Why hundreds of thousands of kids in the US dread their 21st birthdays | Hacker News Reader

Why hundreds of thousands of kids in the US dread their 21st birthdays

cnn.com

76 pointsGrowtika153 comments

One major reason: the green card backlog is immense – especially for immigrants from India; it can take decades for them even to have a chance to apply.

This is bad even from the most hardcore selfish, anti-immigrant position: you want people moving in when they're educated and young, not when they're a decade or less away from retirement.

The current wait time for a green card for an Indian is on the order of 100-120 years.

One of my reports, an engineer from Chennai, doesn’t want to renew his H1B in two years time and is considering either working from our office in Bangalore or beginning a startup in India. The dynamics have changed in the country. The startup scene and the maturity of mobile networks has made India a far more attractive place to live and work than it did 10 years ago.

Most developed nations are going to regret the end of this brain drain.

Same here in Eastern Europe.

I was on a contract in Switzerland in 2020 and while the pay was awesome, it wasn't sustainable - permanent employees in the same company make around 2-2.5x of what I do back home, but the cost of living (especially real estate) is 3-4x, so I have no incentive to migrate there.

I mean, Switzerland is nice, just not that nice when you're an immigrant.

I don't recall anyone from my former team staying either, despite getting job offers.

Except if you come from the EU and you have a job in Switzerland, you get a permit, more or less _by default_. You are even allowed to stay for 3 months just looking for a job!

Good luck trying that in the US.

Side-note: Having watched a number of "Benefits Britain" episodes recently, I realized that the main reason why the Swiss insist on a permit (for which a job is necessary - or a lot of money) is because certain folks from the East would immediately come and take advantage of the benefits system, as they did in the UK before Brexit.

This behaviour was so alien to me that initially I did not understand the permit situation - why have it if I get it "automatically"? That's why.

I hear this a lot but I'm yet to meet a person who travelled this far just to be on welfare.

I'm sure they exist, but it sounds like such a weird reason to go, considering the abundance of jobs and generally better labour laws in the west.

For what it's worth you're probably no more clued in on British benefit dynamics after watching those episodes than you were before, they're propaganda and not even particularly enlightening.

Great for India though. I'm Indian and immigrated to the US when young so didn't necessarily have a say in the matter, but I've always thought that it's a shame that the best people there are simply going to other countries, not helping to actually improve their mother country. So I'm glad to see more people improving India through startups and entrepreneurship in general.

A country is supposed to help it's people, and get loyalty in return. A country does not have a "right" to people.

Works both ways. Indians don't have a right to migrate to America or Europe.

They used to call it "God's Green Earth". Did you check with God about whether anybody had the right to tell people where they could live on it?

I think the term "right" is misleading — all rights are granted by governments, none are natural things which would exist without governments (no matter how much my inner anarchist wishes otherwise), government can create the right for others to enter as easily as the right to vote or the right to a fair trial, and that means American and European national governments can if they wished create a right for Indians in general to do just that.

They haven't, but they could.

I mean if we're going to base the rights of humans off of what their respective countries say their citizens have, then with equal strength a country can declare that it has the right to keep its citizens in its own territory.

Yup, that's a fair criticism. Also feels kinda sorta true, given origin countries can revoke passports? But I'm not confident about how any of that works in practice.

Part of why I think the term "rights" is unhelpful, it comes with moral associations that makes people (me included) feel unclean when peering behind the metaphorical curtain and examining how such things function in practice.

Does an Indian individual have a right to be treated equally as Icelandic individual, with respect to us immigration system? Because the system is unfairly discriminating against Indian citizens.

How could these lotteries be made more fair to those born in the most populous countries?

From what I have witnessed, it could be made more fair by simply punishing fraud by taking away the number of applications a company can apply for, and by issuing 10 year bans to candidates found to be lying. There is so much lying about credentials and job experience in these situations.

That will reduce the amount of fraudulent applications, making way for more honest (and higher quality) applicants.

It isn’t unfairly discriminating. The quotas are based on population.

And naturally there are going to be a higher number of immigrants from countries that have a bigger disparity in quality of life, career prospects, etc.

Where did GP say it did?

Indeed, I was just expressing my happiness at seeing my birth country improve, not saying that a country should trap their populace there to do so.

As an Indian who came to the US at a very young age (in the early 90s), I would offer a different perspective.

That it isn’t that the best and brightest chose not to stay. It’s that the society and system constantly put up all the wrong barriers and left them no choice if they wanted to actually realize their potential.

I can only speak of (south) India of the 80s before the economy was opened up, and there was basically no tolerance for anyone who thought differently. People were stopped by all the wrong obstacles. Bureaucracies, bribes, an unnecessarily closed market. And that’s just market forces, before we get to societal forces. If you dared to veer off the usual path, you were often ostracized. Silly caste based judgements and such.

That India lost its best and brightest for decades is a tragedy. And I am truly happy to see the tremendous progress that has come in the last 3 decades.

But I hold nothing against NRIs (Non-resident Indians like my parents) who were willing to pick up their very comfortable lives and start from scratch in a new land, rather than to put up with a system that had failed them for decades. We’ve battled homesickness, culture shocks, the constant tug of war that is immigrant identity, and other such things, to arrive at where we are.

It’s the reason why I can nearly instantly relate with immigrants from any country before I can relate fully to those that have never immigrated in either land.

I agree with you too. I definitely don't look down or hold anything against NRIs, since I am one as well. I just meant that in the aggregate that it's better for a society to improve itself rather than having its best and brightest move away, regardless of the reason, including bureaucracy and the others you listed.

I’m passionate about this. I’ve already lost 2 of my best reports (1 Indian and 1 Chinese) to our Canadian office. The few remaining people we have on the H1 pretty much had the current lane duck session as their last hope for reform, but with Republicans controlling the House and then low hopes for Democrats in 2024, I think we’re gonna lose them all. Especially if the UK implements the immigration reform they’ve been promising by switching to a Canada like points system.

> I’ve already lost 2 of my best reports (1 Indian and 1 Chinese) to our Canadian office.

With remote work did you really lose them ?

I moved back to India almost 4 years ago. I haven’t regretted it one bit; I have sacrificed nothing except maybe relatively cleaner air.

Most of the smart folks (engineers or otherwise) who would’ve targeted the US don’t consider it any more. For software folks, Bangalore/Hyderabad/Gurgaon offer salaries which are objectively the best outside NY/CA/Seattle.

The current visa process is an insult to talented people. There is no need to go through that mental torture, there are way better options available.

In a way, it is good for the developing countries in the long run.

To be completely honest, a lot of that backlog is completely self-imposed thanks to the way (mostly Indian) body shops game the H1B system.

Keep in mind that If I want to hire: A smart graduate from EPFL, Polytechnique or ETH Zurich who interned at CERN and has contributed to the Linux kernel for a software engineering job at a unicorn startup or

A grad from a second tier "technical college" in India with a visa refusal rate of ~90% for a job doing manual UI testing and QA for a body shop [0].

my only path forward is H1. They'll both be listed as "computer related occupations" and apply for the same visa in the same quota. Does that make any sense to anyone?

Of course, my odds of getting a lottery spot for the former are dramatically lower, since we all know body shops and consulting firms won't hesitate to file 4-5 applications per seat they plan to fill out (so one can hopefully get a spot in the lottery and not get any RFE).

Let's be real for a moment here: if the people applying fraudulently were to simply respect the law and only use these visas for real specialty occupations the backlog would clear itself in a few years.

Thankfully, the previous administration started issuing more RFEs and catching fraudulent applicants [1].

[0] https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/silicon-valleys-body-s...

[1] https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-h-1b_b_5890d86ce4b0522c...

Wouldn't the most hardcore selfish anti-immigrant position not want people immigrating at all?

There’s a difference between not allowing anyone in, and actively driving out young people who are already in and would make a substantial economic contribution over their careers.

There are of course hardcore anti-immigrant people who advocate for the latter. That position is generally founded openly on sentimental nationalism and/or racism because it doesn’t make any economic sense.

It makes economic sense to the fellow workers that are from the first world country. H1B visas etc are mainly a tool used by company founders, CEOs etc to keep wages down.

We’re not talking about H1B visas but young adults who have already received an education in the US and are now facing deportation. This makes no sense for the national economy.

I feel for these young people and I hope to get to stay in the country of their choice. As a general point, though, the law of supply and demand applies to labour as it does any other commodity.

Maybe net each one of these young people against a proposed H1B slot.

It’s hilarious that we just had a massive pandemic after which 90% of the discussion on this forum was about how everything can be done remotely now, and you think that American workers need to compete with H1Bs who no longer are competition for them when they remote work from Beijing instead of Hawaii, except, now, potentially at 1/3 the salary (at which they still live much better quality of lives in Beijing than they did in the US).

The complete lack of logic of the anti-knowledge worker immigrant position never ceases to amuse me.

So you think unlimited H1B workers should be allowed to immigrate because the work can be done remotely anyway?

Only a tiny fraction of jobs can be done (well) remotely. Those jobs are just over-represented here on HN.

This is just a fact. If a company can hire someone for cheaper they will. They focus on profits and not on the well being of the country in which they're based.

Which interests are fighting H-1B immigration, and why?

Why are Indians who oppose immigration for creating a brain drain in India allowed to prioritize what they think is good for Indian people but white Americans who think Asian immigration is bad for them get attacked for prioritizing what they think is good for white people?

Because white Americans who oppose educated Asian immigration are stupid. GP said educated young Asian immigration is good for the US. It's even better for people who are already in the US, whose property values go up and whose tax revenue goes up for them to mooch off of. The alternative is that these people have been educated on America's dime and then are deported to another country that will benefit.

If white people should support immigration because it is good for white people than doesn’t than mean you are making an argument that is racist and white supremacist? Because usually Europeans who oppose non-European immigration are the ones called racist and white supremacist. Why is it ok to support immigration by highlighting the ways it is good for white people but bad to oppose it by highlighting the ways it is bad for white people?

You have misunderstood what I said. It is good to support it by highlighting the ways it is good and stupid to oppose it by letting your racist antipathy to Asians get in the way of supporting something that is good for you and instead end up spending money for other countries to benefit.

Having an opinion on Asian immigration policy isn't inherently racist. Racism can influence opinions in a way that leads to bad policy.

Do you admit the mere possibility of being wrong about immigration being good for white Americans and promise to come to the defense of those who are called racist for arguing it is not?

I'd certainly support them if they are not racist. Are you willing to admit that most of the people who are against immigration of educated non-white young people from Asia are doing so because they are racist?

What argument can a white person make against immigration that you personally would consider to not be racist? If you deny any exist then you are just attacking people for being white and disagreeing with what you think is good for them.

If a nonwhite person made the same argument, they would be as stupid as the white person making that argument. If only white people make an argument, that is a good clue that the argument is probably racist.

To answer your question, I have to evaluate each argument separately for stupidity or racism. An example stupid argument is that it depresses wages for people who are already here. An example racist argument calls out educated non-white immigration in particular.

If everyone in Germany agreed the jews should be kicked out and only jews disagreed then by your logic that would mean those jews are just a bunch of racists. I disagree with you and await your list of caveats and exceptions designed to specifically deny white people the ability to stand up for themselves.

Irsaeel doesn’t allow non-jewish immigration. Is that because jews are racist?

Immigration is so bad for white people the only reason to support it is if you personally benefit (understandable) or you hate white people (unacceptable). So which one is it in your case?

Isn't it uneconomic for a country to educate young people and then deport them as soon as they (are old enough to) start working and paying taxes?

It is. But in the giant sea of other uneconomic things the US does, this is only a tiny drop.

I feel like it is the biggest drop. A young, productive population is one of a country’s biggest advantage. The US has natural resources, a relatively stable political system and high trust society (at least for day to day interactions), but the biggest weakness going forward is a smaller proportion of young workers.

Why would any country not want the fruits of 40+ years of labor from the examples of the people in the article?

> relatively stable political system

Compared to say Afghanistan maybe, but compared to other developed countries, not really. Political gridlock for most of the time, and a two party system that practically guarantees a constant back and forth with the ones currently in power spending most of their time to undo what the previous ones did during their time in power.

> high trust society (at least for day to day interactions)

That's not the impression i get from the people screaming they need to carry weapons to feel safe.

> but the biggest weakness going forward is a smaller proportion of young workers.

Today's young workers in the US (but that's not in any way a US specific phenomenon) feel that many things that were normal for the previous generation (e.g. home ownership) are simply out of reach. Adding more young people without fixing the underlying issues causing the already existing ones to struggle hard is not going to make anything better.

> Political gridlock for most of the time, and a two party system that practically guarantees a constant back and forth with the ones currently in power spending most of their time to undo what the previous ones did during their time in power.

This sounds like the definition of stable. But what I actually meant by stable is where you can reasonably expect legal decisions and regulations to be predictable and hence plan around-able. Contrasted to a place where you have to pay unknown bribes to shifting allegiances, etc.

>That's not the impression i get from the people screaming they need to carry weapons to feel safe.

I would bet 90% of Americans do not go to sleep worrying about safety, or choosing to carry guns all the time because of it. But the high trust I was talking about was for things like being able to trust the plumber you called knows his stuff, or that you will get paid on your regular payday, or the food and medicine you buy will be as advertised.

> Today's young workers in the US (but that's not in any way a US specific phenomenon) feel that many things that were normal for the previous generation (e.g. home ownership) are simply out of reach.

Prices are a function of supply and demand. The US is not lacking in supply of land, but maybe it is lacking in supply of land near desirable regions experiencing economic growth. Old people are not going to be able to develop the land into homes, nor are they going to spur economic growth. Young people raising children does that.

> Adding more young people without fixing the underlying issues causing the already existing ones to struggle hard is not going to make anything better.

Adding young people, especially qualified young people who produce things people want, especially outside the country’s borders, is exactly what would make things better. It would increase demand for products and services, without increasing debt.

> a two party system that practically guarantees a constant back and forth

Is this not stability?

The DC value of an oscillating system can be thought of as stable, but whether the dynamic behavior is stable or unstable comes down to the damping factor. Reasonable people can differ, but there certainly seems to be a tendency to underdamping recently.

> Is this not stability?

No? Maybe one could claim it results in some sort of equilibrium, but radically changing policy on important topics such as environmental protection, corporation taxes, infrastructure, etc. every 4 years is not stability. Not to mention that every topic becomes an instant partisan issue - if one party says something is good, the other has to fight against it, regardless of merits.

> That's not the impression i get from the people screaming they need to carry weapons to feel safe.

I don’t want to dive too deeply into this, as it isn’t the heart of your comment - but I do want to say that as someone who carries a firearm every day, it’s not because I feel unsafe. Rather, it’s because I see it as my responsibility to maintain that safety, not the responsibility of someone else (i.e., police).

It’s based in ideology, not inadequate governance.

What are some larger "uneconomic" things in the US?

All of these people can get cheaper college education in their country of birth than in USA. So that's a plus.

They can come back with a H1B visa to pay taxes in the US. I bet a lot of them could even qualify for residency in Canada, an even better opportunity for them with more reasonable immigration policies.

Education does not start at the age of 21 though

Why would they waste 4+2 years of F1 status?

It's just as bad to have all of these young people in the USA and have them not learning tech, medicine, engineering. We have to rely on immigrants to take these jobs because Americans aren't going to school for this stuff.

Forty-two percent of California's workers in science, technology, engineering and math occupations were born in a foreign nation

Digging deeper, we see that 20.7% of foreign born with bachelor's degrees are in STEM occupations compared with 11.4% for similarly educated USA born

As of 2017, over 40 percent of the U.S. doctoral-level workforce was foreign-born. In computer sciences, mathematics, and engineering, nearly 60 percent of PhD holders in the U.S. workforce are foreign-born

What happens when these people start to go home? Why don't American kids want to prepare themselves for these high-paying jobs?

American schools simply aren’t that good in many cases, because educators are more focused on political concerns that don’t matter

>What happens when these people start to go home?

The US can very well be home for someone born elsewhere. It would be wrong to assume that those people are somehow just temporarily staying.

I’d imagine the group of foreign-born people who are in the US on time-limited or otherwise precarious visas is a lot smaller.

H1Bs would like to have a word with you… Even look at the number of people who are screwed in this job climate because of OPT limits.

I think the numbers above actually make sense if you look at the pressures that influence decisions on what to study and whether to get a PhD for national vs international students.

If you're international getting a bachelors you need to find a company willing to sponsor when you graduate so it makes a lot more sense to pursue a STEM degree that is in high demand to employers.

For graduate students their is compounding pressure because getting a PhD allows the student to stay in the USA while they obtain the degree and STEM degrees qualify for the STEM OPT extension so instead of only having 1 year of work authorization post graduation you have 3 years. If the goal is to stay in the USA permanently it really doesn't make any sense to pursue a non STEM grad degree.

I don't have any commentary on whether the way the system is set up makes sense but I don't think it's just a case of American kids don't want to study these subjects rather theirs intense immigration pressure on international students to funnel them into STEM subjects.

Foreigners go into graduate study for the green card, not because of some massive fascination with the field. Local kids have no need for academia where you are paid poverty wages unless they are truly interested (professional degrees and and MBAs being the exception) or are looking to obtain a tenureship.

They're not high paying enough to offset how unpleasant it is for most people to work in these jobs. Double the salary and you'd see kids flock to these jobs. Continue to make these jobs available to people who are citizens of lower cost of living countries and the salaries remain depressed and really attractive only to that market.

No not necessarily. It works as a deterrent to people who think they can sneak in and have babies. You have to consider the long term damage of the refugee crisis.

We try to do this in the Netherlands. But it doesn't work because nobody wants to send back Western assimilated people back to the barbarian lands.

> back to the barbarian lands.

Are you implying there are actually "shithole countries"?

It is, but also have to weigh it against the fact that typically the workers send remittances back home, which is a big help with foreign exchange balances.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remittances_from_the_United_St...

I am one of these. I think the idea is to have them go back and succeed in their home country so they won't immigrate to the US.

Interesting situation and the opposite of what would make sense. You spend taxpayer money to educate in integrate all these young people, then boot them out? Can't speak for the rest of the world, but the country I do have experience with has something called "naturalization process" (not sure if it's the right translation), where children of immigrant families are fast-tracked to citizenship when they turn 18. Which makes total sense to me.

Hand-wringing over "taxpayer money" is weird. I have no say when my money is confiscated. Why would I think I'd get a say about what the thieves spend it on?

The system is working exactly the way the people with the most guns want it to.

My experience getting my student visa turned me off from remaining in the US after graduating, so if the goal was to reduce immigration by embodying Kafka, it succeeded in at least one case.

Really? I studied there 1 year and the visa process was absolutely painless (6 years ago). A form to fill, an appointment at the embassy and it's done.

That's what I expected going in, but after a few weeks the status changed to indicate further processing without any information. I eventually ended up missing my first semester and having to beg them to let them and my scholarship me defer a semester basically when the semester had basically started. I eventually got my visa suddenly after about 4-5 months with no communication during that time from anyone on that side.

If all else fails apply to immigrate to Canada. Canada has a point system and anyone raised in the US would be right at the top of the list. Currently Canada is hoping for 400k immigrants per year so the chances are very good.

A 20 year old is an adult, not a "kid"

If you don't have full access to adult life, you aren't an adult. You might not be a traditional "kid", but you certainly aren't an adult.

At 20, you can't drink in the US. I don't think you can buy nicotine, and probably can't buy weed in legal places.

Do they still deny rental cars to 20-year-olds, either outright or through fees too high for most 20-year-olds? Is this still even if their car insurance says they get a rental? Do some hotels still deny young folks lodging?

Being an adult is based on biological development, not whether you can drink or buy weed.

What name would you give to the point where you have all the rights and opportunities of adults if adult is not the correct term?

Adult is the correct term. I just don't think we should base adulthood on nebulous things like the ability to drink alcohol, smoke weed or rent hotel rooms, but rather to put a bigger emphasis on biology.

Which brings us back to the original point: why are there those arbitrary restrictions put on biologically adult people?

I don't know. Ask your law-makers. I live in a country where you can drink alcohol at 16 as long as you're accompanied by an adult, for example. Then at 18 (when you're legally considered an adult), you can buy and drink your own alcohol on your own. Americans tend to coddle their young adults too much. Maybe it's their puritan heritage.

Dunno about coddling. They can drive a 4 ton "truck" and join the military to kill people before they're legally allowed to drink alcohol :D

What aspect of biological development are we talking about?

Sexual development, ability to bear children? Mid teens for most, earlier for some.

Completed puberty, full height? Mid to late teens.

Finished the fastest phase of brain development? Mid-20s.

Even if you want a biological standard, there's still plenty of subjectivity and many of these markers are quite a bit earlier or later than people would be comfortable with.

Given that, I think it's fine to focus instead on legal or social aspects of adulthood. And full legal adulthood in the US has been 21 for some time and it seems to me that like my country, the social definition of adulthood is the end of full time education (including in my lifetime undergraduate education being considered an extension of childhood education)

Average everything out and you'll get a number close to 18 which is the typical adult age in most countries.

>Sexual development, ability to bear children? Mid teens for most, earlier for some.

Let's say 15

>Completed puberty, full height? Mid to late teens.

Let's say 18

>Finished the fastest phase of brain development? Mid-20s.

Let's say 25

The average of 15, 18, and 25 is 19.3

Why would an average rather than max make any sense?

I think it'd make more sense because we're taking in different developmental factors together.

They let me invade a foreign country before I turned 20. Almost two but got to occupy Panama for a bit though.

Couldn’t drink (outside Louisiana) and legal weed wasn’t even a thing.

Hell, I was jumping out of airplanes in the army when I was 17.

Seems relatively “adult” to me.

Doing adult things doesn't mean you are an adult nor treated like one. Kids raise siblings: Some folks have sex at 14. Child labor is a thing. This doesn't make folks an adult, even if they are participating in adult activities.

Adult is realistically mix of how society treats you and your development.

I suppose full access to adult life in the US would be at 35 when you reach the minimum age to serve as president.

You can't serve as president at any age unless you're a natural born citizen.

"Whiskey and cigars for me and my friends please"

I honestly cannot believe in the 21st century we tolerate such archaic systems for highly sought professionals, that we in turn educated via subsidized education (se is a nursing grad from University of South Florida) especially with the enormous demand for nurses.

I think at this point, especially with the massive layoffs in tech and the high back up for even renewals and thus precarious situation with H1-N visa holders, it's probably worth exploring a market-place for residence/citizenship via contractional marriage with prenuptial agreements. The situation is becoming more dire and the thought of losing more US raised talent due to such an absurd situation like a backlog of application renewals demands that tech disrupt this monolith.

> As someone living in a northern European welfare state, I'll just say what a shitshow the US is

I agree, but the truth is that EU/CH isn't much better either. There is a large stigma of German professionals, specifically physicians, coming to Switzerland 'taking all the jobs' when most Swiss who do attend university don't even study medicine to fill the roles they require in most cantons.

And then try and come into Switzerland as a professional that conflicts with te Swiss population if you're from a less desirable country like Czech Republic, Hungary or Slovakia--there is a large Croatian population in Switzerland due to the diaspora after the collapse of Yugoslavia, but one of my predictions is how they will delay things for those who want to come and enter Schengen next week.

And I'm not even going to go into the quota situation because its murky, and varies from canton to canton.

But honestly, it's an absurd system that as the article outlines is ultimately upheld with bi-partisan support in the US, which means that their is no alternative has been the maxim for far too long with no change in sight despite the massive shortfalls of talented professionals in a post COVID World.

>I agree, but the truth is that EU/CH isn't much better either. There is a large stigma of German professionals, specifically physicians, coming to Switzerland 'taking all the jobs' when most Swiss who do attend university don't even study medicine to fill the roles they require in most cantons.

What does the EU-Switzerland immigration situation have to do with Northern European welfare states?

> I honestly cannot believe in the 21st century we tolerate such archaic systems for highly sought professionals, that we in turn educated via subsidized education (se is a nursing grad from University of South Florida) especially with the enormous demand for nurses.

That particular person is.

I think the whole point of immigration is that it should be decided on an individual case. Giving a nursing grad a visa sounds like a great idea, but should all children of visa holders be given visas? I think there should be a few requirements.

> it's probably worth exploring a market-place for residence/citizenship via contractional marriage with prenuptial agreements

This is visa fraud, and the consequences for citizens involved in these stunts is prison and heavy fines.

This is incredibly unfair to the children of immigrants who have lived in the US all their lives. Leaving out the ethical discussion it doesn't even make sense financially, the government spends all this money on making these people productive members of society and then kicks them out the moment they start paying back into the system. I can't think of a single reason to maintain this system other than "foreign people bad".

It's not even because of dumb racism, as the article highlights through the woman of Northern Irish descent who's white as can be; this is due to an arbitrary definition of "foreign" which I don't think any reasonable person would apply to someone who's lived in their country since they were 3.

On the other hand, I wonder what some of their parents were thinking.

Their children should definitely get a visa or even the ability to apply for citizenship, but the parents knew what problems their kids face once they become adults. Perhaps those waiting on the green card program couldn't have known because the huge wait times weren't a problem when they first arrived and they simply couldn't have known, but for those on temporary visas with no chance to get their children citizenship, they could and should have known. For decades they let their kids work towards an impossible future.

Until immigration policies get fixed, I think it's incredibly unfair towards these children to be forced to go through this. I don't know what parents were expecting to happen when they took their young kids into a country they knew they couldn't stay in, but I can't help but feel they're part of the problem. I don't expect the problem to disappear any time soon either, with Trump aiming at a second presidency and (close enough to) half the American voting population still voting conservatively.

I'm going to get downvoted for this, but anyway. I am a parent with 3 kids in this situation (not in the US, but similar). I myself grew up in this situation, and so did my wife. We both got citizenships by the time we finished high school though. We didn't even care, barely realized, that was normal at the time. And, yes, we moved countries ourselves as well, after having kids.

So first: you forget laws changed over the time these kids grew up. It used to be the case that just physically being in a country for 5-10 years used to be enough to get citizenship. Including in the US. Kids already here were not grandfathered into the old rules.

So don't be too hard on these parents. The parents simply trusted that the state would actually follow the laws (which of course means NOT CHANGING THOSE LAWS, at least not for people already here). Yes trusting the state is a mistake. A big one. We've both had trouble getting into universities. We've also had trouble, for example, with youth services. Because a teacher that one kid had a conflict with reported them, after she (the kid) pointed out that she had in fact lived in a particular country, and she was pretty damn sure NZ was in fact in Asia/Australia, not in Europe. Plus that the local habits are in fact only marginally different from the US, that what she said was total bullshit. This is, apparently, a more serious situation than TWO kids getting arrested in the same school for dealing drugs. But yeah I get it: you can't trust the state. I don't know or understand what child protective services is for, what twisted logic they follow, but it sure as hell isn't protecting children. Man, actually seeing one such institution ... seeing the kids in there ... WTF.

We were eventually forced to get the kids into a private school. Was that racism? I'm not even 100% sure. I think it was 90% that the teacher was a vengeful moron, totally unfit to teach children (not just for not knowing, but first and foremost for letting a conflict with a 7 year old get out of hand AND thoroughly make a fool of herself in the process, and not just once) and 10% racism. And, of course, CPS "hunting" healthy kids, and actively avoiding kids with actual problems (such details like, oh, getting caught with drugs at 13 years old. Those kids they actually avoid talking to)

These days: if you want a decent job, a decent life, you will have fight against the state. School/the education system was never anyone's friend in my experience, but right now the relationships are outright adversarial. Schools, even private ones, cannot be trusted to give correct information about education opportunities to children (not saying private ones aren't 100x better, but they're not 100% accurate). They also purposefully create conflicts now, I don't even understand WHY. Immigration is just one aspect of that. Racism is the real fight: as pointed out in the article, getting into a decent school and then university, or even later figuring out which professors and employers/customers can be trusted, despite more and more racism is the tougher fight. Immigration is making sure a whole lot of forms are filled in 100% correctly at 10 different government offices, perfectly on time, and NEVER TRUSTING WHAT GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES SAY. Because some are actively trying to "advise" you into making a huge mistake. Always has been.

We are still in the situation that if these kids can find a good job, they will be allowed to stay, and be able get citizenship in time if they want to. Of course that the laws deteriorated to this point is not a good sign, but what are you going to do, other than trust the state that has betrayed you already? You have no choice.

But are these parents to blame? To some extent, I guess. They trusted the state's word. Big mistake. But I wouldn't worry too much about 95% of these kids. See what's happening to the health system. Education. Police forces. Give it 20 years and they will definitely not be the biggest victims of trusting the state, even if they do get asked to leave.

Just for the record, NZ is not in Asia, Australia or Europe, it sounds like all parties were wrong here.

Just for the record NZ is in Australaisa [1] which I'm reasonably certain is what was meant subject to transposition in translation.

It sounds as if Anglo uber alles sensibilities trumped understanding here.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australasia

I'm fully aware of that. Nothng else within the long comment indicated to me that there were translation issues though, and I added a clarifier for anyone else ignorant on this subject (which is quite a lot of people).

I do find it amusing that you made assumption of my intent to the negative, but an assumption of the GPs intent to the positive, both without any evidence.

I've observed any discussion about US immigration (no matter how relevant to tech) gets booted off the HN front page, probably deprioritized. I'm not sure if it's something others have noted too.

I do wonder why though. Is it because it doesn't generate any new discussion and just attracts flame wars ?

Probably. It can't really go much further than:

"No, it's not our responsibility to help these people, and the system pretty decent already."

"Yes, it's our responsibility to help these people, and the system needs to be changed to support that."

No real way to move people from these positions. I guess in short it's a morality thing. Personal belief. Not so much about technicality.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com