Page 4 of 44
Re: Immigration
Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2017 12:50 pm
by Malcolm
A spokeswoman for the Department of Homeland Security cited its policy of not commenting on pending litigation.
Probably because it's really awkward to say, "The dumb-ass in charge doesn't know the law and has no hope of ever understanding it."
Re: Immigration
Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2017 3:14 pm
by Vince
TheCatt wrote:Federal judge says immigrant visas must be honored, cuz, you know, laws.
LOS ANGELES/NEW YORK (Reuters) - A federal judge in Los Angeles has ruled President Donald Trump's administration must allow immigrants with initial clearance for legal residency to enter the United States from seven Muslim-majority nations, despite an executive order ban.
Tuesday's ruling by U.S. District Judge Andre Birotte Jr follows decisions by federal judges in at least four other states that also limited the executive order Trump issued on Friday.
But it goes further, by focusing on a large group of people from the seven nations of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen - the countries targeted in the executive order - who are outside the United States and trying to enter.
In the temporary ruling, Birotte ordered U.S. officials to refrain from "removing, detaining or blocking the entry of plaintiffs or any other person ... with a valid immigrant visa" who is arriving from one of the seven nations.
According to the U.S. Department of State, immigrant visas are the first step to becoming a lawful permanent resident, or a green card holder.
Birotte's ruling does not apply to tourists, students or business travelers with non-immigrant visas.
The U.S. Department of Justice is reviewing the order and would have no further comment, a spokeswoman for the agency said in an email.
A spokeswoman for the Department of Homeland Security cited its policy of not commenting on pending litigation.
This could get interesting. The visa only allows the visa holder to be allowed to travel to the US port of entry. It does not allow entry into the country past the port of entry. Once they reach the port of entry it falls to the Customs and Border Protections where they go from there. Either into the states, or back out of the country. So allowing them to the port of entry, but not allowing them past that point would still be honoring the visa.
Re: Immigration
Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2017 8:16 pm
by TheCatt
Re: Immigration
Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2017 1:25 am
by Malcolm
A U.S. judge on Friday temporarily blocked President Donald Trump's ban on travelers from seven predominantly Muslim countries after Washington state and Minnesota urged a nationwide hold on the executive order that has launched legal battles across the country.
...
Robart ruled against government lawyers' claims that the states of Washington and Minnesota did not have the standing to challenge Trump's order and said they showed their case was likely to succeed.
Eat a bag of dicks, Drumpf.
Re: Immigration
Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2017 2:19 am
by Leisher
Uber CEO tells Drumpf administration to go fuck itself.
To be fair, you completely left out the part that he was forced to because he initially tried to profit off the taxicab drivers and the backlash was severe.
Re: Immigration
Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2017 8:58 am
by Vince
As I said, it will be interesting to see what happens next. I can see where a judge might have legal standing to force the government to honor the visas, but allowing entry to the country past the port of entry is at the discretion of DHS and has been for about 15 years. Anything beyond allowing the visa holder into the point of entry is a huge judicial overreach and should be shut down by the SCOTUS. Not even sure how SCOTUS (or the appellate) would handle the visa part of it. The Homeland Security act put even the handling and implementation of visas under DHS.
Re: Immigration
Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2017 4:45 pm
by TPRJones
At least they backed down on blocking the return of permanent residents. That was the part I thought was massively unjust.
Re: Immigration
Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2017 5:50 pm
by Vince
TPRJones wrote:At least they backed down on blocking the return of permanent residents. That was the part I thought was massively unjust.
Agree. And I'm not arguing really whether or not this is good policy. To be honest, I don't think it goes far enough to do much measurable good (as it's being done now). On the flip side, a) people don't have a right to come here, and b) ISIS will not use this as a recruiting tool any more than the US not being a sharia Islamic theocracy will be used as a recruiting tool.
Re: Immigration
Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2017 9:53 am
by Leisher
At least they backed down on blocking the return of permanent residents. That was the part I thought was massively unjust.
Right? If people have visas or green cards (that are valid), then they're not the problem. They've followed the law. It boggles my mind that this part was even an issue.
people don't have a right to come here
This.
Re: Immigration
Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2017 11:00 am
by TheCatt
Leisher wrote:At least they backed down on blocking the return of permanent residents. That was the part I thought was massively unjust.
Right? If people have visas or green cards (that are valid), then they're not the problem. They've followed the law. It boggles my mind that this part was even an issue.
people don't have a right to come here
This.
Agreed. I think we should make American attractive (it is), and be picky.
Re: Immigration
Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2017 2:13 pm
by Malcolm
TheCatt wrote:Agreed. I think we should make American attractive (it is), and be picky.
Wouldn't that then include booting out the people (regardless of nationality) we have who aren't giving a shit, trying to live off the public dime, etc. to open up more room for other talented/deserving potential citizens?
Re: Immigration
Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2017 2:18 pm
by TheCatt
Malcolm wrote:TheCatt wrote:Agreed. I think we should make American attractive (it is), and be picky.
Wouldn't that then include booting out the people (regardless of nationality) we have who aren't giving a shit, trying to live off the public dime, etc. to open up more room for other talented/deserving potential citizens?
I mean, I'm not necessarily against that... but no. Once you're in the door, you're part of the club.
Re: Immigration
Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2017 2:27 pm
by Malcolm
TheCatt wrote:Malcolm wrote:TheCatt wrote:Agreed. I think we should make American attractive (it is), and be picky.
Wouldn't that then include booting out the people (regardless of nationality) we have who aren't giving a shit, trying to live off the public dime, etc. to open up more room for other talented/deserving potential citizens?
I mean, I'm not necessarily against that... but no. Once you're in the door, you're part of the club.
Then you're going to have a fuckload of people willing to do anything to get in the door by any loophole possible. If we're going to let the loophole abusers (slave labour H1-B visa holders, people who marry then divorce a citizen to gain citizenship, etc.) in and then protect them like your own, then it seems like a smack in the dick to legit people who try to go through the process correctly and get turned away because "we have to be picky and only let in the best."
Re: Immigration
Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2017 2:35 pm
by Leisher
people who marry then divorce a citizen to gain citizenship
I think I'd be ok with certain "gotchas" being put on that loophole.
Divorce within X amount of time and lose your citizenship.
And if you're not ok with that, then how about making it slightly more difficult to get married?
Re: Immigration
Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2017 2:47 pm
by Malcolm
Leisher wrote:people who marry then divorce a citizen to gain citizenship
I think I'd be ok with certain "gotchas" being put on that loophole.
Divorce within X amount of time and lose your citizenship.
And if you're not ok with that, then how about making it slightly more difficult to get married?
What's X? Because for those X years, that means their stay is at the mercy of their spouse.
As for the other one, I'm always for making it more difficult for people to get married. That's just common sense.
Re: Immigration
Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2017 2:49 pm
by Troy
Leisher wrote:people who marry then divorce a citizen to gain citizenship
And if you're not ok with that, then how about making it slightly more difficult to get married?
I'm down for this, but it sounds like it would step on all kinds of toes? Religious, State's rights, Constitutional(I actually have no idea what our rights are as far as being allowed to marry)
Re: Immigration
Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2017 2:53 pm
by Malcolm
Troy wrote:Leisher wrote:people who marry then divorce a citizen to gain citizenship
And if you're not ok with that, then how about making it slightly more difficult to get married?
I'm down for this, but it sounds like it would step on all kinds of toes? Religious, State's rights, Constitutional(I actually have no idea what our rights are as far as being allowed to marry)
The faithful can be married/joined/unioned/soulmated/wtf-ever and who cares. That doesn't mean shit until a marriage license is filed.
Re: Immigration
Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2017 3:40 pm
by Leisher
What's X? Because for those X years, that means their stay is at the mercy of their spouse.
That's why I added the other option. I figured folks would be at their spouse's mercy and this could, potentially, lead to bad things.
So, why not make folks wait to get married? Instead of allowing for folks to get a license and married the same day, make them file paperwork and go through a waiting process.
You've got to wait for a gun, why not a marriage license?
And don't give me the "freedom" argument. You can't drive until you're 16, can join the military at 18, can't choose to smoke until you're 18, and can't choose to drink until you're 21...Oh, and can't rent a car until you're 25.
We make exceptions on freedom all the time.
Re: Immigration
Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2017 3:58 pm
by GORDON
Can't watch Ultra Porn until you're 60.
It's bullshit.
Re: Immigration
Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2017 4:02 pm
by Malcolm
So, why not make folks wait to get married? Instead of allowing for folks to get a license and married the same day, make them file paperwork and go through a waiting process.
You've got to wait for a gun, why not a marriage license?
Funny you mention that. Smoking and drinking -- they pretty much just make you hand an ID over. Those aren't quite good analogies for me here. One doesn't go out and "get married" for one night the same way one goes out and gets blitzed or smokes an entire Cuban tobacco harvest. The other things you mention have significant sets of rules around them. You're inviting the same treatment for marriage? Don't we just run blood tests nowadays and call it good?