The adoption of regulations to restrict entry into the United States is aimed at prohibiting the admission of people who committed violations of immigration policy. This issue concerns persons with a criminal record, violators of immigration laws, those who committed forgery or provided false information to obtain a visa, persons suffering from certain diseases, and some other reasons (Rowen & Hamlin, 2018). However, not all grounds for deportation from the United States are grounds for inadmissibility. Even if a person has to leave the country forcibly, in some cases, entry back is not completely closed, leaving the possibility of obtaining a visa or permanent residence status.
Several factors are to be taken into account to grant a visa to an immigrant or ordering deportation. According to Puhl (2019), “the existence or absence of a particular factor should never be the sole criteria for determining if an alien is likely to become a public charge” (p. 2). In addition, people applying for an immigrant visa and having direct relatives who are US citizens, such as spouses, children, or parents, can apply for a pardon for illegal stay before leaving the US (Puhl, 2019). This forgiveness process is only permitted for those who are applying for the waiver of the travel ban for illegal stay and allows them to apply for the waiver of the travel ban before the person leaves the US. Leaving the country after an illegal stay may be a reason for a travel ban until an application to lift the ban is approved (Puhl, 2019). In some cases, a foreigner who has been declared ineligible while physically in the US may apply for a provisional lifting of the travel ban.
One of the main contradictions that Proclamation 10043 carries is the reference to the safety threats posed by the arrival of young citizens from the PRC. According to the text of this document, former President Trump was convinced that admitting young people from China to the United States was a risk “to our Nation’s long-term economic vitality and the safety and security of the American people” (Proclamation 10043, 2020, p. 34353). However, this statement is controversial and does not imply the responsibility of all Chinese students or scholars without exception in the face of the threat of potential espionage in favor of the PRC. As a justification, Yi Xi, who is perplexed by a possible refusal to study in a US graduate science program, can cite her academic history and documents confirming her education in a non-military industry, particularly the arts. The ban on education violates the basic principles of the democratic foundations of the United States and is evidence of open bias along ethnic lines, which is also inhumane.
In addition to personal academic history, Yi Xi’s family details, certified by lawyers, can be a significant justification for admission to an American higher education institution. As Castiello-Gutiérrez and Li (2020) argue, the travel ban applies to students with military ties. If Yi Xi does not have any relatives working in this field, her admission to the United States in a science program cannot be prohibited under the Proclamation. Since each foreign citizen’s information is checked at the visa center, the Secretary of State’s position can be viewed as inciting ethnic hatred and bias due to the student’s lack of connection with the military sphere.
For Jorge Ruiz to obtain lawful status in the future, the best way for him is to get a green card by marrying his fiancée with American citizenship. He should also apply for proof of his relationship with the next of kin, namely his mother and brother, who are also US citizens. According to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (2021), the applicant can fulfill the relevant condition regarding marriage. In particular, Jorge Ruiz should confirm his intention to marry a citizen of the country “within 90 days of admission to the United States” (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services [USCIS], 2021, para. 85). This process does not require involving a bar association, and Mr. Ruiz can carry out all the required procedures on his own.
Even though Jorge Ruiz will not have the status of a married man, the above procedure will allow him to count on legal citizenship in the future. This is due to the documented intention to get married within three months. Regarding proof of relationship with people who are US citizens, he can also provide the relevant documents. As per the USCIS’s (2021) provisions, a child, parent, or spouse may be considered next of kin. Since Mr. Ruiz’s mother is such, he can count on permanent citizenship, but for this, he should also comply with all the principles of lawful entry. His prolonged stay in the country, exceeding the statutory period of six months, may become a reason for his deportation. In this regard, he needs to receive confirmation of his first request for citizenship and provide the relevant documents to count on the satisfaction of his application.
Although Laura Mastriano intends to open a medical marijuana business in the state with officially decriminalized possession, she may face problems. First, she is a citizen of another state, and according to US law, she is not allowed to work in the marijuana field, even under the pretext of legal trade (Immigrant Legal Resource Center, 2019). Arriving in California, the state where the sale of marijuana is fully legalized, also does not guarantee Laura Mastriano’s safety. Under existing regulations, an immigrant who speaks to border officials about marijuana and one’s intentions to sell it can be detained on suspicion of illegal activity (Immigrant Legal Resource Center, 2019). This condition applies to all immigrants, without exception, who, without the status of a US citizen, cannot trade in narcotic substances and even mention it in the presence of border officials. Otherwise, this can be perceived as the intention of an illegal business and is fraught with detention and deportation.
The main recommendation to Laura Mastriano is the need to obtain US citizenship to conduct the sale of medical marijuana in Idaho. In addition, she is to remember that she should not start a conversation about her planned business with border officials so as not to incur the suspicion of the illegal possession and use of drugs. In case representatives of the customs service ask her direct questions about the use or storage of marijuana, she should not answer them and require the participation of a lawyer to ensure her legal defense because this is her legal right. Any public mention may be the reason for accusing her of violating anti-drug laws; therefore, her immigrant status is a deterrent to the planned business.
Castiello-Gutiérrez, S., & Li, X. (2020). We are more than your paycheck: The dehumanization of international students in the United States. Journal of International Students, 10(3), i-iv. Web.
Immigrant Legal Resource Center. (2019). Community alert: Legalized marijuana. Web.
Proclamation 10043, 2020, Fed. Reg. Vol. 85, No. 108. Web.
Puhl, E. (2019). Totality of the circumstances: Assessing the public charge ground of inadmissibility. Immigrant Legal Resource Center. Web.
Rowen, J., & Hamlin, R. (2018). The politics of a new legal regime: Governing international crime through domestic immigration law. Law & Policy, 40(3), 243-266. Web.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. (2021). Chapter 2 – Lawful permanent resident admission for naturalization. Web.