JayJayH

Morocco is Morocco.
 
Morocco is not Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and/or Yemen.
 
Iran is not Morocco.
Iraq is not Morocco.
Libya is not Morocco.
Somalia is not Morocco.
Sudan is not Morocco.
Syria is not Morocco.
Yemen is not Morocco.
 
Morocco is not mentioned in the executive order.
You'll be fine.

Morocco is Morocco.
 
Morocco is not Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and/or Yemen.
 
Iran is not Morocco.
Iraq is not Morocco.
Libya is not Morocco.
Somalia is not Morocco.
Sudan is not Morocco.
Syria is not Morocco.
Yemen is not Morocco.
 
Morocco is not mentioned in the executive order.
You'll be fine.

Problem is, whether you intended to work or not - The consulate will have a record of you trying to enter the U.S. on a tourist visa, admitting to an intention of working.
 
This isn't like calling a customer service hotline and saying "No, I spoke to Bob, and he said.." They're not going to call CBP at the airport and ask for the officer in question. All they have to go off of is that you tried to enter the U.S. on a tourist visa. After some questions, you admitted to wanting to work in the U.S. That is not allowed on a tourist visa.
 
A withdrawal means that in theory, what happened is the CBP told you "you can't work here on that visa" and then you said "ok, then I'll go home."
 
I'll agree with the earlier poster who said that if you can prove close ties to the Philippines, and reasonable amounts of evidence that:
1. You intend to go back, and
2. You have no intentions of working
Then you could possibly be approved. As in, it's not completely out of the question.

I'm not sure.
 
The President is allowed to block the entry of any immigrant group if deemed a threat to national security. The INA also specifically states that no one can be denied immigration benefits bases strictly on nationality and origin - Which this EO does. I'm not a lawyer, nor does any supreme court ruling exist on this, so my legal input would be speculation, just like anyone else's really.

I would like to see SCOTUS rule on this one actually.
 
I'm not sure what part of the constitution this violates. The closest legislation it violates is the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.
The constitution isn't an abstract document of what we subjectively feel is right or wrong. It's a written document, and to the best of my knowledge, it does not prevent the POTUS from enabling a temporary moratorium on immigration from specific countries. Please correct me if I'm wrong. 
 
The Politifact article is a year and a half old and refers specifically to Trump's then call for a "Muslim ban." The EO itself does not mention "Muslim" anywhere, and 94% of the world's Muslims are exempt.
I'm weary of anyone calling it a "Muslim ban." That might be Bannon's intent, but legally and according to the EO itself, there is nothing "Muslim ban" about it.

Here are my two cents on red flags..
Let's separate two important things here - what a "red flag" is, and what it is not.
A red flag is a metaphor used for peculiarities in a particular case. By peculiarity I mean something that might make a USCIS adjudicator, or consular officer decide to look a little closer at the case. Since this is a K-1 thread, I'm only going to discuss marriage based cases. To understand why your case might stand out, it really pays to look at your case from an outsider's perspective, rather than seeing it from your own biased view. I do not mean to offend anyone by saying biased, but let's face it, we are all all biased towards our own case because that is the only case we are not seeing from an outsider's point of view. No matter what evidence you have, no immigration officer will ever feel what you feel. They can only see the facts as they are presented to them.
An immigration/consular officer's job is to make a subjective opinion, often in a very short amount of time, based on the facts presented before them. Marriage based cases differ from other cases in that they are not presented with firm evidence such as a birth certificate or DNA to show a family relationship. Rather, they are presented with a certain set of (somewhat relevant) facts and evidence on which to make the decision of whether a legitimate family relationship exists. These officers generally go through multiple cases on any given work day. Naturally, certain things will stand out more than others. That's the essence of what a "flag" is - something in your case stands out from the other cases in the pile.
What makes the flag red is when the peculiarity, the thing that stands out, actually makes your case either seem less probable, or, that the flag is in the form of a motive for why the person would potentially want to marry someone whom they do not love.
A red flag is not an automatic denial. No one can be denied a visa because of a red flag. A visa denial comes from a complete package of evidence and facts weighed up against one another. A red flag is not an immigration officer's bias against you or your spouse, it is not an attack so to speak against you. It is simply a fact that makes your case stand out, and in the eyes of the immigration officer, makes your case differ from the norm, thus prompting any experienced officer to take an extra look. Keep in mind also that what might be a red flag to a consular officer in Morocco, might not even be worth a second look to a consular officer in the Philippines. This is due to certain facts being common in one country, while it might be socially unacceptable in another.
Here are some common red flags:
1. A large age gap.
I see this one a lot, and there is a multitude of good reasons why immigration officers take a second look at some cases. This one also depends, as all other red flags, on the country and culture in question. A prime example: For example, a relationship where a 50 year old American male marries a 25 year old female from the Philippines. While the age difference is 25 years, most of these cases are approved, and I wouldn't even consider the age gap a red flag. However, if twisting it around and applying to another country, it makes a huge difference. A second scenario: A 50 year old American woman marries a 25 year old Moroccan man. This is absolutely a red flag, not because the consular officers are biased, but because it is simply very uncommon to see in Morocco.
2. Vast ethnic, religious or cultural differences.
Again, there is nothing illegal under US law about about interracial or inter-cultural marriage. It is socially acceptable in most places in the US, and for the most part, an interracial marriage will not be a red flag at all. However, to use an example: An American new-age hippie marries a practicing religious orthodox from a strictly religious culture. While completely legal, it raises questions as to the bona fide nature of the marriage because it is uncommon, maybe even socially unacceptable in the beneficiary's culture. So the consular officer's question will be "why is this person marrying someone who might actually get him/her disowned by their family?"
3. The beneficiary is from a high-fraud country.
This is guilt by association. Some consulates see a lot of attempted fraud. Some consulates see very little. If you are an immigration officer at a consulate where attempted fraud is a frequent occurrence, you will naturally be more suspicious.
4. The couple got engaged/married after a very short time of meeting.
It is uncommon in the US for couples to get married within weeks or even months of meeting one another. Why? Because marriage is a lifelong commitment, and two people generally aren't expected to know each other well enough to make a lifelong commitment after a very short time. In addition, it is easy for fraudsters and scammers to set up a fake marriage, but it is difficult to forge a scam to last a significant amount of time.
5. The couple have only met in person once, or on very limited occasions.
While the USCIS and State Dept are aware that online relationships are more common today than before, couples are still expected to have spent some time physically together before committing to a lifetime together. It is uncommon in the US to marry someone you have only met once, so the USCIS and State Dept views it as unlikely that an international couple would do the same. However, they are mindful that international travel can be difficult for some. The thing to keep in mind here is that you aren't trying to show then how hard it is to visit - you are trying to show that a bona fide marriage exists.
6. The beneficiary sends money to the petitioner.
I see plenty of people asking "should I show that I send my American husband/wife money?" - The answer is, only if you want the US State Dept. to believe that you are paying them for a green card. While it is normal to support your spouse here and there, this only looks good if you're helping out with shared expenses.
7. The beneficiary is in removal proceedings (for AOS cases).
A major red flag in an adjustment of status case is where the beneficiary is in removal proceedings, especially if the marriage itself happened after removal proceedings were initiated. The first thing on the USCIS' mind will be that the marriage is just a last ditch effort to stay in the country.
8. Substantial language barriers.
Very rarely will you be able to convince a USCIS or consular officer that you are in a bona fide relationship or marriage if you cannot communicate in a common language, be it English, Swahili or sign language. You are expected to be able to communicate with the person you are engaged or married to.
As I stated earlier. None of these alone are grounds for a denial, but the more individual red flags, the higher the burden of proof is. Also, these aren't "set" factors that will end your case up in some list, they are just factors that will make your case stand out from the norm. Certain factors, such as age difference, may be a huge red flag in some countries, but might not even stand out in others. To figure out of your case has any red flags, be honest and look at your case from an outsider's perspective - Is your case somehow abnormal? If you are the beneficiary, is your case abnormal in your country/culture? If you are the petitioner, would the average Joe look at your case and think "how did that happen?" Don't be biased and overly defensive about your case, because the best way to defend your marriage is to know what you're up against.

I have been reading the news.
 
GC holders are not affected by the travel ban. Neither are dual citizens. (Per White House and State Department)
 
This was not the case initially, as CBP seemed to have no idea what the actual policy was and who were affected.
 
There was a lot of initial confusion regarding this during the first 24 - 48 hours. That's what I mean by the travel ban being sloppily implemented. The DHS itself didn't know exactly how to implement it. The State Dept. didn't clarify anything until yesterday.
 
Bad implementation is how rumors spread. That's how falsehoods spread.
 
I'm not defending the policy. I'm pointing out the fact that we live in a world where rumors spread like wildfire on Twitter and social media, while actual facts usually aren't available until 4 - 48 hours later. Had the policy been announced before being implemented, with clear guidelines to CBP and consulates, we wouldn't be discussing GC holders and dual citizens on VJ.

I'd agree that no judge's order would have been needed if the EO was less ambiguous, or if it was unambiguous, it could have needed a judge's order.
I disagree with the EO overall, but I think it made it worse that it was written in such a way that no one had any clue as to how it should be implemented - including the Dept. of Homeland Security whose task it is to implement it.
 
We can argue semantics back and forth.
 
For purposes of visas, there are two types: "immigrant" and "nonimmigrant."
 
I'd argue that "immigrant entry" is a person arriving in the United States as an intending immigrant - i.e. arriving on an immigrant visa.
I'd argue that "nonimmigrant entry" is a person arriving in the United States as an intenting nonimmigrant - i.e. arriving on a tourist or student visa.
 
For purposes of non-visa entries, there are two types: resident or citizen.
 
Whenever you return to the U.S. with a green card, you passport is stamped "ARC" - Alien Registration Card. You're not admitted as an immigrant or nonimmigrant. You're admitted as a resident, someone who has previously arrived as an intending immigrant.
 
Again, we can go back and forth debating semantics on this, because there is no clear definition of what "immigrant entry" means, neither in the EO, nor in the Immigration and Nationality Act. It's a little like arguing what "natural born citizen" means in the context of whether Ted Cruz can be president or not.
 
Whether we agree or disagree, fun discussing with you both

There is no mention of LPRs in the EO, nor is there any mention of dual citizens.
 
Actual text of the EO: http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/text-of-trump-executive-order-nation-ban-refugees/
 
I'm not seeing "green card", "permanent resident", "resident alien", "dual citizen", "dual national" or anything like it. The only reference I can find that would refer to LPRs would be "aliens from countries referred to in..." Dual citizens and permanent residents are neither exempted nor included in that definition. Since the job of enforcing immigration laws in the U.S. is delegated to the Dept. of Homeland Security, it's their job to interpret anything that comes their way. DHS was initially confused (sign of bad implementation), and later clarified along with the White House that LPRs were not included in the ban (speculation around original intent is hypothetical at best). I have no idea what 'case-by-case basis' means, but LPRs are being admitted. The State Dept. also clarified that people holding dual citizenship were not affected and could apply for visas with a passport from a country not on the list.
 
I'm not agreeing with the EO. I'm arguing that a large portion of what has been published and protested over the weekend has been based on rumors, guessing, lack of information, hearsay, misunderstanding and an overall poorly worded policy, implemented last minute, which is why I personally would have preferred to have a politician running the White House.

I have been reading the news.
 
GC holders are not affected by the travel ban. Neither are dual citizens. (Per White House and State Department)
 
This was not the case initially, as CBP seemed to have no idea what the actual policy was and who were affected.
 
There was a lot of initial confusion regarding this during the first 24 - 48 hours. That's what I mean by the travel ban being sloppily implemented. The DHS itself didn't know exactly how to implement it. The State Dept. didn't clarify anything until yesterday.
 
Bad implementation is how rumors spread. That's how falsehoods spread.
 
I'm not defending the policy. I'm pointing out the fact that we live in a world where rumors spread like wildfire on Twitter and social media, while actual facts usually aren't available until 4 - 48 hours later. Had the policy been announced before being implemented, with clear guidelines to CBP and consulates, we wouldn't be discussing GC holders and dual citizens on VJ.

The 2015 list identifies seven countries of "concern" or as being "state sponsors of terrorism." The Visa Waiver Restrictions served almost the exact same purpose - Extra vetting for people holding passports or who had recently traveled to "terror prone" regions. Purpose: "Keep terrorists out." The concern was that extremists holding ESTA-eligible passports could use the VWP as a loophole into the U.S. without added vetting. Why Saudi, Kuwait, the UAE etc. were exempt from that list? Likely because you can get a reliable background check from a U.S.-friendly Saudi bureaucracy. You cannot get anything reliable from Somalia.
 
I agree that this travel ban does little to "keep terrorists out." But I doubt that was the actual purpose. This is a PR stunt from the Trump administration to enact "extreme vetting" (whatever that means) during the first 100 days of his presidency, so he can say on day 98 that "The vetting process is fixed. Bigly. It's fabulous." Read Trump's "Contract with American voters" - 'Extreme vetting' is in there.
 
Bottom line, I don't think Trump actually cares whether or not the policy works for the stated purpose. He cares how it looks 86 days from now. The last president who wrestled with the media in even remotely similar fashion to Trump was Richard Nixon. He won re-election by a landslide. Then Watergate happened.

Congress and the Obama administration did come up with that list. This is the exact list of countries whose citizens were barred from using the VWP/ESTA if they were dual citizens in a VWP/ESTA eligible country. In addition, anyone with a VWP/ESTA eligible passport was barred from using the VWP/ESTA if they had visited any of those seven countries recently. Iran, Syria and Sudan were listed as "state sponsors of terrorism" while the remaining countries were listed as "countries of concern." As much as I'm not a fan of Saudi Arabia, they have a functioning (and cooperative) state bureaucracy and you can get a credible background check from Saudi Arabia. Egypt too. Try getting anything credible from Somalia.
 
It's ok to be against Trump, while still recognizing that Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen had already been considered "terror prone" by Congress and the Obama administration as recently as 2015.
 
And before anyone else says "Trump has business dealings in Saudi Arabia etc." That's true. The Emirates too. Qatar perhaps.
 
But the vast majority of Muslim majority countries exempted along with Saudi and Qatar have nothing even remotely resembling a Trump Tower. Remember that Chad, Mali, Niger, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Gambia, Senegal, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Oman, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei, the West Bank, Gaza, Bosnia, Albania etc, etc, are all exempted too. Not just Turkey and the Gulf states.
 
Treat this for what it is - A Trump administration PR stunt to say he's following through on his campaign promises. This ban will be up two days prior to the conclusion of Trump's first 100 days in office. At that point, this will still be in the court system, while Trump will say something in the lines of "I fixed the vetting process. Bigly. It's beautiful." while the "Muslim ban" narrative will seem rather strange to anyone who isn't in the "Trump is Hitler" camp.
 
This is one of the most poorly implemented policies I can remember ever seeing. And from a national security point of view, makes little to no sense. But Trump/Bannon know how to play the media, and they know how to sideswipe the media. Hysteria and speculation play into their "the media is against you" narrative. Put into context of Trump's campaign, most of it makes total and complete sense.

Fine, I'll rephrase.
 
I'll add Burkina Faso, Western Sahara and Kosovo instead.

Iraq, Libya, Somalia and Yemen are in civil war, with very limited functioning bureaucracy.
 
Iran and Sudan are considered "state sponsors of terrorism."
 
Syria falls under both categories.
 
The list might not make much sense. But it isn't a random one.

I was referencing more the lists of foreign born terrorist attacks on US soil since 9-11. Yes most of the deaths come from 9-11 attacks exclusively, but even if you look at all attacks since then the majority come from other muslim-based countries not on the ban. The banned countries may be sponsoring ISIS sure, but they aren't sending the terrorists to US soil so a ban on immigrating here doesn't really do the job. They can continue to "sponsor" ISIS as they have been doing, and other countries can supply foreign terrorists on our soil. Nothing changes.
 
Ultimately I think we agree for the most part so we are just arguing about minute details. (Mostly saying this because I'm getting ready for bed)

"I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental... "
 
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/text-of-trump-executive-order-nation-ban-refugees/
 
An LPR returning to the United States is a returning resident, it is not considered "immigrant entry" nor is it considered "nonimmigrant entry."
"Immigrant entry" of such an alien would already have occurred at the time they entered the U.S. on an immigrant visa. Specifically included in this EO are those traveling to the U.S. on immigrant visas - "immigrant entry" - But again, they would not be LPRs yet, as LPR status is given upon admission on an immigrant visa.
 
The wording is ambiguous. But it does not include LPRs.
 
DHS initially interpreted the wording to include LPRs and dual citizens. This was later retracted.

You're missing the point. I'm not arguing that the VWP/ESTA bar is even remotely the same policy. I'm arguing that if you're going to enact a travel ban and rationalize it by saying you're "keeping terrorists out while enacting extreme vetting", then a list of countries has to come from somewhere. That somewhere is not a random list of countries that Donald Trump conjured on Twitter on Friday night. It's a list of countries that Congress and the Obama administration had identified in 2015.
 
That is a far-cry from saying "it's Obama's fault" or that the policies are even remotely similar.
 
The list of countries isn't random, and has nothing to do with business dealings.

Congress and the Obama administration did come up with that list. This is the exact list of countries whose citizens were barred from using the VWP/ESTA if they were dual citizens in a VWP/ESTA eligible country. In addition, anyone with a VWP/ESTA eligible passport was barred from using the VWP/ESTA if they had visited any of those seven countries recently. Iran, Syria and Sudan were listed as "state sponsors of terrorism" while the remaining countries were listed as "countries of concern." As much as I'm not a fan of Saudi Arabia, they have a functioning (and cooperative) state bureaucracy and you can get a credible background check from Saudi Arabia. Egypt too. Try getting anything credible from Somalia.
 
It's ok to be against Trump, while still recognizing that Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen had already been considered "terror prone" by Congress and the Obama administration as recently as 2015.
 
And before anyone else says "Trump has business dealings in Saudi Arabia etc." That's true. The Emirates too. Qatar perhaps.
 
But the vast majority of Muslim majority countries exempted along with Saudi and Qatar have nothing even remotely resembling a Trump Tower. Remember that Chad, Mali, Niger, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Gambia, Senegal, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Oman, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei, the West Bank, Gaza, Bosnia, Albania etc, etc, are all exempted too. Not just Turkey and the Gulf states.
 
Treat this for what it is - A Trump administration PR stunt to say he's following through on his campaign promises. This ban will be up two days prior to the conclusion of Trump's first 100 days in office. At that point, this will still be in the court system, while Trump will say something in the lines of "I fixed the vetting process. Bigly. It's beautiful." while the "Muslim ban" narrative will seem rather strange to anyone who isn't in the "Trump is Hitler" camp.
 
This is one of the most poorly implemented policies I can remember ever seeing. And from a national security point of view, makes little to no sense. But Trump/Bannon know how to play the media, and they know how to sideswipe the media. Hysteria and speculation play into their "the media is against you" narrative. Put into context of Trump's campaign, most of it makes total and complete sense.

Golden rules for news in 2017:
 
1. Always assume that what you're reading is hearsay during the first 48 hours.
2. If something seems completely insane, you're probably reading an opinion piece based on hearsay. 
3. Wait 48 hours before you fully make up an opinion on anything.
4. If you read an argument against something, always read the counterargument as well.

I have been reading the news.
 
GC holders are not affected by the travel ban. Neither are dual citizens. (Per White House and State Department)
 
This was not the case initially, as CBP seemed to have no idea what the actual policy was and who were affected.
 
There was a lot of initial confusion regarding this during the first 24 - 48 hours. That's what I mean by the travel ban being sloppily implemented. The DHS itself didn't know exactly how to implement it. The State Dept. didn't clarify anything until yesterday.
 
Bad implementation is how rumors spread. That's how falsehoods spread.
 
I'm not defending the policy. I'm pointing out the fact that we live in a world where rumors spread like wildfire on Twitter and social media, while actual facts usually aren't available until 4 - 48 hours later. Had the policy been announced before being implemented, with clear guidelines to CBP and consulates, we wouldn't be discussing GC holders and dual citizens on VJ.

Seeing that most Americans are ignorant and don't care about facts or stats, my guess would be very few, less than 30%.
 
Perhaps you've never heard of administrative processing?

I could support a temporary ban on visas, but not on people. If they wanna look into things for the next couple months then whatever, but why the rush? What are the chances someone from one of those countries will commit a deadly attack in the next few months when it hasn't happened for decades?

Golden rules for news in 2017:
 
1. Always assume that what you're reading is hearsay during the first 48 hours.
2. If something seems completely insane, you're probably reading an opinion piece based on hearsay. 
3. Wait 48 hours before you fully make up an opinion on anything.
4. If you read an argument against something, always read the counterargument as well.

I have been reading the news.
 
GC holders are not affected by the travel ban. Neither are dual citizens. (Per White House and State Department)
 
This was not the case initially, as CBP seemed to have no idea what the actual policy was and who were affected.
 
There was a lot of initial confusion regarding this during the first 24 - 48 hours. That's what I mean by the travel ban being sloppily implemented. The DHS itself didn't know exactly how to implement it. The State Dept. didn't clarify anything until yesterday.
 
Bad implementation is how rumors spread. That's how falsehoods spread.
 
I'm not defending the policy. I'm pointing out the fact that we live in a world where rumors spread like wildfire on Twitter and social media, while actual facts usually aren't available until 4 - 48 hours later. Had the policy been announced before being implemented, with clear guidelines to CBP and consulates, we wouldn't be discussing GC holders and dual citizens on VJ.

No. Service centers have always fluctuated in the time they spend adjudicating petitions.
 
'Extreme vetting' - Whatever that means - Will not happen at USCIS service centers. The service center's job is not to question whether or not you're a good person. The service center's job is to find out whether or not you are an eligible relative to be sponsored by an I-130 petition. Bona fide relatives are eligible to apply for a visa, but no visa is applied for at a USCIS service center.
 
Visas are applied for at a consulate abroad. 'Extreme vetting' - Whatever that means - Will happen at consulates responsible for issuing visas.
 

No. Service centers have always fluctuated in the time they spend adjudicating petitions.
 
'Extreme vetting' - Whatever that means - Will not happen at USCIS service centers. The service center's job is not to question whether or not you're a good person. The service center's job is to find out whether or not you are an eligible relative to be sponsored by an I-130 petition. Bona fide relatives are eligible to apply for a visa, but no visa is applied for at a USCIS service center.
 
Visas are applied for at a consulate abroad. 'Extreme vetting' - Whatever that means - Will happen at consulates responsible for issuing visas.