think time spent
legally resident with any kind of visa should count towards the threshold.

For anyone interested here are the requirements: [http://www.uscis.gov/us-
citizenship/citizenship-through-natu...](http://www.uscis.gov/us-
citizenship/citizenship-through-naturalization/path-us-citizenship)

However, I do feel that people groups 1,2 & 3 are the only people any country
should accept into its borders. Maybe with the addition of medium term
visitors like students, people on prolonged business trips or investors.

~~~
dennisgorelik
5 years greencard-to-citizenship is nothing in comparison with how long it
takes to get the greencard.

If you are a Filipino who in 1991 filed for family-based green card, because
your brother was US citizen, then you are still waiting for your greencard
approval. Yeap, 23 years later.

[http://travel.state.gov/content/visas/english/law-and-
policy...](http://travel.state.gov/content/visas/english/law-and-
policy/bulletin/2014/visa-bulletin-for-july-2014.html)

