地里能不能请移民律师来解读sec 9？

追了几天帖子，结果就是两派，谁也说服不了谁。
扩大派：团员队员都算，exception不能用，至少rfe拖很久
不扩大派：条款语言现在时，原移民法本来就有这样的语言（题外话原移民法是is or has been其实范围更大）。exception能用。

问题是，无论哪派，你让他们回去找工作肯定不愿意，要不然队伍也不会这么长了。
既然谈不拢，能不能地里组织请一个若干个专业移民律师来解读下？包括以前对485的表格是怎么处理的，填yes no后果如何，rfe怎么回复，需要你“自证清白”是偶然还是广泛存在？
另外如果真的最后发现扩大了，有什么应对？该怎么打官司？今年不少官司可以看到美国法院是具有一定独立性的。
请律师咨询要费用，大家捐就是了。大是大非上小钱不能省

没什么可谈的。团员少先队员都要赶走的那一天就跟排华没什么区别，到那时候大家一起走，绿卡公民都不一定能过得好。

如果你认为美国和中国还没撕破脸到这个份上，就别瞎焦虑。

看了一下uscis policy manual, 黏贴以下内容。看起来移民官的确可以假设你和党有关（未必是党员，因为区分了member和affiliate），然后需要申请者自己来证明不是。
C. Adjudication
1. Evidence
A finding of inadmissibility under INA 212(a)(3)(D) must be based on evidence, such as oral testimony, written testimony, or any other documentation containing information about the applicant’s current or prior membership in or affiliation with the Communist or any other totalitarian party. Some USCIS forms, including the Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status (Form I-485), require applicants to list their memberships in organizations and parties.

Membership or affiliation is a question of fact for the officer to determine. If the facts and evidence available would allow a reasonable person to conclude that the alien is a member or an affiliate of the Communist or any other totalitarian party, then the applicant must establish that he or she qualifies for one of the exceptions or the waiver.

If an applicant misrepresents information regarding membership or affiliation in answering questions on Form I-485, the alien could also be found inadmissible under INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i).[47]

2. Burden of Proof
The burden of proof to establish admissibility when seeking an immigration benefit is always on the applicant.[48] The burden never shifts to the Government at any time during adjudication.[49]

To determine whether an alien is inadmissible based on his or her membership in or affiliation with the Communist or any other totalitarian party, there must be sufficient evidence that would lead a reasonable person to find that he or she is or was a member of or affiliated with a proscribed group.[50] If there is evidence that would permit a reasonable person to conclude that the applicant is inadmissible under this ground, then the officer should find that the applicant has not successfully met the burden of proof. If there is any adverse, third-party information in the record, then the officer conducting an interview is generally expected to confront the applicant with the information and resolve the issue at the time of the interview.

If an officer is basing a decision in whole or in part on information of which the applicant is unaware or could not reasonably be expected to be aware, and the applicant was not confronted with that information and given an opportunity to respond during an interview, the officer must issue a Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID).[51] The NOID provides the applicant an opportunity to review and respond to the information, unless the information is classified.[52] An applicant who fails to meet the burden of proof is inadmissible for being a member or affiliate of the Communist or any other totalitarian party, unless the applicant is able to successfully rebut the officer’s inadmissibility finding.[53]

If the applicant is successful in rebutting the inadmissibility finding, the officer should find that the alien is not inadmissible for being a member or affiliate of the Communist or any other totalitarian party.

我以为，至少在民主党主政的时候，不会扩大到团和少先队。你看Section 9的原文，不只是改变身份，连admission都要禁，也就是入境。如果扩大的话，那几乎连留学生都不要来了，美国大学第一个站出来反对。以民主党和美国大学的关系，游说不要扩大化基本没有问题。不只是美国大学，完全禁止团员少先队入境牵扯的利益太多了，会有多方反对。所以接下来四年应该还算安全，四年以后要是共和党又要回来就不知道了。如果立刻扩大化，那大家都会遭殃，如果四年都没事，四年以后共和党突然要扩大化，那就像public charge要扩大化的官司一样，打到现在，好像又给暂停了，没那么容易。
另外，你去看sec 1-8，都是明确写了to amend xxx part of Immigration and Nationality Act，也就是直接修改移民法的相关章节，只有sec 9不是，而是单独就是天外飞来的一段话。如果照这样通过的话，那并没有amend INA里关于党员的内容，所以INA还是存在，并没有直接amend INA说什么党员可以豁免的条件唯独中共不能用，那这怎么算？脱党五年还能豁免吗？不能不是和INA冲突，你又没有直接amend INA，感觉都是官司，真的很扯。。。

xdtyt1zx 发表于 2020-12-04 10:53:43
没什么可谈的。团员少先队员都要赶走的那一天就跟排华没什么区别，到那时候大家一起走，绿卡公民都不一定能过得好。

如果你认为美国和中国还没撕破脸到这个份上，就别瞎焦虑。

美国现在当权者就是**，正常做法不应该是同化赤色分子搞和平演变吗，凡是gc国家的人的必须参加美国举办的思想政治培训班，培育对美帝价值观的向往，考试通过了才给签证，最好让这些人变成吃里扒外的工贼。现在这帮老铁们把中国的人才都赶回去建设祖国，对美国有什么好处

我觉得这个section写的很不好，很可能是为了应付Scott匆忙赶工出来的，后期两院商议的时候，应该会完善立法语言

隔壁赵大爷 发表于 2020-12-5 04:19
我觉得这个section写的很不好，很可能是为了应付Scott匆忙赶工出来的，后期两院商议的时候，应该会完善立法 ...

scott有志于2024，还占着florida主场，肯定要有动作。从字面上看，新加的比原来的还松，因为没有has been。如果能有更严谨和详细的立法语言，至少 从确定性上来说，反倒是好事。另外众院的推手不满，不知道是不是有这条的缘故。

务实的，看这条跟INA现有的条款的区别，USCIS的Policy Manual怎么细化INA现有条款，这比问随遍抓来的律师还靠谱，读完了自然也就知道了
扩大派一直都存在，很久以前485 Communist Party的问题上都是不涉及共青团和少先队的，后来USCIS的FO被教育的多了，共青团少先队杀手就多了
有人总觉得凭什么只有共“党”倒霉，团、队怎么就不“共”了。

windywinter 发表于 2020-12-5 04:37
务实的，看这条跟INA现有的条款的区别，USCIS的Policy Manual怎么细化INA现有条款，这比问随遍抓来的律师还 ...

刚搜索了一下，感觉不容乐观