Trump's published Immigration policies MEGATHREAD

[verneforchat 139]

1 hour 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.

EO does mention LPR.

Did you not read the actual EO or the interviews given by Trump Admin?

LPR are still being reviewed case by case. 

[JayJayH 546]

19 minutes ago, verneforchat said:

EO does mention LPR.

Did you not read the actual EO or the interviews given by Trump Admin?

LPR are still being reviewed case by case. 

 

There is no mention of LPRs in the EO, nor is there any mention of dual citizens.

 

Actual text of the EO: http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/text-of-trump-executive-order-nation-ban-refugees/

 

I'm not seeing "green card", "permanent resident", "resident alien", "dual citizen", "dual national" or anything like it. The only reference I can find that would refer to LPRs would be "aliens from countries referred to in..." Dual citizens and permanent residents are neither exempted nor included in that definition. Since the job of enforcing immigration laws in the U.S. is delegated to the Dept. of Homeland Security, it's their job to interpret anything that comes their way. DHS was initially confused (sign of bad implementation), and later clarified along with the White House that LPRs were not included in the ban (speculation around original intent is hypothetical at best). I have no idea what 'case-by-case basis' means, but LPRs are being admitted. The State Dept. also clarified that people holding dual citizenship were not affected and could apply for visas with a passport from a country not on the list.

 

I'm not agreeing with the EO. I'm arguing that a large portion of what has been published and protested over the weekend has been based on rumors, guessing, lack of information, hearsay, misunderstanding and an overall poorly worded policy, implemented last minute, which is why I personally would have preferred to have a politician running the White House.

Edited February 2, 2017 by JayJayH

[Suss&Camm 2,213]

6 minutes ago, JayJayH said:

 

There is no mention of LPRs in the EO, nor is there any mention of dual citizens.

 

Actual text of the EO: http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/text-of-trump-executive-order-nation-ban-refugees/

 

I'm not seeing "green card", "permanent resident", "resident alien", "dual citizen", "dual national" or anything like it. The only reference I can find that would refer to LPRs would be "aliens from countries referred to in..." Dual citizens and permanent residents are neither exempted nor included in that definition. 

Alien

Definition

For purposes of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), any person who is not a citizen or a national of the United States.  There are different categories of aliens: resident and nonresident, immigrant and nonimmigrant, asylee and refugee, documented and undocumented ("illegal").

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/alien

[SerenaS 4]

3 minutes ago, JayJayH said:

 

There is no mention of LPRs in the EO, nor is there any mention of dual citizens.

 

Actual text of the EO: http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/text-of-trump-executive-order-nation-ban-refugees/

 

I'm not seeing "green card", "permanent resident", "resident alien", "dual citizen", "dual national" or anything like it. The only reference I can find that would refer to LPRs would be "aliens from countries referred to in..." Dual citizens and permanent residents are neither exempted nor included in that definition. Since the job of enforcing immigration laws in the U.S. is delegated to the Dept. of Homeland Security, it's their job to interpret anything that comes their way. DHS was initially confused, and later clarified along with the White House that LPRs were not included in the ban. I have no idea what 'case-by-case basis' means, but LPRs are being admitted. The State Dept. also clarified that people holding dual citizenship were not affected and could apply for visas with a passport from a country not on the list.

 

I'm not agreeing with the EO. I'm arguing that a large portion of what has been published and protested over the weekend has been based on rumors, guessing, lack of information, hearsay, misunderstanding and an overall poorly worded policy, implemented last minute.

It was mentioned or not, They are enforcing it. for those 7 countries though.

 

This is on the official website U.S. Customes and borders protection. LPR has to do waiver.

 

"In applying the provisions of the President's Executive Order, the entry of lawful permanent residents is in the national interest. Accordingly, absent significant derogatory information indicating a serious threat to public safety and welfare, lawful permanent resident status will be a dispositive factor in our case-by-case determinations"

 

"Does this Executive order apply to green care holders from on of the seven countries?

Yes - if the green card holder (a Lawful Permanent Resident, or LPR) was out of the country at the time of the order’s signing, or travels out of the country after the order was signed. However, green card holders are eligible for national interest waivers consistent with the provisions of the Executive Order. It does not affect lawful permanent residents who are currently in the country."

 

[Usagi_tsukino 89]

20 minutes ago, JayJayH said:

 

There is no mention of LPRs in the EO, nor is there any mention of dual citizens.

 

Actual text of the EO: http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/text-of-trump-executive-order-nation-ban-refugees/

 

I'm not seeing "green card", "permanent resident", "resident alien", "dual citizen", "dual national" or anything like it. The only reference I can find that would refer to LPRs would be "aliens from countries referred to in..." Dual citizens and permanent residents are neither exempted nor included in that definition. Since the job of enforcing immigration laws in the U.S. is delegated to the Dept. of Homeland Security, it's their job to interpret anything that comes their way. DHS was initially confused (sign of bad implementation), and later clarified along with the White House that LPRs were not included in the ban (speculation around original intent is hypothetical at best). I have no idea what 'case-by-case basis' means, but LPRs are being admitted. The State Dept. also clarified that people holding dual citizenship were not affected and could apply for visas with a passport from a country not on the list.

 

I'm not agreeing with the EO. I'm arguing that a large portion of what has been published and protested over the weekend has been based on rumors, guessing, lack of information, hearsay, misunderstanding and an overall poorly worded policy, implemented last minute, which is why I personally would have preferred to have a politician running the White House.

There is no need to specifically mention LPR, from this exact page Sec.3(c):

" I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas)."

1) LPRs are aliens, because aliens are everyone who are not U.S. citizens or U.S. nationals.
2) Don't see LPRs in "excluding" part.

Edited February 2, 2017 by banana_princess

[verneforchat 139]

18 minutes ago, JayJayH said:

 

There is no mention of LPRs in the EO, nor is there any mention of dual citizens.

 

Actual text of the EO: http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/text-of-trump-executive-order-nation-ban-refugees/

 

I'm not seeing "green card", "permanent resident", "resident alien", "dual citizen", "dual national" or anything like it. The only reference I can find that would refer to LPRs would be "aliens from countries referred to in..." Dual citizens and permanent residents are neither exempted nor included in that definition. Since the job of enforcing immigration laws in the U.S. is delegated to the Dept. of Homeland Security, it's their job to interpret anything that comes their way. DHS was initially confused (sign of bad implementation), and later clarified along with the White House that LPRs were not included in the ban (speculation around original intent is hypothetical at best). I have no idea what 'case-by-case basis' means, but LPRs are being admitted. The State Dept. also clarified that people holding dual citizenship were not affected and could apply for visas with a passport from a country not on the list.

 

I'm not agreeing with the EO. I'm arguing that a large portion of what has been published and protested over the weekend has been based on rumors, guessing, lack of information, hearsay, misunderstanding and an overall poorly worded policy, implemented last minute, which is why I personally would have preferred to have a politician running the White House.

I am talking about the countries on the list!

 

What are you on about?

 

 

And this is what your links clearly shows:

 

" (c) To temporarily reduce investigative burdens on relevant agencies during the review period described in subsection (a) of this section, to ensure the proper review and maximum utilization of available resources for the screening of foreign nationals, and to ensure that adequate standards are established to prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists or criminals, pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas). "

[verneforchat 139]

31 minutes ago, JayJayH said:

 

There is no mention of LPRs in the EO, nor is there any mention of dual citizens.

 

Actual text of the EO: http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/text-of-trump-executive-order-nation-ban-refugees/

 

I'm not seeing "green card", "permanent resident", "resident alien", "dual citizen", "dual national" or anything like it. The only reference I can find that would refer to LPRs would be "aliens from countries referred to in..." Dual citizens and permanent residents are neither exempted nor included in that definition. Since the job of enforcing immigration laws in the U.S. is delegated to the Dept. of Homeland Security, it's their job to interpret anything that comes their way. DHS was initially confused (sign of bad implementation), and later clarified along with the White House that LPRs were not included in the ban (speculation around original intent is hypothetical at best). I have no idea what 'case-by-case basis' means, but LPRs are being admitted. The State Dept. also clarified that people holding dual citizenship were not affected and could apply for visas with a passport from a country not on the list.

 

I'm not agreeing with the EO. I'm arguing that a large portion of what has been published and protested over the weekend has been based on rumors, guessing, lack of information, hearsay, misunderstanding and an overall poorly worded policy, implemented last minute, which is why I personally would have preferred to have a politician running the White House.

 

22 minutes ago, SerenaS said:

It was mentioned or not, They are enforcing it. for those 7 countries though.

 

This is on the official website U.S. Customes and borders protection. LPR has to do waiver.

 

"In applying the provisions of the President's Executive Order, the entry of lawful permanent residents is in the national interest. Accordingly, absent significant derogatory information indicating a serious threat to public safety and welfare, lawful permanent resident status will be a dispositive factor in our case-by-case determinations"

 

"Does this Executive order apply to green care holders from on of the seven countries?

Yes - if the green card holder (a Lawful Permanent Resident, or LPR) was out of the country at the time of the order’s signing, or travels out of the country after the order was signed. However, green card holders are eligible for national interest waivers consistent with the provisions of the Executive Order. It does not affect lawful permanent residents who are currently in the country."

 

Thanks for this.

 

So its not really media hysteria and rumors and misunderstanding.

 

 

Edited February 2, 2017 by verneforchat

[JayJayH 546]

27 minutes ago, Suss&Camm said:

Alien

Definition

For purposes of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), any person who is not a citizen or a national of the United States.  There are different categories of aliens: resident and nonresident, immigrant and nonimmigrant, asylee and refugee, documented and undocumented ("illegal").

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/alien

"I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental... "

 

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/text-of-trump-executive-order-nation-ban-refugees/

 

An LPR returning to the United States is a returning resident, it is not considered "immigrant entry" nor is it considered "nonimmigrant entry."

"Immigrant entry" of such an alien would already have occurred at the time they entered the U.S. on an immigrant visa. Specifically included in this EO are those traveling to the U.S. on immigrant visas - "immigrant entry" - But again, they would not be LPRs yet, as LPR status is given upon admission on an immigrant visa.

 

The wording is ambiguous. But it does not include LPRs.

 

DHS initially interpreted the wording to include LPRs and dual citizens. This was later retracted.

Edited February 2, 2017 by JayJayH

[verneforchat 139]

5 minutes ago, JayJayH said:

"I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental... "

 

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/text-of-trump-executive-order-nation-ban-refugees/

 

An LPR returning to the United States is a returning resident, not "immigrant entry" nor "nonimmigrant entry."

"Immigrant entry" of such an alien would already have occurred. The only LPRs specifically excluded by this EO are those traveling to the U.S. on immigrant visas - "immigrant entry" - But they would not be LPRs yet, as LPR status is given upon admission on an immigrant visa.

 

The wording is ambiguous. But it does not include LPRs.

*sigh*

 

My last attempt at making you understand, if you are willing, that is.

The EO DOES NOT exclude people who have existing LPR and were just travelling. Those are the ones being let in by a case by case basis.

 

 

https://www.uscis.gov/tools/glossary/permanent-resident-alien

Permanent Resident Alien

An alien admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident. Permanent residents are also commonly referred to as immigrants; however, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) broadly defines an immigrant as any alien in the United States, except one legally admitted under specific nonimmigrant categories (INA section 101(a)(15)). An illegal alien who entered the United States without inspection, for example, would be strictly defined as an immigrant under the INA but is not a permanent resident alien. Lawful permanent residents are legally accorded the privilege of residing permanently in the United States. They may be issued immigrant visas by the Department of State overseas or adjusted to permanent resident status by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services in the United States.

Edited February 2, 2017 by verneforchat

[JayJayH 546]

7 minutes ago, verneforchat said:

*sigh*

 

My last attempt at making you understand, if you are willing, that is.

 

 

 

https://www.uscis.gov/tools/glossary/permanent-resident-alien

Permanent Resident Alien

An alien admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident. Permanent residents are also commonly referred to as immigrants; however, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) broadly defines an immigrant as any alien in the United States, except one legally admitted under specific nonimmigrant categories (INA section 101(a)(15)). An illegal alien who entered the United States without inspection, for example, would be strictly defined as an immigrant under the INA but is not a permanent resident alien. Lawful permanent residents are legally accorded the privilege of residing permanently in the United States. They may be issued immigrant visas by the Department of State overseas or adjusted to permanent resident status by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services in the United States.

We're not going to agree on this. The wording in the EO is ambiguous, but it does not specifically apply to LPRs.

 

I'm willing to understand. I don't agree that "immigrant entry" specifically refers to a returning resident. Nor am I arguing that it specifically exempts LPRs either.

I don't blame media for taking DHS on its word. I blame the Trump administration for being incredibly ambiguous, and I blame social media for spreading rumors like wildfire.

Edited February 2, 2017 by JayJayH

[verneforchat 139]

Just now, JayJayH said:

We're not going to agree on this. The wording in the EO is ambiguous, but it does not specifically apply to LPRs.

 

I'm willing to understand. I don't agree that "immigrant entry" specifically refers to a returning resident.

It is not ambiguous to the CBP or anyone else interpreting it. See the CBP website that has been posted 3 times for you that you have ignored.

 

Your agreement or disagreement is not going to change what is currently happening in the airport.

[JayJayH 546]

3 minutes ago, verneforchat said:

It is not ambiguous to the CBP or anyone else interpreting it. See the CBP website that has been posted 3 times for you that you have ignored.

 

Your agreement or disagreement is not going to change what is currently happening in the airport.

Directly underneath the screenshot you posted:

 

So far, how many Lawful Permanent Residents have not been allowed to enter pursuant to the Exception to the Executive Order?

Two.One, who was entered into proceedings based on a criminal record. Another individual chose to return to Canada and withdrew his request for entry.

[verneforchat 139]

3 minutes ago, JayJayH said:

Directly underneath the screenshot you posted:

 

So far, how many Lawful Permanent Residents have not been allowed to enter pursuant to the Exception to the Executive Order?

Two.One, who was entered into proceedings based on a criminal record. Another individual chose to return to Canada and withdrew his request for entry.

Yea because the EO was halted based on the Judge's order. And alot of LPRs were not allowed to board, as indicated by many news articles and angry tweets.

 

Are you not keeping up with the news?

 

Anyway, I am done with posting replies to you. You are free to believe whatever you want.

Edited February 2, 2017 by verneforchat

[JayJayH 546]

15 minutes ago, verneforchat said:

Yea because the EO was halted based on the Judge's order. And alot of LPRs were not allowed to board, as indicated by many news articles and angry tweets.

 

Are you not keeping up with the news?

 

Anyway, I am done with posting replies to you. You are free to believe whatever you want.

Judge Donnelly blocked the deportation of anyone who was already en route to the U.S. and got trapped at U.S. airports - These individuals were specifically affected by the EO. Judge Brinkema further blocked deportation for 7 days of 63 LPRs stranded at Dulles. It was not specifically clear if the order did include LPRs.

 

We're arguing original intent and legal language of an ambiguously worded executive order, so yes, we're going to go around in circles.

Edited February 2, 2017 by JayJayH

[verneforchat 139]

3 minutes ago, JayJayH said:

Judge Donnelly blocked the deportation of anyone who was already en route to the U.S. and got trapped at U.S. airports - These individuals were specifically affected by the EO. Judge Brinkema further blocked deportation for 7 days of 63 LPRs stranded at Dulles. It was not specifically clear if the order did include LPRs.

 

We're arguing original intent and legal language of an ambiguously worded executive order, so yes, we're going to go around in circles.

AFAIK the original intent and legal language did include EO as per many news articles. It was a later clarification that mention LPR's are not included, blah blah.

 

Regardless of what the original intention was, it wasn't benign for sure.

 

But this is something to chew on: If it was not specifically clear if the order did include LPRs, why did it need two Judges to issue orders to block deportation?

If it was indeed that ambiguous, would that have needed to issue those orders?