Previous threads we've done: https://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=proberts.
If you're on American soil they can just detain you. Or worse.
If you ever want nightmares, read the story of Maher Arar.
Sources: https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/what-do-when-encounter...
https://www.aclunc.org/our-work/know-your-rights/know-your-r...
They can immediately arrest you, however.
That doesn't mean they can't deny you entry. It means you might win a court case some day.
ICE cannot legally arrest people who are citizens for no reason, and yet they have done exactly that 30% of the time by their own admission.
"Knowing your rights" is meaningless if the public chooses to vote for people who don't care about those rights, and celebrate when you do not get your rights.
It doesn't matter what the paper says, it matters what CBP feels like doing, and what their management lets them get away with. The constitution is just a magic circle we all agree to play in, and isn't real if enough people disregard it.
If the border agent doesn't want you to come into the country, you are fucked. Nobody's job is to get between that agent and you and ensure the border agent follows the law on the paper, and the border agent will not go to jail or even lose their job for completely ignoring the law.
You are seriously inconvenienced, but assuming your paperwork is in order, you will be allowed into the US. This isn't just against US law, it's a violation of international law to render a person stateless.
This ignores the real point, which is that while you cannot be refused entry to the United States, you can be arrested at the border. ICE these days has mastered the art of making people's detainment so uncomfortable that even those with a right to be in this country end up deciding to leave.
Where are you getting that statistic (honest question)?
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/12/05/despite-medias-claims-ic...
Why would ICE leave the number as low as "70%" if they could be higher? Every illegal alien is a criminal as far as the law is concerned. Every illegal alien arrested is "charged with a crime". Otherwise ICE is openly stating to its supporters that they arrest illegal aliens and then release them, something their supporters are vocally against, and the administration believes and claims to be a serious problem.
Meanwhile, the Cato Institute a libertarian think tank, claims they have been leaked far worse data https://www.cato.org/blog/5-ice-detainees-have-violent-convi...
A direct reading of ICE's claims (that seem to be contrary to information obtained through FOIA?) is that 70% of the people they arrest are criminals, which by their own definitions, would imply 30% of the people they arrest are not illegally here, but that's reading between the lines and it's hard to lend any credence to anything said by an administration that treats public statements as a fun gaslighting game.
But essentially, if ICE COULD claim everyone they arrest is an illegal alien (and literally a criminal they are legally allowed to arrest and deport), why wouldn't they?
Flag my claim if appropriate.
> 70% of ICE arrests are of criminal illegal aliens charged with or convicted of crimes in the U.S.
I believe the claim here is that 70% of the people ICE arrests have been charged with or convicted of crimes other than being present in the USA illegally. I don't think this is at all meant to imply that 30% of arrests are of people who are present in the USA legally. I think it's just sloppy writing.
There’s many points you could make about the United States and immigration, but I don’t think this is one of them.
That doesn't sound relevant.
Nobody said that they were obliged to admit you, they complained that the reasons for declining admittance were unfair. Unless you think "no obligation to admit" means carte blanche to decline for any reason, and to treat you however they like?
If so, then that is unreasonable. It is a much stronger condition than "I don't have to let you in".
It is exactly the same as "I don't have to let you in".
For example, I do not have an obligation to let people into my house. I can choose to let them in or decline them entry. But there are certain preconditions I cannot apply. I cannot, for example, say "you may come into my house only if you murder my neighbour". That's because I'm legally bound not to induce people to commit murder. It would obviously be disingenuous to say this means I have an "obligation to admit" them.
It's the same with immigration. They actually are legally bound in certain ways - an immigration official can't assault you for instance. It's not hard to imagine them being legally bound not to search people's phones. That doesn't mean "they have to admit people".
How is that a relevant argument?
I actually expected to leave and have my right to come back not dependent on GC status (which expires after 6 months), but due to family have stayed so far. by the by - I'm a citizen of that dangerous country bordering the US - Canada.
https://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/travel-voyage/edd-ean-eng.html
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/18/returning-trav...
Progressive utopias indeed
Of course, if you just don’t want anyone with intelligence or dignity to visit the country, this is great policy.
> You are within your rights to say no
Given that you don't have a right to enter, if you say no (which you are within your rights to do), and you are denied entry, then nothing wrong has happened.
If you believe that they shouldn't make entry conditional on something, then you are asserting a right to enter. That's what "right" means.
If someone comes up to me and asks for food, I am not obliged to give it to them.
If I say to them, "I will give you food, on the condition that I can punch you in the face", and they decline to be punched in the face, do you really believe "nothing wrong has happened"? That I, applying an unethical condition, did nothing wrong?
If someone else says "You must not make punching someone in the face a precondition of giving them food", does that create a "right to food"? Of course not.
Your analogy does seem workable, though - let's examine:
> If someone comes up to me and asks for food, I am not obliged to give it to them.
Yes! 100% agree. They probably have a right to ask for food in countries that protect free speech, but they have no right to have requests fulfilled.
> If I say to them, "I will give you food, on the condition that I can punch you in the face", and they decline to be punched in the face,
Sounds great. You have the right to say no. You did say no basically, but you did make a counteroffer. (This is arguably also especially true due to free speech, though that's unrelated to our points.) Your exact counteroffer doesn't seem relevant to me, it could also just be that you'll give it for $50, or $1,000,000 and nothing changes.
He thinks it's a bad offer and gets none of your food.
> "nothing wrong has happened"?
I do think nothing wrong has happened! Is it only because you used food, which a necessity, that you think it's wrong? What if it's a PS5? Would this be ok if the asker is seeking a free PS5? Visiting a foreign country is much more like a PS5 than it is a potato.
> If someone else says "You must not make punching someone in the face a precondition of giving them food", does that create a "right to food"? Of course not.
That is the worst policy I could imagine since it's vague and undefined. Can one ask for a kick to the groin? An elbow to the funny bone? If you did the policymaker's job correctly you'd need to make the policy like "No one may deny a request for food/PS5s" -- that exactly creates a right to food/PS5s. Or you could make the policy "No one may deny a request for food/PS5s but one may require compensation, which may only be less than $50 in US Currency. Compensation in the form of a service or a trade may not be required."
That creates a right to pay $50 or less for food/PS5s.
Every ethical problem is vague and undefined. If you can't find an infinitely precise specification of the ethical problem, that doesn't make it invalid.
However, even at the level of policy, your analysis does not go through. It is routine and unproblematic for laws to exist that prohibit "you can't enter this bar if you're black" or "I won't hire you because you're a woman". It simply does not follow that employers are "forced to hire people". They are forced to apply consistent, legitimate rules when hiring people. Whether a rule is consistent and legitimate is usually decided by a judge. This is not an unusual thing.
P.S. are you writing this with an LLM? If you aren't, I'm sorry. But it really sounds like you are. If you are, please stop.
The whole reason we have those types of employment and public accommodation laws is a special case though. In terms of employment, we prefer this to a world where black people or women can't get jobs, because jobs are necessary, or can't enter half the establishments because people witnessed that Jim Crow was a shitty and shameful situation. And I do stipulate that that doesn't mean the same as "all women have the right to a job at my company upon demand."
But why don't we also have laws criminalizing things like refusing to be friends with $SKIN_COLOR people? I think it's because it's only in those specific realms like employment and public accommodation where we have created rights. The right to shop in a place that is open to the general public is a right Black people got from a law. And the right of people to be considered for a job without regard to their membership in certain protected classes is something the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 created. There is no right of foreigners without a green card to enter in the first place - CBP can completely legally say no to anyone, so no 'counteroffer' of conditional admittance could be inappropriate. The only exception I can think of is misconduct of the officer, e.g. 'I'll admit you if you give me $10,000' or a more unsavory favor. But with that already being illegal, I don't think it is too relevant here.
Not just that, at least in my understanding of American political theory. It's because of the existing right to freedom of association. If it is criminal to refuse association, that association becomes compulsory, and thus not free.
Yes, of course nothing wrong has happened. The other party decided that the food was not worth a punch in the face. The other party is no worse off than if you had made no offer. The other party is no worse off than if you had responded to "may I have some food please" with "no".
Downthread:
> It is routine and unproblematic for laws to exist that prohibit "you can't enter this bar if you're black" or "I won't hire you because you're a woman".
This is completely irrelevant. "I will give you food, on the condition that you change your immutable characteristics" is incoherent. "You can't enter the country because you didn't submit to this violation of your privacy" is a) targeted at someone who definitionally doesn't have those constitutional protections in the US and b) not an expression of any kind of identity-group prejudice.
We're talking about a non-citizen on a visitor visa and there is just simply no legal right to enter if the port of entry official don't like their answers or behavior. They can't say "you have to let me in, it's my right".
Peter might have good insights on whether the relevant case law has changed since 2017 though.
So your "burner phone" needs to be your primary phone, which is something that is hard to go back in time to fix.
I went through CBP twice in the span of 20 hours. I was granted entry once and denied the second time. The second time, I had to sign some electronic pad and later a form (I-275) was given to me. Did I have the option not to sign? And is this contradictory decision in span of 20 hours legally OK?
Below are some more details:
At Toronto Pearson (Terminal 3) on December 1-2, 2025, I went through CBP twice and the first time I was granted entry and second time denied. I am a dual Canadian-Iranian citizen. On day one I was given a detailed biographical form, questioned repeatedly about my purpose of travel (Conference), employment, etc and especially about any Iranian military service. I provided old passports and a university transcript showing that I have not been in Iran since 2019 and prior to that I was studying in the university. They also explicitly questioned me about a prior incident in which Canadian police claimed an explosive trace ("Tetryl") on me, which I disputed as an error. CBP took my belongings (backpack, watch, wallet, phone), conducted a body inspection in another room (through search, hands inside my pants followed by groin search) took my fingerprints multiple times and took my phone after requiring the pass code and it was out of my possession for about an hour. After several hours they told me I was "negative" but by then my flight had departed. I was given only a piece of paper with CBP stamp. Since there was no flight for my airline for the rest of the day, I was brought back to the Canadian side. The day after, I went through CBP again and when I showed them their paper with stamp I was told "we are not going to take your word for it" and the full process happened again (although no body check or phone check this time). A different officer then stated that my documents were not sufficient to prove I had not done military service in Iran and that I now needed an official exemption letter or something similar from Iranian authorities. He added that I should have been "advised differently" the night before. Finally, my picture was taken and I was asked to sign on a pad twice. Only afterward did they print and hand me a form (I-275) showing a withdrawal of my application. I was escorted back to the Canadian side. Did I have the option not to sign? If in future I decide to visit US is this going to be held against me? I can provide more details or the form if necessary.
Is there really nothing native citizens like me can do to get our family here outside waiting in a generic line with everyone else in the world?
Does the government have any direct link to meta re what accounts people actually have. I’m surprised people aren’t up in arms about this, I guess it affects mostly visitors and immigrants but the fact that the government needs to see your activity on a private company’s web app is wild to me.
If they ask you "well, do you use any social media?" You'd presumably have to answer with HN, which maybe doesn't sound all that great :)
I mean, some US govt immigration forms asking for your social media usernames include pastebin sites like "justpaste.it". See for example: https://static.feber.se/article_images/42/10/92/421092_1280....
Knowing that, it's crystal clear HN falls strictly within that definition of "social media", although it might not be as clear if you don't know what that particular site is.
Googling 'site:gov "justpaste.it"' also brings endless results of government documents mentioning the site in the context of terrorism.
I somewhat doubt US immigration authorities thwarted any would-be terrorists by asking for their justpaste.it username, but what do I know, perhaps this was an important breakthrough in the global war on terror.
It's pretty easy to think it's harmless if you live in a country where that viewpoint is not uncommon.
And who says that asking for your password is to gain entry?
Do you have a concrete example story that illustrates this?
Since overseas workers are still subject to 15-year amortizations I'm wondering if people are getting pulled in from Canada.
I suspect it would be important that any funds never reached you, so you couldn't simply receive money then donate that amount. Playing a charity gig where the receipts go directly to the charity would likely be fine, streaming/Spotify revenue I don't know, acting in a movie might be out of the question if it's being professionally shot because the producer might have insurance or other requirements that only paid performers and crew can be on set, etc.
(not real advice. I think.)
A few I registered a company in Delaware as a foreign company for SaaS business.
I have been unable to complete an organization certificate for my website.
Unfortunately I could not get one since my legal phone is not the way to reach me and they tell me that they cannot change that phone to reach me according to my legal representatives in Delaware.
I need some kind of certificate of good standing or being able to have a verifiable phone and/or email to reach me in a "reliable" way from a third party source.
How could I proceed for this, since I am not knowledgeable of the law in Delaware. Probably I need an attorney and I would be happy if I can be recommended one that could emit such verification.
I'm currently living in the US on TN status and am married to an American. Have you heard of anyone on TN status having difficulty applying for a green card? And do you have any sense of what the wait times currently are, particularly how long until you can get a travel authorization?
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/26/us/trump-green-card-inter...
That was tolerated previously.
It does appear that these arrests have stopped since the NYT article was written.
They have a green card interview because they married an American. But you can’t get an adjustment of status if you are in violation of your current visa terms.
My understanding is that their time spent on the company before YC accepts them is the biggest risk factor?
If an i-131 is pending, would you advise that person to return briefly to USA before their 1 year date of exit (ensuring that they are never out of USA for greater than 1 year prior to approved i-131)?
Or does a reentry permit allow them to remain out of country for longer than that even if pending (presuming it gets approved)?
Many of the absurdities of the US immigration system exist for good reasons and it would be great to understand the nuances.
- Paper-free overhaul of the entire immigration system.
- Green Card recapture [0].
- Country of Birth caps abolished for Green Cards. Impossible to justify this as it doesn't serve the intended purpose since AC21 was passed.
- EAD/AP premium processing - so many livelihoods ruined and immigration journeys derailed because people can't get work authorization or cannot travel.
- TD holders granted working rights incident of status same as L2S.
Now for the not-so-popular suggestions...
- Diversity Lottery - there's bipartisan support to cancel the program and it's really hard to justify bringing almost 55k with a min of high school education into the country.
- Removal of F2B, F3, F4 family based categories to move inline with other developed nations immigration systems such as Canada [1].
[0] - https://www.fwd.us/news/green-card-recapture
[1] - https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/se...
You are saying that since, for example, Indians can remain indeterminately as long as they are employed, they are de facto kind of like in a green card situation already, therefore country caps don't make sense?
That would mean then that every other country wait will go up for over a decade, with all the backlog that India has (1.2M vs 140k EB green cards per year).
In your view, who are the winners and losers of the recent H1B changes? And any changes on your perspective for YC harboring international talent in SF Bay Area?
A TN visa/status holder that applies for a EB Green Card by filing form I-485 is considered to have shown immigrant intent and will no longer be granted TN status in the future.
Is this bar permanent or would an applicant who failed to obtain a Green Card or surrendered it in the future be able to seek TN visa/status provided they could prove strong links to Mexico/Canada?
What impacts are you seeing as a result of the $100K H-1B fee which took effect on 9/21/25?
> Applicants for U.S. nonimmigrant visas (NIV) should schedule their visa interview appointments at the U.S. Embassy or Consulate in their country of nationality or residence
> Applicants must be able to demonstrate residence in the country where they are applying, if the place of application is based on their residency.
What sort of proof is required to demonstrate residence? What about cases where an applicant legally has residency in a particular country (e.g. PR card or work visa) but in practice lives in the US as an H-1B/TN/L-1/O-1/etc. worker or H-4/TD/L-2/O-3/etc. dependant? Especially for the dual intent visas?
However they keep flip flopping between me needing a B1 and me just using my ESTA for the training, and their communication hasn't been the most straight forward. Which visa do I need to get to enter the US for the training?
For anyone who has one US citizen parent and one non-citizen parent, where the citizen parent has passed before the child applicant for naturalization reaches 18 years of age, resulting in the applicant applying for and receiving naturalization as an adult, can that same currently naturalized citizen also obtain natural born citizenship status through the deceased citizen parent and would it be advisable?
The educational institution sent the student's home address some tax form that he had to file by April 15, but the former student forgot to do that.
The question is: would the student have problems getting a U.S. visa as a tourist and entering the U.S. several years after that? If yes, how could that be fixed? Thanks in advance.
Assuming a US startup is considering engineering hires outside the United States, how does one currently assess the likelihood of getting them a visa to work in the USA? And what timeline and cost would be involved?
OR should I just close it and try the normal route? Thanks in advance!
should it be d3 or i601?
I am planning to move to San Francisco to join the startup ecosystem. Regarding the H-1B visa, what does the current process and timeline look like for a new applicant? Given the lottery constraints, are there specific 'red flags' or common mistakes I should avoid when looking for a sponsor?
Do you think there are risks involved with leaving (and hence returning to) the country on a Green Card?
... but what about when non-US citizens leave the US?
For example, as a Canadian, if I'm down in the US and, on my way back up to Canada, a US border officer requests access to my phone and I decline... what happens then?
Do you think H1B visa holders looking to move to a Green Card (in coordination with their employer) should be concerned about rejected applications or other issues?
I do understand that performative victimhood is much easier as it does not require much intellectual honesty.
Curious how the statistics/success rates are looking?
How can an European Senior SWE land a job, let’s say, SF and have some kind of guarantee regarding the visa before flying into the US.
The 100K cost for the H-1B is so absurd that it crushes any hope of me ever participating in Silicon Valley or any other tech hub in the US. Is the tech alive or are companies just relocating to EU/others?
I assume it means TN visas are dead in six months if the written notice clause is respected.
Is the zombie CUSFTA now out of dormancy? Can we now use the TC visa? If CUSFTA dies as well, what are the other options and how long does it take to process?
How would you justify it's you should get the work/money, not imigrant worker? The fact your parents immigrated earlier than they should justify it in your opinion?
The fact that I'm American justifies it. If Americans flooded into say, Somalia, bought up all the houses, took up all the jobs etc, you'd be horrifically offended.
Americans have no where else to go. This is my home and I will not abandon it. You can't just drop 50 million extra workers into a country and expect people to just take it.
It's like saying you are white male and it justifies higher salary.
Also if you struggle to compete with immigrants who usually have no network, English is not their native language, have many other disadvantages - you are doing something wrong or are not competitive in the first place.
The fact is you should not fight against imigration, you should fight for decent payment for it and same rights
We are incredibly atomized in the west, foreigners always have more closely knit networks. They always help each other out. People who make the arguments you're making are almost always foreigners. You have no say in the affairs of my nation. You should leave.
Do you know of the fable of a goose that laid a golden egg once a day?
You are proposing to kill the goose to see if you can get multiple golden eggs at once.
> country with an identity
Like it or not, the identity is 'land of opportunities' and not 'land of anglo-saxons who emigrated before ~1850'
Did you drop out of middle school?
America saw the highest rate of immigration in history between ~1910-1960. A majority of the scientists and engineers in the Apollo program were immigrants or children of immigrants.
> Why is it only ever white nations that are expected to let everyone else in?
They are not, have you considered moving to Russia?
I work for an American company and I am based in Europe. I visit the US for work every now and then. I heard a lot of horror stories regarding border entries. If I am ever in a situation where the border police asks for access to my personal phone and pin code, what are my options? Can I refuse and what happens then?