Self-deportation of American Citizens from US It is conceivable that US citizens detained at CBP will self deport to exit overcrowded CBP detainment facilities avoid lengthy detainments (>20 days). How would a US citizen's self-deportation affect one's ability to cross borders and return home? Update: "Food for thought" for responses: Upon deportation, why would CBP allow you to re-enter the country with the questioned documents? Would CBP not confiscate the questioned documents before deportation? Citizen is held incommuncado. There is a claim that 2 of 3 Americans live in the 100-Mile border zone patrolled by CBP:
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 United States. If someone could do it merely by entering without papers and asking for a self-deport, lots of expats would save a lot of money - and that's not gonna happen :) ...but they could put him to serious inconvenience In this particular case, CBP found his documents suspect. Probably because (if it's the case we've seen documented elsewhere) he was with two other people whose entry was illegal, and they had forged documents. So most likely, if he agreed to self-deport, CBP would use that as prima-facie evidence that he is not a bona-fide citizen, and therefore, that his papers are faked. They certainly will not give fake papers back to someone who has tried to pass them. So the victim would be obliged to go back to SSA, the state, etc. and re-acquire his identity documents. From outside the country. It's a pretty big chore.
It is illegal to threaten to report a person for violating the law (it is illegal to threaten a person). There are laws in California that limit official cooperation with ICE investigations, therefore the police will not arrest a person for being an illegal immigrant. This is basically a limit on use of state and local resources, and the state has the power to control its purse strings. The state has no power to mandate that individuals not report a suspected or imagined violation of federal law to federal authorities, and there is no California law purporting to have that power.
So, what happens when the American parent tries taking the baby with them to the U.S.? If the child has proper documents, the specifics of which depend on the child's citizenship and the purpose of entering the US, nothing will happen. If the visit is temporary, the child needs the same documents as any temporary visitor with the same citizenship. If the parent intends to remain in the US indefinitely, the child should have an immigrant visa, in which case the child will become a US citizen on arrival.
You were trespassing The community college is a public institution but they can decide what part of their land you can walk on and in what circumstances. Just like the military is a public institution but they don’t let you walk across their shooting ranges. To be clear, in the absence of clear “no dogs allowed” signage, you were not trespassing until you were told about the policy. At that point, you were legally obliged to remove yourself (or more precisely, your dog) from the campus as soon as possible. When you refused to do so, you became a trespasser. It’s trivially easy to find out who you are. One photograph, one reverse image search they’ll know everything about you right down to your shoe size. Even if you don’t use social media, I’m sure some of your family and friends do. In most US states, trespass is a misdemeanour and also in most states members of the public can arrest someone who is committing a misdemeanour in their presence. They can use reasonable force to do so and can hold the arrestee until they can transfer them to the custody of a law enforcement officer. Admittedly, this seems unlikely but it is possible. If you have caused damage, you can be sued. It seems that your discussion with the college staff was somewhat protected so the loss of productivity of those staff members is a loss that the college suffered and that they could sue you for. Again, not likely but possible. Alternatively, they could just report you to the police who may or may not bring charges. Note: this assumes the dog is a pet. If it’s a disability assistance animal, it can’t be excluded. See: Are sidewalks on a university public or private property? Can a local government charge a fee to enter a public downtown area during an event? Trespassing or Public Property? Is a mall considered a &quot;public place&quot; for copyright purposes?
If the purported husband (PH) has not attempted to enter the UK under false pretenses, and has not submitted documents containing false statements to the UK government, it is hard to see how he might be charged with a crime by the UK in connection with the invalid marriage. But since the PH is now said to have submitted an application for entry clearance based on the bigamous marriage, a marriage that it appears that he knew or should have known was invalid, he has submitted an official document based on a false statement. That is presumably an offense under UK law, and may well affect the PH's future immigration treatment. If the deceived wife has not knowingly made false statements to the UK government, it is hard to see how she would be charged in the UK. She would be wise to promptly inform the UK government that the marriage was invalid, to withdraw any statements or applications based on its validity, and to take legal steps to correct the record so that the marriage does not show as valid. This might be by annulment or some other procedure, probably depending on the law in the Bahamas where the purported marriage took place. (Under chapter 125, section 21(b) a prior marriage is valid grounds for an annulment or decree of nullity.) She might also want to notify the US authorities. The purported husband might have been guilty of bigamy in the Bahamas, depending on just how their law is written. Whether the authorities there will seek to extradite and prosecute him one cannot say.
The order refers in sec. 3(c) to "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)". That section specifically names Iraq and Syria, plus "points to" potential areas of concern, as identified by the Sec'y of State and Sec'y of Homeland Security. The full list extends to Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen, and is set forth at 81 FR 39680. The cited authority is 8 USC 1182(f), a section about inadmissible aliens, which says Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Thus he has authority to exclude permanent residents from re-entry (they are aliens, and re-entry is a subcase of entry), and has done so for 90 days. In the case of Syrian nationals, under sec 5(c) of the order, they are excluded until the order is changed. Sec. 5(c) of the order specifically declares Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry of nationals of Syria as refugees is detrimental to the interests of the United States and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I have determined that sufficient changes have been made to the USRAP to ensure that admission of Syrian refugees is consistent with the national interest. The long-term ban on Syrians also specifies "as refugees", so "such entry" might not be interpreted to refer to entry of refugee or non-refugee Syrian nationals who are permanent residents. The 90-day ban in 3(c) ("immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens") does not include any further restrictors, apart from the various government-official visas that are exempted, so there would be no basis in the order for excluding permanent residents. Whether this will be strictly enforced is a separate question, though in the period when the order was active (a day), it was applied to permanent residents. Sec. 3(g) allows exceptions "on a case-by-case basis, and when in the national interest". A recent (Saturday the 28th) White House briefing says that green card holders "will need a case by case waiver to return to the United States". The ban includes immigrants and non-immigrants, so it doesn't particularly matter how "immigrant" is defined – what matters is what an alien is. Still, "immigrant" is defined in 8 USC 1101 (15) as any alien, except a bunch of categories such as diplomats, tourists, business visitors, people in transit, students, and fashion models and similar, working temporarily here. Any permanent resident has an immigrant visa (but at any rate is an alien, and is either an immigrant or a non-immigrant). Returning to the words of the order, neither 3(c) nor 5(3) limit the ban to issuance of visas, it refers to entry. Not all entry by foreign national requires a visa. The word "visa" is mentioned, so it is possible to construe that mention as contextually restricting the ban to visas, however 3(a) which is entitled "Suspension of Issuance of Visas and Other Immigration Benefits to Nationals of Countries of Particular Concern" orders the review "to adjudicate any visa, admission, or other benefit under the INA" which indicates that there is no such limitation. 8 USC 1101(a)(13)(C) does say that a permanent resident is not "regarded as seeking an admission into the United States". Admission itself is defined in 8 USC 1101(a)(13)(A), when applied to an alien, as "the lawful entry of the alien into the United States after inspection and authorization by an immigration officer". While a permanent resident is not seeking admission (and is not applying for admission), it would still be consistent with the law to forbid admission (legal entry). If you read 8 USC 1101(a)(13)(C) as granting permanent residents widest latitude to enter without restriction, then that has the absurd consequence that permanent residents are subject to no scrutiny at all. The absurdity is avoided if "seeing admission" is a step prior to and is distinct from "being admitted" i.e. "lawfully entering".
Yes, they still have to go through the normal eviction process and must still provide the minimum number of days required by their local jurisdiction in order to vacate the property. By moving in and establishing residency, the tenant and landlord form an implied lease - the tenant does not need anything in writing in order to establish their legal rights to tenancy. More information: No written lease--Am I in trouble?
Does this mean that anyone who is born in the US is automatically a US citizen, whether they want it or not? Yes (subject to a couple of exceptions, namely the children of diplomats with full immunity and the children of a hostile foreign occupier). Or does this amendment just offer the possibility of requesting citizenship? In other words: is there an action to be made in order to become a US citizen when born in the US (and therefore one is not before this action is performed)? No. For someone who falls under the 14th amendment's citizenship clause, the only way to avoid being a US citizen is to relinquish or renounce it, which generally means that one is stuck with the US citizenship for at least 18 years. Most countries' citizenship laws, or at least all of those with which I am familiar, operate this way—automatically—for "normal" cases of acquisition of citizenship by virtue of the circumstances of birth. This is true whether the citizenship derives from the place of birth or from the parents' citizenship.