Dozens of immigrants ... coerced into giving up visas and green cards(businessinsider.com)
businessinsider.com
Dozens of immigrants ... coerced into giving up visas and green cards
http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-immigration-ban-travel-ban-2017-1
21 comments
This article is garbage, read the introduction of the lawsuit itself: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3438631/EDVA-Amen...
Here is the Introduction verbatim:
"This ban, when first promulgated, included individuals on immigrant visas and returning lawful permanent residents."
So why is it ok for returning lawful permanent residents to be banned ? To become a permanent resident, you have to go through tons of paperwork and background checks already. It takes anywhere from 9-12 months to even years to get a green card. The point is that this executive order completely ignored lawful PRs and that is totally unfair and probably unconstitutional. Whats next ? Naturalized citizens ? Then who is next ?
I can understand banning non-americans. But lawful Permanent Residents are considered "US Persons" as per definition which means they have all the rights as a citizen except the right to vote and run for office. If I was PR who was treated like this, I will be furious. Period. And I love America.
"This ban, when first promulgated, included individuals on immigrant visas and returning lawful permanent residents."
So why is it ok for returning lawful permanent residents to be banned ? To become a permanent resident, you have to go through tons of paperwork and background checks already. It takes anywhere from 9-12 months to even years to get a green card. The point is that this executive order completely ignored lawful PRs and that is totally unfair and probably unconstitutional. Whats next ? Naturalized citizens ? Then who is next ?
I can understand banning non-americans. But lawful Permanent Residents are considered "US Persons" as per definition which means they have all the rights as a citizen except the right to vote and run for office. If I was PR who was treated like this, I will be furious. Period. And I love America.
It's not OK, it's totally fucked. However, I was saying the article was poor reporting. That has nothing at all to do with with my views on the policies and actions in play.
oh ok. I read your post and my take away was that this entire topic is garbage. My bad.
Questions:
1. Do these people, who were coerced into "cancelling" their immigrant visas, have to go through the whole process again, or, since they were coerced, will their visa be reactivated?
2. What are the consequences of this on the administration?
1. Do these people, who were coerced into "cancelling" their immigrant visas, have to go through the whole process again, or, since they were coerced, will their visa be reactivated?
2. What are the consequences of this on the administration?
I don't think anyone knows the answer to either of these questions at this point. It will depend on what happens next.
What's with the empty brackets in the title?
I meant to say that the title is redacted. IIRC [...] would do it but the site skipped the ....
FWIW, a plain ellipsis should replace any number of words redacted for brevity. E.g., "The US government is violating the due process, equal protection, and habeas corpus rights of immigrants," becomes "The US government is violating the... rights of immigrants."
If replacing a word with another word to convey missing contextual meaning- e.g., "I won't do business with [Mr. Trump] in the future," that's when you pull out the brackets.
If replacing a word with another word to convey missing contextual meaning- e.g., "I won't do business with [Mr. Trump] in the future," that's when you pull out the brackets.
Bracketed ellipses are often used in quoted material to mark elisions to make clear that the ellipses are inserted by the party relaying the quote to mark a elision, not ellipses present in the original text.
Most (maybe even all) formal sources that I've encountered use this style, not unbracketed ellipses.
Most (maybe even all) formal sources that I've encountered use this style, not unbracketed ellipses.
You mean elided. Redacted normally refers to "blacking out" or censoring something confidential in a larger document.
Thanks guys. In old days I knew that ... meant that something is being omitted but I forgot :)
Anyway, I wanted to say that the title is not as it is on the original site. I edited it thanks to your advice
Anyway, I wanted to say that the title is not as it is on the original site. I edited it thanks to your advice
going to comment on my own submission: it's hard to underestimate the damage done to these people. Leaving aside the life /torture/death cases, and just assuming that they are regular immigrants: They have sold everything they own and probably gone heavily in debt to finance the trip....to essentially paradise. And now?
A similar thing happened to 91 Cuban refugees that were in transit to the US when Obama ended the policy of granting residency to any who reached the US.
There's a big difference between the current situation and the one you point out: the current immigrants were known in advance and traveling legally between their home country and ours. The Cubans were not known until they arrived. That is, Obama had no way to know they were in transit. Trump could have known he was stranding people, had he asked and if the INS has the data accessible.
The difference isn't that big. It had been US policy for decades to grant residency to Cuban refugees. Obama could have made the change effective as of a date a couple months in the future to avoid stranding those in transit but he chose instead to make it effective immediately.
Except those people did not have any immigrant visas issued to them, or indeed any sort of visa or invitation.
That's terrible, Trump should reverse Obama's mistake immediately and give those Cubans green cards! I'm sure Trump would hate for refugees to be unnecessarily locked out of the US ... oh wait.
True, many don't appreciate the power of a US Visa. Think of "FU money" in USA, only to find out that the stock you had your money in has crashed.
Indeed there have been several anecdotes in the media about that situation: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/02/world/africa/trump-refuge...
This is really disgusting behavior by the US. If this was done by private parties they'd easily be able to sue for damages under promissory estoppel.
This is really disgusting behavior by the US. If this was done by private parties they'd easily be able to sue for damages under promissory estoppel.