We can agree that the article reflects a troubling change in policy and designed for suffering. And that it deserves to be amplified. Beyond that, I worry that folks may read some of the comments here and have an incorrect understanding of risks that the writers didn’t intend.

I also see in this comment thread specific commentary about what DHS got wrong. The rules re accruing unlawful presence, entry on different visas, and how that interacts with AOS are complex and beyond a thread of this sort and I won’t comment on that (esp based on the scant info on the article).

I hear you but I think the confusion is very meaningful if you are, for example, and LPR who’s going to a ROC interview soon. Things are bad enough and folks are already nervous for themselves and their loved ones; getting the details right is important.

Right, I see that I misread what you were saying about the expiration dates. I agree this happened during the initial AOS, so these people were not LPRs (which is what OP inadvertently created confusion about)

Agreed, It is alarming. But even accidental misinformation when people already have reasons to be concerned can be counterproductive. So it’s important to get details right and now several people have pointed out the misunderstanding to you.

I think the story is alarming enough as it is but I’m concerned that the comments on this post are going to create alarm about who is being targeted (AOS applicants versus current LPRs). I don’t see anything to suggest these were current cLPRs.

No, it doesn’t read like these were conditional LPRs removing conditions. It sounds like these were folks who potentially entered on other visas and then concurrently filed petitions and for aos from the U.S., and this was the interview for the first green card.

No, that is the conditional permanent residence I mentioned in my comment above. It’s still a green card/permanent residence. The people in the article did not have a green card yet (conditional or otherwise). I think we should be precise to avoid alarming people unnecessarily—things are bad enough!

This is incorrect; if you have a green card then you are a permanent resident. You may be thinking of removal of conditions interviews for people who are *conditional* permanent residents through marriage, but that’s not what the article is talking about. These folks were applying for green cards.

Not a book but also encouraging everyone to listen to the podcast In the Dark Season 2 about Curtis Flowers. It is incredible.

What if it’s a book you haven’t read yet though

I can’t watch Better Call Saul because it professionally stresses me out. But I would like to suggest Slow Horses and The Americans, which you may enjoy based on different strands of these precedents.

Regardless of what the US Conference of Bishops says, I hope that trans folks, their families, and the more progressive parishes will continue standing up for trans dignity and visibility and gender-affirming care. I know it’s lot to ask, but I hope you will speak up. So many of us are with you.

Yes, they fail our trans folks and pregnant people who have abortions and many others, too. I’m no longer a Catholic for many reasons. But in this moment of so much suffering I welcome allies on specific fronts and will also continue fighting (sometimes despite them) on the other fronts.

That’s what a Gen Z wine bar bartender called a 90s/2000s alternative rock playlist. To my face.

He then added that his “cool brother” was a millennial and listened to all this. 🙄

It is actually $30 Cambodian, but we live in Park Slope so fair guess

That’s fair, I think the reckoning came later. (I thought I wanted to be a molecular biologist until senior year in college, and I definitely started with the same perception.) But I think it’s important to underscore this is who he always was.

Happy birthday! @profsteed.bsky.social

I’m sure they’ve taken their liberties with the script, but yes!