132

A few possible reasons it could be illegal (on an issue spotting basis, not a careful analysis of each possible reason): The EO is intended to discriminate on the basis of religion and in fact does so in violation of the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution. The EO is intended to unlawfully discriminate based upon race or ethnicity in violation ...


57

The case you identify is not unique. For example, the Unitarian church in Denver has done much the same thing. There is not a legal right to sanctuary in a church. But, as a manner of law enforcement discretion and public relations and customary traditions of law enforcement respect for churches that long predate the formation of the USA, law enforcement ...


48

I assume the goal here is for nation A to prevent citizen A1 from travelling/emigrating to nation B. It can be done, but not in the way you're suggesting. It can be achieved by instituting exit visas. Wikipedia reference: Nepal requires citizens emigrating to the United States on an H-1B visa to present an exit permit issued by the Ministry of Labour. ...


43

The green card should always be at hand Yeah, he can't do that. He needs a green card in his possession anytime he's not on private property. Obviously for instance leaving it in the gym locker while you're at the gym is ok, but no, you can't dash off to the grocery store without it, on the logic that it's "just in town". Just like I can't make a milk run ...


38

It might be sufficient to have a lawyer draft a letter asking for the return of the documents; many people become much more reasonable after seeing something in writing that spells out what laws they are breaking and what the likely consequences are. Filing a police report may become necessary, but might not be the best way to ensure that the documents are ...


35

A necessary first step in such a situation is filing a police report in the town where the withholding/theft occurred (or is suspected to have occurred.) Generally, a complainant can do this by visiting a police station and being interviewed by an officer. Once the report is taken, a few possible outcomes might occur: The police visit the person suspected ...


27

No international body has jurisdiction Australia is a sovereign nation which means it has sole jurisdiction over its immigration policy. So, short answer: no international body has jurisdiction. Who does have jurisdiction? As it seems that the decision made is that the points you have been assessed by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection (...


22

They can't take his citizenship... Since he claims to be a born citizen, he has citizenship by birthright and nothing CBP can do can possibly revoke it. He can voluntarily renounce his citizenship, but he has to do that through the State Dept. (which CBP is not part of). And that is an elaborate and expensive process that can't even be done inside the ...


20

His statement suggests that he was at one time employed in a diplomatic function (and that assumes that he had diplomatic "papers" because of his employ), how does one lose that status, and is there any action that he is required to take to relinquish that status? Diplomatic personnel with official diplomatic status under the relevant treaties and for ...


16

Rather than focus on the particular Executive Order, I will consider the general grounds on which an XO may be unlawful. Federal jurisdiction First, it must deal with matters that are properly within the power of the Federal government. An XO that deals with matters that properly belong to individual states would be unlawful. This applies to all lawmaking ...


16

In general there is no legal mechanism for this to happen unless the two countries sign a treaty to create such a mechanism. Countries might be able to use political or diplomatic pressure to achieve this, but that is out of scope for this site. One thing countries can do through their legal systems is to place restrictions on their own citizens. So in ...


15

If a person is within a political unit X, they are in the jurisdiction of X, and unless them have specific immunity (e.g. Art. 1 Sect. 6 Cl. 1 of the Constitution, congressional immunity from arrest), they may be arrested. A foreign embassy would be the one place located within the borders of a nation which (per Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations Art. ...


15

Exit visas are the time-tested mechanism Seriously. Several answers mention this, but it deserves so much more than a mention. You don't stop nation B (and the 193 others) from issuing visas, you stop your own citizens from leaving without approval. If you remember the pre-perestroika Soviet Union (now over 30 years gone), you feel the chill in your ...


15

It is intuitively crazy to think that speaking Spanish in Montana is evidence of a crime. Still, we will have to wait to see what the courts rule, if it goes that far. We should start with Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, which found that in justifying the particular intrusion, the police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, ...


13

Paying taxes need not have any legal connection to citizenship or potential citizenship. There is no constitutional provision, or law, which limits taxation to citizens or those on a path to citizenship. Legal immigrants, those on visas, and indeed tourists, must all pay various taxes, including hotel taxes and sales taxes. Lawful immigrants who work in the ...


13

Stop asking around on internet now. Your uncle needs to talk to his daughter and get his Green Card (this should be possible seeing how she is is daughter?!). If that doesn't work right away, police must be involved without much delay, but your uncle should first consult an immigration lawyer because there are several traps he can step on. A Green card can ...


11

tl;dr My assumption: the U.S. government is considering whether to accept refugees and immigrants (given your Syria comment). The background section talks about State attempts to restrict entry. The answer is nuanced since there are different standards for an entrance decision than there are for someone who is already in the U.S. This is because ...


11

Short Answer Is unlawful entry into Mexico a crime? In the U.S. there is a federal law making unauthorized entry into the country illegal. Does Mexico have similar law? Yes. Illegal entry into Mexico is illegal but, it is not a crime. The form of the question suggest that the person asking it may not be familiar with the distinction between ...


10

What can we do to dismiss such report? Does she just show up at a local police department telling them that she's fine and it was her own decision? In short, yes. She shows up at a local police station, tells her side of the story including the whole bit about things getting destroyed and her getting kicked out, cites the missing persons report, and make ...


10

To supplement ohwilleke's answer (and drawing on a State dept. legal guidance document), there are three categories of "diplomat": diplomatic agents, members of the administrative and technical staff, and members of the service staff. With respect to the current issue, what is relevant is whether a person is subject to the jurisdiction of the US – this is ...


9

You haven't actually asked a question, but I presume that you want to know how the 11-year-old son could accompany his mother to the US if she moves to the US as the fiancée or spouse of a US citizen. The US Department of State has a page about this on their site. It says: Overview: What Is a K-1 Visa? The fiancé(e) K-1 nonimmigrant visa is for the ...


9

He's a citizen; his citizenship can't be taken by ICE or CBP, and he can't legally be kept from returning to the US from Mexico by them. He was offered "self-deportation" because ICE was illegally or irrationally detaining him, thinking that his documents were forged or stolen. He could have "self-deported" in order to simply get out of detention, since it ...


8

You don't. The only proper venue to raise the concern you do would be an Australian court or administrative agency process. Each country is the judge of its own immigration policies. There are no international courts which would have jurisdiction over the dispute you describe.


8

The laws governing the disposal of dead bodies do not make distinctions based upon citizenship. You have heard a myth that isn't true. There are regulations governing the disposal of dead bodies, but this isn't one of them.


7

Citizens likely have an absolute right to enter the US. This hasn't been addressed directly by the Supreme Court, but here are some cases that come close. The Fifth Circuit, in William Worthy, Jr. v. US, 328 F.2d 386 (5th Cir. 1964): We think it is inherent in the concept of citizenship that the citizen, when absent from the country to which he owes ...


7

There are two approaches to determining citizenship: where you are born (jus soli – this holds in the US), and who you were born to (jus sanguinis – the case in India). There are mixes of these systems, such as where a person born to an American but not in the US is still an American citizen (e.g. Ted Cruz). Canada allows Canadian citizenship to be inherited ...


7

This appears to be a fairly straightforward construction. Section 9(2) and 18b share a number of requirements, so 18b points back instead of repeating them. But not all requirements are shared. In particular, requirement 3 (covering pensions) does not apply to newly-graduated students. That's not strange since students are not paid wages. Also, they're not ...


6

I suspect that this person could get a green card under 8 USC 1259 or 1255a, since it seems that he entered in 1952 or so, which was long before the Reagan amnesty. These sections of the code concern those who entered the US before 1972 and 1982, respectively. You might try asking on Expatriates as there are many people there who are familiar with ...


6

I understand that you are wondering why illegal immigrants are not more often deported by the authorities. This answer has grown a bit out of proportion because I also try to explore the general refugee situation. That seems appropriate because the large number of migrants makes the question of deportation more pressing. We would not be very concerned about ...


6

Original jurisdiction is not necessarily exclusive jurisdiction. [T]he original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, in cases where a State is a party, refers to those cases in which, according to the grant of power made in the preceding clause, jurisdiction might be exercised in consequence of the character of the party, and an original suit might be ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible