5 ms·

It's not a mobster way, more like a weasel way. The reason it is a weasel's move is because decisions at the consulate are made by consular officers who are car

It's not a mobster way, more like a weasel way. The reason it is a weasel's move is because decisions at the consulate are made by consular officers who are career public workers and won't deny visas for arbitrary reasons. That is bad for the political leadership because they just don't want to issue visas. So they need to invent evasive moves to throttle the pipeline by adding trainings, background checks, and other bogus bureaucratic hurdles.

alphabeta3r56 21d ago
> The reason it is a weasel's move is because decisions at the consulate are made by consular officers who are career public workers and won't deny visas for arbitrary reasons. No? Visa can be denied for arbitrary reasons based on what executive branch of US. there have been multiple cases where it has been clear that visas are a privilige not a right. Visa needs a reason to be granted, by default it is denied.
- bubblethink 21d ago
  No, you are confusing discretion with whims of the executive branch. Consular officers have discretion to adjudicate the applications and they can deny them for reasons prescribed in the INA. Those decisions are not reviewable. They are still supposed to follow their training, the FAM, and the INA in making the decisions. If Rubio sends an email to the consulates that says, "deny all visas", that would be illegal as a matter of policy and will be overturned by the courts under the APA. Note that 212(f) (aka Muslim ban from Trump v. Hawaii) gives discretion to the president to bar entry into the country, not visa adjudications. Visa adjudications require individualized determination by the consular officer.
- mlazos 21d ago
  Laws should not be executed on the whim of the executive branch.
  - deleted 21d ago
    [deleted]
  - skinfaxi 21d ago
    It's not always a bad thing though is it? Like when Obama stopped federal enforcement of weed laws.
    - philipwhiuk 21d ago
      Honestly it's still bad - it creates long term problems. Ignoring the democratic system (i.e not changing the law) just creates chaos.
      - TitaRusell 19d ago
        Chaos aptly describes the US right now. And it suits people with money and connections. America is becoming the India that they hate.
    - ryoshu 21d ago
      That decision was expanding rights, not removing them.
      - koolba 21d ago
        Yes it’s only bad when Trump does it. Refusing to enforce drug laws or immigration laws is perfectly fine. Ditto for refusing to honor the 2nd amendment.
        r2_pilot 20d ago
        >Ditto for refusing to honor the 2nd amendment. Honoring it, no doubt, by restricting firearms to duly registered militia personnel as written in the plain text for all to see? What about the 14th Amendment section 3, also written plainly?
        20d ago
philipallstar 21d ago
> That is bad for the political leadership because they just don't want to issue visas America welcomes the most people in by percentage and by numbers in the world. If they don't want to issue visas, and they do it the most by political design, then no one does.
- cycomanic 21d ago
  Citation needed
- dukeyukey 20d ago
  The US has the lowest percentage of it's population being immigrants in the Western Anglosphere. Like it's beaten by all of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK, and Ireland. Germany and France too, plus a while host of smaller European countries. There's an argument that the US is the least immigrant friendly large Western nation. Maybe the medium sized ones too.
  - hollerith 20d ago
    France’s foreign-born population is roughly 13% to 14%, which puts it about tied with or slightly lower than the U.S., depending on the specific year and census criteria used.
valianteffort 21d ago
[dead]
NoMoreNicksLeft 21d ago
> to throttle the pipeline by Why is there a "pipeline"? Does the United States owe immigration to the world, somehow? Does it owe it so much that there must be an avenue to immigration so large that you casually refer to that as a "pipeline"?
- throwway120385 21d ago
  Some of us have friends overseas who we think are deserving of residency and citizenship. You used to be able to just show up on a ship and they would make you a citizen if you were healthy. That's how my ancestors got here.
  - inglor_cz 21d ago
    "You used to be able to just show up on a ship and they would make you a citizen if you were healthy." Unless you were Chinese. Let's not romanticize that period, the Chinese Exclusion Act was enacted precisely over fears of too many people of a different culture and race moving into the US at once. It was only repealed in 1943, as Imperial Japan became the common enemy of both China and the US. And the Jews who were seeking shelter from Nazi Germany weren't particularly welcome either. There was an entire conference in Evian in 1938, ironically organized by none other than FDR, that sought a solution to increasing Jewish emigration from Germany. The end result was that no one was willing to increase or waive any quotas. History tends to repeat with some variations. Few political things are totally new under the sun.
  - conductr 21d ago
    I mean shit changes right? My ancestors showed up and were given/took large swaths of land. Where’s my land? Can I just take yours?
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 20d ago
    >Some of us have friends overseas who we think are deserving of residency and citizenship. Sure, I have friends. But I'm not about to give my friends 50% of my house's equity just because we're friends. I'll invite them over temporarily, often even. But this doesn't entitle them to owning the property. I don't want to give them voting rights in my household budget. And it's very bizarre that you can't make the distinction here. I doubt that the thought has crossed your mind that this is equivalent. >You used to be able to just show up on a ship True. That was then. But I don't want 2 billion people showing up off a ship and getting automatically put into the formal partnership with the rest of us. We have a right to decide who can come, who can't, and we don't even have to justify why. And there's enough of us deciding they can't now to make things better.

alphabeta3r56 21d ago

> The reason it is a weasel's move is because decisions at the consulate are made by consular officers who are career public workers and won't deny visas for arbitrary reasons. No? Visa can be denied for arbitrary reasons based on what executive branch of US. there have been multiple cases where it has been clear that visas are a privilige not a right. Visa needs a reason to be granted, by default it is denied.

bubblethink 21d ago
No, you are confusing discretion with whims of the executive branch. Consular officers have discretion to adjudicate the applications and they can deny them for reasons prescribed in the INA. Those decisions are not reviewable. They are still supposed to follow their training, the FAM, and the INA in making the decisions. If Rubio sends an email to the consulates that says, "deny all visas", that would be illegal as a matter of policy and will be overturned by the courts under the APA. Note that 212(f) (aka Muslim ban from Trump v. Hawaii) gives discretion to the president to bar entry into the country, not visa adjudications. Visa adjudications require individualized determination by the consular officer.
mlazos 21d ago
Laws should not be executed on the whim of the executive branch.
- deleted 21d ago
  [deleted]
- skinfaxi 21d ago
  It's not always a bad thing though is it? Like when Obama stopped federal enforcement of weed laws.
  - philipwhiuk 21d ago
    Honestly it's still bad - it creates long term problems. Ignoring the democratic system (i.e not changing the law) just creates chaos.
    - TitaRusell 19d ago
      Chaos aptly describes the US right now. And it suits people with money and connections. America is becoming the India that they hate.
  - ryoshu 21d ago
    That decision was expanding rights, not removing them.
    - koolba 21d ago
      Yes it’s only bad when Trump does it. Refusing to enforce drug laws or immigration laws is perfectly fine. Ditto for refusing to honor the 2nd amendment.
      - r2_pilot 20d ago
        >Ditto for refusing to honor the 2nd amendment. Honoring it, no doubt, by restricting firearms to duly registered militia personnel as written in the plain text for all to see? What about the 14th Amendment section 3, also written plainly?
        20d ago

philipallstar 21d ago

> That is bad for the political leadership because they just don't want to issue visas America welcomes the most people in by percentage and by numbers in the world. If they don't want to issue visas, and they do it the most by political design, then no one does.

cycomanic 21d ago
Citation needed
dukeyukey 20d ago
The US has the lowest percentage of it's population being immigrants in the Western Anglosphere. Like it's beaten by all of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK, and Ireland. Germany and France too, plus a while host of smaller European countries. There's an argument that the US is the least immigrant friendly large Western nation. Maybe the medium sized ones too.
- hollerith 20d ago
  France’s foreign-born population is roughly 13% to 14%, which puts it about tied with or slightly lower than the U.S., depending on the specific year and census criteria used.

valianteffort 21d ago

[dead]

NoMoreNicksLeft 21d ago

> to throttle the pipeline by Why is there a "pipeline"? Does the United States owe immigration to the world, somehow? Does it owe it so much that there must be an avenue to immigration so large that you casually refer to that as a "pipeline"?

throwway120385 21d ago
Some of us have friends overseas who we think are deserving of residency and citizenship. You used to be able to just show up on a ship and they would make you a citizen if you were healthy. That's how my ancestors got here.
- inglor_cz 21d ago
  "You used to be able to just show up on a ship and they would make you a citizen if you were healthy." Unless you were Chinese. Let's not romanticize that period, the Chinese Exclusion Act was enacted precisely over fears of too many people of a different culture and race moving into the US at once. It was only repealed in 1943, as Imperial Japan became the common enemy of both China and the US. And the Jews who were seeking shelter from Nazi Germany weren't particularly welcome either. There was an entire conference in Evian in 1938, ironically organized by none other than FDR, that sought a solution to increasing Jewish emigration from Germany. The end result was that no one was willing to increase or waive any quotas. History tends to repeat with some variations. Few political things are totally new under the sun.
- conductr 21d ago
  I mean shit changes right? My ancestors showed up and were given/took large swaths of land. Where’s my land? Can I just take yours?
- NoMoreNicksLeft 20d ago
  >Some of us have friends overseas who we think are deserving of residency and citizenship. Sure, I have friends. But I'm not about to give my friends 50% of my house's equity just because we're friends. I'll invite them over temporarily, often even. But this doesn't entitle them to owning the property. I don't want to give them voting rights in my household budget. And it's very bizarre that you can't make the distinction here. I doubt that the thought has crossed your mind that this is equivalent. >You used to be able to just show up on a ship True. That was then. But I don't want 2 billion people showing up off a ship and getting automatically put into the formal partnership with the rest of us. We have a right to decide who can come, who can't, and we don't even have to justify why. And there's enough of us deciding they can't now to make things better.