It depends a bit on exactly what your use case is (i.e., which features are even relevant to you) and specifically what the alternate vendor would be. I really do try hard not to oversell what we offer.
I'll say this: if you're looking for an open source solution built to make B2B auth easy, we're the only option of the three. For Keycloak, for example, it's been an unresolved feature gap for many years that it can't support SCIM provisioning [0]; an unrelated characteristic -- not necessarily a flaw -- of Keycloak's is that it's quite agnostic to your use case and consequently requires some effort to implement.
On the other hand, we don't yet offer a huge amount of customization. We've instead -- for now -- prioritized building a relatively opinionated and therefore straightforward product. Similarly, if you're looking for some long-tail features, a longstanding vendor like Auth0 will very likely be able to help you.
Probably a few other considerations might be relevant that I'm neglecting. Send me an email if you're interested in chatting more (contact in HN bio) -- more than happy to help explore some of your options, even if that means we're not right for you.
You wanna load test the local DOM rendering or what? Otherwise, whatever endpoint is serving the HTML, you configure your load tests to hit that, if anything. Although you'd just be doing the same testing your HTTP server probably already doing before doing releases, usually you wanna load test your underlying APIs or similar instead.
After years of large MBp I switched to 15 inch MB air. Then the 13 inch. It’s moment of inertia is closer to the palm holding - i.e., it feels very light.
Screen is a bit tight. So all I do I crank up the size (setResX), put on pair of 0.5 readers and voila instant large screen. I can go all the way to 2560x and still read and work.
That is a pre-indicated stipulation of the green card validity, not revocation based on the whim of an evaluating (non-immigration judicial) official -- ie CBP and DHS and ICE cannot (read: should not be able to) revoke green cards.
The "basic US presence" requirement of green cards has always been present in the validity clause alongside the 5-10year expiry date, and not committing immigration fraud and other basic requirements to maintain green card -- a comical number of European green card holders gloss over/forget this clause every year, that is made explicit to them upon receiving the card and proceed to forfeit their green cards by not entering the US for over a year -- that is not a revocation (implies a subjective decision made by an official), it is a lapse of validity (implies some pre-stated condition was fulfilled).
Yes. People are generally familiar with rights that can lapse if eligibility is not maintained - consider the right to vote in state elections, which you lose if you fail to maintain residency in that state. Nobody yanked your state voter registration or your eligibility for in-state tuition, you abandoned it.
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.
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.
You should read the actual questions on an I-485, they don't rely on declarations that any given organization is "terrorist" or anything like that.
Now, I think you're right that the statements are only required to be true at the time they were made. That said, if I can get you to look at the I-485 which one fills out to get a green card, and focus on the questions in Item Numbers 43.b. - 43.e, which cover what is essentially material support for a terrorist org, you will see that all of them relate to the group's actions. You can read the questions yourself here on p. 16 of the PDF for an I-485:
So the only way the truth of someone's statements could change over time would be if the groups they had given material support to (e.g. money or recruitment) had only engaged in things like assassination, kidnapping, hijacking, sabotage, destroying people or property with weapons or dangerous devices, etc. after the person had already turned in their I-485 form.
This isn't very likely to be the case for various Palestine-related organizations that are doing armed resistance, since that armed resistance has been going on for a very long time now. But I suppose it's hypothetically possible in the abstract, and I presume one would argue this at an immigration hearing, since they have to establish immigration "fraud" and parts of that depend on what you knew and when you knew it.
Thanks for sharing the link. Yikes! It looks like all of part 9 is in play. Ie one had better be absolutely truthful - or self decline, who would ever do that?
Also, the problem with the legal definition of “a disqualification requirement” is it can be vague and subject to change.
Would I be correct in saying that a strict adherence to USA law is mandatory?
IANAL, but if you've read all of the questions, they include some incredibly broad things like the one about having ever committed a crime, even if not charged, convicted, etc. that you can find on the I-485.
I've heard it said by lawyers that you're not qualified to know whether or not you've committed a federal crime and some of those are quite broad - see this illustration for a few ideas in that vein: https://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=1008 - but even then, one "out" is that my understanding is that you have to actually commit fraud here.
So maybe if you violated some incredibly broad provision, but were never charged or convicted and literally didn't even know it was a law, you could defend yourself by pointing that out and arguing that because of that, you haven't committed actual "fraud" even if your answer was wrong.
But in general, yes, you should be honest on all the forms and engage with a legal professional if you're ever in trouble. I've heard that this area of law is all that well tested, so we'll have to see what the courts do with it. In fact, we suffered some significant delays in our immigration journey due to being honest, but I don't regret that one bit.
We also looked at Auth0 and Fusionauth - KeyCloak won.
We did not check Teseral - could you help me understand why I would choose Tesseral over the other 3?