Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

You can paste full URL like: https://x.com/threadreaderapp/status/1644127596119195649
or just the ID like: 1644127596119195649

How to get URL link on X (Twitter) App

  1. On the Twitter thread, click on or icon on the bottom
  2. Click again on or Share Via icon
  3. Click on Copy Link to Tweet
  4. Paste it above and click "Unroll Thread"!
  5. More info at Twitter Help
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick Profile picture
@ReichlinMelnick
Sep 24, 2020 • 10 tweets • 4 min read • Read on X
Under DHS's new proposed rule, if you were born in, or are a citizen of, one of the countries on this map, you would be banned from getting a four-year degree in the United States, with a student visa limited to two years maximum.

The thread has all the countries.
Rather than have people dig through the threads to get to the original rationale, here's the relevant provision I built this map off of.

The vast majority of these countries would be banned from 4-year-degrees based on this overstay provision.

It's collective punishment.
Here's a thread I did on some of the other changes made by the rule, which was published this morning.

People who want to oppose the rule will be able to provide comments in opposition to the rule, starting tomorrow and lasting through 10/25/2020.

Here's the best example I can give for why collective punishment based on visa overstay rates is arbitrary and cruel.

In 2019, six students from Tuvalu were supposed to leave the US. One didn't.

As a result, the visa overstay rate was 17%—meaning all Tuvalans would be punished.
Also, whoops, just realizing I forgot to add Chad to the map. Chad would also be subject to the ban, because they had a student visa/exchange visitor overstay rate over 10% in FY2019.

That completes the band across the middle of Africa.
One final thing to add to this thread; that things are not totally lost if the rule goes into effect.

Students in those situation would be able to ask DHS for an extension of their visas past two years. So that means it's not a total ban.

But those extensions aren't guaranteed.
Putting this here: I maybe should not have used the word "ban." Some people would still be able to get a four-year degree, but would be required to apply to extend their visas repeatedly through their time in college—extensions which aren't guaranteed.
Starting tomorrow morning, people will be able to leave a comment in opposition to this rule at this link. federalregister.gov/documents/2020…
DHS says it's fixing a major problem. But DHS data says just 32,023 people are suspected of overstaying a student/exchange visa in 2019.

And because the rule is based on PERCENT, the countries with the highest NUMBER of overstays (China, India, Brazil, Canada) aren't affected.
Here's why a % threshold is so stupid:

China: 11,030 student/exchange overstays (unaffected by rule)
India: 5,304 (unaffected)
Brazil: 3,177 (unaffected)
Saudi Arabia: 2,983 (unaffected)
South Korea: 2,492 (unaffected)
Japan: 1,418 (unaffected)
...
Tuvalu: 1 (restricted)

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with Aaron Reichlin-Melnick

Aaron Reichlin-Melnick Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @ReichlinMelnick

Aaron Reichlin-Melnick Profile picture
Apr 5
Funny they ask this. Here's my effort at jotting down a brief timeline of actions the admin has "done to lower illegal crossings" over the last 3 years. I'm sure I'm missing some things. Some have been successful. Others have been not. But it's wild to claim they haven't tried.

Image
Image
To be clear, I’m neither endorsing these actions nor touting them as grand failures. As I’ve said before, Biden’s record on the border is a mixed bag. But the idea the administration has not taken actions it believes will reduce illegal entries is wrong as a matter of fact.
Take the CHNV deal the Biden admin made in January 2023; Mexico let the US expel more non-Mexicans migrants back across the border in exchange for the US starting a new parole program.

There are serious concerns about both parts. But unlawful crossings are demonstrably down.
Read 4 tweets
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick Profile picture
Mar 31
He still won’t stop lying about the nature of this program. There are no “gov’s secretive immigrant flights.” There are people who get approved for a government program and have to buy a plane ticket to get here. The “flights” are United, Delta, American, etc…
I’ll also note that @BensmanTodd still refuses to acknowledge the major holes in his story that I pointed out multiple times, including his flagrant misrepresentation about what the government said in response to his FOIA.
@BensmanTodd Bensman’s falsehood-ridden post about the FOIA lawsuit is directly responsible for fueling a massive misinformation campaign about the CHNV parole program, a campaign which has seen US senators spreading wild falsehoods like the existence of “secret charter flights.
Read 5 tweets
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick Profile picture
Mar 19
Beginning this moment, Texas law enforcement officers can arrest any person in the state they believe crossed illegally. And judges can now order people to walk back into Mexico at threat of 20 years in prison if they don't—even if the person has federal permission to be here.
Crucial context: Barrett and Kavanaugh both say they are not making any decision right now because of the weird procedural posture by which it made it to the Court's shadow docket, but say if the 5th Circuit doesn't act ASAP, they may change their minds.
SO what does this mean? Well, this means SB4 is in effect—for now. But the case is likely going back to the Supreme Court on an emergency poster within the next month, either because the 5th Circuit rules officially on the stay motion, or because they wait too long and don't.
Read 12 tweets
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick Profile picture
Mar 8
🚨HUGE news. Judge Tipton dismisses the multistate lawsuit against the Biden admin's CHNV parole program, finding that the states do not have standing to sue.

That leaves the program alive for now. Texas will no doubt appeal to the 5th Cir.

Decision: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…

But before this Court may address the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims, the Constitution requires Plaintiffs to demonstrate that they have standing to bring suit. For the reasons explained below, they have not done so. The Court will first address certain evidentiary issues that have arisen along the way.
Here is the key finding that Judge Tipton made: evidence shows that, after the parole programs went into effect, border crossings by people from the four CHNV countries went down (⬇️).

As he reads 5th Circuit law, since the program was a success, there can't be any injury. In sum, when deciding whether a state has been injured for Article III standing purposes, the Fifth Circuit reviews whether the numbers of aliens, and the associated amount expended because of them, increased relative to those same numbers prior to the implementation of the challenged program. In MPP II, the Fifth Circuit declared that the “most important finding” was whether the agency action “increased the number of aliens released . . . into the United States.”16 20 F.4th at 966 (emphasis added). Here, that “most important finding” results in a different outcome, a decrease. And in contr...
The CHNV parole program represented Biden's big shift to a "carrot and stick" approach.

Mexico lets the US send 30,000 Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans back across the border each month. In exchange, the US agrees to take 30,000 people a month through parole. Image
Read 10 tweets
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick Profile picture
Mar 4
SB4 even goes beyond federal immigration law by allowing the state to prosecute people with green cards if the person was previously been deported and then allowed to reenter legally by the federal government—prob because the people who wrote the law didn't know that was a thing.
Under SB4, any noncitizen who has previously been deported commits a Class A misdemeanor by stepping into Texas—even if they have since legally reentered and obtained permanent legal status. There are no affirmative defenses of lawful presence for the reentry crime. Sec. 51.03. ILLEGAL REENTRY BY CERTAIN ALIENS. (a) A person who is an alien commits an offense if the person enters, attempts to enter, or is at any time found in this state after the person: (1) has been denied admission to or excluded, deported, or removed from the United States; or (2) has departed from the United States while an order of exclusion, deportation, or removal is outstanding.
I wouldn't be surprised if there are thousands of people living in Texas with green cards or other forms of legal immigration status who, at one point in their life, had been deported. If SB4 goes into effect, every one of them risks arrest.
Read 4 tweets
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick Profile picture
Feb 29
🚨 DOJ wins an injunction blocking Texas from putting SB4 into effect and creating its own deportation system.

The Court emphasizes that states "may not exercise immigration enforcement power except as authorized by the federal government."

Order here: aclu.org/wp-content/upl…
Several factors warrant an injunction. First, the Supremacy Clause and Supreme Court precedent affirm that states may not exercise immigration enforcement power except as authorized by the federal government. Second, SB 4 conflicts with key provisions of federal immigration law, to the detriment of the United States’ foreign relations and treaty obligations. Third, surges in immigration do not constitute an “invasion” within the meaning of the Constitution, nor is Texas engaging in war by enforcing SB 4. Finally, to allow Texas to permanently supersede federal directives on the basis of an ...
DOJ and the other plaintiffs (private orgs + El Paso gov) win on pretty much every argument.

First, the court finds that SB4 violates the Supremacy Clause, because "it is undisputed that the federal government has a dominant and supreme interest in the field of immigration." In short, it is undisputed that the federal government has a dominant and supreme interest in the field of immigration. Texas’s own state courts acknowledge “the matter of entry into the United States” is “wholly preempted by federal law,” Hernandez v. State, 613 S.W.2d 287, 290 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980), as are “matters involving deportation.” Gutierrez v. State, 380 S.W.3d 167, 173, 176 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). By regulating a sphere dominated by federal interests, SB 4 violates the Supremacy Clause.
Next, the court finds that SB4's creation of new state crimes of illegal entry and reentry are field preempted, noting that the law "attempt[s] to vest a state with the power to punish federal immigration offenses," which is barred under Arizona v. US (2012). For that reason, “[w]here Congress occupies an entire field, as it has in the field of [noncitizen] registration, complementary state regulation is impermissible.” Id. at 401. “Field preemption reflects a congressional decision to foreclose any state regulation in the area, even if it is parallel to federal standards. In sum, Sections 51.02 and 51.03 of SB 4 cannot be differentiated from Section 3 of SB 1070. Tex. Penal Code § 51.02–51.03. Both laws attempt to vest a state with the power to punish federal immigration offenses. But the “basic premise of field preemption,” reaffirmed in Arizo...
Read 17 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

Send Email!

:(