a) is because as I understand it it's /very/ hard to legally refuse to readmit a US citizen. You can seize all their stuff at the border but besides arresting them for a crime you can't really keep them from coming home.

You can't refuse to readmit a US citizen (as in a person that can prove that they're readily a US citizen). They can force you into quarantine and take all your stuff, but you have a right to be in the country.

Even without a passport? If I rocked up to the border of my country without a passport I'm pretty sure I'd be thrown into a detention centre if I wasn't deported on the spot.

Deported to where? :)

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.

You can't fly to the US without a passport. They wouldn't let you board the plane without it.

You and OP are both right. No one will let you (as a US citizen) board an aircraft back to the US without a passport (so you'll have to head over to a local embassy to get a replacement if you don't have one on your person), but CBP must (not shall, must) allow you re-admittance at a land border without a passport (at which point they will verify your citizenship through a tedious process).

> You can't refuse to readmit a US citizen (as in a person that can prove that they're readily a US citizen)

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.

You'd be detained but if you asserted you are a US citizen they are obligated to try and establish the truth of your claim. They'll call family and friends and access government records. In an edge case, I imagine they'd hold a hearing with an immigration judge.

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.

> a) is because as I understand it it's /very/ hard to legally refuse to readmit a US citizen. You can seize all their stuff at the border but besides arresting them for a crime you can't really keep them from coming home.

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.

Doesn’t matter if there’s no flights or boats.

There may well be flights. Crew are exempt, so at least for slot-controlled airports it's probably worth flying anyway to keep the slot; you'll have some US citizens / permanent residents and their families, and you can fill the belly with cargo since you have spare weight. Might be worth it even for airports that aren't slot-controlled.

Here in NZ the largest airport with such slots has waived that rule for the duration meaning that airlines can reduce their flights without losing their slots (and therefore be more likely still be around to be a customer for the airport when it is all over)

Various aviation authorities in Europe are relaxing the requirements that is driving the slot controls & ghost flights. Don't have the link now but read it earlier.

Here is one link:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/mar/10/eu-airlines...

I suspect there will be flights, from the UK (which is why it was left off).

Which makes total sense since the UK is a haven from this pandemic... oh wait. Nope. It's spreading at bloody Heathrow itself: https://www.airport-technology.com/news/coronavirus-heathrow...

UK is currently 29th on total cases per million population (6.7). That's pretty far down the list.

27th (8.7). Things change pretty fast...

I suspect UK was left off because POTUS has resorts in Ireland and Scotland, and no where in Europe. There's nothing credible about UK being off the list while every surrounding country is on it.

The UK is an Island nation with entry controls - passports are required even from the EU and there is at least token screening at the airports and docks of people with fever or other virus symptoms.

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.

Yeah but the UK certainly has the coronavirus and more importantly, Heathrow has it. https://www.airport-technology.com/news/coronavirus-heathrow...

Note that technically the UK does not require passports for entry from the EU - identity cards are also fine.

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.

Airport screening doesn't work.

"token screening at the airports"

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.

The UK is about a week behind Europe in terms of covid 19

Is that more or less than the US itself?

Hard to say when the US doesn't test.

I thought it was a reward for our big beautiful breakfast

Well, apart from the trade sanctions incident https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/us-bombardi... and covering for the "diplomat" who killed someone with their car. It's looking a bit one sided these days.

No offence intended to Americans, but those guys are culturally much tougher negotiators than us. When they know they have leverage over you they don't hold back at all. We get caught out by this over and over again because we speak the same language so we think we understand what's going on, but we aren't awake to the nuances.

You might want to google Tizard Exchange for what happens when the US has us over a barrel. Or look at the outcomes of pretty much any attempt to extradite an American citizen vs US attempts to extradite a UK citizen.

POTUS has to have someplace to golf, brag about his being impeached, and make the Queen visibly uncomfortable.

for about 5 days maybe.

As a US citizen currently on a business trip out of the country, that's really good to know!

You may still fave mandatory quarantine. Plan accordingly.

PS- Good luck!

If at all possible, try to get a flight back on a US carrier or a connecting flight via London. It's more likely that Delta/United/American will operate a flight back to the US than for example Lufthansa flying a mostly empty plane to the US. Not in the least because it would look bad in PR terms for a US based airline to leave US citizens stranded in Europe, while a European carrier not flying to the US would attribute the same decision to "Trump does not allow us in".

immigration law does not apply to citizens, basically at all. customs does, but immigration does not.

a) is not only citizens but also permanent residents, which I believe do not have the same legal protections

IANAL, but while lawful permanent residents do not have the same protections, they still have certain protections that make it legally unclear whether the president can categorically bar entry without an immigration court proceeding for each individual:

"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)."

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/file/478111/download

It also does not apply to Lawful Permanent Residents (LPRs) AKA Greencard Holders

Thankfully it was just a small error... Also looks like it won't affect outbound flights either?

Outbound flights are going to get a hell of a lot more expensive if all the planes have to return to the US empty.

Nah, all planes are just going to be routed through a non-European destination en route back. The Azores are about to be very popular.

It's about whether you've been to Europe at all in the 14 days preceding, not about whether your immediate origin was European.

And for Schengen, you'll have a stamp in and out (assuming 1 passport).

No Schengen stamps if you already live in the Schengen area. Unless there is data sharing the US gov wouldn’t be able to see it from a passport.

I suppose it will be another question on the form. Next to ‘I am not a terrorist’

As a side-note: I saw the forms that my great grandparents had to fill out when entering the US from Europe back in 1905 or thereabouts. There was a checkbox for "anarchist"

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

The ban is on the Schengen area, which does include the Azores.

I live on an island. There are all sorts of weird legal things that play out on these bits of rock. I suspect that there are all sorts of lawyers reading interesting bits of definitions of treaties and history right now.

The Azores is part of Portugal, which is on the travel ban list.

They don't need to be routed through a non-European destination. Crew are exempt. The airlines will just deny boarding to people subject to the ban (which is non-exempt people who have been in Schengen in the last 14 days, not people who just came from there).

It's not a flight ban it's based on the physical presence of the traveller

The Azores are in Europe.

or Britain, or Turkey

Turkey is also erecting public event suspension (trade fairs and large ceremonies cancelled by today), so not going to work.

doesn't mean you can't fly to the US from there.

Not to mention probably there's only a small use case of going to Europe without needing to return.

US citizens can always return though. It's kind of unconstitutional to stop them from returning.

Just because citizens can legally return does not mean that doing so is viable or economical - the government has no legal obligation to make sure there are 1) flights to and from the US that 2) are affordable. Those are going to be the big issues.

> It's kind of unconstitutional to stop them from returning.

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.

There is the small matter of a 2-week quarantine upon return though.

Would assume that any flights booked in under 30 days before travel will be expensive no matter what the situation.

Dangerous assumption -- most domestic and international flights are the cheapest I have ever seen them.

I mean generally, if booking flights for the next week (in general) they are expensive.

Yes, in non-pandemic times that is true. :)

He made several errors. He also said Europe minus the UK was banned, but it's actually the Schengen Area.

Crew are also exempt.

Does it apply to H1B holders? (Are they “US residents”?)

I don't know for sure but my assumption is that H1B holders (and potentially green card holders, which are "permanent residents") are not excluded from this ban. As many others have mentioned here it's not easy to prevent a citizen from returning; permanent residents and visa holders can be refused entry much more easily.

I didn't write this rule though so I don't know if this interpretation is correct.

Most importantly, H1B holders are not permanent residents. It's very much a temporary. Most countries that are issuing travel bans exclude citizens and permanent residents.

This applies to H1B holders. Basically if you have a non-immigrant visa, you can assume this rule applies to you.

The rule only excludes US citizens, green card holders and their immediate families.

What about connecting flights with layover in Frankfurt?

Misspoke? It was a prepared statement read off a teleprompter. Please don't excuse it like a slip of the tongue.

Are you saying it is more accurate to call it a lie?

I imagine what he meant was that the administration is now backtracking on that statement.

Yes. I don't think it was a lie since it would needlessly create problems, but it was either the initial idea that was hastily revised after seeing the market reaction, or rank carelessness.

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.

That sounds like the subtext

Here is the paragraph from the transcript (https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-pres...)

> 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.

Yep looks like that's what happened: https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/1238310742748811264?s=20

In regular conversation, would you call cargo shipments “travel”? Probably not. Commerce, trade, or shipments would probably be used.

I didn't hear his exact words, but even with a teleprompter, I wouldn't be surprised if he misspoke.

He misread it, watch the video.

Unacceptable

[EDIT] Since the downvotes have started pouring in, I have to ask. Do you really attribute to this error to malice rather than stupidity? Given that the administration immediately (within minutes? edit: [0]yes, within minutes) made a correction I find it difficult to believe it was deliberate misinformation.

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...

Not malice.. I attribute it to DOW futures dropping 400 points within minutes of him saying that. So they backtracked as quickly as possible.

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.

Don't blame him, blame the incompetent people he hired?

You can hire a whole team of perfectly competent people and all it takes is one slip-up to ship the wrong version of a file. I have no love for the administration, but I find it frustrating that people are so eager to attribute every single error, regardless of impact, to one name.

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.

In a hypothetical world where our competent president and his competent staff made an occasional error, it would be reasonable to give the benefit of the doubt.

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.

I respect your position and the desire for professionalism. I differ in regard to the expectations of people, however. Even under the best of circumstances with the benefit of a lot of time (we don't have a clue about the intelligence that triggered this, so we don't know if they put this together in a day or a week) I still expect errors. Perhaps I'm cynical, but I just assume human beings will break things and screw up whenever they are given the opportunity. In the case of the white house press corps, there's a lot of opportunity for that.

That's why Obama had to issue immediate corrections regarding troop deployments, economy, and policies. There's too many moving parts.

I feel that this administration is actively hostile to the well-being of the United States, but I've been telling people since day 1 that it's counter productive to make fun of Trump and nit pick at every error regardless of how tiny or inconsequential. At the very best it diverts attention from the actual problems with this administration and at worst deepens into the political chasm we seem to have in this country.

I completely agree. It's objectively counter-productive to over-exaggerate every little thing.

Another theory: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/08/what-if-donald-t...

Blindness? Seriously?

He seems more like a dyslexic who's always over compensating with bluster to avoid reading.