Top
Best
New

Posted by tlhunter 1 day ago

Green card seekers must leave U.S. to apply, Trump administration says(www.nytimes.com)
https://www.uscis.gov/newsroom/news-releases/us-citizenship-...

https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/memos/PM-... [pdf]

https://twitter.com/DHSgov/status/2057817233200418837, https://xcancel.com/DHSgov/status/2057817233200418837

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgrpz4l1klgo

https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/2026/05/22/new-ru..., https://archive.is/yi2cX

555 points | 962 commentspage 8
SV_BubbleTime 22 hours ago|
I was under the impression that this is roughly how it works (assume equivalency) in most European countries is it not?
jesseendahl 21 hours ago||
No, it is not. And if you fall in love and want to get married to someone on a student visa, your fiancée should not need to leave the country for a year or two to wait for paperwork to process. Which is one of the real world impacts of this change.
refurb 21 hours ago||
Why wouldn’t your spouse just stay on the student visa? From what I gather it’s purely the processing that is overseas.

Stay on whatever visa you’re on -> apply for consular processing -> travel for interview -> enter on green card

kettlecorn 20 hours ago||
The green card process can take 9 to 20 months and applying for a green card demonstrates an intent to immigrate so it's highly likely attempts to return on other temporary visas like a student visa will be denied.

So they likely have to wait out the green card process abroad unless they secure a dual-intent visa like an H-1B.

There's also 75 countries that the US has shut down consular processing for so those people may be locked out getting a green card entirely.

refurb 13 hours ago||
Right. But logically it makes sense - unless you have a valid visa you’re not allowed to stay.

You could go the fiancé visa route and stay in status while waiting for the green card.

I think what this policy is trying to avoid is the blanket “you can stay while processing even if you’re not in the country legally”

_fizz_buzz_ 21 hours ago|||
Absolutely not. My wife could apply for German permanent residency as well as now German citizenship from within Germany. She has been living in Germany for 10 years now and at no point in the process did she have to go through a German consulate (she is a US citizen).
nyargh 21 hours ago|||
For many immigration statuses in Sweden, you must leave and apply outside of the country (outside of Schengen for non EU-citizens) to change status. This was even the case before the current right wing government was elected.
busterarm 21 hours ago||
Except for the part about requiring you to leave to process your application.

Wait times to process applications depend on your country of origin and visa type. If you are an H1B from India that was already decades approaching never. Same for Brazil and elsewhere.

And that was before Trump. All that was practically halted.

xp84 5 hours ago||
This is confusing. If someone is already here on a valid visa, it's stupid that they should have to go anywhere else.

If they simply showed up or overstayed a visa illegally, then it's actually totally reasonable that before they can be given permanent resident status, they should be demonstrating compliance with immigration laws by not being here illegally.

Yet again with Trump's bizarre mixture of a nugget of a reasonable (and popular) idea with a barrel of nonsense and chaos. It's the same as with tariffs. Tariff things produced by adversaries, that we are well-positioned to make here ourselves and stimulate a good domestic industry with good-paying jobs? Yeah, but also let's tariff a ton of things we need that we don't even freaking make or grow here, and against our geopolitical allies to boot.

0xbadcafebee 5 hours ago||
This is them working their way up through "purges" of undesireables. Remember it first started with illegal immigrants. Now it's expanding the classes of who counts as illegal. First forcing green card holders to become illegal. Next they'll make it illegal to speak out against the government, be a union organizer, trans person, non-Christian, anyone who gets or helps someone get an abortion (actually that's already illegal), socialists/social democrats, anyone who supports Palestine.

By 2029 the gloves will come off. The internment camps of today will be dwarfed by what comes next. If you think I'm crazy, look at what they've already said in the past. They are not kidding anymore.

blindriver 5 hours ago||
You can apply for GC from within the US. The only time you need to leave for Consular Processing is for the interview, after which you immediately receive your GC. Everyone is saying that the entire GC process needs to be done outside the US but that's wrong. You can have an H1B and apply for GC from within the US without leaving and you only need to leave for the CP interview which is a couple of days max.
0xy 1 day ago||
This is to close the common loophole where people would fly into the US on an ESTA, B-2 or another temporary visa "without immigration intent" (fraud) and then marry a US Citizen and adjust status.

On visa forums this method is commonly discussed. By entering on an ESTA/B-2 with the intent to marry a US Citizen, they're committing immigration fraud, inherently. You would be denied entry at the border if you admitted to your plans.

The correct way to do this is to file a K-1 visa outside the United States, or marry outside then file a IR-1/CR-1.

BrokenCogs 1 day ago||
No, this also affects anyone under employment based immigration petitions unrelated to marrying a US citizen.
0xy 1 day ago||
Only if they do not maintain lawful status, which is what the law says anyway. In fact, it specifically mentions this: "USCIS acknowledges exceptions including nonimmigrant categories with dual intent and immigrant categories where only adjustment of status provides a pathway to permanent resident status"

https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/memos/PM-...

zippothrowaway 1 day ago|||
Footnote 20 on page 4:

Footnote 20: However, maintaining lawful status in a dual intent nonimmigrant category is not sufficient, on its own, to warrant a favorable exercise of discretion

BrokenCogs 1 day ago|||
Where in the memo does it say "only if they do not maintain lawful status"? there are plenty of people adjusting under employment based petitions who have non-immigrant visas (eg O-1) which are not dual intent.
0xy 1 day ago||
O-1 is a dual intent visa, as is L-1, as is H-1B, so I have no idea what you're talking about?
BrokenCogs 21 hours ago||
No, the O-1 is not officially dual intent: https://www.wegreened.com/o1-visa
0xy 10 hours ago||
Complete nonsense. It is.

https://fam.state.gov/fam/09FAM/09FAM040213.html#M402_13_5_B

BrokenCogs 10 hours ago||
Do you know why many sources state that it is not dual intent or that it is "quasi dual intent"?
0xy 7 hours ago||
"The noncitizen may legitimately come to the United States for a temporary period as an O-1 or O-3 dependent nonimmigrant and depart voluntarily at the end of their authorized stay and, at the same time, lawfully seek to become an LPR of the United States."

Seems extremely clear to me.

rafram 1 day ago|||
Maybe it does close that loophole, but the effects are much, much broader and more harmful: https://www.cato.org/blog/dhs-quits-granting-green-cards-alm...
freediddy 1 day ago|||
This article is intentionally misleading.

Department of Homeland Security is no longer processing Green Cards via AOS. That included UCSIS.

However the STATE DEPARTMENT is still processing it via Consular Processing.

The article makes it sounds like the US is no longer offering Green Cards which is false.

0xy 1 day ago|||
The article you linked is patently incorrect. It claims "Now, every legal immigrant must leave the country—that is, self-deport—even if they are qualified for a green card and even if leaving would disqualify them.". This is false according to USCIS' memo.

It very specifically lays out common exceptions to this, including for legal immigrants on dual intent visas and those whose only pathway to permanent residency is via adjustment of status.

It also wildly misinterprets the news to claim that the K-1 visa has been effectively ended, even though the memo specifically excludes it.

https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/memos/PM-...

throwaway_62022 1 day ago||
No the memo specifically says:

> However, maintaining lawful status in a dual intent nonimmigrant category is not sufficient, on its own, to warrant a favorable exercise of discretion.

Which basically means that, applying AOS while being in dual-intent category is not favorable and you will have to prove extraordinary circumstance for a simple i-485 AOS on H1B. Lacking the extraordinary circumstance, your application may be denied.

What this basically means for millions of people on H1B (especially from countries like India is), they have to go for consular processing. And given the lack of appointments in India and delays they are facing - you could be stuck for months to years and no company is going to wait for you while you go through the process. So leaving would definitely disqualify them.

0xy 1 day ago||
Why should H1Bs be exempt from consular processing when nobody else is? K and IR/CR categories MUST do consular processing, which takes 3 years in some cases.

H1Bs should jump the queue why? You're arguing that the family of US Citizens should be considered behind temporary immigrant workers with no family ties to the United States, and you should be exempt from the requirements they face.

throwaway_62022 23 hours ago||
You are moving the goal posts. You said this memo does not apply to dual intent visa holders and I proved it does. I am not saying if an exception should be made ffor H1B visa holders or not.

I am just pointing out this affects all employment visa types.for countries with long delays in counselor processing this effectively kills any chance of getting Green card because no employer will wait that long.

0xy 11 hours ago||
So, it's exactly as I said.

https://www.businessinsider.com/new-green-card-rule-wont-aff...

beej71 1 day ago|||
Given our population problems, I can't think of a single rational reason why we'd want to stop this from happening.
arrowleaf 1 day ago||
Our population problems, in that we need immigration to avoid population decline? Our total fertility rate is 1.6.
beej71 1 day ago||
Exactly that. And really, it's still not going to be enough.
nrmitchi 1 day ago|||
It is absolutely NOT specific to the very limited situation you are describing, which is already a big red flag when processing applications.
0xy 1 day ago||
"USCIS acknowledges exceptions including nonimmigrant categories with dual intent and immigrant categories where only adjustment of status provides a pathway to permanent resident status"

https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/memos/PM-...

nrmitchi 1 day ago||
The literal next line after your quote is:

> While aliens who were inspected and admitted or paroled may request adjustment of status, as a general matter the discretionary approval of such a request is extraordinary given Congress’s intent that aliens should depart once the purpose for which they sought parole or nonimmigrant admission from DHS has been accomplished.

axpy906 2 hours ago|||
Holy shit why is this comment buried?! This is exactly the purpose.
rorylawless 23 hours ago||
Slight correction here. It is fraud if you intend to stay after getting married. Nobody cares if you get married on a tourist visa and leave the country after.
mothballed 1 day ago||
This appears to close off the method by which all the "dreamers" I'm familiar with got GC/citizenship, which is by marriage.
anonym29 13 hours ago||
So what does this do to the K-1 fiancée visa? Your partner gets the visa, they come over, you get married, and then they have to leave and submit an application to get status changed from their origin country? Seriously? WTF is this crap?
stackskipton 7 hours ago|
K-1 visa is immigrant intent, you are basically applying for temporary 90 day pass to get married and one of two things will happen: Get married and adjust your status or leave.

What this screws over is there was plenty of people from US visa waiver countries who decided K-1 was too hard and just flew over to US and got married. They would then apply for Adjustment of Status. That is big door being shut close because B-1 is non immigrant intent visa.

My room mate from college did this with UK foreign exchange student 20 years ago. She came over on visitor visa, got married and they got a lawyer to fix it all up.

anonym29 6 hours ago||
What about for people who do want follow the K-1 process "by the book"? It sounds like they would they now need to come over, get married, go back to their origin country to apply for status adjustment, and then come back over again? Or am I misreading this?
stackskipton 2 hours ago||
You are misreading this. K-1 can come and stay since it’s considered an immigrant visa.

This screws over anyone who enters the country on visitor/temp work or student visa since those visas are not immigrant visa. You would be expected to leave the country and apply for GC overseas if you got married on one of those.

_blk 19 hours ago||
This does not seem to target NIWs but rather those who use change of status as a way of extending their stay.

Change of status was never meant for those without status in the first place or for tourists.

I would love be to hear an immigration lawyer's perspective on this.

Here's the memo directly:

https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/memos/PM-...

NDlurker 12 hours ago||
We live on a prison planet. The borders are the cell walls. Some of us have more privileges and freedom to travel, but we're all restricted. This doesn't help anyone other than the few parasitic slave masters.
talon8635 12 hours ago|
It’s an overly upsetting policy, but comparing me to a slave because of my US citizenship seems… distasteful.

The are other nits to pick with the analogy, but I’ll leave it at that

NDlurker 11 hours ago||
I'm talking about the whole world. The immigration systems are like controlling which pastures different herds are allowed to graze.
talon8635 6 hours ago||
What barns you can live in, perhaps, but not what pastures you can graze in.
busterarm 21 hours ago|
This is such an insanely unpopular move even among some of trump’s supporters. I really think this will be this version of the republican party’s suicide note.
airstrike 21 hours ago||
It's an insanely stupid move, but from what I'm seeing on Twitter, it's somehow not that unpopular among the less bright.
serf 19 hours ago|||
> it's somehow not that unpopular among the less bright.

politics aside, do you realistically believe that you can view twitter and actually mentally carve out the opinion of a group of people in real life?

that's exactly the issue with twitter.

for one : you're polling twitter users (a TINY subsect of humanity), two : you're extracting opinion from those that seek to broadcast it (an outlier) , and three: twitter never self-exposes the world to a user, it selectively curates and amplifies, and fourth : it's one of the most gamed communications arenas in existence.

you're viewing the world through an itty-bitty twitter-colored monocle and making sweeping accusations across large cohorts, it's not an accurate portrayal of actual human opinion.

airstrike 9 hours ago||
I don't think it's a perfectly representative sample of people in real life, so I always view it as an anthropological experiment, as if I'm visiting wild tribes... but still am finding the proportion of people in favor of this decision to be surprisingly high.
vixen99 6 hours ago||||
Why insanely stupid? No, I don't mean you might not be right but it's nice to hear arguments rather than a pointless slight against people you assume fit your category.
airstrike 1 hour ago||
Because immigration is a net positive for economies, as any economist will explain to you. Especially high-skilled immigration, but it's not even limited to that. An increasing population is already a net positive.
cheinic6493 21 hours ago|||
> It's an insanely stupid move, but from what I'm seeing on Twitter, it's somehow not that unpopular among the less bright.

Nah. I’m an Indian-American (born in America, never visited India) working at a FANG company here in SF South Bay and I support this policy.

We need fewer immigrants in America for the next 10 years until we can sort out our domestic issues (education, healthcare, taxation, cost of living).

Once the immigrants are gone and birthright tourism / birthright citizenship to non-US citizen parents is also gone (hopefully next week), politicians can no longer blame immigrants for americas problems.

digitaltrees 20 hours ago|||
Or we could build more houses, and schools and hospitals. When did we become a country of scarcity instead of builders? Half of downtown down San Francisco is built on the abandoned boats from migrants that were building too fast to bother moving the boats that brought them to the gold rush so they just built a city on top.

We could create special economic zones like china, allow 200 million immigrants into the country with a goal of a billion people to match the population of china and India. Make it a condition of citizenship that they help build ten homes or similar infrastructure. Immigrants could be the solution to all the problems you cite and they certainly aren’t the reason those problems exist.

anigbrowl 20 hours ago||||
If you think this is going to immunize you from the worst of what the MAGA movement has to offer I think you're in for a rude awakening.
zaptheimpaler 16 hours ago|||
It’s sad you don’t realize who you’re getting in bed with. H1Bs and their families are only 0.4% of the population and yet they’re being blamed for -all of americas problems. Must be your first rodeo around the american political system if you actually think they will no longer blame you even if that number shrinks to 0.1%. The economic considerations have always been a pretense. Some of them hate you because you’re brown but not the kind of exploitable cheap labour brown that serves them food and cleans their houses. Politicians see an easy scapegoat to blame for their mismanagement of the country and lean on the narrative. Indians keep leaning republican and learning this lesson over and over again.
digitaltrees 20 hours ago||
Or evidence that they are confident their takeover and transition to single party rule was successful a they are not subject to further accountability.

If something seems irrational it’s usually a sign that you don’t understand the underlying logic. This behavior is totally logical if they aren’t worried about losing power.

More comments...