The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
[Trump Immigration Policy] DACA renewals continue due to injunction, SCOTUS denies appeal
Oghulk
Tinychat JanitorTinychatRegistered User regular
Tinychat JanitorTinychatRegistered User regular
In the mean time, SCOTUS has allowed a partial lift on the injunction against the EO issuing the muslim ban.
Stolen from Enlightenedbum but I'm gonna just post the thing here so people don't have to go through spoilers to see it.
https://apnews.com/236a53e871e5484db90f1b81daa1aade/The-Latest:-US-issues-new-visa-criteria-for-6-Muslim-nations?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP
This requires a very narrow definition of close family members and is a practice applied to the SF-86 form required to get a security clearance.
e: As noted by SO IT GOES this thread is for the following:
this thread is for discussing the Trump administrations's policies on immigration, including the Muslim ban, how the admin is treating refugees, etc.
Also on topic are ICE and DHS activities, and things like DACA/DAPA.
Do not discuss other topics here please and thank you.
Stolen from Enlightenedbum but I'm gonna just post the thing here so people don't have to go through spoilers to see it.
https://apnews.com/236a53e871e5484db90f1b81daa1aade/The-Latest:-US-issues-new-visa-criteria-for-6-Muslim-nations?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP
The Trump administration has set new criteria for visa applicants from six mainly Muslim nations and all refugees that require a “close” family or business tie to the United States. The move comes after the Supreme Court partially restored President Donald Trump’s executive order that was widely criticized as a ban on Muslims.
The new guidelines sent to U.S. embassies and consulates on Wednesday say that applicants from the six countries must prove a relationship with a parent, spouse, child, adult son or daughter, son-in-law, daughter-in-law or sibling in the U.S.
This is according to a State Department cable obtained by the Associated Press.
Grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, cousins, brothers-laws and sisters-in-law, fiancees or other extended family members are not considered to be close relationships.
This requires a very narrow definition of close family members and is a practice applied to the SF-86 form required to get a security clearance.
e: As noted by SO IT GOES this thread is for the following:
this thread is for discussing the Trump administrations's policies on immigration, including the Muslim ban, how the admin is treating refugees, etc.
Also on topic are ICE and DHS activities, and things like DACA/DAPA.
Do not discuss other topics here please and thank you.
So It Goes on
0
This discussion has been closed.
Posts
Also on topic are ICE and DHS activities, and things like DACA/DAPA.
If anyone has a good article or primer on the Muslim ban EO and a timeline of how it was issued, challenged, amended, challenged again, etc. let me know and I will add it to the OP.
Yes. You could sue on the claim that the criteria does not meet that laid out in the SCOTUS case
This will likely happen and the lower courts will instruct the administration on a better definition
Yeah, this is already turning into a mess
Stepsister, Yes; Grandma, No: U.S. Sets Guidelines for Revised Travel Ban
So I'm curious. How do you even prove a relationship?
If a Dad is visiting a Son, how does the Dad prove that? It is verbal? Does he need documentation? If he says I'm visiting John Smith, do they then look up John Smith in some sort of database?
It's almost like they didn't think things through about this at all!
Because it's hard to objectively prove, and gives them plenty of leeway to deny even those with an approved relationship?
I think you may be misunderstanding their goals if you think this doesn't align with them.
Consider siblings. A parent may have a birth certificate with their signature that may be acceptable. A sibling would have to hope the same parent signed both of theirs, or then need a marriage license proving the two people who signed their birth certificates were married.
The fact that actual family members like grandparents and nieces/nephews "don't count" is bullshit.
Oh, I understand. They want to make it as difficult as possible, and generally discourage people from coming over.
I'm just sort of curious what "formal and documented" means to them.
If I could count of the "goodness" of people (which we can't) I would hope that saying "I'm visiting my father" would be enough to allow someone in. Maybe some follow up questions.
People coming over for work or conferences will probably have documentation of some sort, so they might be scrutinized more.
And anyone trying to get through customs should have their cell phones/cameras at the ready. As there will be problems, and people with legitimate reasons to be in the US will be challenged and turned away.
I bet you can guess which states!
Ken "I'm currently being sued for felony fraud while serving as state AG" Paxton
Actually, I missed Idaho.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
More likely they would ask the sibling for proof that the father was their father, and proof that the mother was their mother, proof that the father and mother were married, and any children would have to prove that they are the children of either of them.
"You say you're the child of Aamir and Yamha, but can you prove that you are the child of this Aamir and this Yamha?"
Just produce a US birth certificate or a state or federally issued photo ID and we can clear this all up.
Unless it's a Hawaiian birth certificate. Because of course, we all know that those are fake, even if you have a long form one. Still waiting to hear back from his investigators!
I don't know, could go either way. The lower courts ruled by inferring intent. SCOTUS allowed them to demonstrate how it's going to go, and they're not off to a great start.
It was 100% clear this was intended to discriminate based on religion and race.
I can see fakers taking advantage of the vulnerable if this becomes a thing.
SCOTUS basically ruled that noncitizens not in the country should not expect constitutional protections, and then ruled as tightly as they could with that in mind. They are not responsible for Trump fucking around.
I don't know what, or how. Fucking hell.
Is there any protest or rallies on any of this shit? Travel ban or ICE or anything? Does anyone know groups organizing this sort of thing?
And here we see the beginnings of the real problem. The supreme court has just made another ruling which is wrong. Now the lower courts can either accept the ruling, maintaining the authority of the court but degrading the authority of law, or attempt to guide the supremes to the correct ruling, maintaining the authority of the law, but damaging the courts.
They are absolutely responsible for not doing anything to guard against what was obviously going to happen.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean they ruled incorrectly. Even RBG and Breyer agreed with the stay.
I... I kinda hope they do. I mean, it'd be terrible for their victims, but if we must take away felons right to vote...
As long as they never say they are actually a lawyer, what can they be charged with?
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
unauthorized practice of law. doesn't matter if they don't specifically claim to be a lawyer. putting it out there that you are offering "free legal assistance" would be enough.
steam | Dokkan: 868846562
They are literally not allowed to rule that way. Federal courts can't even give advisory rulings.