Will an injunction be filed? EO

[Holdanna 8]

If they don't want LPRs

to work- just  issue a restricted social for a period of time, but allow reunification.

[Crazy Cat 41,985]

1 minute ago, Holdanna said:

If they don't want LPRs

to work- just  issue a restricted social for a period of time, but allow reunification.

The President can issue executive orders which fall under the scope of his authority (controlling who can enter the US)....However, the President cannot change law.

[Just Paul 4,595]

20 minutes ago, Lucky Cat said:

The President can issue executive orders which fall under the scope of his authority (controlling who can enter the US)....However, the President cannot change law.

I realize that there are a lot of beneficiaries and LPRs here but a lot of these questions are basic US Civics and the petitioners should do some educating.

[nastra30 2,298]

It's the same old dance. The moves of the dance.

1. Trump implements/signs/says something about immigration 

2. A lawsuit ensues

3. It goes through the various courts until it gets to the supreme court

4. The supreme courts rules against or in favor of Trump; mostly in favor of Trump. 

 

In this particular instance, I think Trump might prevail based on past precedents.

[geowrian 22,337]

6 hours ago, Holdanna said:

If they don't want LPRs

to work- just  issue a restricted social for a period of time, but allow reunification.

That would require a change in law. He cannot change law, and something drastic like that is not something that could even be masked as something else for which he does have authority over.

 

Also, SSNs do not dictate work authorization. If that even somehow could happen,. all he would be doing is preventing employers from being able to withhold from their paychecks. He would literally be blocking money going to the government, at least until annual taxes are filed.

[Duke & Marie 1,389]

14 hours ago, Paul & Mary said:

I'm sure the 9th circuit will try. It would be pretty hard to set it aside with the supremes based on the previous ones being upheld.

The way the EO is written it really looks more like combatting chain migration to me.. it dosent seem to have stopped USC, employment or study except for extended family type situations 

[SalishSea 17,970]

1 hour ago, Duke & Marie said:

chain migration

Something he's been very vocal about opposing since even before 2016.

[SusieQQQ 11,587]

1 hour ago, Duke & Marie said:

The way the EO is written it really looks more like combatting chain migration to me.. it dosent seem to have stopped USC, employment or study except for extended family type situations 

It's also stopped spouses and children of green card holders, but indeed it looks more like seizing a chance to stop chain migration like he always says he wants (because now that his inlaws already got in who cares, right)

Actually it has stopped all non-health employment green cards. I have no idea what the breakdown is within EBs of medical workers vs non, but it's certainly curious that some non-medical employment categories are stopped while others go on. I'm sure it has absolutely nothing to do with any vested interests.

[Duke & Marie 1,389]

1 hour ago, SusieQQQ said:

It's also stopped spouses and children of green card holders, but indeed it looks more like seizing a chance to stop chain migration like he always says he wants (because now that his inlaws already got in who cares, right)

Actually it has stopped all non-health employment green cards. I have no idea what the breakdown is within EBs of medical workers vs non, but it's certainly curious that some non-medical employment categories are stopped while others go on. I'm sure it has absolutely nothing to do with any vested interests.

Well spouses and children of green card holders again comes down to chain migration.. it’s not unusual for countries to take this approach, people need to become citizens prior to bringing in additional family members or the whole marry for a GC divorce remarry and sponsor thing gets out of control. Back home only citizens can sponsor and even then it takes 7 years... the US has been very relaxed in this approach so it’s not surprising 

Edited April 24, 2020 by Duke & Marie

[SusieQQQ 11,587]

14 minutes ago, Duke & Marie said:

Well spouses and children of green card holders again comes down to chain migration.. it’s not unusual for countries to take this approach, people need to become citizens prior to bringing in additional family members or the whole marry for a GC divorce remarry and sponsor thing gets out of control. Back home only citizens can sponsor and even then it takes 7 years... the US has been very relaxed in this approach so it’s not surprising 

The married children/sibling/parents of USC (all currently banned) is a far bigger chain migration issue. In FY 2019, spouses and children of LPRs. In fy2019 the latter totaled 64k, vs (with derivatives) married children of USCs being 23k, siblings 61k, parents 63k. You can see where the bulk is. Where I do have a big problem with spouses of LPRs is those who deliberately stay single until they get their F1\F2B\derivative of F3 or F4 visas, get their green cards then immediately marry someone. Perhaps the 5 year prohibition on sponsoring via marriage should apply to all green card holders, not just those who got theirs through marriage.

[Duke & Marie 1,389]

17 minutes ago, SusieQQQ said:

The married children/sibling/parents of USC (all currently banned) is a far bigger chain migration issue. In FY 2019, spouses and children of LPRs. In fy2019 the latter totaled 64k, vs (with derivatives) married children of USCs being 23k, siblings 61k, parents 63k. You can see where the bulk is. Where I do have a big problem with spouses of LPRs is those who deliberately stay single until they get their F1\F2B\derivative of F3 or F4 visas, get their green cards then immediately marry someone. Perhaps the 5 year prohibition on sponsoring via marriage should apply to all green card holders, not just those who got theirs through marriage.

Yeah... agree... and the idea of the 5 year prohibition sounds fair, although I still like the idea them having to become citizens prior to sponsoring someone...  and the whole adoption of extended family thing really needs to stop unless parents are passed away... it’s a very grey area that’s manipulated greatly borderline exploitation of the child 

Edited April 24, 2020 by Duke & Marie

[cd37 229]

18 hours ago, Holdanna said:

Wonder if anyone has heard of an injunction coming? Surely there will be an injunction filed against this EO?

Why to file one ? Whats the argument, president can definitely do it, they will be just wasting their time in courts. Its only for 60 days not permanent suspension. 

[cd37 229]

9 hours ago, nastra30 said:

It's the same old dance. The moves of the dance.

1. Trump implements/signs/says something about immigration 

2. A lawsuit ensues

3. It goes through the various courts until it gets to the supreme court

4. The supreme courts rules against or in favor of Trump; mostly in favor of Trump. 

 

In this particular instance, I think Trump might prevail based on past precedents.

Exactly. Only people who will benefit are lawyers. 

[vincentlina 74]

17 hours ago, Paul & Mary said:

Plenty of PhDs flipping burgers in my mountain college town before covid  But I digress,

 

At least, once the borders are open, he can visit.   And the petition might get past the NVC while this is working itself out.

 

This isn't about jobs -- it's pure politics (or optics) plain and simple! If it was about jobs --- why the "narrow" focus? Why allow all those H1B and farm workers, etc.? Doesn't Americans work in farms too?

[vincentlina 74]

13 hours ago, Quarknase said:

It just doesn't make sense. I don't get how this can hold up any legal checks since the whole reasoning is to protect jobs for Americans. Anyhow. I'm not a lawyer. I'm just a frustrated LPR who's Citizenship application is pending because interviews have been suspended (which I understand - it's necessary) and now my spouses case which is currently at NVC will not be able to complete either (once embassies open). The chain of these events is what bugs me along with the question what makes us worth less to be united than a USC with their spouse.

This is all politics. People with knowledge of the internal deliberation at least said so.This EO is simply pure red meat for this administration's base -- nothing more; nothing less. They've been wanting to do this for quite a while, so under the auspices of this pandemic, they saw their opportunity to pounce. I guarantee they will extend it after the 60 days. Honestly, this only ends when this administration is removed from office in November. Simple as that.