Trump's published Immigration policies MEGATHREAD

[yuna628 9,689]

1 minute ago, theresaL said:

So, if the information quoted in the article is correct, it effectively puts applicants in an extended period of AP while additional background checks are completed. How does this differ from what has previously been the standard procedure?

It's not exactly an AP, per say. One lawyer was discussing this article today.. and the directive in the memo, if accurate, is based on Section 3 of the EO, and it's ambiguous wording. He translates it as, that his client may be interviewed, but past that point the case will be shelved until further instructions. It's not that there's any actual background checking going on or anything of that manner - the case will simply be put on hold, because they have no directive to proceed on it. No measures or procedure of how to 'further review' such cases has been adopted, so they cannot proceed. Again this isn't meaning persons on the outside of the country seeking benefit (section 3 also applies to those persons too) but it's meaning persons inside the US aswell.

[Marrienne 113]

On 1/30/2017 at 9:58 PM, verneforchat said:

I carry patient information on my laptop sometimes. if they were to see that, would that not be breach of confidentiality?

Yes under HIPPA it would be.

[verneforchat 139]

Just now, Marrienne said:

Yes under HIPPA it would be.

I think you meant  HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996

[Marrienne 113]

Just now, verneforchat said:

I think you meant  HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996

Hahaha yes..I can't for the life of me typw on my cell!!! Hahaha

[verneforchat 139]

Just now, Marrienne said:

Hahaha yes..I can't for the life of me typw on my cell!!! Hahaha

That was my primary concern that if they accessed my work email, they might violate HIPAA. But i am not sure the CBP care about it.

[JayJayH 546]

3 hours ago, verneforchat said:

So has your post.

 

Have you not been reading the news? Or you consider all news media fake news outlets now?

 

Secondary processing is to be expected. Sending back GC holders, or allowing them inside on a case by case basis is not.

Please don't assume the protesters actually share your level of ignorance on who and why people are being detained at JFK or LAX. There is a reason why they are outraged, and its no token protest. 

 

Secondary processing is not detention always. 

I have been reading the news.

 

GC holders are not affected by the travel ban. Neither are dual citizens. (Per White House and State Department)

 

This was not the case initially, as CBP seemed to have no idea what the actual policy was and who were affected.

 

There was a lot of initial confusion regarding this during the first 24 - 48 hours. That's what I mean by the travel ban being sloppily implemented. The DHS itself didn't know exactly how to implement it. The State Dept. didn't clarify anything until yesterday.

 

Bad implementation is how rumors spread. That's how falsehoods spread.

 

I'm not defending the policy. I'm pointing out the fact that we live in a world where rumors spread like wildfire on Twitter and social media, while actual facts usually aren't available until 4 - 48 hours later. Had the policy been announced before being implemented, with clear guidelines to CBP and consulates, we wouldn't be discussing GC holders and dual citizens on VJ.

[Ash.1101 1,756]

3 minutes ago, JayJayH said:

I have been reading the news.

 

GC holders are not affected by the travel ban. Neither are dual citizens. (Per White House and State Department)

 

This was not the case initially, as CBP seemed to have no idea what the actual policy was and who were affected.

 

There was a lot of initial confusion regarding this during the first 24 - 48 hours. That's what I mean by the travel ban being sloppily implemented. The DHS itself didn't know exactly how to implement it. The State Dept. didn't clarify anything until yesterday.

 

Bad implementation is how rumors spread. That's how falsehoods spread.

 

I'm not defending the policy. I'm pointing out the fact that we live in a world where rumors spread like wildfire on Twitter and social media, while actual facts usually aren't available until 4 - 48 hours later. Had the policy been announced before being implemented, with clear guidelines to CBP and consulates, we wouldn't be discussing GC holders and dual citizens on VJ.

Agree'd. Earlier this my news posted an article about how a man's 80 year old mother died a day after being turned away from joining the family in the US. Later this afternoon, the man admits he lied and his mother isn't dead.

Right now, it's not always best to take all news articles you see at face value.

[JayJayH 546]

11 minutes ago, Ash.1101 said:

Agree'd. Earlier this my news posted an article about how a man's 80 year old mother died a day after being turned away from joining the family in the US. Later this afternoon, the man admits he lied and his mother isn't dead.

Right now, it's not always best to take all news articles you see at face value.

Golden rules for news in 2017:

 

1. Always assume that what you're reading is hearsay during the first 48 hours.

2. If something seems completely insane, you're probably reading an opinion piece based on hearsay. 

3. Wait 48 hours before you fully make up an opinion on anything.

4. If you read an argument against something, always read the counterargument as well.

Edited February 2, 2017 by JayJayH

[Suss&Camm 2,213]

24 minutes ago, JayJayH said:

I have been reading the news.

 

GC holders are not affected by the travel ban. Neither are dual citizens. (Per White House and State Department)

 

This was not the case initially, as CBP seemed to have no idea what the actual policy was and who were affected.

 

There was a lot of initial confusion regarding this during the first 24 - 48 hours. That's what I mean by the travel ban being sloppily implemented. The DHS itself didn't know exactly how to implement it. The State Dept. didn't clarify anything until yesterday.

 

Bad implementation is how rumors spread. That's how falsehoods spread.

 

I'm not defending the policy. I'm pointing out the fact that we live in a world where rumors spread like wildfire on Twitter and social media, while actual facts usually aren't available until 4 - 48 hours later. Had the policy been announced before being implemented, with clear guidelines to CBP and consulates, we wouldn't be discussing GC holders and dual citizens on VJ.

 

Counterargument 
Green card holders were not accidentally included. The EO talks about aliens which is per definition all non-citizens. This was clearly the intent from the start and was also initially confirmed by both WH and CBP statements. only after the emergency stay was ruled did CBP start changing this and the WH back-peddle and a new CBP statement issued. In a press-conference CBP spokesperson said that they had known in advanced and prepared on how to deal with travelers and that after the emergency stay they had to adapt procedures accordingly. That did not just happen magically and it wasn't a due to confusion. People had to actually challenge the EO for this.

I believe I have said this in three threads now,but I'm just annoyed when ppl make it seem like it just happened, or that it wasn't the intention of the EO and that the "confusion" has now been cleared, as if that is all that took place. That's just not an accurate description of  events.

[Medz70084 8]

3 minutes ago, Suss&Camm said:

 

Counterargument 
Green card holders were not accidentally included. The EO talks about aliens which is per definition all non-citizens. This was clearly the intent from the start and was also initially confirmed by both WH and CBP statements. only after the emergency stay was ruled did CBP start changing this and the WH back-peddle and a new CBP statement issued. In a press-conference CBP spokesperson said that they had known in advanced and prepared on how to deal with travelers and that after the emergency stay they had to adapt procedures accordingly. That did not just happen magically and it wasn't a due to confusion. People had to actually challenge the EO for this.

I believe I have said this in three threads now,but I'm just annoyed when ppl make it seem like it just happened, or that it wasn't the intention of the EO and that the "confusion" has now been cleared, as if that is all that took place. That's just not an accurate description of  events.

Well said!!! ???

[SerenaS 4]

46 minutes ago, JayJayH said:

I have been reading the news.

 

GC holders are not affected by the travel ban. Neither are dual citizens. (Per White House and State Department)

 

This was not the case initially, as CBP seemed to have no idea what the actual policy was and who were affected.

 

There was a lot of initial confusion regarding this during the first 24 - 48 hours. That's what I mean by the travel ban being sloppily implemented. The DHS itself didn't know exactly how to implement it. The State Dept. didn't clarify anything until yesterday.

 

Bad implementation is how rumors spread. That's how falsehoods spread.

 

I'm not defending the policy. I'm pointing out the fact that we live in a world where rumors spread like wildfire on Twitter and social media, while actual facts usually aren't available until 4 - 48 hours later. Had the policy been announced before being implemented, with clear guidelines to CBP and consulates, we wouldn't be discussing GC holders and dual citizens on VJ.

Yes, greencard holders and Dual citizenship affected. I agree that there has been he say and she say on yes GC affected...not they were not..and again..oh maybe they were!!

 

I'm glad they announced it officially on their website.

 

Please read at CBP website, toward the bottom of the page at Q&A section

https://www.cbp.gov/border-security/protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states

 

 

Edited February 2, 2017 by SerenaS

[Suss&Camm 2,213]

1 minute ago, SerenaS said:

Yes, greencard holders and Dual citizenship affected.

 

Please read at CBP website, toward the bottom of the page at Q&A section

https://www.cbp.gov/border-security/protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states

 

 

In those questions, 3 questions down, it also says that dual citizens will be received depending on the passport they present. 

[JayJayH 546]

30 minutes ago, Suss&Camm said:

 

Counterargument 
Green card holders were not accidentally included. The EO talks about aliens which is per definition all non-citizens. This was clearly the intent from the start and was also initially confirmed by both WH and CBP statements. only after the emergency stay was ruled did CBP start changing this and the WH back-peddle and a new CBP statement issued. In a press-conference CBP spokesperson said that they had known in advanced and prepared on how to deal with travelers and that after the emergency stay they had to adapt procedures accordingly. That did not just happen magically and it wasn't a due to confusion. People had to actually challenge the EO for this.

I believe I have said this in three threads now,but I'm just annoyed when ppl make it seem like it just happened, or that it wasn't the intention of the EO and that the "confusion" has now been cleared, as if that is all that took place. That's just not an accurate description of  events.

I'm not with you on the White House back-peddling. This appears more to be a case of a wide-ranging executive order issued last-minute, by people who have no actual political experience. We can specultate on intent, sure, but it becomes mostly hypothetical. As far as intent, I haven't seen anything except a confused, later-retracted statement by a DHS official saying GC holders were included in the travel ban.

 

DHS secretary John Kelly saw the order right before it was signed. The DHS are delegated the task of interpreting anything that comes their way.
The executive order itself actually has very few specifics - The fact that we're even still debating this is testimony to the lack of in-depth thought that went into it.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/donald-trump-travel-ban/

 

" Friday night, DHS arrived at the legal interpretation that the executive order restrictions applying to seven countries -- Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Sudan and Yemen -- did not apply to people with lawful permanent residence, generally referred to as green card holders.

 

The White House overruled that guidance overnight, according to officials familiar with the rollout. That order came from the President's inner circle, led by Stephen Miller and Steve Bannon.
Their decision held that, on a case by case basis, DHS could allow green card holders to enter the US.

There had been some debate whether green card holders should be even allowed to board international flights. It was decided by the Department of Homeland Security they could fly to the US and would be considered on a case-by-case basis after passing a secondary screening.

But the guidance sent to airlines on Friday night, obtained by CNN, said clearly, "lawful permanent residents are not included and may continue to travel to the USA."

Edited February 2, 2017 by JayJayH

[yuna628 9,689]

The only reason LPRs are currently not affected the same way they were over the weekend right now, I believe is in part thanks to Gen. Kelly putting his foot down and because of pressure of threat of mounting lawsuits. What remains to be seen though is if LPRs will be affected in a different sort of way, regarding the memo at the USCIS in processing applications.

[verneforchat 139]

1 hour ago, Ash.1101 said:

Agree'd. Earlier this my news posted an article about how a man's 80 year old mother died a day after being turned away from joining the family in the US. Later this afternoon, the man admits he lied and his mother isn't dead.

Right now, it's not always best to take all news articles you see at face value.

I heard the opposite that some Imam said his mother died weeks ago.

 

What in the world?