U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 01-30-2017, 09:09 AM
 
66,565 posts, read 30,379,078 times
Reputation: 8688

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by FinsterRufus View Post
I understand that. But that's not how it's worked practically speaking.
That is EXACTLY how it has worked. Any foreign citizen LPR knows (or should know, unless they're ignorant) that traveling abroad with such a status does NOT automatically guarantee re-entry to the US.

Try to find any such right in the US Constitution. You won't find it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-30-2017, 09:20 AM
 
9,199 posts, read 7,066,019 times
Reputation: 11154
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
That is EXACTLY how it has worked. Any foreign citizen LPR knows (or should know, unless they're ignorant) that traveling abroad with such a status does NOT automatically guarantee re-entry to the US.

Try to find any such right in the US Constitution. You won't find it.
The US Constitution is not current immigration law.

Please show me the statute which states if you have abided by all your conditions and you are a legal permanent resident at the border that the immigration officer is going to deny you entry if they feel like it.

From USCIS.GOV


Quote:
Does travel outside the United States affect my permanent resident status?

Permanent residents are free to travel outside the United States, and temporary or brief travel usually does not affect your permanent resident status. If it is determined, however, that you did not intend to make the United States your permanent home, you will be found to have abandoned your permanent resident status. A general guide used is whether you have been absent from the United States for more than a year. Abandonment may be found to occur in trips of less than a year where it is believed you did not intend to make the United States your permanent residence. While brief trips abroad generally are not problematic, the officer may consider criteria such as whether your intention was to visit abroad only temporarily, whether you maintained U.S. family and community ties, maintained U.S employment, filed U.S. income taxes as a resident, or otherwise established your intention to return to the United States as your permanent home. Other factors that may be considered include whether you maintained a U.S. mailing address, kept U.S. bank accounts and a valid U.S. driver’s license, own property or run a business in the United States, or any other evidence that supports the temporary nature of your absence.
Please show me where they state if you leave and abide by the conditions of your status that you would expect to be denied admission?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-30-2017, 09:21 AM
 
79,474 posts, read 33,688,908 times
Reputation: 15903
Quote:
Originally Posted by FinsterRufus View Post
Only if a judge finds that they violated their status or that their condition for removal is legal and valid. Otherwise no, they can't be deported. That's the whole point of being a permanent resident.
Again, if you can be removed you are not permanent. A citizen can not be removed under any circumstance.

Quote:
All permanent residents reside in the US, it's a condition of holding permanent resident status. Regardless, I was responding to your statement that there's no such thing as permanent residency.
The people being blocked are not in the US. Trump would have a more difficult time if they were.

Quote:
You can turn anyone away, but it's not SOP at all. In that case, permanent residents would need to be advised that they should not travel abroad, lest they be turned away for any and no reason. While it may be legal, it's not practically how it works now.
I am simply arguing the legality. No, it is not how it has worked. No it is not fair to many. Legally Trump's argument will likely stand.

I will also note though.....how it did work, didn't always work.

Quote:
There is no reason why someone travelling under suspicious circumstances should be granted entry until verified - I'm certainly not arguing that. After all, people who are suspected if being drug mules are not granted entry either, no matter who they are. Until it's verified whether they go straight to detention or not.

But that was not why the people detained by immigration over the weekend were detained. Those people had clear and recent permission to enter, apart from the EO. Immigration checkpoints at Points Of Entry when you've just been grated a visa by a Consulate are a processing formality, usually.
Again.......fair to many? No. Legal? I believe so.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-30-2017, 09:23 AM
 
79,474 posts, read 33,688,908 times
Reputation: 15903
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Not when they are abroad. Example: An Italian citizen in Japan has no US Constitutional rights.
Here we are back on this pattern, I said nothing about Constitutional rights here. I stated that they had a legal status.

Quote:
What court? Not a US court. They have no standing as they are neither a US citizen nor present in the US.
They do. They still have a legal status here in the U.S.

IMO Trump isn't even arguing what you are arguing. He is not arguing that they do not have a legal status. That they can't return. Just that he wants them vetted first.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-30-2017, 09:26 AM
 
9,199 posts, read 7,066,019 times
Reputation: 11154
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
Again, if you can be removed you are not permanent. A citizen can not be removed under any circumstance.



The people being blocked are not in the US. Trump would have a more difficult time if they were.



I am simply arguing the legality. No, it is not how it has worked. No it is not fair to many. Legally Trump's argument will likely stand.

I will also note though.....how it did work, didn't always work.



Again.......fair to many? No. Legal? I believe so.
Yes I agree the EO is legal. The President has broad powers in this arena.

But just as far as permanent residency goes - they can remove you only if a judge allows it, and plenty of them won't if the US Government does not have a valid case for removal. There would have to be a change in the law that governs permanent residents by Congress if this was to change, or perhaps just an EO, I'm not sure.

It's a legal status protected by law. Your permanent status can't just be revoked without due cause.

ETA - to get on the same page - it's permanent under the current law. That could change at any time and in that case, yes nothings permanent, I agree.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-30-2017, 09:27 AM
 
66,565 posts, read 30,379,078 times
Reputation: 8688
Quote:
Originally Posted by FinsterRufus View Post
The US Constitution is not current immigration law.

Please show me the statute which states if you have abided by all your conditions and you are a legal permanent resident at the border that the immigration officer is going to deny you entry if they feel like it.
When conditions change, immigrants who are not US citizens and are abroad are bound by that change. FYI:

Law favors Donald Trump's immigrant travel ban - CNN Video
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-30-2017, 09:29 AM
 
79,474 posts, read 33,688,908 times
Reputation: 15903
Quote:
Originally Posted by FinsterRufus View Post
Yes I agree the EO is legal. The President has broad powers in this arena.

But just as far as permanent residency goes - they can remove you only if a judge allows it, and plenty of them won't if the US Government does not have a valid case for removal. There would have to be a change in the law that governs permanent residents by Congress if this was to change, or perhaps just an EO, I'm not sure.

It's a legal status protected by law. It can't just be revoked without due cause.
As I said, I believe the court would side with many individuals if they get a day in court. Trump can then state, that is all he wants. He wants them to be vetted.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-30-2017, 09:32 AM
 
9,199 posts, read 7,066,019 times
Reputation: 11154
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
As I said, I believe the court would side with many individuals if they get a day in court. Trump can then state, that is all he wants. He wants them to be vetted.
Agreed. I added a bit to my post above which should clarify a different point we were discussing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-30-2017, 09:34 AM
 
Location: The Windy City
5,300 posts, read 3,313,983 times
Reputation: 4513
The president of the university I work for gave a statement telling students from the countries involved not to leave the US because they might not be able to reenter. Pretty pathetic considering they are completely legal students with visas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-30-2017, 09:34 AM
 
9,199 posts, read 7,066,019 times
Reputation: 11154
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
When conditions change, immigrants who are not US citizens and are abroad are bound by that change. FYI:

Law favors Donald Trump's immigrant travel ban - CNN Video
Not saying they aren't.

But it's unlikely to stand because it's contrary to the spirit of the law, and the Trump administration has already backed off.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top