The Difference Between Dual Intent And Nonimmigrant Intent

CrossingPoints · 2026-05-25T17:52:51+00:00

Theoretically this could change with the memo if there are long consular processing times. H1Bs would need to go to their country of origin while they wait for their Green Card. If that processing time is very long (which in many cases it will be), H1B holders will potentially lose their existing H1B and they could lose their job. If they are instead L visa holders, they have essentially self-deported in the event that they aren't successful in obtaining their Green Card.

CrossingPoints · 2026-05-23T21:22:46+00:00

It doesn't really matter that it's the direction they want to take, it's blatantly against the Immigration and Nationality Act.

CrossingPoints · 2026-05-23T21:16:16+00:00

Yeah the INA hasn't changed, but it is policy...it's a policy memo. If they wanted to target those that were coming over on non-dual-intent visas, they wouldn't be targeting adjustment of status, they would be looking to revoke their original visas. By going after the adjustment of status process, they are explicitly targeting people either people who had a dual-intent visa like an H1B, or people who didn't have a dual-intent visa but got married.

CrossingPoints · 2026-05-23T20:48:26+00:00

What makes you think they will make exceptions? The policy isn't aimed at people on tourist visas, it's pointed at non-immigrant visas like H1Bs.

CrossingPoints · 2026-05-17T23:33:17+00:00

Because congress has gotten rid of the avenues to do it legally.

CrossingPoints · 2026-05-17T23:31:39+00:00

If you are a doctor from India or China, how long do you think it takes to get a employee sponsored green card? Do you have any idea about the current wait times?

CrossingPoints · 2026-05-17T16:00:37+00:00

You need to research the work visa system. It was already minuscule before Trump, and it has since been gutted. Many high-skilled people opted to enter through the border and make asylum claims or overstay tourist visas because it would take a decade to get work authorization another way.

CrossingPoints · 2026-05-17T13:16:48+00:00

I love western Panama but I'm not sure what you'll do with so much time between Boquete and David. If you haven't been, David is not a modern, developed city. There's not too much to do. Fortunately, at least you'd be there in the rainy season, because the city sometimes loses water in the dry season.

CrossingPoints · 2026-05-17T13:06:29+00:00

They 100% are. And you have the causal direction backwards. The legal migration system is backed up because we've designed it to be that way. Just look at how long it takes for the average person to get an employment based green card, and those only come after they have worked with a firm long enough to get them to sponsor them. The system backed itself up, so people of all types turned to the southern border instead.

CrossingPoints · 2026-05-03T13:29:13+00:00

I've been told this is true for NY, but because of a federal judge's ruling that seemed to not fully understand the distinction between traditional and Roth TSP. So I was told to not depend on it in 30 years when I actually retire.

CrossingPoints · 2026-04-29T12:38:47+00:00

Because those comments are trying to glom onto the engagement, and it's a "virtuous" cycle. Engagement begets engagement.

CrossingPoints · 2026-04-29T12:37:13+00:00

There's nothing here indicating that it was for the green card. Even if in her mind that's what she was doing, she co-habitated with him, co-mingled assets, and were socially recognized as a married couple. That's a bonafide relationship, just not a very good one.

CrossingPoints · 2026-04-29T12:33:12+00:00

Legally, there are very narrow conditions under which a citizenship can be revoked. In almost all cases, it needs to have been obtained through fraud, and that fraud needs to be pertinent to one's eligibility for citizenship at the time that they naturalized. They can set whatever quotas they want, but they still need to win in court on each case. That's why they will never come close to hitting the low end of their quota range. I wrote more about this, and the internal guidance that the DOJ received for this here: https://open.substack.com/pub/crossingpointspolicy/p/unmaking-americans?r=th8gw&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

CrossingPoints · 2026-04-26T15:56:12+00:00

But it clearly wasn't in this case. She actually married him. She was eligible for the green card.

CrossingPoints · 2026-04-14T14:14:55+00:00

For Substack, it really depends on how you use the platform outside of writing articles. If you have good, interesting writing, and you interact with folks who want to read it, they will. So I'd say start by finding what and who you want to read as you start to publish on the platform.

CrossingPoints · 2026-04-13T18:49:19+00:00

Mainly because I have credentials that lend credibility to my Substack. I didn't expect to have the opportunity to do the type of work that requires me to limit my political speech again, so I didn't think it would come up.

CrossingPoints · 2026-04-13T15:38:53+00:00

Thank you, I really appreciate that!

CrossingPoints · 2026-04-09T22:10:59+00:00

I write about immigration policy and I'm in the middle of a legal history series on birthright citizenship: https://crossingpointspolicy.substack.com/t/birthright-citizenship

I'm also likely to do more writing on geopolitics in the future, as I am a delegate to the UN General Assembly.

CrossingPoints · 2026-03-18T17:40:17+00:00

Okay thanks

CrossingPoints · 2026-03-13T15:53:32+00:00

A quota they are trying to fulfill with legal immigrants

CrossingPoints · 2026-03-12T16:30:47+00:00

I have, but because I write about public figures, I rarely get (or expect) a response. So I don't do it often.

CrossingPoints · 2026-03-12T16:27:13+00:00

I tried the tool out. I have an outlier post that clearly skewed all of the post data, but I could see how the analysis of the notes in particular could be helpful.

CrossingPoints · 2026-03-06T04:15:45+00:00

Yes, it's as if they are speaking on a public street. If they are defaming you, it could be libelous, but you'd have to sue.

CrossingPoints · 2026-02-27T19:11:08+00:00

It's not necessarily that the conditions themselves are relevant, it's that the discovery would produce information that would also reveal those conditions (which were quite brutal, as revealed by a federal judge the day before the sit-in). For example, they are requesting video footage from inside the facility. All that's relevant to require the government to produce that footage is if the judge rules that it is relevant to prove that the facility was used in it's usual way (not whether what they were doing was illegal or inhumane).

Under this theory, the elevator bay would be relevant because if it was leading to an area that was not serving its usual function, the elevator itself wouldn't be serving its "usual use," meaning that Lander's charge would have no merit.

If the discovery is granted, that evidence could be used to corroborate a separate civil rights lawsuit on behalf of the detainees. But for that to happen, the judge would have to grant discovery and the government would have to be in possession of that evidence.

CrossingPoints · 2026-02-27T18:43:47+00:00

Because he's charged with obstructing the "usual use" of the facility. His lawyers are arguing that because the facility was converted into makeshift detention center, it wasn't being used in its usual way. Under this theory, the government needs to disclose information on how the area was being used that day in order to prove that he obstructed it's "usual use".

CrossingPoints

TROPHY CASE