[zaptheimpaler]

Even if it is common (i don't think this is required any more anyways), just why? Why do we need to make someone run back and forth across the border for the immigration department to do some paperwork? It seems purely designed to inconvenience people for absolutely no gain to anyone.

[sigseg1v]

My guess: If they end up being denied then it's easier to not let them back in by not letting them cross the border whereas if it's in the country it's harder to locate them to deport?

Seems pretty brutal to me though.

[testing22321]

I was “denied” re entry doing a flag pole run once.

They let me in, but had me sign something that I would leave within 30 days.

[LorenPechtel]

I have a strong suspicion this is another way of doing an end run around the courts. If the person is denied entry can they realistically get that changed by a US court? I doubt it.

It also means that if you came here fleeing persecution that you might not be able to return.

[Majromax]

> Even if it is common (i don't think this is required any more anyways), just why?

As far as Canadian law goes, there are two factors at play in the parent's events;

* NAFTA work permits are applied for at the border, on entry; they operate differently from the 'normal' work permit streams.

* Permanent residence is conferred at the border, but the application process can happen either inside or outside the country depending on the stream. There are also limited 'inland' options which evidently have expanded (https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/se...) in recent years.

In neither case does Canada have a blanket rule that an applicant must leave the country during the whole of an extended application process, and even 'abroad' processes can often be carried out while an applicant is living in the country on other status. (It can get awkward if a consular interview is required, though.)

Unlike the US, Canada is generally comfortable with 'dual intent', where intent to apply for permanent residence through legal channels is not disqualifying for other sorts of statuses.

[pandaman]

A consulate overseas is more equipped to vet someone from the country where it is located than a USCIS office in New Hampshire. E.g. it has people able to read the documents in the local language and access to the officials who can validate those, it has people able to call or mail local authorities to ask about an applicant's involvement in crime, it has people who can recognize affiliations with local extremist groups etc.

It is actually really bizarre that the USCIS would essentially take the applicant's word without any vetting before this memo.

[scheme271]

Depending on the person, they may have spent years or possibly a decade or more in the US before trying to get an AOS. As such, the USCIS is probably a better adjudicator than a consulate.

[pandaman]

If someone came in as a child then it's true, and thus there is a discretion. Adults have history in their home country which does not disappear in 10 years or any period of time.

[zaptheimpaler]

Maybe they've heard of email, faxes, phone calls?

[pandaman]

I am sure they had, how is it relevant?

[testing22321]

Because the people and computer systems and processes to admit people into the country and start a visa or PR or whatever are located at the borders.

It’s just how things are done.

[brimwats]

largely/generally this is how it's done for NAFTA visas