This has been a very active and interesting AMA so thank you everyone. I will be stopping now and returning tomorrow morning to respond to all the unanswered questions and comments.

Can a TN classification denial result in immigration detention? If so, how can I mitigate that risk?

For context, a Canadian woman recently tried to enter into the USA from Mexico and get TN-1 status. Instead of refusing her entry, officials detained her and she's been stuck for 10 days waiting for deportation.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-canadian-woma...

It's unclear to me how big of a risk this actually is for the average "Canadian goes to the USA" story because of her specific factual scenario. Presumably I don't want to enter from Mexico, but is it advisable to take flights from a TSA preclearance airport in Canada so I'm not actually in the USA if the classification is denied?

That's extraordinarily unusual and in my experience has only happened when CBP believes that the applicant was lying or has a criminal record so I wouldn't base the decision on where/how to apply on this very low risk. Depending on the TN application, there are better and worse ways to apply for a TN and from an outcome standpoint, sometimes it's better to apply with CBP at the border or with CBP at a U.S. airport by flying directly to the U.S.

You don't think border processes are becoming uncertain now and relying less on precedence?

A land-border crossing in Mexico? 100%, yes.

She crossed overland. Imagine you do pre-clearance out of a Canadian airport. Can they kidnap you out of country and ship you to a US detention center?

Canadians may be often unprepared and shocked how aggressive and militarized the southern border is, compared to crossing at northern border land entry points.

It is as bad as it has ever been………

But border patrol has always been a bunch of small dick assholes, all the way back to Obama.

My wife and I adopted a child from another country. He was 18 months of age at the time.

We flew into LAX. We were exhausted from a long flight. We got to customs. Agents approached us and said that they had a few questions and said that I (the father) needed to collect our bags and they would escort my wife(us citizen), my oldest son (us citizen), and my youngest son(adopted foreign national) to the waiting area.

I got our bags and tried to rejoin my family. They denied me entry. Said they had questions for “them”. After an hour I started to have to raise hell because I had all the supplies for my family. Diapers. Food, etc. I was told it obviously took us a while to adopt this kid so we can wait longer.

I eventually stated that they were illegally holding two us citizens and I was going to call 911 for them to take me serious.

They acted like they didn’t know my wife and oldest wee US citizens. Bunch of bullshit. Fuck those assholes and every one of them that continues to violate our constitutional rights.

Signed

12 year US Navy Civilian.

Were they doing it because they thought you were immigration illegally or because they thought this could be human trafficking situation?

I don't think either one is the case and obviously I know nothing of your situation besides what you've said, but I can understand why they might be suspicious if a couple of Americans leave the country and come back with an infant that was not part of their family when they departed.

Again, I'm not saying that I think that this is true or even that their concern is reasonable in this specific situation, just that there is another explanation for this other than power tripping racist border thugs, and depending on circumstances it may have been prudent.

Being snarky when you are holding all the power in a power imbalanced situation, is never prudent.

Did the adoption agency warn you about crossing borders?

Many families with recent adoptees have terrible experiences. It’s sad, but it’s important to prepare for it.

Adoption and human trafficking can look very similar. And border guards are often assholes.

Lol they've wisened up to that, now they just take your phone in secondary. If you are a veteran they likely just see you as more of a threat.

> all the way back to Obama.

I, a natural born US citizen, was a student in the Bush years and I'd drive up to Canada. Coming back, the US guys were always aggro and weird. I had one guy smelling my laundry.

At the time I figured it was some post 9/11 BS.

US citizen here in Michigan, grew up and currently live near the border with southwest Ontario.

For as long as I can remember it's just been known that going to Canada the border control folks are friendly, and coming back into the US is a mixed bag. Sometimes things are fine to cold, other times it's like the folks are having a bad day and taking it out on you.

And this is just me, rando US citizen without any criminal record, going to Canada for random couple-day touristy things. Seeing Toronto, Niagara Falls, hiking, etc.

Sexual harassment and assault, such as illegal strip searches and the conditions at women's detention facilities, is a common form of Immigration abuse. This comment is an important reminder of just one form of that.

Agreed, I wasn’t trying to be sarcastic. I’m afraid that the officer was simply being a sicko rather than actually “investigating”.

Now imagine you had no recourse to citizenship and how terrified you would feel. Threatening to call 911 would lead to escalation of crisis rather than its opposite.

Having seen what the US gov't did to Maher Arar 20 years ago, I have never felt comfortable crossing that border since, despite being a white middle class Canadian of no suspect at all. Just place, wrong time, wrong person, and it can go so, so badly, without any recourse.

I'm an American and I was annoyed at how aggressive and militarized the southern border is.

I was on a big road trip across the country visiting national parks. I went to Organ Pipe Nat. Monument in Arizona which literally touches the Mexican border.

On my way there I drove through a border patrol checkpoint 10 miles north of the border inside the US. They don't check southbound traffic, only northbound. I never entered Mexico. On the way back I had to stop at that border patrol checkpoint. The border patrol agent was basically yelling at me for my passport. I told him I didn't have it with me. He yelled to see my driver's license. I gave it to him and he yelled at me "Why do you have a North Carolina driver's license?" I replied that is where I live and that is my home address on the license. He then screamed at me "Don't you know this is a prime drug running area?!" I told him "I have no idea and I'm not interested in drugs. There is a national park area 5 miles away, don't you get a lot of tourists here going to see that?"

I then noticed in my rear view and side mirrors that another agent was going around my car with a dog sniffing around. After about 2 minutes I saw the dog agent give a thumbs up and the rude agent said "Okay, you can go but you should carry your passport"

I had less rude experiences in Texas and California but still overly suspicious border patrol agents. One guy asked me what all the stuff was in my car. I actually offered him granola bars and soda cans and then showed him landscape pictures on my cameras. He realized that I was really a tourist and not into drugs or helping immigrants cross.

> Okay, you can go but you should carry your passport

Funny, since half of U.S. citizens don't have a passport.

I thought you only need a passport if you're crossing international borders?

If you leave US mainland customs zone and go to saipan or Guam or something it will probably slow you down and they might claim you need it, even though you don't. Also Mexico never changed their law like US did, iirc you can still enter Mexico with a birth certificate.

If you're near a port of entry, you actually can be stopped at any time to be asked for proof of citizenship/visa/etc. See also https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone There are plenty of border patrol stops along highways that never cross a border where you'll be routinely stopped.

In practice, that means "near the border with Mexico" where there are border patrol stations along highways well inside the US that do routine stops, but technically it applies to any port city as well.

_Technically_, if you're a US citizen, you're not required to have proof of citizenship on you. But a drivers license in the US does not show that you are a citizen, and they absolutely can stop you from leaving (at least long enough to mess up your day plans) if you cannot actually prove citizenship in practice. It's just a _lot_ easier to have a passport on you. Passport cards exist mostly for this purpose.

E.g. I lived in Texas for a long time and have a passport card for that specific reason. Driving down to the beach or just going on random trips involves passing through border control stations even though you never leave the US or even get particularly near the border. Your chances of just going to visit a friend in south Texas and winding up needing to pass through a border control checkpoint due to unplanned road closures/etc are pretty high, so it's best to have a card in your wallet at all times that counts. Most remote highways have them as soon as you get back near a town. Most of the time, they'll wave you through pretty quickly, but it's just a lot faster process if you have a passport card and not only a drivers license.

Side note: A friend of mine was a park ranger at Carlsbad Caverns. He picked me up at the El Paso airport and we were driving to Carlsbad. We went through a border control checkpoint. They threatened to arrest him on the spot because he had his park service uniform hanging up in the back, but no employee ID or other proof that he actually was a ranger. They said he was impersonating a federal officer. They made a big deal of it and made us wait while they called the park to verify he was employed (and that didn't work because it was about 8pm). We eventually got let go with a warning after he found random online photos of him giving cave tours and convinced them that he couldn't possibly have staged a ton of random folks on the internet to have him in the background of photos.... But still, it was kinda nuts...

I think people often think something they did or didn't do lead them to be fucked with. Having gone through the border and checkpoint many many times with absolutely wild variation despite doing same stuff, my observation it is 99% whether the officer is bored or sadistic and 1% the totality of the situation.

Slight correction: "enhanced" driver licenses are citizen-only, and this is actually checked during issue, so they can also serve as proof of citizenship.

To clarify some of the confusion in this thread, a REAL ID driver's license is completely different from an enhanced driver's license. A REAL ID meets federal security standards and is available in all states. An enhanced driver's license proves U.S. citizenship and includes RFID but is only available in five states.

Nope, that’s a decision made by each state.

Enhanced driver licenses, not regular ones. These come with a whole lot of federal strings attached, and exist pretty much entirely for the purpose of traveling across the border without a passport. As far as I know, the feds require citizenship checks for any participating state.

Now, in some states, regular driver licenses have a citizen or non-citizen marker on them, but that's a whole separate thing (and AFAIK the feds don't consider them sufficient proof in any case).

States can give out enhanced driver's licenses to people who are non citizens. The only requirement is that they are here legally at the time.

That’s not correct. An enhanced driver’s license requires US citizenship.

https://www.dhs.gov/enhanced-drivers-licenses-what-are-they

carry minimum documents especially inside the country.

It’s the most “powerful” of all the US identity documents. It’s a good idea to have one even if you don’t intend to travel.

It is insane to travel without a passport. How is it even possible! Americans are living in some weird timeline.

I have a US passport. I use it when I go to another country.

When I have traveling within the US I never take my passport. There is zero need and I may lose it so why even bother taking it when it serves no use?

My trip was a 6 week long road trip from the south eastern US through Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California, up to Seattle in the northwest, and then back to the south eastern US.

I had no intention of going to Mexico or Canada. They are fine countries but that was no the intent of this trip so I left my passport at home.

During this trip I learned that the US border patrol has set up border inspection points about 10 to 50 miles inside the US. Most of the southern border are remote desert regions where people can cross on foot and then try to meet up with someone in a vehicle on the other side. So the border patrol doesn't just patrol the actual border but has checkpoints inside the US on the roads near the border.

You don't need a passport to get through these as you never left the country.

But I was driving a vehicle (Honda CR-V) with an open cargo area that showed it was full of luggage, bags of food, and lots of water bottles. I probably looked suspicious like I was picking up immigrants on foot or smuggling drugs.

I wasn't. I was on a big road trip and wanted to be prepared for days if my car broke down on a side road and I was stuck in a desert area waiting 3 days to be rescued.

It's pretty common around the world.

EU citizens don't need a passport to travel across the EU (even outside the Schengen area, where you have to go through a border check), they just need an identity card.

(most) EU citizens could also travel to Turkey with their identity card.

EU citizens could travel to the UK with their identity card, for a few years after Brexit, as long as they got UK (pre-)settled status.

Russian citizens can travel to Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan without their international passport. They instead have an "internal" passport (meant to be used like an identity card, and for travel to closed towns inside the country), which is recognised by those other countries.

The same applies in the other direction for citizens of nearby countries travelling to Russia (even in the case of an Abkhazian internal passport. Abkhazia is recognised by only ~6 other UN member states).

I'm not sure in which way a US "passport card" differs from a plastic identity card. But it's notable that a few countries don't have either (UK doesn't... Russia and a few neighbouring countries, as mentioned before, instead have an "internal passport")

Of course, something in common with all the examples above, and with US citizens travelling to Mexico, is that you're travelling to neighbouring countries with friendly relations.

> I'm not sure in which way a US "passport card" differs from a plastic identity card. But it's notable that a few countries don't have either (UK doesn't... Russia and a few neighbouring countries, as mentioned before, instead have an "internal passport")

US simply doesn't have any official identity card.

So they make up replacements for when it's convenient to actually have one.

I suppose the goal is to encourage innovation in the identity theft industry... after all it adds to the PIB doesn't it?

Circa 2018, I was travelling from Greece to Germany. For whatever reason, the Bundespolizie decided to check everyone’s passports. In particular everyone from Ireland was demanded to have a passport - their identity card wasn’t good enough.

They probably singled out Irish citizens because Ireland (just like the UK) doesn't provide ID cards...

But they have a "passport card"

https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/travel-and-recreation/...

I don't see why Bundespolizie would have had to treat people differently, alas it's usually difficult to argue with a foreign country border police

> Of course, something in common with all the examples above, and with US citizens travelling to Mexico, is that you're travelling to neighbouring countries with friendly relations.

Militarily speaking, yes. But unlike the other examples, there is a huge economic difference between the US and Mexico, meaning migration flows exclusively one way. Illegal crossings are extremely common and the US has strong incentives to prevent them. It's hard to compare the US-Mexico border to any other border in the world.

They were on a road trip in the United States and never crossed an international border. Why would they need a passport? I've never taken mine on a trip like that.

Falsehoods Programmers Believe About International Borders

It cuts both ways. Many American friends have told me that they were treated aggressively at the Canadian border as well.

Only negative border patrol experience I’ve ever had was crossing the Canadian border.

If you get to chatting with a CBSA officer (Canadian version of CBP), they'll have plenty of stories for you about Americans who want to drive from WA to Alaska with all of their guns in their car and not declare it, or try to bring all kinds of absolutely ridiculous stuff into the country without declaring it. The people who cross the border on a regular basis, like a dozen times a year or more, know the system and policies.

It's the tourists and people who rarely cross that have never encountered CBSA that try to treat Canada like some kind of theme park. They're also often unprepared with appropriate ID, documents, receipts and stuff and get weird when CBSA starts asking them exactly the same nature of questions that CBP asks of people going southbound.

I would also emphasize that CBSA knows how often you cross, through a US-Canada data sharing agreement. An ALPR system takes a picture of your license plate on your car and very quickly queries a database, for information presented to the question-asking-person, as your vehicle approaches the window. This is assuming you're driving northbound of course. Even if that doesn't happen, they'll ask to see your drivers license along with your passport and immediately know you don't reside anywhere near the border.

They know immediately if the zip code where your car is registered is somewhere close to the border, or is very far away from the border. And if you have, or have not, crossed the border recently. It's people from very far away from the border that rarely if ever cross who also think they can take their guns, drugs, etc into Canada and won't get questioned about it.

In '09, after getting laid off I did a road trip around with provisions for "I could go camping if my road trip took me that way." No fire arms or criminal record.. but I'm getting to that.

So, going from Seattle up to Banff by way of the Sumas / Huntington crossing...

I went in and was asked for the purpose of my visit ("tourist"), duration of stay ("one to two weeks, no more than two"), for my occupation ("I am currently unemployed") and my permanent residence ("I am currently without a permanent residence")... and the officer looked at my car with camping equipment for more than two weeks... and I was sent to have a bit more of a discussion with an agent.

Parked my car and went in and waited. While waiting, another family was moving from Washington to Alaska... and they were having difficulties. Three vehicles, four possible drivers, though one was an older woman. One car contained a rifle and one of the drivers had a criminal record.

I got to the counter after an hour, explained, was denied entry but that could be rectified if I came back with proof of ties to the United States and proof that I had sufficient funds to be able to stay the duration of my stay without needing any employment.

So, got back in my car, got in line to go back to the US and called my parents on my iPhone (still a rather new tech). They happened to have been at the insurance company when I called, and so got insurance for the car that I was driving for Canada - and sent a photo of that insurance and their drivers licenses with the address clearly visible. Got to the US border agent who was confused that I hadn't entered Canada but was clearly coming from Canada and sat in that office for a little bit while they looked to see that yes, I was an American citizen.

After half an hour there went to the ATM and got a balance of my accounts. I had more than sufficient funds in the account, and then went back to the border crossing. It was the same agent at the crossing so I didn't need to explain again, but said I had the necessary proof (which surprised him that I got it that quickly) and had me park again and go in to the office.

In the office, the family was still trying to figure out what to do. An hour later after they decided that the brother with the criminal record was going to walk back to the US side and that they were going to pay an arm and a leg to register the rifle I got to the counter, showed my parents drivers licenses ("this is where I am going, I had some time without any responsibilities and so decided to tour North America"), the photo of the car insurance for Canada (they called that one in and verified it... again, surprised that I was able to get it so quickly), and matched the account on the ATM receipt with the account that I had for my card... and let me in with some paperwork in my passport noting that I needed to provide that paperwork when leaving the country otherwise entering again could be problematic.

Anyways... I had a great time in Canada. Loved Banff and later Waterton. Handed over the papers to ensure I was leaving at Chief Mountain. I'd love to do it again some day... the drive from Kamloops to Banff was one of the most enjoyable "just driving" days I've done.

It took a while, but trying to cooperate to the best of my ability and that new "sending pictures around" technology really helped.

Glad you got to experience Waterton. Many Canadians will eventually go to Banff or Jasper (though it's surprising how many people here in Ontario where I live now have never been west of the province, but almost all have been to the US)... but almost nobody gets to Waterton and it's a jewel that most people don't even know about. Haven't been since I was 14. I lived in Alberta but it was still an 8 hour drive.

Going to Waterton, as I said, I was prepared for camping... got to the gate and the ranger looked at my car and informed me that the campground was full. However, camping was my backup if my first choice was not available... staying in the Prince of Wales. It was beautiful.

A selection of some of the photos I took there. https://imgur.com/a/stdkS0c ... some are memories, some are trying to capture the beauty of the area. I don't have them on http://shagie.smugmug.com because technically I was a tourist rather than a photographer and selling the prints gets into potential future visa issues. The rock formation is a nice, compact chevron fold.

Unfortunately, most of Waterton burned in 2017. The Prince of Wales Hotel survived, but those trees are all dead. It will be decades before it looks like your photos again.

That's disappointing... and I see that Athabasca Falls also had a fire ( https://youtu.be/kljQc4ycIs4 ).

I don't have any great photos from Athabasca area... some of the other photos...

https://imgur.com/a/c2Ep6ox

The style of waterfall photographs that I find myself drawn to are high contrast, narrower field of view that have a... "story of the water". You need to be able to follow it through the frame. The great spouts aren't ones that I find interesting. I much preferred Romana falls (Mount Hood - https://shagie.smugmug.com/Nature/Waterfalls/Ramona-Falls ) and Burney Falls (near Mount Shasta - https://shagie.smugmug.com/Nature/Waterfalls/Burney-Falls ). While they're veils of water from high cliffs that crash onto rocks far below, I can photograph them... intimately. They are majestic, but there are so many parts to them that tell their own "story".

https://imgur.com/1o6BVGR - I think this is from the Lake Louise area. Not sure, it's not labeled but it's date stamped near other photos in that area.

https://imgur.com/joZFgVT - Another example of "intimate photos of grand nature" - this is a small part (from where I stood https://www.google.com/maps/@52.1765131,-117.0554424,3a,75y,... ) of the mountains.

https://imgur.com/SmKxAeQ - I have it labeled as "Lower Brenda Falls" in my photos. I think its from Waterton area... Ahh... looking it up, Bertha falls. https://www.google.com/maps/place/Waterton+Lakes+National+Pa... (I'll be fixing that up in my albums)

And even then, a fire can show the recycling power of nature. https://imgur.com/IHQhm7z and wildflowers are once again freed from the seed bank. https://www.google.com/maps/place/Marble+Canyon+Trailhead/@5... - I was there in 2009, the fire was from 2003. https://cyclewriteblog.wordpress.com/2015/01/01/natures-riot...

(See also the "Cheeto truck explosion" on the road to Yosemite after the area had a wild fire through it - https://shagie.smugmug.com/Nature/Wildflowers )

There's still plenty of beauty in Jasper after the forest fires

https://photos.app.goo.gl/A8LypichDTns3n1V6

I'll have to try to get out there this summer/spring, wildflowers tend to emerge after mass fires like that.

The road up to Marmot Basin was just crazy when I was up there this winter. Desolation.

Beautiful. Thanks for sharing your story and the photos.

When I was there in the late 80s as a teen we camped, but the campground was really just a big open flat area with no trees.

I recall doing the long walk into town and dumping quarters in the Bubble Bobble machine they had in the arcade there.

Met a cute girl there.

They gotta keep the criminals out somehow. I know quite a few well to do white men with DUIs that kept them out of Canada and I can't blame Canada for it. I think any Felony will keep them from letting you in.

Which is why Trump should be banned from entering as he is a convicted felon.

It’s a bit more complicated than just “any felony” - among other factors, Canadian immigration law considers how Canadian criminal law would treat the offence, as well as how long it’s been since the sentence was completed. And there are discretionary provisions to allow ministerial overrides, as I’m sure they’d do for Trump during his presidency if he would otherwise be covered.

But you’re right, it’s absolutely true that Canadian immigration law treats DUIs by foreign nationals far more harshly than US immigration law does (assuming simple DUI in each case and not something with complications like someone getting hurt or killed).

I got lots of questions going from the US to Canada. But we were just waved through going in the other direction.

I rarely find the pre-clearance process to be all that nice when compared to internal clearance. When I traveled a lot to NYC I far preferred to fly out of Toronto island and do immigration at Newark vs flying out of Pearson. The tone was entirely different.

I personally am not sure that pre-clearance should even continue given current diplomatic tensions. Having an armed foreign police force from a country whose official head of state says it wants to occupy you... doesn't seem wise.

US airports love Canada pre-clearance because it allows them to assign planes to any gate. Might be an easy way to gum up the works as retribution.

It varies. In recent years (last decade or so) YVR has been pretty good. Historically there were ups and downs.

I doubt a few immigration officers with handguns (can't say for sure they even carry them or carry them out of the airport) are going to take over BC.

It's not that I think they're some sort of potential foreign occupation force. It's just oddly symbolic and weird, and their powers to detain people, etc. seem entirely problematic in the current context.

She crossed overland from Mexico for some reason, not from Canada. The linked article says: "Then they came back and told her that, because they were denying her, that they have to send her back to Canada."

Is there a policy that requires that people denied entry be returned to the country they are citizens of?

Mexico would have to officially accept her as a deportee. I’m sure it’s possible, but they “can’t” just let her walk back across the border.

From what I read, the Canadian consulate can't do anything for her.

They have her in their system, and she has no rights.

I read that she was scheduled to be released (sent back to Canada) today, but I can't find any more recent news either way.

In a way it's a story only notable because she's middle class and white. These kinds of things happened routinely to people with Arabic or "Muslim" names for a disturbing amount of time after 9/11. Maher Arar being the most famous case.

It is sad that this is now a priority for so many only now that it's affecting affluent white people.

They didn't care before, and they only care now for self-preservation.

Preclearance locations have more traffic and so tend to have more nasty interviewers and more random denials. TN interviews elsewhere are much friendlier. Choose a land crossing if possible.

I’d rather be told “no” than end up in detention.

If my asylum application gets denied, what options do I have? I came to the U.S. as a minor and have little to no memory of my original country. I applied for asylum in 2016 and have been waiting for an interview ever since. Given my pending status, are there any other pathways to obtaining a Green Card or legal residency that would allow me to travel?

Edit Additional Question - Some of us like myself, came to the U.S. as children, following our parents after being forcibly removed from our home countries by authoritarian leaders who targeted us because of our "tribe". Despite this, the current climate often unfairly associates undocumented immigrants with criminal activity. How can someone in this situation avoid being wrongfully labeled as a “criminal immigrant,” especially in the event of an ICE raid?

I am neither OP nor a lawyer at all, but I do have experience watching authoritarian regimes destroy a country in real-time. One of the most terrifying things to me is the breakdown in the rule of law, because you no longer have any expectations to plan against, and anything can happen.

I would never counsel against getting legal advice, because competent legal advice is going to be one of your best assets for planning every possible future outcome. But I would caution you that in this environment, you also need to plan for what to do when the legal advice can no longer predict or inform outcomes.

Sometimes there are employment-based green card paths that can help for those seeking asylum but whether going down this path would allow you to travel would depend in part on your immigration history - what your status was when you came to the U.S., when you/your parents applied for asylum, etc. If you haven't already, you should speak with an immigration attorney to look at all options, including those based on employment.

That would be an employment visa, not green card. It can lead to a green card in some cases but it's complicated (depending on the country of origin it can take an extremely long time)

were you a son of an asylee that then aged out? If so, you may want to look at the asylum “nunc pro tunc” process

Historically, bona fide marriage with US citizen allowed the best way to legalize. I don't know if that changed recently.

It’s unreliable and recently ICE has deported people who are attempting to legalize their status. https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/free-books/fiance-ma...

https://www.cbsnews.com/miami/news/south-florida-ice-hsi-mig...

Hi Peter, thanks for doing this over the years, when going through my own immigration journey reading through your past AMAs was a huge help.

For reference, I'm a Canadian who just moved to the US on a TN Visa and I've got a few questions:

- What would you say the percentage likelihood range is that the TN Visa is no longer an option for Software Engineers in 3 years time.

- With the news of USMCA talks reopening, is it advisable to switch to an H-1B visa?

- How long would it take for the government to eliminate the TN Visa, considering the complexity of the process?

- If the TN Visa is discontinued, is it safe to assume those already on it will be allowed to work in the US until their Visa expires?

I would never have thought that the TN would be at risk but if relations between the U.S. and Canada continue down the path that we're on, then I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility. I'm not sure how long it would take for the U.S. to get out of the free trade agreement but if the U.S. were so motivated, it effectively could kill the TN very quickly, even if just by policy and practice. So yes, if you can, it probably makes sense to start looking at options to get off the TN, such as the H-1B (but subject to the annual lottery), the O-1, and the E-2.

Hi Peter, Thanks for doing this. I am a Canadian citizen born in India and ~ 6 months ago moved to work for a FAANG company on a TN visa from Canada.

The company applied for H1B visa lottery this year and awaiting the results for that.

My question is if I get through the H1B lottery

- How does it impact my options to switch employers in the future? Would I be able to work on H1B for future employers?

- My partner (Canadian citizen) is currently on a TD visa (which does not allow work) but actively searching for positions eligible under the TN categories. If my status changes to H1B, would she be ineligible for a TN visa?

Are there any obvious advantages of H1B other than eligibility for applying for a green card (which is a loooooong wait for people of Indian origin)

In order of your questions:

1. The H-1B is easily transferrable to another company (as long as the position meets the H-1B requirements). 2. Yes, she still would eligible for the TN if you changed to H-1B. 3. That's the main reason; it's really impossible for Canadian citizens born in India (or China) to pursue a green card while in TN status (without jeopardizing that status). Also, under the current law, an H-4 spouse can apply for a work card if his or her spouse is in the green card process (specifically, has an approved I-140) and is from a backlogged category or country like India.

> Are there any obvious advantages of H1B other than eligibility for applying for a green card (which is a loooooong wait for people of Indian origin)

Was your partner also born in India? If not and you get married you can use their country of birth for the green card, even if the green card is being sponsored by your employer. Maybe you're aware of this but just to say if you're not.

ask company to bring you on a L visa. H visas are not a good option for transfers, only new hires.

You’ve got it reverse. You can transfer H1b to another company (without going through lottery again) but you cant transfer L1 visa to another company. L1 visa is used to transfer an employee from a foreign branch to the US branch of the same company, once in US if they want to change the company the new company has to sponsor their H1

i got his comment wrong then. looked like he just going to the USA office of a place he's already working at overseas

Depends on how you look at this. L visas are not subject to lottery, but then that brings much more scrutiny from USCIS. Also, you are tied to your employer, you cannot change jobs easily. H visa, once you get it by lucky draw, gives you much more flexibility. And it's perfectly fine to use H-1B for intra-company transfer.

Hi .. wondering what the situation is for a senior Canadian scientist wanting to raise funds/do a start up in the US? Had H1B many years ago (and possibly have a year of time left on it .. not sure that matters). Lots of papers so can go the EB1 route if needed. Want something simple and straightforward. Is transferring via existing employer beneficial (with delaying future plans)?

Given your qualifications, either an O-1 or E-2 (requiring an investment of Canadian money) through your own company is probably the best option.

Hi Peter. As always, thanks for doing this.

I am a Canadian currently on an H1B visa, valid until November 2026. I can probably recapture time until early 2027. I just got an EB2-NIW approved, but my priority date is in August 2024, and currently we are serving people in Apr. 2023. It will take at least until next year until I can file my I-485 and get my GC.

I am wondering what my options are in case I need to find a new job. My understanding is that the EB2 doesn't help me much unless I can truly demonstrate that the new job continues to advance the national interest in the same way, and that any deviation from what I wrote in my application is grounds to deny the I-485.

In case I can't find a new job that fits the exact description I have on my EB2-NIW, and I have to move out of the US, can I still file my I-485 once my priority date becomes current (and therefore get a GC)?

Your understanding about the exact fit between your NIW job and a new job isn't correct. NIWs are not subject to the same portability requirements as PERM-based green card applications. That being said, when you are able to file your I-485 application, you might be asked to demonstrate how your work is serving a national interest, even if this interest is different from the one in the NIW.

How do you protect people visiting or participating in YC from ICE? There have been two dozen stories of random tourists being disappeared for no good reason from all over the US.

Given that the policy is in the very early stages of implementation we can expect those numbers to reach the hundreds, thousands and tens of thousands in the next few months.

It's BS. Random tourists aren't being "disappeared for no good reason". A "tourist" that overstayed by 2 years without applying for a Visa and/or started working here are being deported back to their home nation - in accordance with the law.

There's a tremendous amount of scaremongering, fearmongering, and misinformation being thrown about currently. Majority of it is very much over stated hyperbole.

> Canadian woman put in chains, detained by ICE after entering San Diego border

> She said the officer refused to allow her to go back to Mexico and ordered her to be detained. She was kept in a cold room at the border by CBP before being arrested by ICE, who placed her at the Otay Mesa Detention Center. Mooney claimed in the middle of the night she, along with a group of 30 other women, was rounded up to get transferred to a facility in Arizona. CBP wouldn’t tell Team 10 the reason for Mooney’s detention, citing privacy restrictions.

https://www.10news.com/news/local-news/never-seen-anything-s...

> A German tourist detained by US immigration authorities is due to be deported back to Germany on Tuesday after spending more than six weeks in detention, including eight days in solitary confinement. Both Germans were held at the Otay Mesa Detention Center, a prison in San Diego, California. Brösche and Lofving had attempted to enter the US from Tijuana in Mexico on 25 January.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/mar/11/german-tourist...

The German tourist is a tattoo artist traveled with her gear. Based on another article (in German) she used a tourist visa but had clients lined up. She should've used a business visa.

[edit] Found an article with more info "[her US friend] told CNN that her German friend was joining her in Los Angeles to tattoo her. She speculated that immigration officials may have misinterpreted Brösche’s statements about the project as a declaration that she’d come to the US to work." https://edition.cnn.com/2025/03/04/world/german-detained-ice...

As an IT worker I'm worried of cause because my 'gear' is a laptop and I usually travel with a laptop.

I decided not to visit (let alone work in) the US until it has adopted legal standards and enforcement that are suitable for a developed nation. The latest political developments have tanked my trust in the US even more.

And I don't mean you can't somehow get legal remedies when you have sufficient funds and time if someone mistreats you. In the US you can even get legal remedy when you were in the wrong, if you have the funds. I mean that the people down on the ground seem to act with arbitariness and no respect for the law or what is just, be it the police, border officers, employers, or whatnot. Police officers telling a perfectly calm person they are "resisting" is not normal. And the fact that a whole society seems to have given up on trying to solve that kind of uncivilized behavior (or is even defending it!) makes it worse.

If I want an adventure that can end my life I go into the mountains, there at least the air is nice.

If you were right, they could easily clear the record by actually charging her. In several of the cases, they held people for extended periods rather than letting them leave the country which they really shouldn’t be doing if they don’t have enough evidence for at least one charge.

What sort of fucking shithole backwards country locks people up for weeks (including over a week in solitary!) for arriving with an invalid visa? If you think that is a proportional response you are a nasty, nasty person.

One that has individuals in government with a history advocating for private prisons where most undocumented immigrants are housed. 6 weeks probably leads to some solid profits for the bottom line.

Solitary is probably a bonus charge.

> What sort of fucking shithole backwards country locks people up for weeks (including over a week in solitary!) for arriving with an invalid visa?

The USA.

Or Russia

Tweedledum and Tweedledee

> The linked articles have no information in them, except a sob story told through one perspective.

Here, how about this article: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jasmine-mooney-canadian-detaine...

If this is not sufficient (It includes statements from an ICE spokesperson), then please do mention what type of evidence it is that you're looking for.

> For all we know, the US was coordinating extradition or release into their home country.

The evidence that we have does not indicate that, and in fact, indicates that these Jasmine Mooney was unnecessarily held for 6 days across two different locations, then unnecessarily transferred to Arizona for an additional period of time.

It seems like a very faulty thought process to pretend that there exists evidence to contradict what the current evidence suggests, rather than to simply base your judgement on available evidence.

> A person attempting to illegally crossing the border (such as the two in the article) have committed a crime and could be held on that alone

Jasmine Mooney - a Canadian citizen, was crossing the boarder, with the paperwork for a work visa, in order to turn them into the US consulate to apply for the visa. This isn't even required by the way under NAFTA: https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/temporary....

It specifically notes that Canadian citizens need not apply at the U.S. consulate, contrary to the information provided by the customs agent.

How reasonable is it to you, that a person would attempt to follow the correct procedure to apply for a work visa according to the U.S. government's own website, then be detained and transferred several times, one of them being literally to a detention facility 209 miles away simply because her visa was denied at the border of Mexico (Before she even entered the U.S. by the way)

Here's another source for this, which includes statements by an immigration lawyer noting how unusual the handling of this is: https://globalnews.ca/news/11080371/canadian-woman-detained-...

> Seems like a pretty good ending for them, unless you are advocating they should be charged and imprisoned here for longer?

How is it a good ending to be detained and transferred hundreds of miles because paperwork at the boarder isn't correct? Isn't the whole point that they shouldn't be in the U.S. at all? So why is it then that we waste so many resources to send them all over the U.S. instead of just denying entry?.. How does this make any sense to you?

Well maybe not arrested. CBP has jailed me before but it wasn't an arrest since it is administrative. You can't even contact a lawyer like an arrested person can.

Next time you live your country I wish you can feel what arbitrary tyrannical treatment at a border feel like, because it seems you are of the type that has to feel it themselves to learn.

A British tourist has been in immigration detention for weeks after she was accused of “working for room and board” by doing some household chores while staying with a family in Portland.

https://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/article301877574.h...

Sources say otherwise: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/mar/11/german-tourist...

A friend has hired an engineering leader from Ukraine, entering via the United for Ukraine program which authorizes work in the US. Their family, who moved with them, is now very stressed because of the threat of losing work authorization and deportation. What are their options?

The threat is real, unfortunately. Your friend should look at switching him to a work visa, such as an O-1, which as an experienced engineer, the Ukrainian employee might qualify for.

Hello Peter, I have a situation. I am on H1B and I am being forced out of my job. My wife is also on H1B. After consulting some attorneys, I have decided that I will move to H4 status under my wife, while I search for the new job. Will this protect me until I get a new H1B with new employer soon? What should I be cautious about? For what it is worth, I also have EAD through I-140 pending, but I am deciding not to use the EAD and move to H4 dependent as soon as my H1B expires when I terminate my job. Let me know if I have to be cautious or aware of any circumstances that can put me or my family situation in jeopardy.

That's probably the right advice, you don't have to be cautious, you can look for work while in H-4 status (or while an applicant for H-4 status). The issue is this: if you find a new H-1B employer before your H-4 change of status application has been approved, while the new H-1B employer can file an H-1B petition for you, upon approval you likely will have to depart the U.S. and reenter with a new visa (if your previous H-1B visa has expired) or reenter with your previous still-valid visa and new H-1B approval notice. The point is this: USCIS likely will consider you ineligible for a change of status to H-1B when your underlying status is not H-4 but an applicant for H-4 status.

Hey Peter! In the current climate, what steps would you suggest for foreign-origin workers to stay safe from being detained? I know some of my foreign-born friends are carrying their EADs with them in case they are stopped by ICE, but in some statuses (e.g. H1B) that is harder to do, as you'd have to carry around your passport.

Strictly speaking, the law requires a foreign national to carry proof of status. It's not something that ever has been enforced but it might be now. Such proof would be a valid passport and the most recent I-94 admission record. If applicable, such proof also would include an I-797 approval notice and/or EAD.

Hi Peter, given that companies are constantly laying off employees, what options do people on H1B have in an event they are out of a job? One can find a job but a 60 day time restriction can be very challenging. It’s almost impossible to apply, schedule multiple rounds of interviews, get an offer AND file the immigration paperwork in that time. A lot of people have established lives and have been here for decades because of the green card backlog. How would one maintain presence legally in the US in such a case?

A few years ago when there were a lot of layoffs at big tech, USCIS published guidance on the options for those who lost their jobs. This guidance just validated what attorneys were advising anyway but it was reassuring. Whether USCIS will stick with this guidance is another question. But the main advice was to file an application to change status to B-2 or B-1 (if the terminated worker couldn't join his or her spouse's visa as a dependent). If the terminated worker was in H-1B status and filed such an application, then he or she would not have to go back into the lottery after finding a new employer. Because of the backlogs in most green card categories, a green card filing as a solution isn't a solution anymore.

@proberts - not sure how that works, can you clarify? I know that normal B1/B2 visa in theory allows 6 months stay in the US, so is that what you are suggesting? If you are fired from your job then just pretend to be a tourist for the next 6 months? Isn't that obviously violating the stated purpose of B1/B2 visa, and asking for a ban to enter the US in future?

> after finding a new employer.

Obvious question then does the employer and the job have to be similar to the job that they had (and how similar and what is the test)?

Not at all; the job just needs to be related to the employee's education.

before the pandemic there were vans interviewing and hiring people from big layoffs. this last one was the only to ever do real damage to the employees.

Do Greencard holders have right to Social Security? What can you do if you are denied it?

Background: I was a GC holder and the expiration date on the GC was past due by the time they processed my application for social security. BUT I had also already applied for citizenship, and when doing that online the website informed me that my CG status was automatically extended a year or so because I had applied for citizenship.

I showed the Social Security Administration the printout of the document that showed my GC status had been automatically extended. But they denied my social security application with the reason "We have not been able to determine your age is > 64".

I had been to the SS offices several times showing them my actual greencard and my valid passport from my country of origin. The government issued GC showed my birthdate. Also I showed them the printed social security statement they used to mail me every year or so, showing my age.

So it seems to me I was denied social security on totally false premises. They surely were able to easily and reliably determine my age.

How can this happen in USA? Why would they do this? Do they have a standing order saying "Deny every application you can if it is an immigrant?"

What should I do? Sue the government? (I understand you cannot give an exact recommendation what to do in this case, but would that be a viable practical option?)

Thanks

To follow up a bit: I got my citizenship. Then I was approved for Medicare. Then I applied for Medicate part C and D with the healthcare provider Humana. Humana initially approved my application but then sent me a letter saying my part C and D was DENIED the reason being: "Illegally present in US".

I have never been in the USA illegally but always had a valid visa until I got my citizenship. So where did Humana come up with the claim I was illegal? I can only assume that Social Security Administration told them so, perhaps to cover up their mistake that they had wrongly denied me social security.

Should I sue Humana or Social Security Administration?

This isn't really an immigration question so I would recommend that you speak with a benefits lawyer but it's always a good practice when something like this happens to submit FOIA requests with the appropriate agencies to try to find out what's going on.

Thank's for the tip. I've known about FOIA requests but never fancied I could create one myself.

It's more an issue with benefits than immigration like you say, but I just assumed I was treated badly because I was an immigrant, so immigrants beware.

Also I wanted to play nice I thought if I caused some trouble for them they would definitely treat me even worse. Immigrants don't have a similar feeling about their "rights", and what they can do, as perhaps native-born Americans have.

In the event that the TN visa is scrapped, what would likely happen to current TN visa holders working in the US? Would there likely be some grace period?

Furthermore, supposing that no equivalent to the TN visa is proposed in its place, what would be you recommend to these TN visa holders?

Unless the basis for scrapping the TN were somehow that the free trade agreement was unlawful/invalid or the TN itself were unlawful/invalid, I believe that it likely would remain valid until expiration for work purposes but probably not for international travel purposes. What the other work visa options would be would depend on the person's qualifications and job; these would include the cap subject H-1B (but this is subject to an annual lottery), the cap exempt H-1B (available year-round but with a qualifying organization), the E-2 (requiring the creation of a company and an investment or employment with an existing E-2 qualified company), and the O-1 (requiring high standard of acheivement).

Hi Peter, I have a few questions:

1. I currently do consulting for US clients through a Canadian corporation. If I accept a full-time job in the U.S. (e.g., on a TN or H-1B visa), can I continue consulting for other clients?

   - Does the answer depend on the visa type?  

   - Are there any restrictions on self-employment or side income?

2. Can I set up a corporation (LLC, S-Corp, or C-Corp) in the U.S. while on a work visa?

   - Can I be a shareholder?  

   - Can I take dividends?  

   - Can I actively work in the business?

3. What legal structures allow me to maximize flexibility while working in the U.S.?

   - Would an O-1 visa allow for more flexibility?
  
   - If I move under a TN visa, can I later transition to an E-2 investor visa to run my own business?

4. What are the best options if I want to move to the U.S. while keeping the ability to do high-paid consulting?

   - Should I aim for a Green Card as soon as possible? 
 
   - Is there a specific visa category that would allow this?

Thank you for your help!

I'm not Peter. IANAL so do your own homework. However, I have been on TN visas for almost a decade.

1. Once you enter the US on a work visa, you are only authorized to work under the restrictions of that visa which are normally tied to a single employer. The "I was working remotely for a Canadian corp" does not fly legally speaking. Wherever your feet are are "where" you are working. That being said, one little known thing about the TN visa is that you are allowed to have multiple of them issued for multiple employers. If you get one from all of your clients, you can continue working for those clients while you are in the US. Practically speaking, they cannot tell you are working remotely and your clients are sending payment to the Canadian corp. However, if audited, do not expect to ever be allowed back into the US.

2. Anyone can start an LLC. You do not need a work visa. However, if you do not have work authorization to work for that company, then you cannot legally work on that business.

3. This is going to be a matter of preference and what you classify as flexible. TN visas are very convenient and issued at the port-of-entry which makes them quick to process. They are also indefinitely renewable and multiple can be issued for multiple employers. The other visas you mention will take months to process. The rules to transition to E-2 are clear "If the treaty investor is currently in the United States in a lawful nonimmigrant status, they may file Form I-129 to request a change of status to E-2 classification."

4. Consulting is one of the most scrutinized jobs under the TN classification. I do not like being the bearer of bad news but obtaining a Green Card is now a 5+ year process unless you qualify for EB-1 or marry a US citizen which you can get right away. However, you probably do not qualify based on the fact you are focused on consulting. I am not an expert on E-2 visas so I don't know how consulting is treated under that visa but it may very well be your best bet.

Excellent responses. Thank you. I would add that the O-1 and the E-2 are probably the best fits to do consulting work for multiple companies in the U.S. but the O-1 requires a relatively high level of achievement and the E-2 requires a "substantial" investment by (in this case) Canadian citizens (which can include investments by you) or Canadian-owned companies and a business plan that shows the hiring of U.S. workers (citizens and permanent residents) over time.

Thank you both!

Follow-up question: do US employers ever provide assistance with O-1 or E-2? What is considered "a relatively high level of achievement"?

Yes, many U.S. employers, particularly those who don't want to lose out on good candidates, sponsor new hires for O-1 and E-2 visas. It's less about a "high level achievement" and really more about checking evidentiary boxes: an applicant must meet at least 3 of the listed O-1 criteria and very often for talented professionals at least 3 criteria are within reach.

Peter, I'm a software engineer with a FAANG company, ~20 years experience and at the senior staff level. I lived in the US for a while with my family, and we all have green cards. Last year, we moved back to India (where we're from), with re-entry permits that are valid till July 2026. We'd like to continue living in India for a while (the next 8-10 years, till our kids finish school), but also keep our green cards so that we can move to the US afterwards without going through the Indian-citizen green card nightmare, especially for my kids. I go to the US every 3-4 months on work, my family less frequently. Been paying US taxes and no problems continuing to do so, but I don't own a house in the US. Is there a way I can keep my green card while living in India for 8-10 years? Or should I just give it up when my re-entry permit expires, and find a way to apply again?

I’m surprised green cards are available for people who don’t really live here and don’t plan to in the future. This is a scarce resource.

8-10 years might be tough but definitely speak with an attorney to talk this through. Is this your first reentry permit because you can get reentry permits totaling 5 years?

Yes, this is our first reentry permit, and it has a 2 year validity.

So you should be able to get another reentry permit valid for another 2 years and then a third reentry permit valid for 1 more year. After that, it gets tougher and USCIS will look at various factors to gauge whether a green card holder has given up his or her green card, including time in the U.S., home in the U.S., assets in the U.S., employment in the U.S., family in the U.S., etc. But at a minimum, without a reentry permit, you should never be outside the U.S. continuously for more than 6 months.

Isn't the requirement 6 months per year in the USA minimum?

Sort of. You need to spend more time in the US than not, but even if you do 6 months every year, there's a high change you'll start to get tough questions when you try to reenter. Longer periods, it gets worse.

That said, the GC will only be taken away if (a) you give it up (you can be pressured into doing so though) or (b) an immigration judge takes it away (CBP can send your case to one if they think you are not living in the US)

This is why a reentry permit exists and that's what OP is talking about. It allows one to leave the country for two years and can be renewed (not guaranteed though).

With the rising tensions between USA and Canada, what is the second best route (after TN visa) for a Canadian citizen to work in USA?

See my response above.

Possibly too broad of a question but any insight you can provide on the definition of "work" in the context of being a digital nomad in the U.S. would be helpful. For example, if I am a European citizen who works for a European company and enters the U.S. on a B-2 for a 2 week vacation, is it reasonable to interpret the prohibition on "work" as meaning I am not allowed to participate in the U.S. labor market but does not prohibit taking a zoom call with my team back in Europe? The common sense application of immigration law is that it's not work for immigration purposes but I'm curious if you have a more nuanced take and/or any insight.

According to "International Digital Nomads: Immigration Law Options In The United States Abroad" published in The Georgetown Law Journal[1] some jurisdictions have specifically said that it is not work which is what I'm leaning on for my current (optimistic?) view.

"Directors of the CBP office in South Florida, a leading winter locale for visiting “snow birds,” recognize that “[w]orking remotely from the US for a foreign employer, by itself, is not a violation of B visitor status” so long as “the work is incidental to the primary purpose of the trip,” which is a permissible visit."

[1] https://www.law.georgetown.edu/immigration-law-journal/wp-co...

The last paragraph is correct and well said; as long as the trip is "brief" (that is, you haven't effectively moved to the U.S.) and your work-related activities for your European company are incidental to the primary purpose (that is, your primary purpose is not to somehow work for your European company), then you should be fine. Where digital nomads run into problems is when they're spending a lot of time in the U.S. and effectively have moved to the U.S. as a visitor.

That's interesting. I would have thought that any work, incidental or not, would be a violation of the visa. I've heard of people being harassed for e.g. doing work on their vacation property (e.g. Canadians owning US property) while they were vacationing even when it's something small/minor.

Hi Peter, thanks for doing this AMA!

I’m a cofounder of a startup in the US. Two of us are here on green cards, but our third cofounder is based in Switzerland. He has a PhD from a top university, previously founded a company, and has raised over $30M in the past.

At what stage would it be possible for us to bring him to the US on a visa? Would it be:

- As soon as we incorporate a C Corp?

- After raising funding?

- Once we have revenue?

Are there any specific visa pathways (O-1, L-1, E-2, etc.) that would be most relevant for him, given his background?

Appreciate any guidance on this!

This should be an easy O-1 and you should kick off that process after you have incorporated the company (and done a few other easy company-related things).

Thanks for doing this Peter!

I'm the founder of an early-stage company seeking to establish an office in Phoenix, Arizona. My situation has specific immigration complexities I hope you can maybe give some pointers on.

My spouse is currently subject to a 10-year bar from entering the United States due to an overstay....

We are exploring a hardship waiver (I-601/I-601A) but finding the process challenging while simultaneously managing my business responsibilities. I've been considering various visa pathways including TN, H-1B, and have begun the I-130 petition process for my spouse. Given these circumstances:

What strategies would you recommend for addressing my spouse's admissibility issues most effectively? Are there particular hardship waiver approaches that have proven successful in similar entrepreneurial situations? Could you advise on the comparative benefits of different visa pathways in our specific case? Are there any specialized resources or professionals with expertise in cases combining entrepreneurship with complex inadmissibility issues?

Sorry for this punting response but the details here really matter (how long she overstayed, how long she's been outside the U.S., whether you or she has any health issues, what your business does, etc.) so I would recommend consulting a business immigration attorney with waiver experience

I had fun vibecoding and fine-tuning a model on all past proberts answers: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43374736

Mind-blowing (to me)!

I've seen recent examples of the government targeting green card holders for their speech. As a naturalized citizen who wants to exercise my free speech rights, how concerned should I be about potentially having my citizenship challenged on technical grounds? Are there realistic scenarios where this could happen despite First Amendment protections?

Until recently, I would have said that the only way a citizen could have his or her citizenship taken away was by committing treason but there has been talk by the current administration about expanding the grounds as well as increasing denaturalization efforts. The first Trump administration tried this but it was largely unsuccessful but it's a different administration and a different Supreme Court so I don't think concerns now are unjustified.

To be clear, the statutory standards for denaturalization are quite expansive: https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-12-part-l-chapter....

8 USC 1451(a):

> a) Concealment of material evidence; refusal to testify It shall be the duty of the United States attorneys for the respective districts, upon affidavit showing good cause therefor, to institute proceedings in any district court of the United States in the judicial district in which the naturalized citizen may reside at the time of bringing suit, for the purpose of revoking and setting aside the order admitting such person to citizenship and canceling the certificate of naturalization on the ground that such order and certificate of naturalization were illegally procured or were procured by concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation

According to USCIS, the misrepresentation need not be but-for material. That is, you only need to show that the omission or misrepresentation was relevant to the naturalization inquiry. But you do not need to prove that the government would have denied naturalization had it known the true facts. In that respect, the standard is similar to 18 USC 1001, which has been applied extremely broadly in federal prosecutions. The second Trump administration has much smarter lawyers than the first one, and I'd count on them to be aggressive about using the full scope of section 1451(a).

Isn’t the green card risk based on a couple of items in the green card process The visa process and the person’s assertions to those visa questions For example - did you every x? And the required answer is No Let’s assume the person did commit X but answers No Years go by and the person gets a green card. The underlying assertion was a lie - therefore the whole stream of events later becomes questionable. The second situation is a new item being added. For example consider the hypothetical scenario that When the applicant filled out his forms - greenpeace was legit. And the applicant was a greenpeace member. Years later the applicant becomes a green card holder. Now years later. The govt classifies greenpeace a terror org. Is the green card holder under threat?

So this is not legal advice and I'm not an immigration lawyer. And I'm not explaining how the law is likely to be applied. Instead, I'm explaining how an aggressive government prosecutor could plausibly seek to apply it.

The wording of 8 USC 1451(a) is not limited to particular questions on visa or green-card applications. The statute refers to how the "order and certificate of naturalization were ... procured" which arguably encompasses everything leading up to the order and certificate. Moreover, the statute has two separate prongs for revocation: (1) the "order and certificate of naturalization were illegally procured"; or (2) "were procured by concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation."

The way government prosecutors interpret these statutes is to push each of these terms and prongs as far as they can logically go. For example, you could argue that the phrase "illegally procured" encompasses any unlawful activity that has some arguable nexus to the visa or naturalization process.

As to the second prong, 8 USC 1427(a) sets forth extensive requirements for who qualifies for naturalization. The requirements are extremely vague and broad:

> No person, except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, shall be naturalized unless such applicant, (1) immediately preceding the date of filing his application for naturalization has resided continuously, after being lawfully admitted for permanent residence, within the United States for at least five years and during the five years immediately preceding the date of filing his application has been physically present therein for periods totaling at least half of that time, and who has resided within the State or within the district of the Service in the United States in which the applicant filed the application for at least three months, (2) has resided continuously within the United States from the date of the application up to the time of admission to citizenship, and (3) during all the periods referred to in this subsection has been and still is a person of good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States.

That third requirement is so broad that almost any fact about a person could be deemed material to the naturalization decision. Now, remember that 8 USC 1451(a) only allows naturalization to be revoked based on concealing or misrepresenting material facts. So it must be the case that you were arguably required to disclose the fact to the government at some point and either didn't or misrepresented the fact. But if you made an omission or misstatement on any government form ever, that could be fair game for bringing revocation proceedings.

I am also not an immigration lawyer. In Maslenjak v. United States (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-309_h31i.pdf), eight justices disagreed with the expansive interpretation of the statute you describe. From the majority opinion, "The statute Congress passed, most naturally read, strips a person of citizenship not when she committed any illegal act during the naturalization process, but only when that act played some role in her naturalization." and "Suppose that an applicant for citizenship fills out the paperwork in a government office with a knife tucked away in her handbag. She has violated the law against possessing a weapon in a federal building, and she has done so in the course of procuring citizenship, but nobody would say she has “procure[d]” her citizenship “contrary to law.” That is because the violation of law and the acquisition of citizenship in that example are merely coincidental: The one has no causal relation to the other."

So that case involves 28 USC 1425, which doesn’t have an expressly-stated materiality requirement. The holding of the case is that, nonetheless, the statute requires an omission or misrepresentation to be material, which the Court defines as information “that would have mattered to an immigration official.”

8 USC 1451(a) has an express materiality requirement, which I addressed in my comment. The standard of what “would have mattered to an immigration official” can be seen extremely broadly in view of 8 USC 1427(a). In the context of the false statements statute, 18 USC 1001, material facts are those that have the “tendency” to influence the decision maker, but need not actually influence the decision. United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506, 510 (1995).

The materiality requirement provides some protection. It’s doubtful revocation could be premised on someone having illegally parked their car when going into a USCIS interview. But the standard for materiality is still quite expansive and leaves a lot of room for aggressive prosecutors.

Great points. The whole doc is vague and filled with trap doors.

Best to get a citizenship asap

Iirc not legal advice but there are reasons why some people may not want to apply for citizenship, if something has happened since they got their green card and they'd prefer not to have to have to put on an application.

Interesting - hadn't considered that possibility - makes sense

GP is talking about denaturalization, which is exactly stripping citizenship.

This is why the ask what seems like an absurd question - “Are you a Nazi?” - on the US citizenship application.

Not because they expect people to say “yes”, but because if they find out later you hide information about your involvement in WW2, they deport you for lying.

No need to prove you were an actual Nazi. You withheld information which is enough grounds for revoking citizenship.

There's ample legal precedent in the federal system that a green card holder is a "US Person" for many things related to the federal government. For instance, a green card holder can form a corporation, own an FFL, register it with the ATF, become an FFL 02/07 (firearms manufacturer), and even become a SOT (special occupational taxpayer), to manufacture, buy and sell NFA items (silencers). The corporation owned by the permanent resident can even manufacture post-1986 full auto ATF-defined "machine guns", to be retained/owned by the company, as manufacturer samples for demos and sales to law enforcement within the USA.

Permanent Residents are also treated as a "US Person" for the purposes of FAA pilot licensing, up to the largest categories of multi-engine jet transport aircraft.

This doesn't address what recently happened with one specific Permanent Resident that's been in the news, but it's a very chilling effect if suddenly green card status people don't have the right to the 1st amendment.