6 ms·

Immigrant entrepreneur arrested to meet quotas

151 points by deadmansshoes 15y ago

deadmansshoes 15y ago
And reactions at http://mapbrief.com/2011/10/19/political-hypocrisy-economic-ignorance-the-case-against-atanas-entchev/ http://mapbrief.com/2011/10/19/political-hypocrisy-economic-... and http://blog.entchev.com/2011/10/17/a-call-for-help-for-atanas.aspx http://blog.entchev.com/2011/10/17/a-call-for-help-for-atana...
0x12 15y ago
US immigration sucks. What bugs me most is that the US is founded on immigrants, so it's basically the descendents of one group of immigrants telling those 'late to the party' that they can't enter, or in this case that they have to leave. To do this to someone that has been there for a lifetime and then some is ridiculous. Too many lives have already been wrecked to satisfy little minds and to get stamps on pieces of paper. Immigrants like these are the ones a country should hope to receive, not to turn away at some arbitrary future date for bureaucratic reasons only. Disgusting.
eazolan 15y ago
US Immigration sucks because it's become a political football. Instead of something that can be sanely managed like it has in the past.
cperciva 15y ago
Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see anything in the linked post about "meeting quotas". Can we please avoid making headlines unnecessarily hysterical?
- 0x12 15y ago
  I think that referred to this bit: "By coincidence, Frontline this week is broadcasting a feature, ‘Lost in Detention’, outlining the increasingly aggressive measures to deport immigrants. The key clip begins at the 17-minute mark outlining the arbitrary goal of 400,000 deportations, including “Non-criminal removals”. " From http://mapbrief.com/2011/10/19/political-hypocrisy-economic-ignorance-the-case-against-atanas-entchev/ http://mapbrief.com/2011/10/19/political-hypocrisy-economic-...
  - nkassis 15y ago
    What does a Non-criminal removal mean? Like who would be in that category? Just people who's visa expired?
    - Mvandenbergh 15y ago
      Non-criminal removal is for people who are being deported after an appeals process. Basically they petitioned for a change of visa status which was denied and eventually all their appeals were turned down. Key is that because they were following the legal appeal channel, they were at no point in the country illegally.
      - pyre 15y ago
        So by ramping up non-criminal removals, does that mean they are actively trying to reject more appeals just to meet quotas of people they must deport (as opposed to rejecting or accepting them on the merits of the case)?
    - 0x12 15y ago
      A non-criminal removal is simply removing someone from the country that has no criminal record and is an 'alien'. As soon as you commit a crime (and are convicted) you are subject to a criminal removal. The main issue seems to be that criminal removals are procedurally expensive, they take a lot longer and cost more dollars than a non-criminal removal. Having appealed or not is not really a factor here because some people that let their visa expire never went through the appeals process, they just disappeared underground or were forgotten for a long long time. Technically they have no right to be where they are, in practice they're just like everybody else minus the right to vote and the right to social security, and possibly health care issues. In order to boost the numbers the agencies decided that non-criminal removals are the low hanging fruit that they can use to boost their numbers significantly while cutting costs. After all, it's a lot easier to pick up a hard working guy/girl and their family than it is to go after someone that is aware he's being looked for. In plenty of cases these people are not just productive members of society, but they also have had children in the long time since they landed and the present, which rips these families apart. This is the most stunning example of short-sighted behavior by officials that I've ever seen because they effectively shifted their priorities from removing undesirables to removing their polar opposites, the productive, if possibly undocumented members of society. WP article about this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/26/AR2010032604891.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03... What is sad is that it takes high profile cases such as these to bring this strategy to light, for every well connected person that comes up in this dragnet of stupidity there are 100's if not 1000's of nobodies that are just as important to the functioning of society and whose lives and well being are not worth less than any other persons.
- barrkel 15y ago
  Case summary here: http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/104369np.pdf http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/104369np.pdf It seems clear to me that at this point he is an economic migrant, rather than a refugee; and as that was the basis of his initial plea to stay (i.e. he was seeking asylum from persecution), the generally brutal machinery of bureaucracy is ejecting him from the country. (Apparently, credible death threats don't constitute sufficient grounds for asylum. But I don't think he is credibly at risk, even of that.) It's very harsh on him and his wife, uprooting them from their community, etc., but on the other hand he ought to have little difficulty finding work and living anywhere he chooses in the EU. Frankly, I don't think the US deserves him.
  - tallanvor 15y ago
    Well, no, credible death threats aren't sufficient grounds - they would have to show that not only are the death threats credible, but that the government is purposefully not protecting him from the threats. I can understand that he feel's the US is his home and he shouldn't have to leave, but he's basically been trying to play the system for 20 years. He was told what he had to do to get a visa legally, but he wasn't willing to do so.
    - 0x12 15y ago
      It is the system that allows you to play the system for 20 years. If the process were more clear cut and less slow then I'd agree with you but after some reasonable period of time (say 5 years) has passed and someone has proven to be a productive member of society it is in everybody's interest to maintain the status quo. People have come to the US in their 40's and have died of old age waiting for their paperwork in cases where everything went A-ok (ditto for Canada), it's no surprise that the negative side is just as slow. Case not finished in 5 years? Here is your passport. It's typically not the people that go through this mill that control the speed with which it turns but the government side. Note that it took more than 4 years before they even had their first hearing.
eis 15y ago
As a kid I always wanted to go to the USA, maybe even live there. So many things to see, the business opportunities and the propagated freedom were very attractive. During the last decade though, the USA have done a fantastic job of eradicating every bit of what was left of this dream. Nowerdays all you hear from them is how Hollywood is destroying little guys' lifes for downloading a bunch of songs, exporting those policies with force to other countries, insane financial schemes and starting several wars. Right now I am planning a trip to Japan. A country, which was hit by a nuclear meltdown crisis, floods, earthquakes and more. I'd still choose it over going to the USA any day. Maybe that's something to think about. The USA are going down fast and it doesn't look like there are changes in sight in regards to their handling of immigrants, the wars or the rampand self-made economic problems. And that is a shame.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
- davidw 15y ago
  > eradicating every bit of what was left of this dream. I have never, ever seen a phrase so absolutely and totally full of hyperbole on this site.
  - 0x12 15y ago
    Why? That's his feeling, it is whatever he writes. Whether it is full of hyperbole or not is not knowable, he'd have to admit to that himself or you'd have to scan his brain.
mbpp 15y ago
I earn for a living freelancing for US companies. It has always baffled me that I am allowed to do it legally only if I stay outside of the USA.
- mcherm 15y ago
  Perhaps it is because they don't want you to pay US taxes?
alkimie 15y ago
I'm the son of an immigrant and married one as well, so I'm quite sympathetic....but....he has not explained why his status changed from being legally in the U.S. to some other status....
- stupandaus 15y ago
  He wasn't a legal immigrant. His status never changed.
  - felideon 15y ago
    From the post, that is not clear. It opens with "After living legally in the United States for over 20 years [...]" From the case file, however, it seems like they entered with a J-1 visa and before their authorization to stay expired, they applied for asylum.
    - 0x12 15y ago
      As long as you are in the process you are there legally. Weird but that's how it works. Only after your deportation order has been issued and you do not contest it for an X number of days does it become final and then you have to leave. If you are still in the country past that date you become an illegal and you can be deported. In the meantime you can basically continue with your life. But you are building on quicksand. I think this man made the mistake of reasoning that he's useful to society so therefore society would welcome him.
    - smoyer 15y ago
      Perhaps by "living legally" he meant he'd never been in trouble with the law? That he was a productive member of society? I don't necessarily agree with the immigration laws in the U.S., but I think you have to live within the laws a country has instated.
      - felideon 15y ago
        I think in this context, "living legally" means you are not Out-of-status by overstaying an I-94, issued to you by the USCIS (fka INS) officer at the point of entry. IANAL.
rdtsc 15y ago
An interesting factoid. There is no legal way for anyone to just come to US and make it their home country. Say someone from Africa or South America. They can't simply save enough money, get on a plane, land at JFK and then after 10 years or whatever time become citizens. They would have to be persecuted in a terrible way before being granted asylum, have to marry a US citizen, find a company that would hire them. I think that is very interesting given that this country was founded on immigrants just hoping on the boat and coming here, either to build a better life or because things got terribly bad where they were. I personally went through the whole process and it is a fucking mess. I knew how to deal with it, because I dealt with bureaucracy in the old country. I can sense an annoyed low level clerk's power trip coming on before they notice it. Such individual need special treatment. You never want to fall into anyone's cross-hairs, it seems like they would destroy you just because they can. Also know someone who works for immigration. It is quite a dysfunctional entity. Very inefficient. Lots of internal mistakes, unpaid interns do the job searching through databases and picking people out for violations & deportation. Next time you know someone was picked out -- chances are some kid thought their last name sounded funny and it caught their attention.
- 0x12 15y ago
  That goes for lots of countries. They want you to apply from the outside. In Canada for instance that can get really funny, where applying from within Canada for a European is only possible by applying in the United States (Buffalo, for instance). Within Canada there is no office that can deal with your application.
  - rdtsc 15y ago
    It is not an inside vs outside, it is that they have no legal way to simply apply and get accepted, just because you want to live here. And that is fascinating in light of this being a nation of immigrants. You'd have to fit into one of the categories -- gifted, company wants to hire you, married a citizen, have lots of money & investing in US, ...
- huhtenberg 15y ago
  > There is no legal way for anyone to just come to US and make it their home country. Depends on what you exactly mean by home country, but there is an investor's visa - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-2_visa http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-2_visa
steve8918 15y ago
I hate to say it but from a brief reading of the information, it sounds like their asylum was first denied back in 1997, and they've been fighting it ever since. They certainly have the right to fight it, but it's been an uphill battle for almost 15 years, so the outcome certainly doesn't seem like a surprise. The person is obviously a great entrepreneur, he probably should have just left on his own accord instead of fighting it to the point where he's thrown in jail. The ridiculous thing is that he's in the US, paying his taxes, creating income, etc.... why throw him out? I suppose it's because he applied for asylum that was denied, and they are throwing him out to prove a point, but the entire thing is just counterproductive to what we want in this country.
- ecopoesis 15y ago
  The point is there are rules. To come to the US you can either: 1) Apply to INS, wait in line, enter the lottery and follow the law. 2) Hop on a plane and hope they don't catch you. He chose route 2, and is now paying the consequences. Just because he's an entrepreneur doesn't give him any more right to be here then any other would be immigrant, and it certainly doesn't give him the right to jump the line
  - steve8918 15y ago
    I agree there are rules, and rules need to be followed. I immigrated to the US as well, and went through a lot of troubles to immigrate legally and successfully, so I very much do not like the idea of people trying to skip the line. That being said, in the 20 years since he's been here, presumably legally since he was legally allowed to stay while fighting his case, he's made a good life for himself and his family, and they appear to be productive members of society. If it were me, I probably would have denied the asylum application, but given his entrepreneurial skills, I would have allowed him to apply on an investor's visa and let him stay during the process. The problem is that it took 20 years for the case to go through, which allowed them to create a good argument to stay in the US by being productive members of society. If they sped up the process, this wouldn't have even been an issue. In the end, aren't these people what we want from immigrants? It's ridiculous how politicians don't try to do very much about illegal immigration because it's so pervasive, but when they find a productive member of society who is trying to immigrate, they throw him in jail because he has revealed himself.
peacemaker 15y ago
As much as I sympathise with the guy for going through all this I can't help but think that it's all his own fault. USA, like many countries, has a strict immigration system in which you must play by the rules and follow the process to become 'legal'. Just living in the country is not enough, you must apply for residency by qualifying in some way. Unfortunately, it's quite tough to qualify to stay in the US for most people. Skilled immigrant visas are notoriously difficult to attain (there's no simple points system like Australia for example) and so you must look to marriage to a citizen, asylum or the green card lottery. If you think marriage is the easy choice you'd be wrong too. As someone who is going through the process right now, it can be difficult, expensive, depressing, demeaning (having to prove your relationship is 'real') and downright frustrating but right now that's the way the system works so you must work with the system. This guy obviously didn't and now he's paying the price.
ohboy 15y ago
why does this story seem like troll bait?
hoggle 15y ago
We have the same issues here in Austria, it always feels backwards when somebody well integrated gets kicked out "because the law is the law". It's also one of the main tools for populist politicians to mine for votes ("Fear!"). Although it might seem to be a complicated issue in the end it's not. It's just plain stupid.
compay 15y ago
I'm American. My wife is Argentine. We live in Argentina in large part because when we wanted to marry in 2006, we couldn't get her a permanent visa to live in the USA. Her fiancee visa was in fact quickly approved, pending an interview at the US consulate in Buenos Aires. We waited and waited, called, had our lawyers call, and the response was always "when the consulate is ready to make an appointment, they will call you." They never called, leaving us in limbo for over a year and saddled with thousands of dollars in legal fees. Eventually we grew tired of the uncertainty. I moved to Argentina, we got married, and we've lived here ever since. Argentina is not perfect. But the legal status of foreign residents here is much clearer than in the USA. As the husband of a citizen, permanent residency was automatic provided I didn't have a criminal record in my home country (I don't). I am allowed to vote in municipal elections. And, now as the father of an Argentine citizen, citizenship is also automatic if I want it. You might think that Argentina can afford to be generous with immigrants because it has nowhere near the load of foreign residents that the USA does, and to an extent that's certainly true. But on the other hand, Argentina has fairly large immigrant communities (from Peru, Paraguay, Bolivia and China), more social welfare services (basic healthcare is free here), and a lot less financial resources than the USA. Having now lived somewhere else and been on the "other side" of the immigration issue, I feel indignant and outraged when I read about how my country treats non-citizen residents.
- maratd 15y ago
  Nobody is going to dispute that the immigration laws in the US are draconian. They're a patchwork sown together by various special interests and make very little sense. However, in the past, they were rarely enforced. Only in instances where someone committed a felony or something of that nature. Over the last decade and especially during the Obama administration, ICE stepped up enforcement. If I had to guess, I'd say it's related to the recession? I honestly don't know why.
  - eis 15y ago
    I am convinced the economic climate plays at least some part into it. How big of a part, I am not sure. But looking at the history of all kinds of countries, you can see that when there are issues like high unemployment rate, then the sentiment towards foreigners tends to not be the most welcomeing. Also the worse the situation, the more radical the actions to turn it around will be - no matter if those actions actually help or make it worse.
atirip 15y ago
From the Case Summary: "Atanas Entchev (“Entchev”) entered the United States in August 1991 as a nonimmigrant exchange visitor on a J-1 visa. His wife, Mayia Entcheva, and son, Enislav Entchev, entered the United States in 1992 and 1993, respectively. They were authorized to remain in the United States until July 30, 1993. Before their authorization expired, the petitioners applied for asylum. Entchev argued persecution based on his political beliefs in opposition to the Communist party, which ruled Bulgaria until 1989." So they applied for asylum on political grounds in 1993, because the Communist party was dethroned 4 years earlier. Well...
llcoolv 15y ago
Shame is that this guy is most probably Bulgarian and he holds the burgundy passport, which enables him to do his trade almost all over Europe (except for Belarus, Moldova, etc) without having to deal with any bureaucracy or the 'you dirty outsider' attitude. I really don't get it what so many people see in the US.
- parfe 15y ago
  >I really don't get it what so many people see in the US. 1) US and EU economies nearly equal each other in size. [1] 2) You only need one language in the US to reach the entire market. 3) I don't believe for a second there isn't prejudice against outsiders in each individual European country. Wikipedia hosts an article written just about tensions regarding Polish people entering the UK! [2] 1 https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/... 2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Polish_sentiment_in_the_United_Kingdom#United_Kingdom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Polish_sentiment_in_the_Un...
  - llcoolv 15y ago
    I generally agree with the first point, with the difference that the economy growth in Europe has been several times higher during the past decade and that trend will continue. Also the debt problems in Europe are less serious than the ones in the US. Also, EU is not going to grow only within - Croatia is joining in 2013 and after that other countries will follow. So Europe has a much greater potential. 2) Well, i18n is nothing hard these days, at least from a technical perspective, also you could reach certain market types using only English quite well in Europe. 3) Yes, this is true, however these problems are visible only in small parts of certain tiers of society. Shortly, the chances of meeting people who openly display negative sentiments against foreigners are smaller if you run a company consulting about GIS, than if you are a plumber/gas station clerk or whatever. Also, by "'you dirty outsider' attitude" I meant that attitude being displayed by the government, which is very typical in the US. For example I am a software developer, who comes from one of the 'new' countries and currently lives in another 'new' one, but I have spent significant time in an Western European country and so far I haven't had a single problem with bureaucracy (and with drugged-out undereducated unemployed youths with too fragile minds as well) at any of these places, which compared to Entchev's case of 'they got my entire family under arrest and ruined the life I have been building for the past 20 years' is a whole world of difference.
tomgruner 15y ago
This seems extremely harsh to me. And also stupid not to value this man's contribution to the U.S. In 2004 I arrived in Spain as an American and found a programming job at the international division of a sizable U.S. company. But everything was under the table, and that company did not want to sponsor a visa for me. But even when I was illegal in Spain I still had access to better free health care than the uninsured do in the U.S. Fast forward to 2008, I was still living in Spain and had done some great work for a unrelated startup that was purchased by a much larger U.S. company. I was still in Spain illegally, but this major U.S. company on finding out my status was willing to help me out in any way to become legal here. Spain has something called "Social Normalization for Exceptional Circumstances" which means if you have been in the country for three years illegally and have a company sponsor you, they will give you a work visa. You also have to be integrated in the community and speak the local languages well. So in 2008, this major U.S. company paid a lawyer and helped me through that process, something that I am exceptionally grateful for. During the time I worked for this company, my work helped bring in millions of Euros of contracts to the international division of this company in Spain. Now in 2011 I still live in Spain, have the freedom to change jobs or work for myself, and after 7 more years I could become a citizen here, on the condition that I am always working and living in Spain during those years. That means 15 years from illegal to full citizen. I doubt I will stay that long, and don't actually plan on becoming a Spanish citizen, but knowing that if I had a family here and have that option is amazing. Now I am happily working for a Spanish university research group, fully legal. And I have to say, I think it is disgusting to take a man, and especially his son who has lived in the U.S. since the age of two and treat them like criminals when the father has been actively contributing to the U.S. economy in one of the areas that the U.S. excels at. To criminalize this contribution is to spit in the face of all those immigrants who became American and made America what it is today. And it is also denying the basic human rights of this individual.This clearly violates Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Article 15. * (1) Everyone has the right to a nationality. * (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality. I strongly believe that 20 years of crime free residence and contribution to a nation deserves citizenship, and if I choose to, that is what I would receive in Spain after starting here illegaly. Edit: As noted in the comments below, actually this does not violate Article 15 at all. I still stick with my conclusion though.
huhtenberg 15y ago
> ... our 18-year immigration ordeal I wonder what this is referring to and how it reconciles with > ... living legally in the United States for over 20 years Something tells me there's more to the story than what's in the linked post.
- unreal37 15y ago
  He came to the US on an exchange visa. And then he brought his family. And then his visa expired. And then he applied as a refugee. And clearly he is not a true refugee, he just likes living in the US. And he should have left in 1997 but he's been fighting that order in the courts ever since. I think it might be an unpopular opinion, but in reading the legal doc, he doesn't have much of a case to stay. He should have been deported 14 years ago. The real tragedy is that it took so long.
fourmii 15y ago
I'm an Australian, currently living in the US on a green card via being married to an American. While I sympathize with his plight and I also strongly believe that when you choose to enter a country, you should respect it's laws. He did willingly come to the US and overstay his visa, so therefore broke US immigration laws. Now I don't necessarily agree with the US immigration process, I believe it's rather tough and unfair not to mention a little demeaning and insensitive. What do you do though, the immigration system doesn't seem to be set up to handle exceptions. Once you make one, you have to grant exceptions to others. It's a tough dilemna, Atanas has been seemingly a constructive member of society, hopefully paying taxes along the way. It would be a shame in this sense to punish such a person.
- ireadzalot 15y ago
  It should be acknowledged that Australians have a special and easy way for coming to US and getting permanent residency. For example, if an Australian wanted to start a business in US, you are automatically qualified to apply for residency right away. (My information is based on what an Australian couple told me 5 years ago in the US).
  - fourmii 15y ago
    True, Aussies now have the E3 visa which is a work sponsored visa just for Aussies. But I came here years before that happened. I had to convince someone to give me one of the very rare H1B visas just to come over to be with my then girlfriend. We eventually got married and I applied for the greencard. I'm not sure about auto qualification if you want to start a business. I think you need something like $1M in the bank to prove that you have the resources to start...
  - hugh3 15y ago
    Actually the E3 visa lets you hang around more or less indefinitely, but it explicitly does not allow you to apply for permanent residency.
TomGullen 15y ago
USA's immigration laws are pretty hilarious when you remember the majority of the population are immigrants themselves who pushed the natives out the way all those years ago. It's a country founded on immigration.
- noarchy 15y ago
  You can say this about all of the Americas, in general. National borders, especially that of the US, are becoming harder and harder to deal with if you're a human being. It seems to be a lot easier if you're a trade good.
- noarchy 15y ago
  You can say this about all of the Americas, in general. National borders, especially that of the US, are becoming harder and harder to deal with if you're a human being. It seems to be a lot easier if you're a trade good.
- hugh3 15y ago
  The "natives" are immigrants too, just from slightly earlier. We're all Africans.
  - TomGullen 15y ago
    Well yeah there is that! I generally find political discussion on immigration wholly distasteful, and often parading itself as xenophobic/racist propaganda. The whole immigration issue boils down to "we got here first! nah nah ne nah nah!"
baabuu 15y ago
I really feel sorry for him and his family.One more victim of the stupid, time-consuming US immigration laws.I completed this immigration ordeal and witnessed many of my friends in immigration limbo.It is an extremely difficult, frustrating and time-consuming experience, not to mention it sucks whatever you earn. There seems to be some confusion related to his legal status.He entered US legally and applied asylum for him and his family.During this period, they are in legal status. After they apply for asylum, they have no control or information over that process.If the immigration process was fast enough, none of this would have happened.When the immigration rejected their application after a long time, they filed an appeal which was rejected again.Now they have run out of attempts via the asylum option and are being kicked out. I hope they can try some other category. <rant> The immigration process, with so many different categories and quotas, is a huge bureaucratic mess. The are still using papers and just recently started using online documents for some processing. It is the second highest profitable government agency minting money out of immigrants. The process can be streamlined and made faster even with the current policies. But who cares about legal immigration anyway? Let those "aliens" stand in line and wait forever. I personally know many friends and families living with constant fear and uncertainty for almost a decade or more. The policies and rules are just too confusing and inconsistent.Two identical immigrant families can go through completely different process, duration and rules depending on whether a knowledgeable or ignorant immigration agent processing their files. </rant>
Rariel 15y ago
I know this is an unpopular opinion but, having worked for the government and as an attorney I think it is always sad when families are deported but it is not outrageous. The laws are the laws and they apply equally to (almost) everybody. When people over stay their visas they have broken the law, there is no getting around that and no amount of hard work, tax paying or community involvement can change that. People are arrested and jailed everyday under inequitable laws (crack/cocaine sentencing discrepancy comes to mind) but the way to fix it isn't to get caught up under that law and complain about it. It's unfortunate that this man will have to relocate but I feel more sympathy for his son than him.
ebaysucks 15y ago
People here arguing that the US should accept more immigrants from all over the world because "the US has been built on immigrants" need to get their facts straight: The "National Origins Formula" was only abolished in 1965. Before 1965, US immigrants were 90+% white. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Origins_Formula http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Origins_Formula [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act... This is fact, not opinion. I'm not arguing a certain side here, but want to point out that those who say "the US has been built on immigrants" might be nostalgic to a past that never existed.
zzaz 15y ago
Another funny thing about US immigration law is, that if you are an international student in the USA (on an F1 visa) you are entitled to work only for the university that has issued you this visa. For everything else, you have to use your OPT (Optional Practical Training), which is a pool of twelve months, that you can use to work for somebody else, while holding an F1. I will not dig into details such as the fact that it costs about $400, and it takes ~ 2 months to apply and be allowed to use a chunk of your OPT. If you are an international student and not on OPT, you cannot legally work full time/part time/do an internship with the startup your friend just launched (or any other company, on this note). You may want to risk spending your months, or doing some other jazz, and then try to figure things out, but as we can see from the case at hand these maneuvers do not work out well for everybody. As for sponsorship, from the employer's perspective, the whole visa sponsorship application process costs about $10k, which is not little money for a small company.
- aquayellow 15y ago
  "Another funny thing about US immigration law is, that if you are an international student in the USA (on an F1 visa) you are entitled to work only for the university that has issued you this visa." Isn't this all part of the 9/11 hysteria ? I am not sure but I was told that before 2001 you could work part time for any employer you wanted if you came here on a F1.
pandaman 15y ago
Immigration lawyers love to to offer asylum because these cases can go for decades and anyone can "participate". It also looks attractive to the prospective immigrant when an alternative would be to go through EB or investment immigration. However, if you are deciding to seek asylum on a lawyer advice you are most likely not qualified. Real refugees don't become refugees voluntarily. They also don't have lawyers. Yes, it's much easier to claim asylum than go through non-fraudulent immigration. However the consequences of an asylum case falling through are also much harsher.
torontos 15y ago
Reminds me of this amazing story of the undocumented journalist: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/magazine/my-life-as-an-undocumented-immigrant.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/magazine/my-life-as-an-und...
alain94040 15y ago
Flagged, title is misleading. Nowhere does it say anything about quotas. The person claims to have been in the US legally for 18 years, but if you read the lawsuit, it's far from being clear, on the contrary. He has filed appeal after appeal, maybe timely, maybe not.

151 points by deadmansshoes 15y ago

And reactions at http://mapbrief.com/2011/10/19/political-hypocrisy-economic-ignorance-the-case-against-atanas-entchev/ http://mapbrief.com/2011/10/19/political-hypocrisy-economic-... and http://blog.entchev.com/2011/10/17/a-call-for-help-for-atanas.aspx http://blog.entchev.com/2011/10/17/a-call-for-help-for-atana...

0x12 15y ago

US immigration sucks. What bugs me most is that the US is founded on immigrants, so it's basically the descendents of one group of immigrants telling those 'late to the party' that they can't enter, or in this case that they have to leave. To do this to someone that has been there for a lifetime and then some is ridiculous. Too many lives have already been wrecked to satisfy little minds and to get stamps on pieces of paper. Immigrants like these are the ones a country should hope to receive, not to turn away at some arbitrary future date for bureaucratic reasons only. Disgusting.

eazolan 15y ago

US Immigration sucks because it's become a political football. Instead of something that can be sanely managed like it has in the past.

cperciva 15y ago

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see anything in the linked post about "meeting quotas". Can we please avoid making headlines unnecessarily hysterical?

0x12 15y ago
I think that referred to this bit: "By coincidence, Frontline this week is broadcasting a feature, ‘Lost in Detention’, outlining the increasingly aggressive measures to deport immigrants. The key clip begins at the 17-minute mark outlining the arbitrary goal of 400,000 deportations, including “Non-criminal removals”. " From http://mapbrief.com/2011/10/19/political-hypocrisy-economic-ignorance-the-case-against-atanas-entchev/ http://mapbrief.com/2011/10/19/political-hypocrisy-economic-...
- nkassis 15y ago
  What does a Non-criminal removal mean? Like who would be in that category? Just people who's visa expired?
  - Mvandenbergh 15y ago
    Non-criminal removal is for people who are being deported after an appeals process. Basically they petitioned for a change of visa status which was denied and eventually all their appeals were turned down. Key is that because they were following the legal appeal channel, they were at no point in the country illegally.
    - pyre 15y ago
      So by ramping up non-criminal removals, does that mean they are actively trying to reject more appeals just to meet quotas of people they must deport (as opposed to rejecting or accepting them on the merits of the case)?
  - 0x12 15y ago
    A non-criminal removal is simply removing someone from the country that has no criminal record and is an 'alien'. As soon as you commit a crime (and are convicted) you are subject to a criminal removal. The main issue seems to be that criminal removals are procedurally expensive, they take a lot longer and cost more dollars than a non-criminal removal. Having appealed or not is not really a factor here because some people that let their visa expire never went through the appeals process, they just disappeared underground or were forgotten for a long long time. Technically they have no right to be where they are, in practice they're just like everybody else minus the right to vote and the right to social security, and possibly health care issues. In order to boost the numbers the agencies decided that non-criminal removals are the low hanging fruit that they can use to boost their numbers significantly while cutting costs. After all, it's a lot easier to pick up a hard working guy/girl and their family than it is to go after someone that is aware he's being looked for. In plenty of cases these people are not just productive members of society, but they also have had children in the long time since they landed and the present, which rips these families apart. This is the most stunning example of short-sighted behavior by officials that I've ever seen because they effectively shifted their priorities from removing undesirables to removing their polar opposites, the productive, if possibly undocumented members of society. WP article about this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/26/AR2010032604891.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03... What is sad is that it takes high profile cases such as these to bring this strategy to light, for every well connected person that comes up in this dragnet of stupidity there are 100's if not 1000's of nobodies that are just as important to the functioning of society and whose lives and well being are not worth less than any other persons.
barrkel 15y ago
Case summary here: http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/104369np.pdf http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/104369np.pdf It seems clear to me that at this point he is an economic migrant, rather than a refugee; and as that was the basis of his initial plea to stay (i.e. he was seeking asylum from persecution), the generally brutal machinery of bureaucracy is ejecting him from the country. (Apparently, credible death threats don't constitute sufficient grounds for asylum. But I don't think he is credibly at risk, even of that.) It's very harsh on him and his wife, uprooting them from their community, etc., but on the other hand he ought to have little difficulty finding work and living anywhere he chooses in the EU. Frankly, I don't think the US deserves him.
- tallanvor 15y ago
  Well, no, credible death threats aren't sufficient grounds - they would have to show that not only are the death threats credible, but that the government is purposefully not protecting him from the threats. I can understand that he feel's the US is his home and he shouldn't have to leave, but he's basically been trying to play the system for 20 years. He was told what he had to do to get a visa legally, but he wasn't willing to do so.
  - 0x12 15y ago
    It is the system that allows you to play the system for 20 years. If the process were more clear cut and less slow then I'd agree with you but after some reasonable period of time (say 5 years) has passed and someone has proven to be a productive member of society it is in everybody's interest to maintain the status quo. People have come to the US in their 40's and have died of old age waiting for their paperwork in cases where everything went A-ok (ditto for Canada), it's no surprise that the negative side is just as slow. Case not finished in 5 years? Here is your passport. It's typically not the people that go through this mill that control the speed with which it turns but the government side. Note that it took more than 4 years before they even had their first hearing.

eis 15y ago

As a kid I always wanted to go to the USA, maybe even live there. So many things to see, the business opportunities and the propagated freedom were very attractive. During the last decade though, the USA have done a fantastic job of eradicating every bit of what was left of this dream. Nowerdays all you hear from them is how Hollywood is destroying little guys' lifes for downloading a bunch of songs, exporting those policies with force to other countries, insane financial schemes and starting several wars. Right now I am planning a trip to Japan. A country, which was hit by a nuclear meltdown crisis, floods, earthquakes and more. I'd still choose it over going to the USA any day. Maybe that's something to think about. The USA are going down fast and it doesn't look like there are changes in sight in regards to their handling of immigrants, the wars or the rampand self-made economic problems. And that is a shame.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
davidw 15y ago
> eradicating every bit of what was left of this dream. I have never, ever seen a phrase so absolutely and totally full of hyperbole on this site.
- 0x12 15y ago
  Why? That's his feeling, it is whatever he writes. Whether it is full of hyperbole or not is not knowable, he'd have to admit to that himself or you'd have to scan his brain.

mbpp 15y ago

I earn for a living freelancing for US companies. It has always baffled me that I am allowed to do it legally only if I stay outside of the USA.

mcherm 15y ago
Perhaps it is because they don't want you to pay US taxes?

alkimie 15y ago

I'm the son of an immigrant and married one as well, so I'm quite sympathetic....but....he has not explained why his status changed from being legally in the U.S. to some other status....

stupandaus 15y ago
He wasn't a legal immigrant. His status never changed.
- felideon 15y ago
  From the post, that is not clear. It opens with "After living legally in the United States for over 20 years [...]" From the case file, however, it seems like they entered with a J-1 visa and before their authorization to stay expired, they applied for asylum.
  - 0x12 15y ago
    As long as you are in the process you are there legally. Weird but that's how it works. Only after your deportation order has been issued and you do not contest it for an X number of days does it become final and then you have to leave. If you are still in the country past that date you become an illegal and you can be deported. In the meantime you can basically continue with your life. But you are building on quicksand. I think this man made the mistake of reasoning that he's useful to society so therefore society would welcome him.
  - smoyer 15y ago
    Perhaps by "living legally" he meant he'd never been in trouble with the law? That he was a productive member of society? I don't necessarily agree with the immigration laws in the U.S., but I think you have to live within the laws a country has instated.
    - felideon 15y ago
      I think in this context, "living legally" means you are not Out-of-status by overstaying an I-94, issued to you by the USCIS (fka INS) officer at the point of entry. IANAL.

rdtsc 15y ago

An interesting factoid. There is no legal way for anyone to just come to US and make it their home country. Say someone from Africa or South America. They can't simply save enough money, get on a plane, land at JFK and then after 10 years or whatever time become citizens. They would have to be persecuted in a terrible way before being granted asylum, have to marry a US citizen, find a company that would hire them. I think that is very interesting given that this country was founded on immigrants just hoping on the boat and coming here, either to build a better life or because things got terribly bad where they were. I personally went through the whole process and it is a fucking mess. I knew how to deal with it, because I dealt with bureaucracy in the old country. I can sense an annoyed low level clerk's power trip coming on before they notice it. Such individual need special treatment. You never want to fall into anyone's cross-hairs, it seems like they would destroy you just because they can. Also know someone who works for immigration. It is quite a dysfunctional entity. Very inefficient. Lots of internal mistakes, unpaid interns do the job searching through databases and picking people out for violations & deportation. Next time you know someone was picked out -- chances are some kid thought their last name sounded funny and it caught their attention.

0x12 15y ago
That goes for lots of countries. They want you to apply from the outside. In Canada for instance that can get really funny, where applying from within Canada for a European is only possible by applying in the United States (Buffalo, for instance). Within Canada there is no office that can deal with your application.
- rdtsc 15y ago
  It is not an inside vs outside, it is that they have no legal way to simply apply and get accepted, just because you want to live here. And that is fascinating in light of this being a nation of immigrants. You'd have to fit into one of the categories -- gifted, company wants to hire you, married a citizen, have lots of money & investing in US, ...
huhtenberg 15y ago
> There is no legal way for anyone to just come to US and make it their home country. Depends on what you exactly mean by home country, but there is an investor's visa - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-2_visa http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-2_visa

steve8918 15y ago

I hate to say it but from a brief reading of the information, it sounds like their asylum was first denied back in 1997, and they've been fighting it ever since. They certainly have the right to fight it, but it's been an uphill battle for almost 15 years, so the outcome certainly doesn't seem like a surprise. The person is obviously a great entrepreneur, he probably should have just left on his own accord instead of fighting it to the point where he's thrown in jail. The ridiculous thing is that he's in the US, paying his taxes, creating income, etc.... why throw him out? I suppose it's because he applied for asylum that was denied, and they are throwing him out to prove a point, but the entire thing is just counterproductive to what we want in this country.

ecopoesis 15y ago
The point is there are rules. To come to the US you can either: 1) Apply to INS, wait in line, enter the lottery and follow the law. 2) Hop on a plane and hope they don't catch you. He chose route 2, and is now paying the consequences. Just because he's an entrepreneur doesn't give him any more right to be here then any other would be immigrant, and it certainly doesn't give him the right to jump the line
- steve8918 15y ago
  I agree there are rules, and rules need to be followed. I immigrated to the US as well, and went through a lot of troubles to immigrate legally and successfully, so I very much do not like the idea of people trying to skip the line. That being said, in the 20 years since he's been here, presumably legally since he was legally allowed to stay while fighting his case, he's made a good life for himself and his family, and they appear to be productive members of society. If it were me, I probably would have denied the asylum application, but given his entrepreneurial skills, I would have allowed him to apply on an investor's visa and let him stay during the process. The problem is that it took 20 years for the case to go through, which allowed them to create a good argument to stay in the US by being productive members of society. If they sped up the process, this wouldn't have even been an issue. In the end, aren't these people what we want from immigrants? It's ridiculous how politicians don't try to do very much about illegal immigration because it's so pervasive, but when they find a productive member of society who is trying to immigrate, they throw him in jail because he has revealed himself.

peacemaker 15y ago

As much as I sympathise with the guy for going through all this I can't help but think that it's all his own fault. USA, like many countries, has a strict immigration system in which you must play by the rules and follow the process to become 'legal'. Just living in the country is not enough, you must apply for residency by qualifying in some way. Unfortunately, it's quite tough to qualify to stay in the US for most people. Skilled immigrant visas are notoriously difficult to attain (there's no simple points system like Australia for example) and so you must look to marriage to a citizen, asylum or the green card lottery. If you think marriage is the easy choice you'd be wrong too. As someone who is going through the process right now, it can be difficult, expensive, depressing, demeaning (having to prove your relationship is 'real') and downright frustrating but right now that's the way the system works so you must work with the system. This guy obviously didn't and now he's paying the price.

ohboy 15y ago

why does this story seem like troll bait?

hoggle 15y ago

We have the same issues here in Austria, it always feels backwards when somebody well integrated gets kicked out "because the law is the law". It's also one of the main tools for populist politicians to mine for votes ("Fear!"). Although it might seem to be a complicated issue in the end it's not. It's just plain stupid.

compay 15y ago

I'm American. My wife is Argentine. We live in Argentina in large part because when we wanted to marry in 2006, we couldn't get her a permanent visa to live in the USA. Her fiancee visa was in fact quickly approved, pending an interview at the US consulate in Buenos Aires. We waited and waited, called, had our lawyers call, and the response was always "when the consulate is ready to make an appointment, they will call you." They never called, leaving us in limbo for over a year and saddled with thousands of dollars in legal fees. Eventually we grew tired of the uncertainty. I moved to Argentina, we got married, and we've lived here ever since. Argentina is not perfect. But the legal status of foreign residents here is much clearer than in the USA. As the husband of a citizen, permanent residency was automatic provided I didn't have a criminal record in my home country (I don't). I am allowed to vote in municipal elections. And, now as the father of an Argentine citizen, citizenship is also automatic if I want it. You might think that Argentina can afford to be generous with immigrants because it has nowhere near the load of foreign residents that the USA does, and to an extent that's certainly true. But on the other hand, Argentina has fairly large immigrant communities (from Peru, Paraguay, Bolivia and China), more social welfare services (basic healthcare is free here), and a lot less financial resources than the USA. Having now lived somewhere else and been on the "other side" of the immigration issue, I feel indignant and outraged when I read about how my country treats non-citizen residents.

maratd 15y ago
Nobody is going to dispute that the immigration laws in the US are draconian. They're a patchwork sown together by various special interests and make very little sense. However, in the past, they were rarely enforced. Only in instances where someone committed a felony or something of that nature. Over the last decade and especially during the Obama administration, ICE stepped up enforcement. If I had to guess, I'd say it's related to the recession? I honestly don't know why.
- eis 15y ago
  I am convinced the economic climate plays at least some part into it. How big of a part, I am not sure. But looking at the history of all kinds of countries, you can see that when there are issues like high unemployment rate, then the sentiment towards foreigners tends to not be the most welcomeing. Also the worse the situation, the more radical the actions to turn it around will be - no matter if those actions actually help or make it worse.

atirip 15y ago

From the Case Summary: "Atanas Entchev (“Entchev”) entered the United States in August 1991 as a nonimmigrant exchange visitor on a J-1 visa. His wife, Mayia Entcheva, and son, Enislav Entchev, entered the United States in 1992 and 1993, respectively. They were authorized to remain in the United States until July 30, 1993. Before their authorization expired, the petitioners applied for asylum. Entchev argued persecution based on his political beliefs in opposition to the Communist party, which ruled Bulgaria until 1989." So they applied for asylum on political grounds in 1993, because the Communist party was dethroned 4 years earlier. Well...

llcoolv 15y ago

Shame is that this guy is most probably Bulgarian and he holds the burgundy passport, which enables him to do his trade almost all over Europe (except for Belarus, Moldova, etc) without having to deal with any bureaucracy or the 'you dirty outsider' attitude. I really don't get it what so many people see in the US.

parfe 15y ago
>I really don't get it what so many people see in the US. 1) US and EU economies nearly equal each other in size. [1] 2) You only need one language in the US to reach the entire market. 3) I don't believe for a second there isn't prejudice against outsiders in each individual European country. Wikipedia hosts an article written just about tensions regarding Polish people entering the UK! [2] 1 https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/... 2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Polish_sentiment_in_the_United_Kingdom#United_Kingdom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Polish_sentiment_in_the_Un...
- llcoolv 15y ago
  I generally agree with the first point, with the difference that the economy growth in Europe has been several times higher during the past decade and that trend will continue. Also the debt problems in Europe are less serious than the ones in the US. Also, EU is not going to grow only within - Croatia is joining in 2013 and after that other countries will follow. So Europe has a much greater potential. 2) Well, i18n is nothing hard these days, at least from a technical perspective, also you could reach certain market types using only English quite well in Europe. 3) Yes, this is true, however these problems are visible only in small parts of certain tiers of society. Shortly, the chances of meeting people who openly display negative sentiments against foreigners are smaller if you run a company consulting about GIS, than if you are a plumber/gas station clerk or whatever. Also, by "'you dirty outsider' attitude" I meant that attitude being displayed by the government, which is very typical in the US. For example I am a software developer, who comes from one of the 'new' countries and currently lives in another 'new' one, but I have spent significant time in an Western European country and so far I haven't had a single problem with bureaucracy (and with drugged-out undereducated unemployed youths with too fragile minds as well) at any of these places, which compared to Entchev's case of 'they got my entire family under arrest and ruined the life I have been building for the past 20 years' is a whole world of difference.

tomgruner 15y ago

This seems extremely harsh to me. And also stupid not to value this man's contribution to the U.S. In 2004 I arrived in Spain as an American and found a programming job at the international division of a sizable U.S. company. But everything was under the table, and that company did not want to sponsor a visa for me. But even when I was illegal in Spain I still had access to better free health care than the uninsured do in the U.S. Fast forward to 2008, I was still living in Spain and had done some great work for a unrelated startup that was purchased by a much larger U.S. company. I was still in Spain illegally, but this major U.S. company on finding out my status was willing to help me out in any way to become legal here. Spain has something called "Social Normalization for Exceptional Circumstances" which means if you have been in the country for three years illegally and have a company sponsor you, they will give you a work visa. You also have to be integrated in the community and speak the local languages well. So in 2008, this major U.S. company paid a lawyer and helped me through that process, something that I am exceptionally grateful for. During the time I worked for this company, my work helped bring in millions of Euros of contracts to the international division of this company in Spain. Now in 2011 I still live in Spain, have the freedom to change jobs or work for myself, and after 7 more years I could become a citizen here, on the condition that I am always working and living in Spain during those years. That means 15 years from illegal to full citizen. I doubt I will stay that long, and don't actually plan on becoming a Spanish citizen, but knowing that if I had a family here and have that option is amazing. Now I am happily working for a Spanish university research group, fully legal. And I have to say, I think it is disgusting to take a man, and especially his son who has lived in the U.S. since the age of two and treat them like criminals when the father has been actively contributing to the U.S. economy in one of the areas that the U.S. excels at. To criminalize this contribution is to spit in the face of all those immigrants who became American and made America what it is today. And it is also denying the basic human rights of this individual.This clearly violates Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Article 15. * (1) Everyone has the right to a nationality. * (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality. I strongly believe that 20 years of crime free residence and contribution to a nation deserves citizenship, and if I choose to, that is what I would receive in Spain after starting here illegaly. Edit: As noted in the comments below, actually this does not violate Article 15 at all. I still stick with my conclusion though.

huhtenberg 15y ago

> ... our 18-year immigration ordeal I wonder what this is referring to and how it reconciles with > ... living legally in the United States for over 20 years Something tells me there's more to the story than what's in the linked post.

unreal37 15y ago
He came to the US on an exchange visa. And then he brought his family. And then his visa expired. And then he applied as a refugee. And clearly he is not a true refugee, he just likes living in the US. And he should have left in 1997 but he's been fighting that order in the courts ever since. I think it might be an unpopular opinion, but in reading the legal doc, he doesn't have much of a case to stay. He should have been deported 14 years ago. The real tragedy is that it took so long.

fourmii 15y ago

I'm an Australian, currently living in the US on a green card via being married to an American. While I sympathize with his plight and I also strongly believe that when you choose to enter a country, you should respect it's laws. He did willingly come to the US and overstay his visa, so therefore broke US immigration laws. Now I don't necessarily agree with the US immigration process, I believe it's rather tough and unfair not to mention a little demeaning and insensitive. What do you do though, the immigration system doesn't seem to be set up to handle exceptions. Once you make one, you have to grant exceptions to others. It's a tough dilemna, Atanas has been seemingly a constructive member of society, hopefully paying taxes along the way. It would be a shame in this sense to punish such a person.

ireadzalot 15y ago
It should be acknowledged that Australians have a special and easy way for coming to US and getting permanent residency. For example, if an Australian wanted to start a business in US, you are automatically qualified to apply for residency right away. (My information is based on what an Australian couple told me 5 years ago in the US).
- fourmii 15y ago
  True, Aussies now have the E3 visa which is a work sponsored visa just for Aussies. But I came here years before that happened. I had to convince someone to give me one of the very rare H1B visas just to come over to be with my then girlfriend. We eventually got married and I applied for the greencard. I'm not sure about auto qualification if you want to start a business. I think you need something like $1M in the bank to prove that you have the resources to start...
- hugh3 15y ago
  Actually the E3 visa lets you hang around more or less indefinitely, but it explicitly does not allow you to apply for permanent residency.

TomGullen 15y ago

USA's immigration laws are pretty hilarious when you remember the majority of the population are immigrants themselves who pushed the natives out the way all those years ago. It's a country founded on immigration.

noarchy 15y ago
You can say this about all of the Americas, in general. National borders, especially that of the US, are becoming harder and harder to deal with if you're a human being. It seems to be a lot easier if you're a trade good.
noarchy 15y ago
You can say this about all of the Americas, in general. National borders, especially that of the US, are becoming harder and harder to deal with if you're a human being. It seems to be a lot easier if you're a trade good.
hugh3 15y ago
The "natives" are immigrants too, just from slightly earlier. We're all Africans.
- TomGullen 15y ago
  Well yeah there is that! I generally find political discussion on immigration wholly distasteful, and often parading itself as xenophobic/racist propaganda. The whole immigration issue boils down to "we got here first! nah nah ne nah nah!"

baabuu 15y ago

I really feel sorry for him and his family.One more victim of the stupid, time-consuming US immigration laws.I completed this immigration ordeal and witnessed many of my friends in immigration limbo.It is an extremely difficult, frustrating and time-consuming experience, not to mention it sucks whatever you earn. There seems to be some confusion related to his legal status.He entered US legally and applied asylum for him and his family.During this period, they are in legal status. After they apply for asylum, they have no control or information over that process.If the immigration process was fast enough, none of this would have happened.When the immigration rejected their application after a long time, they filed an appeal which was rejected again.Now they have run out of attempts via the asylum option and are being kicked out. I hope they can try some other category. <rant> The immigration process, with so many different categories and quotas, is a huge bureaucratic mess. The are still using papers and just recently started using online documents for some processing. It is the second highest profitable government agency minting money out of immigrants. The process can be streamlined and made faster even with the current policies. But who cares about legal immigration anyway? Let those "aliens" stand in line and wait forever. I personally know many friends and families living with constant fear and uncertainty for almost a decade or more. The policies and rules are just too confusing and inconsistent.Two identical immigrant families can go through completely different process, duration and rules depending on whether a knowledgeable or ignorant immigration agent processing their files. </rant>

Rariel 15y ago

I know this is an unpopular opinion but, having worked for the government and as an attorney I think it is always sad when families are deported but it is not outrageous. The laws are the laws and they apply equally to (almost) everybody. When people over stay their visas they have broken the law, there is no getting around that and no amount of hard work, tax paying or community involvement can change that. People are arrested and jailed everyday under inequitable laws (crack/cocaine sentencing discrepancy comes to mind) but the way to fix it isn't to get caught up under that law and complain about it. It's unfortunate that this man will have to relocate but I feel more sympathy for his son than him.

ebaysucks 15y ago

People here arguing that the US should accept more immigrants from all over the world because "the US has been built on immigrants" need to get their facts straight: The "National Origins Formula" was only abolished in 1965. Before 1965, US immigrants were 90+% white. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Origins_Formula http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Origins_Formula [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act... This is fact, not opinion. I'm not arguing a certain side here, but want to point out that those who say "the US has been built on immigrants" might be nostalgic to a past that never existed.

zzaz 15y ago

Another funny thing about US immigration law is, that if you are an international student in the USA (on an F1 visa) you are entitled to work only for the university that has issued you this visa. For everything else, you have to use your OPT (Optional Practical Training), which is a pool of twelve months, that you can use to work for somebody else, while holding an F1. I will not dig into details such as the fact that it costs about $400, and it takes ~ 2 months to apply and be allowed to use a chunk of your OPT. If you are an international student and not on OPT, you cannot legally work full time/part time/do an internship with the startup your friend just launched (or any other company, on this note). You may want to risk spending your months, or doing some other jazz, and then try to figure things out, but as we can see from the case at hand these maneuvers do not work out well for everybody. As for sponsorship, from the employer's perspective, the whole visa sponsorship application process costs about $10k, which is not little money for a small company.

aquayellow 15y ago
"Another funny thing about US immigration law is, that if you are an international student in the USA (on an F1 visa) you are entitled to work only for the university that has issued you this visa." Isn't this all part of the 9/11 hysteria ? I am not sure but I was told that before 2001 you could work part time for any employer you wanted if you came here on a F1.

pandaman 15y ago

Immigration lawyers love to to offer asylum because these cases can go for decades and anyone can "participate". It also looks attractive to the prospective immigrant when an alternative would be to go through EB or investment immigration. However, if you are deciding to seek asylum on a lawyer advice you are most likely not qualified. Real refugees don't become refugees voluntarily. They also don't have lawyers. Yes, it's much easier to claim asylum than go through non-fraudulent immigration. However the consequences of an asylum case falling through are also much harsher.

torontos 15y ago

Reminds me of this amazing story of the undocumented journalist: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/magazine/my-life-as-an-undocumented-immigrant.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/magazine/my-life-as-an-und...

alain94040 15y ago

Flagged, title is misleading. Nowhere does it say anything about quotas. The person claims to have been in the US legally for 18 years, but if you read the lawsuit, it's far from being clear, on the contrary. He has filed appeal after appeal, maybe timely, maybe not.