Another major change to the legal immigration system; the Trump administration wants to eliminate "duration of status" visas for international students, exchange visitors, and international media.
Students would be limited to visas that last 2-4 years, with extensions allowed.
Under DHS's proposal, it seems that international journalists on assignment in the US would be effectively prohibited from remaining for long periods of time.
The proposal would limit their visas to at most 240 days, and require them to file for Extension of Statuses after that.
New restrictions on student visas would also be imposed by the rule, including limiting language training students to a maximum 24-month period of stay, requiring students to leave the U.S. more quickly after their visa expires, and setting a limit on changing educational levels.
Importantly, under the new rule international students would receive automatic six-month extensions of their status once they filed for an extension, which would in times when @USCIS was actually functional ensure that people would get an answer before their status expired.
Here's the full list of changes DHS says the rule would make for international media.
I don't know much about "I" visas, so I don't know how many foreign journalists use them to remain in the US for long periods of time. But these changes seem designed to make that impossible.
Here's another good thread going over some of the more fine details of the rule, from someone with significantly more experience in these types of visas than me.
Importantly, @doug_rand notes that the new proposed rule would effectively impose racist nationality-based limitations on some foreign students, declaring people security threats purely based on the place they were born and the nationality they posses.
Probably the biggest change in the rule would be a ban on student visas longer than 2 years for any person born in, or a citizen of, a country with a student visa overstay rate over 10%—meaning no bachelor/grad degrees.
This makes NO SENSE. A 13-year-old was arrested by local police for unknown reasons, and then turned over to ICE, which is detaining him far away from his mother — who is going through immigration court, has an asylum application on file, and is legally authorized to work.
Important context from @TriciaOhio that I'm posting in the interest of fairness. I do not automatically trust it given that she has made multiple inaccurate claims in the past (including even yesterday). IF true, it would at least provide an explanation.
@TriciaOhio To be clear, absolutely none of that information is included in public reporting on this story and the Everett Police Department did not give any statement to the Boston Globe about the initial arrest. Tricia is the the first person to ever give this info.
UPDATE: Judge Perry’s opinion blocking the Texas National Guard deployment in Chicago is out!
She begins with Alexander Hamilton’s rejection of a “preposterous” idea that the Constitution lets a President deploy a State’s militia to a different State for political retribution.
Judge Perry spends four pages going over the history of the debates around the Constitution as to the proper relationship of the President to a state militia, especially after overthrowing the British, who had maintained standing armies in the colonies against their wishes.
The Trump admin says Trump is authorized to deploy the Texas National Guard to Chicago under the specific law below. They say there is:
- (2) a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of US
- (3) the President is “unable with regular forces to execute the laws.”
Stephen Miller has now declared this Trump-appointed judge an insurrectionist.
To emphasize, the judge painstakingly examined all the protest happening in Portland before Trump activated the Guard. She noted that there hadn't been any violence at a protest since mid-July.
Here's how Judge Immergut summarized the last two and a half months of protests at the ICE facility in Portland; they "generally were limited to fewer than 30 people and were 'largely sedate.'"
Stephen Miller's efforts to claim insurrection in this decision is pure propaganda.
Here are the FOUR incidents the Trump admin said justified federalizing the Guard.
- Some protesters displayed a makeshift guillotine.
- A picture of an unmarked ICE vehicle was posted online.
- Protesters twice shined high-power flashlights at ICE officers' faces.
In this raid, they dragged naked children out of their homes and put them into U-Haul vans. And now they're bragging about it.
U.S. citizens had their doors smashed down and were forced into handcuffs and held outside for hours. Senior citizens held outside, their homes trashed.
It was 37 people in the raid highlighted in the video posted by @DHSGov. The 900 number is for the entire Chicago operation over the last couple weeks.
Provide a single piece of evidence that anything I posted above is wrong. One.
Am I lying that Emergency Medicaid (1986) and Cuban/Haitian Entrant Assistance (1980) are not "Biden-era"? Am I making it up that the OBBBA doesn't eliminate either?
So in response to my entirely correct statement that Vance is not telling the truth (in multiple respects) about what the Democrats are demanding in the shutdown, you bring up a completely unrelated issue that is not impacted by the shutdown debate at all?
🚨A dangerous moment for America. If the normal police ever pulled something like this — pulling every single person out of an apartment building and handcuffing them to run checks — they would be sued into oblivion. It's beyond unconstitutional. Yet DHS is laughing about it!
🚨What @DHSGov pulled in Chicago on Tuesday is insanely unconstitutional. They raided an apartment building, smashed down every door and dragged entire families into the street, and detained everyone for hours ("Kavanaugh stops").
One U.S. citizen was held for FIVE HOURS.
@DHSgov 🚨Another U.S. citizen, a senior citizen, had his door smashed in and was dragged out of his apartment in zip ties. He was detained for THREE HOURS. No one at ICE or DHS ever showed him a warrant for anything.