Does a &quot;temporary guardian&quot; count as a &quot;legal guardian&quot; as mentioned in Proclamation 9984? I'm a US citizen, and I want my young son's and newborn daughter's Chinese grandparents (without green cards) to be able to visit and take care of them in the near future. They don't speak English, so quarantining for 14 days in a 3rd country would not only be expensive (hotel stay plus extra air travel) but also quite challenging for them. So I read the proclamation: https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/proclamation-suspension-entry-immigrants-nonimmigrants-persons-pose-risk-transmitting-2019-novel-coronavirus/ I read that guardians of US citizens are excluded from the travel ban. Sec. 2. Scope of Suspension and Limitation on Entry. (a) Section 1 of this proclamation shall not apply to: (i) any lawful permanent resident of the United States; (ii) any alien who is the spouse of a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident; (iii) any alien who is the parent or legal guardian of a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident, provided that the U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident is unmarried and under the age of 21; Now I'm trying to understand what constitutes a legal guardian. Is that determined by the individual states, or is there a Federal take on what constitutes a legal guardian? Connecticut, where I live, in addition to permanent guardians, has both temporary guardians and standby guardians. From my reading of the CT rules, it seems we couldn't appoint the grandparents as permanent guardians without one of us parents abdicating our parental rights. But it seems there's nothing stopping us from appointing the grandparents as temporary or standby guardians. The question is, would that be sufficient to make the travel ban not applicable to them? In all likelihood they would be flying into NY, not CT. Does that change the legal guardianship restrictions? I waited 90 minutes to talk to National Visa Center on the phone but they were not very helpful. They seemed to imply that it would be up to airport or airline (I didn't hear clearly) whether the guardianship papers would be accepted. Thanks for any input you have.
A temporary guardian would qualify, however, you would have to go to the probate court and explain why you are &quot;unable to care for the minor&quot;. It would appear from the situation you describe that you are able to care for the child. A standby guardian would also qualify if it has taken effect &quot;upon the occurrence of a specified contingency, including, but not limited to, the mental incapacity, physical debilitation or death of the principal….” Killing yourself seems a little extreme just to avoid 2 weeks in quarantine.
Everyone physically present in the US is protected by the US Federal constitution. (In some cases persons not physically in the US also have protection from the US constitution. When that applies is too complex for this answer.) Most of the rights protected by that constitution are available to anyone present, whether citizen, lawful immigrant, lawful visitor, or a person in the US without lawful authority. A few rights, such as the right to vote and to run for public office, are limited to citizens. If a person was arrested but not informed of his or her Miranda rights, then statements made to the arresting officers (or later interrogating officers) would not be admissible in court, unless an exception to the Miranda rules applies, which is unlikely. I can't say if this happened in the particular case mentioned in the question. In general, in the area of criminal procedure, there is no difference between citizens and others subject to US jurisdiction (accredited foreign diplomats normally have immunity). A few crimes can only be committed by citizens (or others owing allegiance to the US) such as treason. A few crimes, such as unlawful entry to the US, can't be committed by citizens, as citizens automatically have a right to enter. But criminal procedure and constitutional rights affecting criminal procedure, are the same for all in the US, citizen or not. (Oh, there are special laws for minors, but that isn't a matter of citizenship.)
In the US, adoptions follow state law. Here is the law for Washington state. RCW 26.33.140 says that &quot;Any person who is legally competent and who is eighteen years of age or older may be an adoptive parent&quot;. The word &quot;person&quot; does not have a statutory meaning under this title, thus it has its ordinary meaning. There are discussions in case law regarding the &quot;person&quot; status of corporations, but those extensions of the meaning &quot;person&quot; involve extending a constitutional right which refers to a &quot;person&quot; to corporations. A corporation can hold property, enter contracts, and sue and be sued just like a person, and from the earliest days esp. Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. 518, the US courts have recognized that corporations as having the same rights as natural persons to contract and to enforce contracts. But corporations can't vote or get married. So, in Washington you have to be a person-person. And, presumably in all states.
Child custody (and alimony) are determined by state courts, so the exact details are state-dependent. There is no legal basis for a person preventing thrie former spouse from moving (assuming the host country doesn't deny a visa), but the courts would be involved in determining whether the child can be taken along: parent A cannot legally just pack up the kids and bolt. When parents don't agree, then the court must determine what outcome is in the best interest of the child. If the children want to move, that counts in favor of them moving ("counts in favor" does not mean "decides the matter"). If the moving parent doesn't have viable employment prospects abroad, that counts against them moving. The amount of time each parent spends with the children also matters, not to mention the laws of your state (here is what the California courts say: "Move-Away" Situations). Generally speaking, the moving parent has to provide notice, then the non-moving parent has to file a legal action to block the move. Your attorney will discuss all of the relevant considerations with you. The fact of a parent moving to another country does not per se invalidate court-ordered support, but the court can modify an order if circumstances warrant (there's no obvious reason why moving to France would result in modification of such an order).
An individual obtains due process rights upon entering into the United States. For a recent write-up on this question, see this piece at Reason. The people Trump is talking about generally aren't being denied admission at an established, legal border crossing; they're coming across wherever they can get through, and only being discovered by federal agents thereafter. Because they're already in the United States, they have due process rights. As for cross-border interactions with ICE or CBP, the extent of due process protections is still an open question. SCOTUS took it up last year, but it kicked the case back to a lower court rather than deciding it.
Does Amazon prohibit a family of adults from sharing a single Amazon account? No, or at least it seems unlikely. As outlined in my answer &amp; comments on Law Meta, a domestic or family-oriented character is palpable in the clause. That weakens the notion that Amazon's intent is to preclude scenarios which are of a personal-domestic nature and short of commercial/sublicensed use. The language &quot;You are responsible for [...] restricting access to your account&quot; seems more permissive than something akin to &quot;only you are allowed to access your account&quot;. The former language is consistent with the term &quot;non-exclusive&quot;, which otherwise seems to have no relevance or purpose in the clause. Users' ability (if any) to enter multiple payment methods with different names (i.e., card holder name) could be an additional indication that the scenario you have in mind is acceptable to Amazon. It is easy for a company to implement a validation for the purpose of identifying significant discrepancies of holder names and/or to have the user confirm that all payment methods refer to one same owner. The latter approach is more conclusive for scenarios where a woman has changed names as a result of getting married or divorced. The fact (?) that Amazon declined to include that simple validation weakens the notion that the company is genuinely interested in sticking to a rule of one-person per account.
There are no EU rules on whether and under which conditions unaccompanied minors are allowed to travel, and the competence hence rests with the Member States. You are probably more proficient with Slovak rules on the matter, but judging by the information provided by the UK Government, there should be no regulatory hassle. The most probable source of problems will be the airline, but at least BA lets persons 12-17 years of age travel alone.
Yes, you can register in Connecticut. Connecticut previously limited voting eligibility to &quot;permanent&quot; residents, but it later changed that to limit it to people with at least year's worth of residency, and then six months' of residency. Under current law, though, a voter need only be a &quot;bona fide&quot; resident of &quot;some town&quot; in Connecticut. This means you need only to have legitimately moved into the city with some actual intent to stay, even if not forever. The deadline is tomorrow, so register now.