Jump to content
Chapala.com Webboard

US Considers Banning US Citizens From Returning


Recommended Posts

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/10/us/politics/trump-coronavirus-border.html?fbclid=IwAR0ScWbee3q4xavnYag3mtTKlQSBAslktlaj7hBBPnpPGBgARc3pGhNZl-I

Quote

 

Under the proposal, the government could block a citizen or legal resident’s entry if an official “reasonably believes” the person had been exposed to or was infected with the communicable disease.

President Trump is considering new immigration rules that would allow border officials to temporarily block an American citizen or legal permanent resident from returning to the United States from abroad if the authorities have reason to believe the person may be infected with the coronavirus.

In recent months, Mr. Trump has imposed sweeping rules that ban entry by foreigners into the United States, citing the risk of allowing the virus to spread from hot spots abroad. But those rules have exempted two categories of people trying to return: American citizens and foreigners who have already established legal residence.

Now, a draft regulation would modify that effort by expanding the government’s power to prevent entry by citizens and legal residents in individual, limited circumstances. Federal agencies have been asked to submit feedback on the proposal to the White House by Tuesday, though it is unclear when it might be approved or announced.

Under the proposal, which relies on existing legal authorities of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to protect the country, the government could block a citizen or legal resident from crossing the border into the United States if an official “reasonably believes that the individual either may have been exposed to or is infected with the communicable disease.”

The draft, parts of which were obtained by The New York Times, explicitly says that any order blocking citizens and legal permanent residents must “include appropriate protections to ensure that no constitutional rights are infringed.” And it says that citizens and legal residents cannot be blocked as an entire class of people.

The documents appear not to detail how long a citizen or a legal resident would be required to remain outside the United States.

“C.D.C. expects that any prohibition on the introduction of U.S. citizens or L.P.R.s from abroad would apply only in the rarest of circumstances,” the draft says, referring to legal permanent residents, “when required in the interest of public health, and be limited in duration.”

Still, if Mr. Trump approves the change, it would be an escalation of his administration’s longstanding attempts to seal the border against what he considers to be threats, using the existence of the coronavirus pandemic as a justification for taking actions that would have been seen as draconian in other contexts.

A spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security declined to comment. A spokesman for the C.D.C. said late Monday afternoon that he would seek to gather more information about the proposal.

Officials said there were no current rules that would allow American citizens and legal residents to be prohibited from returning to the United States for a period of time because of concerns about a communicable disease.

Since January, Mr. Trump has repeatedly sought to bar foreigners from spreading the virus in the United States. He put limits on travel from China, most of Europe and other hot spots around the world. But all of those efforts exempted American citizens and those with permanent legal status to live in the United States, officials said.

The government does already have the authority to conduct extra health screenings of American citizens and potentially impose quarantines if an American citizen returns from a hot zone. And immigration officials do have broad authority to deny entry to people based on national security issues.

The new rule appears to apply to all points of entry into the United States, including at airports and along both the northern and the southern borders. In particular, the draft could affect the border with Mexico, where many American citizens and legal residents cross back and forth frequently.

The rule notes the prevalence of the coronavirus in Mexico as evidence of the need for the modified rule, citing the recent death of the health minister in the border state of Chihuahua, who the order says died of Covid-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus, after a two-week hospitalization.

“As noted, the stress that Covid-19 has placed on the Mexican health care system has driven U.S. citizens, L.P.R.s and others from Mexico into the United States to seek care,” the draft of the regulation says.

The draft of the proposed regulation goes to great lengths to assert the legality of blocking citizens and legal residents based on concerns about the threat of disease entering the United States. But legal experts questioned the constitutionality of such a prohibition, even if temporary.

“Barring American citizens from the United States is unconstitutional,” said Omar Jadwat, the director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Immigrants’ Rights Project. “The Trump administration has rolled out one border ban after another — most recently on children and asylum seekers — using Covid-19 as an excuse, while failing abysmally to get the virus under control in the United States. The rumored order would be another grave error in a year that has already seen far too many.”

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fake news.  No citizen can be denied entry.
 Where is Bisbee?

  • Sad 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, tomgates said:

Fake news.  No citizen can be denied entry.

That is the entire point of the article, that the US is now considering denying entry to its citizens under certain circumstances.

The story makes if clear that when two administration officials from two different agencies involved with this proposed order were asked about the proposed rule, their replies were not a denials of the proposed rule.  

Quote

A spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security declined to comment. A spokesman for the C.D.C. said late Monday afternoon that he would seek to gather more information about the proposal.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, when you cannot get a quote from a named source you can

MAKE UQP whatever you want.   That is FAKE.

There is no credible source for this story.  No Quotes from anyone remotely involved.

never ever gonna happen.    Patti
 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 So Tom our Canadian friends who come down have said the same type of thing IS going on in Canada.  Its a proposal.  In fact I am glad they are discussing it.

Here are the authors below.  Hardly junk reporting.

Michael D. Shear reported from Washington, and Caitlin Dickerson from New York.

Michael D. Shear is a White House correspondent. He previously worked at The Washington Post and was a member of their Pulitzer Prize-winning team that covered the Virginia Tech shootings in 2007. @shearm

Caitlin Dickerson is a Peabody Award-winning reporter based in New York who covers immigration. She has broken stories on asylum, detention and deportation policy, as well as the treatment of immigrant children in government custody.  @itscaitlinhd

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Times says it has a copy of the draft. 

CNN has independently verified its existence it from an (understandably) anonymous administration official.  

Whether and how it moves forward remains to be seen.  

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/08/10/politics/us-mexico-border-administration-coronavirus/index.html

Quote

"Career professionals at the CDC are working on an overall approach to pandemic control both now and in the future," an administration official with knowledge of ongoing discussions told CNN. "The regulation is in draft form and subject (to) change. This is an ongoing process and any reporting on this would be extremely premature."

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why don't you wait and see if this is anything other than some idea some nameless bureaucrat has that will never get beyond the draft stage? 

Doesn't fit the agenda to do so?

These days the NYT reminds me more of the National Inquirer, printing gossip from unnamed sources, than it does the formerly great paper that it was.

The Times says it has copies of some parts of the draft.  That part is well below the sensational headline as usual.

Quote

The draft, parts of which were obtained by The New York Times, explicitly says that any order blocking citizens and legal permanent residents must “include appropriate protections to ensure that no constitutional rights are infringed.” And it says that citizens and legal residents cannot be blocked as an entire class of people.

Certainly both the U.S. and Canada have a legitimate concern about the CV situation here and the inability of the weak public health system to cope with it.

If anyone has crossed by land recently, was there any sort of health check like taking temperatures or other sanitary measures?

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahh, we have a “career professional” and “canadian friends” as sources.

”Any reporting on this would be extremely premature”.

There is no Factual basis.  This is pure conjecture.

But, feel free to spread misinformation to rattle the citizenry and then, go ahead and back it up with hearsay.   Folks can churn, burn and make assumptions.  Patti
 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, lcscats said:

Our Canadian friends who come down have said the same type of thing is going on in Canada.

Canada does not refuse entry to Canadian citizens or anyone with Canadian residency status, doesn’t matter where they’re arriving from. Some of the provincial borders were closed not allowing  people from other provinces to travel from province to province.   Perhaps that’s what your friends were referring to.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, lcscats said:

 So Tom our Canadian friends who come down have said the same type of thing IS going on in Canada.  Its a proposal.  In fact I am glad they are discussing it.

Here are the authors below.  Hardly junk reporting.

Michael D. Shear reported from Washington, and Caitlin Dickerson from New York.

Michael D. Shear is a White House correspondent. He previously worked at The Washington Post and was a member of their Pulitzer Prize-winning team that covered the Virginia Tech shootings in 2007. @shearm

Caitlin Dickerson is a Peabody Award-winning reporter based in New York who covers immigration. She has broken stories on asylum, detention and deportation policy, as well as the treatment of immigrant children in government custody.  @itscaitlinhd

Not junk, just very badly biased.  The result is far too often junk.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Mainecoons said:

These days the NYT reminds me more of the National Inquirer, printing gossip from unnamed sources, than it does the formerly great paper that it was.

FYI the owner of the National Enquirer is a personal friend/fixer of the Peach Pompodour. Now, while no one who can read would mistake the New York Times for being leftist leaning rag, and in that respect it is akin to the National Enquirer, but even you would have to admit as far as gossip that it may or may not print, in no way does it rise to the level of the National Enquirer for it's creativity.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, WideSky said:

FYI the owner of the National Enquirer is a personal friend/fixer of the Peach Pompodour. Now, while no one who can read would mistake the New York Times for being leftist leaning rag, and in that respect it is akin to the National Enquirer, but even you would have to admit as far as gossip that it may or may not print, in no way does it rise to the level of the National Enquirer for it's creativity.

Oh, the creativity is there with all those unnamed sources.  It is just much more focused.  As for your assertion about the rest, no doubt you have your own unnamed source.  LOL

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bisbee Gal said:

 

43 minutes ago, lcscats said:

 So Tom our Canadian friends who come down have said the same type of thing IS going on in Canada.  Its a proposal.  In fact I am glad they are discussing it.

Here are the authors below.  Hardly junk reporting.

Michael D. Shear reported from Washington, and Caitlin Dickerson from New York.

Michael D. Shear is a White House correspondent. He previously worked at The Washington Post and was a member of their Pulitzer Prize-winning team that covered the Virginia Tech shootings in 2007. @shearm

Caitlin Dickerson is a Peabody Award-winning reporter based in New York who covers immigration. She has broken stories on asylum, detention and deportation policy, as well as the treatment of immigrant children in government custody.  @itscaitlinhd

I think these 2 are spending to much time on Facebook.  Refusing entry to a citizen would be a human rights and a constitutional nightmare for any government.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, TelsZ4 said:

 

I think these 2 are spending to much time on Facebook.  Refusing entry to a citizen would be a human rights and a constitutional nightmare for any government.

You think....wrong.  The link in my post is to the NY Times to which I digitally subscribe.  

I agree denying entry to a citizen is unconstitutional and hope the leaking of this draft proposal to the Times puts an end to it even being discussed by the administration.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dostortas said:

Canada does not refuse entry to Canadian citizens or anyone with Canadian residency status, doesn’t matter where they’re arriving from. Some of the provincial borders were closed not allowing  people from other provinces to travel from province to province.   Perhaps that’s what your friends were referring to.  

Exactly, plus a federally mandated 14 day quarantine for all out of country arrivals, CDN or otherwise.    And it is being checked and enforced.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, virgo lady said:

Exactly, plus a federally mandated 14 day quarantine for all out of country arrivals, CDN or otherwise.    And it is being checked and enforced.

Yes, my brother returned to Canada last month from working overseas, he was required to submit a quarantine plan, you need to sign indicating you understand your legal obligation to self isolate for 14 days.  Health Canada called him every other day to ensure he was staying home, and twice he received unannounced visits to check he was indeed at home.  I don’t know if they have that kind of follow up for provincial quarantines but certainly for Federal ones they are taking enforcement quite seriously.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mattoleriver said:

If Canada were interested in security they'd have something offshore, like Guantanamo, where citizens and non-citizens alike can be quarantined forever. /s

First of all, it isn't needed, because the CDN population is in the vast majority, doing the right thing.    Secondly, between Baffin Island,  Alert NWT, and many other similar places....Canada already has all the remote spots it would ever need.  😉        

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

You do know one puts out a story and the rest pick it up, yes?  No one really bothers to check, they are like a herd.

There's no indication this is anything other than something being batted around the bureaucracy.  Why don't you wait and see if it goes any further?  I'm betting not.  

Sure hope not, we're headed NOB by car in a couple weeks.

 

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...