4 ms·
I think the really important thing (that people seem to have glossed over) is the nature of this change. The validity of a blanket immigration ban on any count
by PJDK 10y ago
I think the really important thing (that people seem to have glossed over) is the nature of this change.
The validity of a blanket immigration ban on any country is debatable (although not something I would generally support). However this change occurred in such away that it impacted people who were literally in the air. When they boarded a plane they had the right to enter the US (indeed had the right to live their indefinitely and some didn't even have a home anywhere else). When they landed they found this right no longer existed.
That is not a sustainable way to make policy - people need to have confidence when the US says something they mean it and it won't just change on the whims of one man.
If a nation tells me I have an indefinite right to remain that can't just become a thing that disappears over night. It is a thing that tells me I can invest my time, money and expertise building a life in America - taking that away with zero notice is both immoral and massively undermining to confidence in the system of government.
- LyndsySimon 10y ago> However this change occurred in such away that it impacted people who were literally in the air. When they boarded a plane they had the right to enter the US (indeed had the right to live their indefinitely and some didn't even have a home anywhere else). When they landed they found this right no longer existed. This is not correct. A green card permits someone to live and work in the US indefinitely. It does not and has never entitled the holder to re-enter the country at will.
- PJDK 10y agoPerhaps not an absolute right, but a quick read through of this https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/after-green-card-granted/international-travel-permanent-resident https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/after-green-card-granted/in... suggests to me that a quick trip abroad would not be expected to cause issues.
- LyndsySimon 10y agoIt's definitely a change in policy, without question. My point is that the pre-existing policy was in fact already based on the whims of one man, and that all this really represents is him changing his mind. FWIW, I'm 100% in favor of reducing the power of the executive. Previous decisions by other executive agencies have declared things that I possess a felony without warning.
- PJDK 10y agoThe big worry about this is that lots of parts of politics have a huge amount of power but there is a general sort of understanding that things aren't done because they aren't done. This kind of shoot from the hip action really undermines that confidence. You might like to change the powers of the executive but that's not going to happen easily.