[nrjdhsbsid]

Legal resident != Citizen. Until you have citizenship you can be sent back at any time for any reason. People get sent back or denied entry all the time for various reasons. What he did sucks but the media is making it out to be a much bigger deal than it actually is. The number of people "trapped" overseas is probably in the hundreds.

We're bombing people in almost every country on the list, so I have no idea why this wasn't done years ago.

[tptacek]

No, you cannot be sent back "at any time" "for any reason" as a lawful permanent resident of the United States. I don't know what made you believe that.

[KKKKkkkk1]

What you are saying is contrary to what immigration lawyers say to their clients. Do you have a citation from the Immigration and Nationality Act that says that Congress needs to decide whether CBP officers have discretion to turn back legal residents at a port of entry? To my knowledge, this is the prerogative of the president, and this is exactly the legal basis that underlies Trump's executive order.

[tptacek]

Flatly, plainly false.

http://lawandborder.com/risk-abandoning-green-card-abroad-6-...

[KKKKkkkk1]

Federal immigration law also includes Section 1182(f), which states: “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate”.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444371/donald-trump-ex...

[tptacek]

The notion that that clause allows the President to override the INA's ban on country-of-origin discrimination was challenged in courts over 40 years ago and proved false. Further, it doesn't pertain at all to lawful permanent residents of the US, so you've also moved the goalposts.

The subtext of these arguments is that we should be less outraged, because green-card-holders were lucky to be here at all and reside in this country knowing they can be removed at any time. That's plainly, flatly, objectively false, in addition to being ethically dubious.

[KKKKkkkk1]

Putting your ad hominem aside, which part of "immigrants or nonimmigrants" are you disputing?

[dudul]

Do you have a green card? Cause I do, and the parent is right. It is not a guarantee of being allowed to enter the US, it can be revoked unilaterally by the government.

Of course, in practice it's rarely done without cause (e.g. committing a felony), but in the texts it is clearly stated.

[tptacek]

Congress sets the standards under which a green card can be revoked, not the executive branch on the whim of the President or one of his agencies. The rules are in the Immigration and Nationalization Act. It is a false statement to say that the terms green card holders were here under included "can be sent back for any time for no reason".

As a green card holder, you are not a US LPR at the discretion of the President or any of his agencies. You have, in effect, a contract with our country. Congress could change the rules, but until they do, you have substantial rights to remain in this country.

Even people without LPR status are difficult for the government to remove. Among undocumented immigrants put before immigration court for deportation, over 70% of those with legal representation prevail in court --- unfortunately, in most places in the US, they have no right to counsel, which is why we should all be sending money to immigration law organizations.

[nrjdhsbsid]

How many of those previaled because deportation is politically unpopular in certain areas? There's a lot of places that won't deport you even for murdering someone, and indeed our prisons in some states are filled with loads of murderous foreign gang members

[tptacek]

They prevailed in immigration court, where many defendants are forced to represent themselves in complicated legal proceedings without counsel and are as a result deported. I don't think public sympathy with immigrants is the most powerful vector is; I think it's the rule of law that's keeping them in the country.

It is numerically, overwhelmingly the case that immigrants to this country aren't a threat to its citizens, and that we have more to fear from lawnmowers and lightning strikes than we do from the people who are being turned away at the borders today, including people coming to the country to work on computational epidemiology and, of course, the spouses of our own citizens.

[nrjdhsbsid]

The biggest issue with illegal immigration is that is does not benefit the United States. A country is not a charity.

The US would be far better off allowing the same number of people in but only those highly educated or those with a lot of money or status. It sounds mean but job of the US govt is not to rescue poor people in third world countries, it's to benefit it's citizens.

Imagine if instead of 6-8 million illegal immigrants with largely low educations, limited English skills and earning potential, no money, and no status we let in 6 million CEO's, scientists, politicians, and billionaires. It's hard to argue that the current situation is in any way "better"