Comment by KingMachiavelli
2 days ago
Absurd, currently trying to figure out how to sponsor my wife and now this. The wording seems to imply that even those here on valid non-immigrant visas (F1) would need to apply via their home country. It doesn’t help that I130+I485 (AOS) could take over a year to process?
If you have filed I485 and they fail to process it before your current visa expires (D/S ends like F1 OPT). Then what? You just have to leave, abandon AOS and re-apply for CR1?
It’s insane that the simplest immigrant pathway; spousal green card could take 12+ months and may now require temporarily moving and being separated. Guess I actually will be paying $4K for a lawyer (plus the 3-4K just to file the USCIS forms).
I wish they would just have a simple fast lane for the 100% legal, non-complicated case.
And don't forget that US consulates in 75 countries, or approximately a third of the globe, have stopped conducting Green Card interviews.
> simple fast lane for the 100% legal, non-complicated case
Immigration policy in the current administration (which seems to be driven by Stephen Miller) is not based around legalaities, it's based around cutting immigration as much as possible because that's what satisfies Trump's voter base. These people do not care if you 'did it the right way'. They have an atavistic hatred of foreigners.
> Immigration policy in the current administration (which seems to be driven by Stephen Miller) is not based around legalaities, it's based around cutting immigration as much as possible
White immigrants are fine with this administration.
"All but 3 of 6,069 refugees taken in by Trump are White South Africans"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/news/2026/05/22/trump-south-a...
Yeah, the move to take in only white refugees from SA was a clear message to their voter base that it’s about race. They could have chosen not to do that and have some plausible deniability, but they wanted to make that point very publicly.
1 reply →
It sounds like your wife came to the US on an F1 visa, you got married and are now filing or have filed for I130+I485 for her. I assume too that you were a US citizen. These facts may not be correct. IANAL but I absolutely think you should be forking over the money for an immigraiton lawyer and that was true before this memo came out.
I've seen so many people who call their cases "simple" or "straightforward" but 2 minutes of fairly superficial questioning reveals there are actually huge minefields or deep, fundamental flaaws in their case. It's way cheaper to have a lawyer from the start than it is to screw up her case and then get a lawyer involved once she's in removal proceedings, which is a very real possibility.
So here are some base questions to ask:
- How did you get your citizenship? If you were born here or got a green card through an employer or parent, that's fine. If you got it from being sponsored in a previous marriage, that's what USCIS calls a "pivot case" and you will have a high level of scrutiny;
- Did you know your wife prior to her coming to the US? If so, USCIS might take the position that this was a scheme for her to come to the US and adjust status rather than consular processing and the burden of proof that it wasn't is on you;
- It sounds like your wife is on OPT. If so, she completed her studies, which is good. USCIS hates cases where someone comes on an F1, doesn't complete their studies and get married. They can accuse such people of committing immigration fraud;
- How soon after her last entry to the US did you get married? Too quick (generally under 60-90 days) and USCIS may accuse her of misrepresentation, which is a huge problem;
- Did she make any visa applications and misrepresent her status to you?
- Did she make any misrepresentations to CBP about her relationship to you when entering the US?
- Did she ever violate the terms of her F1 visa? For example, working without authorization;
- Has she been married before? If so, were there an I130 filed for her previously?
- Has your wife ever been arrested, charged or convicted of any crime other than traffic ticket citations? This can be a far bigger problem than you realize even if it's something "trivial" where she gets probation;
- Did she apply for an F1 for one school, come to the US then change schools? If so, USCIS might take the position she did a misrepresentation.
Also, anecdotally, USCIS seems to be taking advantage at interviews of people who don't have a lawyer by threatening the citizen to withdraw the case or by getting the citizen or immigrant to agree not facts that aren't in evidence or aren't true and then using those facts to deny or delay the case.
Are you prepared for the interview where the officer may separate you and then compare your answers?
There's more to an immigration attorney than just filling out forms. A good attorney will prepare you for the interview and identify (and hopefully solve) any potential issues before they become issues. People generally make bad witnesses. I'm reminded of the "do you know what time it is?" scene from the west Wing [1].
I'd strongly advise a lawyer.
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VChTiGcWsCs
As someone who came here on the K-1 (fiance) visa, this would have impacted me as (IIRC) there are two points where I had to adjust status: once, after marriage, to get "Conditional" Permanent Residency, and after two years of marriage, to "remove conditions" on my residency.
I get being out of the country for the initial application (the consular officer in Sydney explained that it typically had to be filed by the sponsor, while the sponsor was in the US and the applicant was overseas, so that there was "no" concerns on coercion, etc.), but this... oof.
> Guess I actually will be paying $4K for a lawyer (plus the 3-4K just to file the USCIS forms).
And then of course the $85 biometrics fee every time you talk to USCIS, which could be multiple times in the process.
> Guess I actually will be paying $4K for a lawyer (plus the 3-4K just to file the USCIS forms). I wish they would just have a simple fast lane for the 100% legal, non-complicated case.
It would have been cheaper, and faster, for me to have come here from Australia on the visa waiver program (which says "no marrying a USC"), married my partner, said to USCIS "oops, my bad, can I stay anyway?" and go through -that- process, than the proper K-1.
I’m pretty sure you can both be out of the country, at least me and my wife were. We were married long enough to get a fast track though, according to the rules at the time.
By the way, if you move outside the country, you lose Domicile which is required to sponsor the visa. And if you don't spend enough time in their country visiting them, your application can be temporary "denied" (delayed) with a request for evidence (that the relationship is real) they'll spend 3 months deliberating over.
Today's news make this crystal clear: the current admin does not want citizens marrying outside the country, regardless of how quickly the marriage rate among US population is falling.
Jesus Christ, that's a bad situation. It seems extraordinarily risky to leave the country to return. I know a native-born American whose foreign-born wife has been waiting years now to come to the US. By contrast, I received my green card (through marriage) shortly after application. Considering the rapidity by which friends of mine (who were married after and applied after me) received their green cards in mid-2024, I wonder if the Biden administration anticipated losing the election a few months later.
I suppose little matters from the before days, but I've only been a permanent resident for 2 years so maybe this timeline helps: https://wiki.roshangeorge.dev/w/Green_Card_Application#Timel...
Happens as well in Germany and it's pure insanity. The US at least does not depend on migration as much as Germany, I believe.
Even the current right wing party CDU doesn't seem to want to make migration harder, but when the extremist party AfD gets voted into office, an already highly damaged balance will break.
Sad how people become so detected from reality that they make their society irrelevant and destroying a lot of wealth in the process.
> The US at least does not depend on migration as much as Germany, I believe.
To me it feels like the US pretends they don’t need immigrants when:
1. The overwhelming majority of current US residents were immigrants themselves at some point in the last 150 years (only natives were there, everyone else immigrated from somewhere)
2. The US wouldn’t function without illegal immigrants
3. Every country is short of workers in one domain or another. Encouraging immigration in these domains (see how Canada does it for instance) would be the smart move. But instead… yeah let’s make it even harder across the board
1. Appealing to the attitudes of 150+ years ago leads to all sorts of absurdities. We live in 2026.
2. The US not functioning without illegal immigrants is a bad thing. More often than not, employers like illegal immigrants because they can abuse them in some way or another. If you actually interact with illegal immigrants or the people that employ them, this is clear. “We need modern indentured servitude” is not the country I want to live in. I would rather these industries just be subsidized by the government to whatever extent it takes for US citizens to take the jobs with all of the protections we expect workers to have.
3. Not every country is short of workers. Employers may be short of workers that they can lord over, but refer back to point 2. Pointing to Canada’s policy as an example of a “smart move” is a strange play.
The current administration is certainly not working on the above premises, but I’m floored when I hear supposedly progressive people going on about who is going to work the psychologically scarring meatpacking plants if we don’t take on an undefined number of people who are only here to get shit on for a good paycheck. I have compassion for illegal immigrants, which is exactly why I don’t want them in the US.
3 replies →
As far as I know agriculture works similar in Germany in the sense that it relies on cheap labor. Except, I believe it's mostly legal because they come from inside the EU, making it easier to work here. Also giving them the same rights, in theory at least. In practice it often doesn't work out like that, but that can't be easily changed I guess. Can't imagine they actually get German minimum wage. In that case and in that sense, they actually don't work here legally I guess.
From what I remember, most of them don't migrate though but return to their home country after a season. Back to their families and a country with much less living cost.
Was some time ago that I last read about that topic though.
> The overwhelming majority of current US residents were immigrants themselves at some point in the last 150 years (only natives were there, everyone else immigrated from somewhere)
Having an ancestor who immigrated to one’s country does not make one an immigrant.
2 replies →
Here is the 1870 census of the USA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1870_United_States_census
Note, indigenous people were less than 1%. New York City had the largest proportion of immigrants at 45%. Your claims of "only natives were there" and "everyone else immigrated from somewhere" are demonstrably false.
4 replies →
In the Netherland, as an immigrant - not sure if always, but definitely in tech - 30% of your income are tax free for the first 5 years. I am actually looking for jobs there right now because of that.
You could take the unemployed workers you have and train them instead.
People are repelled by country shopping by 3rd worlders.
EU countries are working on imigration rules that would allow for bringing imigrant labour without ever extending citizen privileges to them. A sort of permanent uderclass. This is what voters want at this time.
In EU, I don't think an underclass is what is wished. What we lack is being able to chose who is allowed to stay or not. Currently it's whoever manages to come illegaly is allowed to stay. It's madness
2 replies →
> I wish they would just have a simple fast lane for the 100% legal, non-complicated case.
The explicit purpose of this is to reduce legal immigration, and reduce the number of people becoming citizens.
There is no world in which the same racist, fascist administration doing this does anything remotely like what you describe.
I'm not from the US, but isn't it like almost every country in the world? Reducing immigration when it's already too much does increase job availability for locals (which should always be priority imo). Immigration to a country is a privilege, not really a right, but again I don't really know about the US, I just know that like Emigrating to Japan permanently or like in Dubai getting citizenship is very difficult and it does sound normal to me, why should it be easy? You want ultra motivated potential citizens, not the ones that just want to come for a few years to improve their CV or just pile up savings and then bail, they don't bring anything to the country as they'll not spend in the long-term within the US and will not really assimilate as well.
I don't think this is "racist", even Europeans are in the same boat to apply as far as I know, those are mostly white, I don't think racist is the right term here. Isn't America already heavily mixed?
Newsflash: Many European countries are, in fact, racist.
The French are virulently racist against Arabs and Muslims. Most of Western Europe is racist against the Romani, as well as against most Eastern European ethnicities (yes, even though they would be considered "white" in the US). It hasn't historically come up quite as much as in the US because most European countries are more homogeneous than the US is, but with the increase in migration—and particularly in asylum-seeking emigration from war-torn areas—it has become much more salient in recent times.
Japan is also racist, varying from moderately to horrifically depending on what the target group is.
These forms of racism don't always look the same as racism does in the US: for instance, the Western European bias against Eastern Europeans, IME, largely shows up as a widespread belief that they're lazy, and the bias against Romani is that they're seen as dirty, smelly thieves.
90% of all anti-immigrant sentiment, anywhere, is rooted in racism of varying types. Plenty of studies have made very clear that immigrants contribute more to the community and the nation, and have lower rates of crime, than people born in the country.
It is true that when a wave of immigrants first arrives in a new country, they take up more government resources for a period of time, because they literally have not had a chance to find jobs. But once that happens, they are likely to be working at lower-status, lower-paying jobs that the locals mostly didn't want in the first place. And once they have jobs, they aren't just somehow "taking up jobs that locals could have": they also create demand in the local economy, which creates more jobs. Because "number of jobs" isn't a fixed quantity.
And finally, in case you have been hiding under a rock for the last decade of American politics, this anti-immigrant sentiment is explicitly aimed at nonwhite immigrants. To the point that ICE routinely targets people based on the color of their skin, wholly disregarding their victims' status (many are legal immigrants or even citizens), and Trump actively seeks out white South Africans who want to come to the US.
4 replies →