a) This does not apply to US citizens or their family members[1].
b) This does not apply to cargo[2].
It appears that the President misspoke regarding point 2.
[1] https://www.dhs.gov/news/2020/03/11/homeland-security-acting....
[2] https://twitter.com/AnaSwanson/status/1237921160500830208
Yes, you cannot be refused entry as a US citizen even without a passport. You will be greatly inconvenienced, but not refused. You may be held in a detention center or holding facility until such time as your identity can be verified.
Note the: as in a person that can prove that they're readily a US citizen. If you don't have a passport, you probably can't readily prove you are a citizen.
In college, friends of mine frequently went out partying in Tijuana and occasionally lost their passports. They were usually held for a few hours at the border crossing and given a hard time and a stern lecture about responsible behaviour before being readmitted to the US.
The trick is to get the airline to be your police and refuse them boarding. Then your only choice is to get to a Port of Entry via Canada, Mexico, private jet or chartered boat.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/mar/10/eu-airlines...
Not that it’s the same thing, but being an island (so no walking traffic) and having some screening in place means that the UK simply doesn’t have certain diseases (like rabies) that are at least somewhat common in Europe.
Honestly though, the UK is one of, if not THE, staunchest ally of the US and banning its citizens would cause some minor political issues.
Having travelled back to the UK from a Schengen country in the past few days, I can also confirm that there wasn’t so much as a poster in the airport, let alone any actual screening.
I don't think I've ever had anything that even counts as token screening flying into the UK from Europe - passport check is automated and I've never even seen someone at customs for many years.
PS- Good luck!
"Section 212(f) can certainly apply to applicants for immigrant visas. Whether it can apply to an LPR who is returning and not seeking admission is questionable. This is because under section 101(a)(13)(C), an LPR being covered by a Presidential Proclamation under section 212(f) would not cause the LPR to be considered to be seeking admission."
http://myattorneyusa.com/scope-and-history-of-section-212f-p...
"An alien returning to the United States who has been granted lawful permanent resident status cannot be regarded as seeking an admission and may not be charged with inadmissibility under section 212(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a) (2012), if he or she does not fall within any of the exceptions in section 101(a)(13)(C) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(13)(C) (2012)."
I suppose it will be another question on the form. Next to ‘I am not a terrorist’
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
Sort of. The trick is to get the airline overseas to refuse boarding. (Probably) not unconstitutional because it's not US soil.
Just like how the US directs airlines overseas to refuse boarding if you show a US birth certificate and photo ID instead of a US passport.
I didn't write this rule though so I don't know if this interpretation is correct.
The rule only excludes US citizens, green card holders and their immediate families.
It's fun to joke about a politician's gaffes, and simple verbal slips are understandable - I noticed several in the speech but they were not substantive or significant. However, I think when drafting and reading a preapred statement on a topic of grave importance politicians have an obligation to say what they actually mean.
> There will be exemptions for Americans who have undergone appropriate screenings, and these prohibitions will not only apply to the tremendous amount of trade and cargo, but various other things as we get approval. Anything coming from Europe to the United States is what we are discussing. These restrictions will also not apply to the United Kingdom.
It reads a whole lot cleaner, i.e. like you would expect from a speech, if the statement about cargo was intended to say it was not prohibited.
My best guess is honestly that it was meant to be "these prohibitions will not apply to the" instead of "these prohibitions will not only apply to the". Inserting an extra "only" is a pretty easy mistake to make when reading text out loud.
I mean, miscommunication happens. Trump didn't invent the plan, he was advised by others and gave the go-ahead. Then, his advisors drafted all of the details of the plan (probably in very short order). And of course, he didn't write the speech, someone prepared it for him. Afterward, the speech changed hands numerous times until some staff member loaded it into the prompter.
Someone definitely messed up, but it's hard for me to see how anyone could blame the speaker for this one. Assuming there's no partisanship, of course.
[0]https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/03/11/trum...
But I also don't believe this speech would have happened tonight if it had been a up day on the stock market. I think that is the only lens they are looking at this through.
If you go back one administration and search 'Obama clarifies' on google, you find the same thing. Turns out that press machines involving dozens of people are prone to human error.
This is one of three or four errors just in this address alone. An address that may literally be the most important of his presidency. It wasn't just some George W. tripping over his words, he said literally the exact opposite of what the policy actually was and just kept rolling.
This is too important to be grading on a curve.
edit: To be clear I'm not suggesting he misread the teleprompter intentionally. I am saying that he and his administration have a level of incompetence and neglect that would result in jail time in many private industries.
That's why Obama had to issue immediate corrections regarding troop deployments, economy, and policies. There's too many moving parts.