Rebel Leader
THE POWER OF BUTTERSCOTCH BOTTOMS
Maybe they mean the end of "wet foot, dry foot" policy
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
NYT: Refugees and immigrants being detained at US airports right now.
- Thread starter Joel Was Right
- Start date
- Status
Maybe they mean the end of "wet foot, dry foot" policy
StopMakingSense
Member
probably the no automatic entry for any Cubans thing. It's a necessary step for normalizing relations.
ShadowSwordmaster
Banned
So how many people are filing a lawsuit to the Trump Admin now?
And will these lawsuits matter in the long run?
And will these lawsuits matter in the long run?
There was no ban, They were turned back so they could go apply "Legally" since we have reinstated diplomatic relations.
The "Wet Foot, Dry Foot" policy caused unnecessary risk in this era of cuban-american relations. Instead of hopping on a raft and trying to make to the US by sea, you can just apply for a visa and green card.
Misinformation is spread so very easily by this administration.
ShadowSwordmaster
Banned
Damn. Here is another question: What happens if these cases succeed? I fear that Trump will try and sweep this under the rug.
LiquidSword
Member
http://www.npr.org/2017/01/31/512702666/white-house-adviser-defends-trump-executive-order-on-immigration
This interview is infuriating and scary. This guy is the perfect polite facsist. The scariest part is when the interviewer says about the protests that people are viewing this as a moral question, he responds with, "Yes it is a moral question about protecting American lives." Further adds to my belief that the rhetoric is going to ramp up very quickly to "Liberals are putting American lives at risk by opposing this. We must crush them."
This interview is infuriating and scary. This guy is the perfect polite facsist. The scariest part is when the interviewer says about the protests that people are viewing this as a moral question, he responds with, "Yes it is a moral question about protecting American lives." Further adds to my belief that the rhetoric is going to ramp up very quickly to "Liberals are putting American lives at risk by opposing this. We must crush them."
Chaos2Frozen
Member
When are all of these coming home to roost? I imagine it would take months.
ShadowSwordmaster
Banned
That is a long time and a lot of things can happen.
SatelliteOfLove
Member
Note the projectioning around "Nov. 8th" and mandates.
It's like their bravado can't come out without some of that reflective seasoning of their self-doubts.
Yeah its disgusting and we can see it coming already. And the biggest problem is we'll have to trust voters to see through that...
irfaanator
Banned
the fucking shit spewed in this interview
OriginofHysteria
Banned
Protecting American lives even further by banning countries that have never attacked U.S. soil.
Wait until the last 5 seconds.
https://twitter.com/NoorAjaj/status/826507461540642816
Im in UK but the aide needs a punch in the face, just as a starter.
https://twitter.com/NoorAjaj/status/826507461540642816
Im in UK but the aide needs a punch in the face, just as a starter.
-Plasma Reus-
Service guarantees member status
appears to be during the campaign.
plagiarize
Banned
Wasn't that during the campaign? Holy shit at the last 5-10 seconds.
Not sure as it only appeared on my timeline today.
https://twitter.com/uplink_jp/status/826706414458408960
This one is quite an interestingtake on current events ref media coverage and governments.
Blackthorn
"hello?" "this is vagina"
Just realised I knew an Iranian guy (lived in London most his life) who was planning to move to US. That was his whole long term plan.
Ironically, he's a Christian.
Ironically, he's a Christian.
You really know something is eff'ed up when South Carolina Senators and a College (Clemson) are trying to help get people home.
Hope she can get back soon.
Hope she can get back soon.
Poodlestrike
Banned
I heard this guy yesterday driving home, and HOLY Shit I have never heard a more punchable voice in my LIFE. Like good God Damn.
Seriously, automatic violence response. It's not even what he's saying (although...) it's just that VOICE.
Can someone help me understand something? I'm sure it's been brought up at some point in this thread, I just wouldn't know where to look. I'm a little confused.
I was reading the text of the EO to see the specific language, and so
...how does this not suspend entry of green card holders? They're out here saying that this doesn't impact green card holders, but the legal definition of an immigrant is a green card holder...
Is this not a legal document and therefore immigration officers letting green card holders into the US are now in violation of it? I'm glad LPR's are being let in, but can they really just write an EO banning green card holders and say "no no, green card holders can enter. This EO banning green card holders doesn't apply to green card holders." I truly don't understand, do EO's not have the same effect as laws? Can the president just verbally say an EO is being enforced on one day but not another because he feels like it?
Did they amend or correct the EO in some way that I missed? Did I overlook some part of the EO that clarifies this?
I was reading the text of the EO to see the specific language, and so
...how does this not suspend entry of green card holders? They're out here saying that this doesn't impact green card holders, but the legal definition of an immigrant is a green card holder...
Is this not a legal document and therefore immigration officers letting green card holders into the US are now in violation of it? I'm glad LPR's are being let in, but can they really just write an EO banning green card holders and say "no no, green card holders can enter. This EO banning green card holders doesn't apply to green card holders." I truly don't understand, do EO's not have the same effect as laws? Can the president just verbally say an EO is being enforced on one day but not another because he feels like it?
Did they amend or correct the EO in some way that I missed? Did I overlook some part of the EO that clarifies this?
Looks like the story about the man whose mother died in Iraq because of the ban was BS
http://www.fox2detroit.com/news/local-news/233053942-story
I still can't believe that they even went after folks with green cards initially. That's nutso.
Because they're not immigrants, but residents.
I loved my half year at the University of Ottawa in Canada and in some way it even makes me proud that they are providing this awesome opportunity for those affected by this ridiculous ban https://www.uottawa.ca/gazette/en/n...ist-students-and-academics-affected-us-travel
No green card holders are residents who have already immigrated .
Visas are of two forms immigrant and non immigrant
Non immigrant forms are for example f-1 (student) or h1b (work) the expectation is you're here temporarily not immigrating as such
A refugee visa etc or say a visa for a spouse of a us citizen would be immigrant as the intention is to immigrate to the us and that's the purpose of the visa. You're on the immigrant visa till you complete the immigration process and become a resident (green card or citizen)
But the DHS's own definition of immigrant includes permanent residents. Is this not the legal definition?
And the EO's text specifies entry of all immigrants. The section 3 title is "Suspension of Issuance of Visas and Other Immigration Benefits to Nationals of Countries of Particular Concern" but the text that follows it in subsection (c) specifies entry into the U.S., not visa issuance, regardless of it's header. In which case shouldn't it say, for legal clarity, "I hereby proclaim that the issuance of visas, to immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for entry into the U.S. etc etc."
The text also specifies "as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons" that it is speaking of immigrant and nonimmigrant persons of these countries rather than immigrant and nonimmigrant visas.
Only using 'entry' seems like a poor choice of words when the term 'legal entry' applies to aliens, and the term 'aliens' includes permanent residents.
Does 'entry' refer specifically and solely to first-time entry? I can't find anything on that.
Sorry if I'm being obtuse. It just seems messy to me and I don't totally understand a lot of this. :lol But so when immigrants get their green card they cease being immigrants, legally speaking?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked