Comment from Wilson, Ashleigh

I am writing as a concerned law student about this rule (Docket CDC-2026-0991) which would allow the Secretary to suspend the entry of Lawful Permanent Residents (LPRs) into the U.S. in the interest of public health. I believe that public health is of great importance, especially when the U.S. is faced with diseases such as the 2026 Ebola Disease Outbreak. However, there are many problems with suspending the entry of LPRs into the U.S. Number of Impacted People: To begin, the rule says “Federal quarantines or isolations of all such persons pending test results would be impracticable due to the potential numbers of persons involved if this necessary limitation is not imposed,” but does not clarify how many people the CDC expects this rule to impact. It is hard to see how this rule will truly alleviate logistical, resources, and personnel constraints if no estimates are provided. I would like to see a report on the number of people this is likely to impact. I don’t expect the numbers of LPRs who have traveled in the designated countries to be overwhelmingly high to justify this response. Extended Absence: Another concern is that LPRs who have traveled in the designated countries will be required to remain outside the U.S. for an extended period of time, leading to problems returning to the U.S. or applying for naturalization. An LPR has the right to travel temporarily outside the U.S. and return without issue if they have not relinquished their ties to our country. Absences of less than six months pose no problem for LPRs traveling abroad. Absences between six months and one year create a presumption of breaking continual presence in the U.S., but this presumption may be rebutted by the LPR. Absences of one year or longer automatically break continual presence, and, if an LPR is permitted to enter the country, they must restart their continual presence to reach the statutory requirement for naturalization. Because the expiration date of this rule is in six months or when the Secretary determines the rule is no longer needed, my concern is that many LPRs who are suspended from entering the country will face either a presumption or determination that they have broken continual presence in the U.S. I offer a few suggestions for avoiding these problems. First, allow LPRs to quarantine abroad before returning to the U.S. Quarantining during the disease incubation period will likely not push someone over the six months or one year mark. If LPRs are unable to effectively quarantine before returning, or if the quarantine period will push them past six months or one year abroad, allow for a “constructive date of return,” where LPRs can declare their intention to return to the U.S. and agree that they will return to the U.S. within 30 days after the borders are again open to them. This date should serve as the official date of return to the U.S. in order to keep continuous presence for purposes of re-entering the country and for applying for naturalization. When returning, LPRs who were suspended from entering the country and were abroad for more than six months but less than one year should not be questioned about abandoning their residency or required to provide evidence of their ties to the U.S. Communications should be shared across departments to identify those LPRs who are impacted to ensure that they do not face roadblocks when returning to the U.S. If an LPR is suspended from entering the country and remains abroad for longer than a year, or if their residency card expires during that suspension period, CDC should work alongside USCIS to provide information and help regarding the Application to Determine Returning Resident Status (form DS-117). This should include securing necessary documentation to demonstrate ties to the U.S. and other legal and administrative support to complete the forms. Regarding an application for naturalization, LPRs who are outside of the country for a year due to this rule should not have to restart their count of three or five years of continuous residency to be eligible for naturalization. Policy Considerations: On a policy note, sometimes the only thing that distinguishes an LPR from a naturalized citizen is an administrative process. Many LPRs have established a life, including a family, a job, a home, and other strong ties to the U.S. LPRs are part of American communities and public health crises over which they have no control should not stand in the way of maintaining their legal status in the U.S. LPRs should be treated more similarly to citizens rather than other non-citizens in a situation such as this. I urge the CDC and HHS to amend this rule to include allow LPRs to enter the country and participate in monitoring and quarantine in the U.S. Alternatively, I urge the addition of provisions that protect LPRs when the public health crisis subsides and they can return to the U.S. It is in the best interest of our country to do so.