The President Trump Immigration Thread

[SheepDog4Life]

Thanks for the link of all the appeals cases... though I thought you were referring to "specific" cases.

Regarding the last part, I agree that our citizenship laws are eff'ed up to the point that a child born to TWO US citizens travelling abroad must naturalize their child to "gain" citizenship, whereas the child of an alien illegally in the country for 15 minutes is automatically accorded citizenship.

This is law that needs to change. IIRC, most of the world derives citizenship from the parent's citizenship, NOT (solely) the location of the birth.

 

[T.Lex]

Thanks for the link of all the appeals cases... though I thought you were referring to "specific" cases.

Regarding the last part, I agree that our citizenship laws are eff'ed up to the point that a child born to TWO US citizens travelling abroad must naturalize their child to "gain" citizenship, whereas the child of an alien illegally in the country for 15 minutes is automatically accorded citizenship.

This is law that needs to change. IIRC, most of the world derives citizenship from the parent's citizenship, NOT (solely) the location of the birth.

Yeah, sorry, this site reflects the overall frustration with our entire immigration process. It is WAAAAY too complicated. Here's another odd case:
https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default...ecisions_Issued_in_2016/MAR152016_01H3212.pdf

Canadian citizen, born in Iraq, comes to the US under a J-1 exchange visitor visa to get graduate medical training. I guess that kind of visa requires the immigrant to leave for 2 years before returning. While here, gets married (appears to be bona fide) to a US citizen. Asks for waiver of the 2 year foreign residence requirement and is denied. There's a laundry list of pretty normal reasons why 2 years away would be a problem, plus a couple reasons related to wife's pharmacy degree being interrupted if she left.

Not sure where that'll hit you on the sympathy scale. Heck, not sure where that hits ME on they sympathy scale.

 

[T.Lex]

@S4L

Here's one that seems like a close call.

https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default...ecisions_Issued_in_2016/JAN192016_01H6212.pdf

Dude enters on a visitor visa in 2007, and overstayed. He left in 2010 for a couple days, but came back. And stayed. Married a gal in 2011 who had been LPR since 1994. Have 2 kids, born here, who are US citizens.

Didn't show enough hardship to stay.

ETA:
I will say that bunch of the waivers of inadmissibility are granted on appeal for undue hardship. Its a discretionary thing, so "what fits" is not always consistent.

 

[jamil]

54L? That's a pretty big dude. I think imma 48L. And I'm not skinny.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

T... in the first case, the US woman knowingly married a Canadian/Iraqi dual citizen present on a Visa which required him to leave the country for 2 years after completing his education/training.

In the second case, the LPR woman knowingly married and had children with a Mexican citizen illegally in the country for more than 1 year, the penalty for which is barred re-entry for 10 years from last departure/deportation.

If either of the women were lied to, then I would see that as cause for divorce and further civil action against any assets present in the US. If they were not lied to, then they knew what they were getting into. It's called adult'ing.

ETA: And, in the second case, the illegal alien husband had not been in the country for 10 years under which he could apply for relief. Those are the laws, and we are either a nation of liberty under law, or not.

ETA:
I will say that bunch of the waivers of inadmissibility are granted on appeal for undue hardship. Its a discretionary thing, so "what fits" is not always consistent.

Can you point some of these out? The ones granted for undue/extreme hardship?

 

[printcraft]

.

Two Centuries of US Immigration Visualized

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Amazing. This is ****ing amazing.

I cannot ****ing believe they published this.

 

[KG1]

Amazing. This is ****ing amazing.

I cannot ****ing believe they published this.

I can believe it. And they wonder why so many hate the media.

 

[actaeon277]

He's a Hitler
She's a Hitler
Everyone's a Hitler

 

[Twangbanger]

Republicans see cheap labor.

Democrats see voters.

T. Lex sees plaintiffs.

This thread is fascinating. Tell me more about how Amnesty is good for America. (Insert photo of Willie Wonka here >>>___<<<).

 

[T.Lex]

Republicans see cheap labor.

Democrats see voters.

T. Lex sees plaintiffs.

This thread is fascinating. Tell me more about how Amnesty is good for America. (Insert photo of Willie Wonka here >>>___<<<).

And Twangbanger apparently is blind to nuance.

Amnesty for the right people (however we want to determine that) will be good for America. So will securing the border, deporting thugs (ideally, citizen-thugs, too, but that's probably a different thread), and getting Americans to work again.

 

[jamil]

Amazing. This is ****ing amazing.

I cannot ****ing believe they published this.

Trump craps. Do you know who also crapped? Adolph Hitler.

 

[T.Lex]

Trump craps. Do you know who also crapped? Adolph Hitler.

Ghandi crapped.

Maybe that could be the counter-narrative.

Who said it, Trump or Ghandi:
We need not wait to see what others will do.

Freedom is not worth having if we are not free to make mistakes.

The weak can never forgive. Forgiveness is an attribute of the strong.

Truth stands, even if there is no public support.

 

[Twangbanger]

...Amnesty for the right people (however we want to determine that) will be good for America. So will securing the border, deporting thugs (ideally, citizen-thugs, too, but that's probably a different thread), and getting Americans to work again.

(...Did Trump's speech writer write that for you?)

But seriously, I get the nuance that it's good for them, and possibly you. But the "cost" of creating that next "data point" in the "Amnesty timeline," is that it leaves the unmistakable impression that our immigration policy is now replaced by a series of periodic Amnesties, supported by the plaintiffs' bar, and that anyone taking up illegal residence between such amnesties, need only wait for the next one to become leveled-up and legalized.

If you're looking for a way to make a _further_ mockery of the system, and encourage even more people to overstay...it is not easy to think of a better one.

 

[T.Lex]

We can both have our own opinions, but I do need to clarify a factual point: I'm not part of the plaintiffs' bar.

I try to keep my clients out of litigation as much as possible. For me, courtroom drama was a youthful folly, with high points and low points, but ultimately a bad deal for the bottom line. When it is necessary, I am more than happy to refer people to lawyers who fancy that kind of thing.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

AP says new travel ban order will temporarily halt entry for those seeking new visas from 6 countries.

(Which would be more of a Visa freeze than a travel ban.)

Seems like this is going to end up being very tame... but enough to say "I did it" to satisfy the campaign promises.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Apparently this restrictions are set to take effect March 16th at 12:01am.

According to the Trump Admin logic, announcing that date means they will pour in unvetted over the next ten days.

White House repeatedly said Christian refugees under genocide would get priority. This executive order strips that priority.

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/06/trump-signs-new-travel-ban-targeting-six-countries.html

If the ban were announced with a one week notice, the "bad" would rush into our country during that week. A lot of bad "dudes" out there!

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/826060143825666051

 

[SheepDog4Life]

AP says new travel ban order will temporarily halt entry for those seeking new visas from 6 countries.

(Which would be more of a Visa freeze than a travel ban.)

Seems like this is going to end up being very tame... but enough to say "I did it" to satisfy the campaign promises.

I would disagree... he could have "just" continued to fight it out in court with the original restrictions and said he checked the box, "I did it", but the courts interfered.

Whatever he does on this has to make it through the 9th Appeals, or it's just "rinse, repeat"... so the "glass half full" view is that he did as much as he could, and with 8 years, the 9th will get new, different judges that interpret the law and the constitution, not their "feelz".

On the "Christian" side, he can simply direct that refugees who are most endangered, who have the least options within their region, get priority. THAT was the purpose of the "religious oppression" clause of the original... Obama's policies had a disproportionate impact on the most persecuted peoples in that region, non-muslim minorities.

 

[T.Lex]

Yeah, this new EO is probably closer to what the first one should have been. Kinda underwhelming at this point.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Yeah, this new EO is probably closer to what the first one should have been. Kinda underwhelming at this point.

My nit with it is that it could have been issued to the agencies involved under "confidential" to give them time to prepare.

It would have been illegally leaked, of course, but then the finger pointed at the leaker(s) for putting politics above potential harm to US citizens... because, so far, all of the leaks have accomplished EXACTLY that and emboldened our enemies.