Federal judge stays deportations of travelers in Trump immigration order

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/316714-federal-judge-blocks-trump-immigration-ban-nationwide

by anarazel • 9 years ago

664 280 9 years ago

thehill.com

coldcode• 9 years ago

I hope this is true. At least we still have a (mostly) independent judiciary.

bjshepard• 9 years ago

No, you don't.

umanwizard3• 9 years ago

Based on what?

philangist• 9 years ago

I think the title of this post is wrong. Here's another post - http://www.theverge.com/2017/1/28/14427086/federal-court-hal... - that states that "The court specifically ruled on Darweesh and Alshawi’s petition; the ACLU will have to include all other similarly-affected immigrants as part of a class action to have it apply more broadly."

anarazel• 9 years ago

I think it's fairly unclear for the moment. Some ACLU affiliated account twittered "stay is national": https://twitter.com/dale_e_ho/status/825521534383095809

MBCook• 9 years ago

I think that may have meant it applied to all airports as opposed to just the New York airports, but it could still only apply to the people who have already been held and not future travelers.

sveiss2• 9 years ago

The wording of the ruling looks like it applies nationally to me:

"WHEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the respondents, their officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all members and persons acting in concert or participation with than, from the date of this Order, are

ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED from, in any manner or by any means, removing individuals with refugee applications approved by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services as part of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, holders of valid immigrant and non-immigrant visas, and other individuals from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen legally authorized to enter the United States."

geofft2• 9 years ago

This is incorrect - the government tried to remove the ACLU's and NILC's standing by allowing Darweesh and Alshawi (the representative plaintiffs) through, but they prevailed in getting a stay on behalf of the class.

It looks like The Verge has fixed the sentence to "The court specifically ruled on Darweesh and Alshawi’s petition; other similarly-situated people being detained and those in transit are covered by the ruling, which is only temporary."

It is true that this doesn't stay the entire executive order. It just responds to the habeas-corpus bits for those who already made it to the US (including someone who was being placed on a plane leaving the US as the order was being made, and hopefully was allowed to get back off that plane).

_m8fo• 9 years ago

I'm sorry to report that it's not over yet:

Stay covers the airport detainees and those currently in transit. Doesn't change ban going forward. Prev unclear tweet deleted

https://twitter.com/JessicaHuseman/status/825525603491278848

Important clarification. This does not prevent Trump admin from blocking new travelers.

https://twitter.com/ericgeller/status/825525917602693120

joatmon-snoo• 9 years ago

Link to the current stay:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C3TahZ_WEAAzGAK.jpg:large

EDIT: better link

https://www.scribd.com/document/337807824/Darweesh-v-Trump

eternalban• 9 years ago

https://www.aclu.org/news/federal-court-grants-stay-challeng...

koheripbal• 9 years ago

Clear from the judges order that this only helps those few immigrants caught in transit during the order being signed.

throwaway5752• 9 years ago

More than you know.

The CBP was ignoring the court ruling in some airports (Dulles, at least). Federal Marshals were called upon to enforce it. https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/825571882586013696 (and others.

This is a true constitutional crisis, the worst in at least several generations.

AdmiralAsshat• 9 years ago

I was at the solidarity rally at the Dulles International Airport in Herndon, VA for a few hours, although I had left by the time this story broke. I'd wonder if it got announced to the crowd.

jackmott• 9 years ago

Please donate to the ACLU

jhwhite• 9 years ago

Joined today!

rdtsc• 9 years ago

What is the authority chain usually here. Can a Federal judge block other such executive orders? Is this used often

seanmcdirmid3• 9 years ago

The USA has clear separation and balance of powers, and the judiciary gets to rule on matters of law and constitution interpretation, so ya. It's like Rock Paper Scissors.

pmoriarty3• 9 years ago

Trump and the Republican Congress are going to appoint many judges during his term, including Supreme Court judges. That could be Trump's most enduring legacy.

bluejekyll3• 9 years ago

Unless the dems block all those nominnees. If they do, we could actually see some bipartisan work to appoint moderates.

sdenton4• 9 years ago

Given the Republican commitment to popular bipartisan work over the last eight years, I wouldn't hold my breath.

mikeash6• 9 years ago

How could they do that?

rayiner6• 9 years ago

The two alleged front runners on his SCOTUS list right now are moderates (Gorsuch and Hardiman). I'm not sure those two are all that distinguishable from Garland frankly.

ftrflyr• 9 years ago

Republicans control the house and senate. It is not going to happen.

woofyman3• 9 years ago

So Tump ignores the court and we have a constitutional crisis.

noobermin• 9 years ago

Let's wait for that to happen. Seriously, if this occurs (and we are all damn well aware Trump is capable of it), this will approach a whole new level of madness.

dheera• 9 years ago

Some part of me wants Trump to make this mistake, and make more big mistakes of the non-lethal variety quickly so that there is grounds to impeach him before he starts a war.

TillE• 9 years ago

The odds of that seem fairly high. Maybe not on this particular decision (I think he'd have a hard time convincing all immigration officials to break the law), but we're heading in that direction very rapidly.

TheCoelacanth• 9 years ago

Wasn't a very long wait: http://nypost.com/2017/01/29/customs-agents-ignore-judge-enf...

curt15• 9 years ago

That's what impeachment is for. Pence, not Trump, is the GOP establishment's preferred president.

jseliger2• 9 years ago

The ACLU is also reporting that the stay was granted: https://twitter.com/dale_e_ho/status/825520404777287680.

Many of you are probably watching the horror show unfold and wondering what tangible thing you can do. Joining or contributing to the ACLU is one small but important, specific way to help: https://action.aclu.org/secure/become-freedom-fighter-join-a....

https://twitter.com/seligerj/status/825529092414046208

RoboTeddy• 9 years ago

Just signed up with a monthly donation.

I think this is the only time I've left the "you may contact me" box ticked on a signup form.

methehack• 9 years ago

Monthly is the way to go as it gives them a stable base of support that they can plan with.

rallison• 9 years ago

Good call. I just set up monthly contributions and would urge others to as well.

knz4• 9 years ago

Is it possible to anonymously donate to the ACLU?

As a PR in the process of obtaining citizenship, a small fear of mine is that USCIS will start penalizing applicants that support organizations opposed to Trump. Today just proved that anything is possible and I'm sure we've all seen the stories about CBP asking to see the social media feeds of travelers in the past.

pvg5• 9 years ago

I wouldn't worry about it, with the ACLU.

jseliger2• 9 years ago

It looks like you can donate by check: https://www.aclu.org/how-you-can-help, but I don't see an option for cash or Bitcoin. I suppose it could be possible to donate cash in person at one of their physical offices

nnf• 9 years ago

I've been considering donating but never had until just now. I was going to give $10/mo but kicked it up to $15/mo on your behalf so you don't have to worry about donating yourself and experiencing negative consequences as a result. Good luck on obtaining your citizenship.

fictioncircle• 9 years ago

The best option is to give a friend you trust cash. They, in turn can donate by proxy and that is basically how Citizens United works so it should be safe enough.

There isn't really a good way to do it on your own unfortunately.

ewoodrich2• 9 years ago

It should be possible. I'm a Bitcoin skeptic but this is absolutely the model use-case.

yhager• 9 years ago

I'm replicating @nnf's response - never donated till now, figured I'll do $10 monthly, but bumped it to $15 for you.

baytrailcat2• 9 years ago

I was thinking the same thing. One obvious thing to do is not claim it as a tax deductible donation, since it will go into federal records, which is easily accessed by law enforcement. Getting your past credit card statements may require one more hoop to jump through for them.

Gosh.. how far have we fallen that we are seriously discussing this?

mirimir4• 9 years ago

It would be very cool if they accepted donations using Bitcoin etc.

tn13• 9 years ago

This has been my fear too. I suggest use SudoPay.

pmarreck• 9 years ago

Perfect use case for Bitcoin, by the way.

I'm tired of donating to someone un-anonymously and then basically getting harassed for years.

UnoriginalGuy• 9 years ago

I donated but only $5/month. Hopefully that is an actual donation after credit card processing fees. Hopefully I can make it $10/month later this year.

geofft2• 9 years ago

Thank you. I know "every bit counts" is corny, but we can do the math: $5 less Stripe processing fees (to pick a representative number) is $4.55. If every one of the 65,844,954 who voted for Hillary donated $4.55 a month, that would be just shy of $300 million a month.

The ACLU's 2015 financials showed them operating on $94 million a year ($79 million of which was from normal contributions): https://www.charitynavigator.org/?bay=search.summary&orgid=3...

In 2015, they laid off 7% of their staff, saying that they had a regular annual deficit of $15 million: http://wpo.st/6DkW2

If you and everyone else who supports the ACLU's goals donates $5 a month, the ACLU would be orders of magnitude better funded and more effective.

jfoutz• 9 years ago

My current approach is to donate $10 every time i start typing a political rant on social media. Once i get to a state where i don't quite have that urge so often, i'll switch to a regular payment.

ubernostrum• 9 years ago

I was at SFO until a little after 2AM. The things most frightening me right now are (not just SFO but multiple locations):

1. CBP appears to be willfully disobeying orders from federal courts.

2. CBP also is reportedly refusing to speak to sitting members of Congress, they only report to Trump, when Congress most certainly does have oversight powers and the ability to call CBP on the carpet.

At this point I'm seeing open speculation about whether/when a federal court will just send in the US Marshals to start perp-walking CBP personnel out of the airports in leg irons. And that is not a good place for a country which allegedly has the rule of law to be.

candu• 9 years ago

This.

If you have the means - and a lot of us here on HN do - consider going a step further and matching donations from friends and family. Many employers also have donation matching programs, and if yours doesn't now is the time to ask.

gdulli• 9 years ago

If the ban goes to the Supreme Court and is struck down because Trump didn't wait to fill the vacancy with a loyalist first, he'll have essentially failed the marshmallow test.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C2V-XWcVIAAoel4.jpg

JumpCrisscross2• 9 years ago

The only way it goes to SCOTUS is if the government appeals.

helthanatos• 9 years ago

He could just play the executive order dance

bluejekyll3• 9 years ago

Given that this only effects those in transit (based on a comment in another thread) it probably wouldn't hit the Supreme Court before people finally end their trips and get to the US.

NhanH• 9 years ago

Contrary to (common?) belief, I'm not convinced that someone like Scalia would have let the ban stay.

ci5er• 9 years ago

How could he have let the ban stay -- in its current form? Many people didn't like his decisions for various of their own preferences for particular outcomes, but he generally didn't "make new law" with his decisions.

chc• 9 years ago

Yeah, Scalia was certainly conservative and had some literal-genie interpretations of the Constitution, but he wasn't exactly a lapdog. It seemed like he had a fairly libertarian interpretation of the first amendment and probably wouldn't have approved of thinly veiled religious discrimination.

rayiner6• 9 years ago

This wouldn't have five votes even with a Trump nominee. I'm not sure it'd have three.

village-idiot7• 9 years ago

I'd be pretty scared if it has one. It's pretty clearly illegal.

WildUtah• 9 years ago

It's going to get at least four votes for Trump, maybe nine.

zeroer10• 9 years ago

That's funny.

benmorris• 9 years ago

Donated to the ACLU for the first time today. I also plan to call my representative on Monday.

daodedickinson• 9 years ago

The text of Trump's temporary order is mostly copy-pasted from temporary orders enacted by Obama that have withstood scrutiny, so I wouldn't get hopes up for a full reversal.

general_ai2• 9 years ago

It's quite telling that when Obama had summarily banned Iraqi refugees for 6 months in 2011 we have heard nary a peep from the press.

Malician• 9 years ago

Did this apply to persons who had green cards or visas?

themooingpig• 9 years ago

Trump is banning visa and Green Card holders from returning to the States. This is notably different.

mistersquid2• 9 years ago

This report (dated 13 July 2011) by the NYTimes with the title "Visa Delays Put Iraqis Who Aided U.S. in Fear" is the exact opposite of "nary a peep". [0]

[0] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/13/world/middleeast/13baghdad...

EDIT: remove appositional identification of the NYTimes as "widely considered the US newspaper of record". Change from interrogative to declarative mood.

mdarens• 9 years ago

The State Department implemented new layers of bureaucracy at the start of 2011 which acted as a de facto impediment/delay to applicants in the Iraqi refugee program, and were rightly criticized at the time. [1]

This differs substantially from an affirmative ban which stranded people at airports.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/13/world/middleeast/13baghdad...

moflome• 9 years ago

FYI, Chris Sacca is matching grants to ALCU up to $150K...

https://twitter.com/sacca/status/825475296614707200

hackuser6• 9 years ago

More precisely, it only blocks part of Trump's order:

"Judge Ann Donnelly of the US District Court in Brooklyn granted a request from the ACLU to stay deportations of those detained on entry to the United States following President Trump's executive order."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/refugees-...

wslh• 9 years ago

Wow, it seems like US is a 24-hour reality show now.

Delmania• 9 years ago

What do you expect when a reality tv star is elected president?

jkelsey• 9 years ago

We fucked up. We got too confident and comfortable. For one, I'm sorry. There's a lot of other Americans out here for think and feel the same way.

To everybody that warned us about Trump, We cannot express to you how regretful we are. We've really got a lot to make up for.

thinkcomp• 9 years ago

Docket: https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/33xszihl6/new-york-eastern...

Order PDF: https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/download.html?id=242131326...

refurb3• 9 years ago

If anyone thinks that this ruling is a surprise to the Trump administration, think again. I have no doubt that he conferred with his AG about his executive order and discuss possible outcomes such as a judge blocking his order. Maybe he expected this outcome?

Regardless, we'll see what his next move is.

woofyman3• 9 years ago

He doesn't have an AG yet.

refurb3• 9 years ago

Alright, good point. But I'm sure he has legal advisors.

ceejayoz3• 9 years ago

Maybe he expected this outcome?

If you subscribe to the "provoke outrage to cover something else" theory, this might be it: https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/politics/trump-holds-...

Trump added Breitbart's Bannon to the National Security Council, and demoted the Director of National Intelligence and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from it to make room.

jacquesm• 9 years ago

Trump added Breitbart's Bannon to the National Security Council

That's pure madness. That guy shouldn't even be close to a baseball bat, let alone sitting in on the NSC.

alayne• 9 years ago

kchoudhu• 9 years ago

It's fairly obvious from a reading of the text that Trump (or more likely Bannon) didn't consult any kind of lawyer or national security officer while crafting the order.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/malevolence-tempered-incompetenc...

pizza• 9 years ago

Does anybody have experience with the logistics involved in organizing strangers against such actions?

dvt• 9 years ago

From what I've read, most of today's protests have been ad hoc. Most just famous or political people saying "Show up at JFK" or "Show up at LAX".

The fact that so many people gathered (at so many airports) without any kind of major force behind them shows that this order was clearly misguided.

a3n2• 9 years ago

A little OT, I guess, but the WaPo's story about this repeats a map I've seen that shows the seven countries.

Conspicuously absent are Egypt, Saudi Arabia, UAE and Lebanon, which is where the people who hijacked the 9/11 planes, the worst, and most logistically complex, terrorist act against the US ever, were from. Where's the logic? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks#FBI

I don't at all think that this order should be in effect, but I don't see the logic in its implementation.

hyperpape2• 9 years ago

I have yet to see anyone try to justify the choice of countries. I know I live in a bit of a bubble with regard to the particular Trump brand of conservatism, but I usually see people arguing the opposite side, even if it's just being quoted by people who agree with me.

sveiss2• 9 years ago

The choice of countries actually dates back to a 2015 Act of Congress restricting access to the Visa Waiver Program to nationals or prior recent visitors of certain countries. These people will have had to apply for a visa instead, and presumably are subject to more stringent checking than most.

The list of countries wasn't defined by Congress beyond Iraq and Syria (presumably thanks to those being specifically called out in the name "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria"). It did include provision for the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security to designate additional countries.

My gut feeling is that the current administration didn't choose to target the same countries deliberately, but rather chose to incorporate the prior legislation by reference as a defence against legal challenges.

The EO wording is that "immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States". The referenced legislation is here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1187#a_12 .

grzm8• 9 years ago

I haven't seen this list referenced by the administration as the rationale, but the list of countries is the same as those included in a question added to the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) application in June 2016, which addresses countries DHS considers at higher risk:

Have you traveled to, or been present in, Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, or Yemen on or after March 1, 2011?

https://www.cbp.gov/travel/international-visitors/visa-waive...

Please note that I really don't understand the details of the visa process in general or this program in particular, or how DHS arrived at this list of countries. I'm just submitting it as an pre-existing list of countries the DHS has expressed concern about with respect to immigration and visas. Nor do I have any reference that this list was used for the Executive Order. That said, it does seem reasonable to imagine that similar reasoning was used in choosing the countries listed in the Executive Order.

Laforet• 9 years ago

Not that I agree with the EO, but the logic behind it was that 6 of those 7 countries have ongoing insurgencies involving the IS, and Iran was dragged in there due to either existing prejudice or more likely their involvement in Syria and Iraq.

If this was entirely driven by religion they'd better put Bosnia and Albania on the list too.

gozur882• 9 years ago

Plus the most populous Islamic country, Indonesia.

ardit33• 9 years ago

Albania is actually mostly atheist/agnostic country. It has three religions on paper but most people are not religious at all. It is a staunch US ally and part of NATO as well.

That logic doesn't hold water. If the rule was banning any country that has any muslims then it would ban 98% of European countries, as all have a %percentage of practicing muslims.

This rule seems more like a childish fit, to appease to the base voter that voted out of fear of muslims in general.

davedx• 9 years ago

Iran was dragged in there due to either existing prejudice or more likely their involvement in Syria and Iraq.

Definitely the latter. They are directly opposed to Saudi Arabia and Wahhabism. [1] Saudi Arabia is an ally of the United States. It is a kind of Middle Eastern Cold War (war by proxy).

[1] http://www.middleeasteye.net/essays/proxies-and-politics-why...

nikdaheratik• 9 years ago

Of course, if they're battling extremists insurgencies, then likely they aren't going to give as much push back diplomatically, and very little that matters. IMO, the administration would have banned more if they weren't worried about a backlash from key military allies in the region.

olalonde• 9 years ago

This was discussed quite extensively in a previous thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13508220

zaroth• 9 years ago

There's no need for wild theories. The list of countries was previously chosen by the Obama administration. The EO specifically orders for additional research into amending the list of countries in the future.

[1] https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/01/28/us/politics/annotating...

". . . I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order . . . The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall submit to the President a list of countries recommended for inclusion on a Presidential proclamation that would prohibit the entry of foreign nationals."

jayess• 9 years ago

No one seems to be talking about that fact that Trump can do these things because the Congress has specifically authorized the president to do so. It seems as though a massive amount of power in one person's hands is OK is some situations but not in others, depending on one's political persuasion.

And the list of countries is from Homeland Security's list of "countries of concern" compiled during the Obama administration. And signed into law by Obama himself.

https://sethfrantzman.com/2017/01/28/obamas-administration-m...

Of course some will blast me as supporting Trump or supporting this ban. Not true.

mhneu2• 9 years ago

Criticism of Franzman who called Arendt a white supremacist: https://engageonline.wordpress.com/2016/06/16/7958/amp/

Also, Trump's order applies to green card holders. This is a major and worrying expansion beyond a refugee pause. http://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN15C0R4

Also the problem isn't the "amount of power", the problem is using that power badly. And yes many wish Obama accepted even more refugees. https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/08/25/opinion/anne-frank-tod...

FrancoDiaz• 9 years ago

Also the problem isn't the "amount of power", the problem is using that power badly.

That's disturbing, but not surprising. I guess unchecked power is ok with you as long as it's policies that you're OK with being implemented.

geezerjay5• 9 years ago

Also the problem isn't the "amount of power", the problem is using that power badly.

Actually, the problem is precisely the "amount of power".

You can't grant someone the power to do something and then proceed to assume that no one could actually do it.

If it's supposed to be impossible to implement, don't build the tools to do it.

markbnj• 9 years ago

They're not talking about that because it's not relevant here. People are reacting to the action he took. The basis for it and the underlying legal structures are a different, or at least tangential conversation. If the house is on fire that may not be the right time to discuss why someone was allowed to store flammable chemicals next to the furnace.

nerfhammer• 9 years ago

And signed into law by Obama himself.

In lieu of "blasting" you, can I ask how this is relevant? Does this change something? It doesn't seem the same to say a country is of concern vs. effectively suspending all visa entry including permanent residents with zero notice after campaigning on banning Muslims. Are these two things comparable?

pitaj3• 9 years ago

The idea that a president should ever have this power is ridiculous. Only people who think that their president is a benevolent figure would dare support this ability. So yes, it is relevant, because people should start asking, "what if [insert evil politician] had this kind of power?" That would prevent these issues from being possible in the first place.

closeparen• 9 years ago

It seems as though a massive amount of power in one person's hands is OK is some situations but not in others, depending on one's political persuasion.

Yes. What's wrong here is the actual policy, not the details of how it came to be policy. Political views are not morally equivalent or something just because they're political views.

pitaj3• 9 years ago

What's wrong here is allowing a single person to have the ability to do this in the first place. Giving a single person power over controlling who can enter the country should raise of huge red flag, regardless of political persuasion. Those who allowed this ability to be in the president's hands are at least at equal fault for allowing this to happen.

theGimp2• 9 years ago

I'm an Iraqi Canadian with a Muslim name, so I know a little more than the average person about this issue.

I can tell you that what Trump is doing is unequivocally worse than what Obama did. One of the things Obama did when he became president was make it easier for nationals of several Arab countries (including Iraq) to travel into the United States.

After the 9/11 attacks, the Bush administration required travellers from a number of Arab countries to disclose their travel plans at entry. It also placed limitations on their movement within the US. Obama and the Democrats waived that requirement. Unfortunately I can't remember the name of this law, and I couldn't find it now. If you can find it and comment with the name, I'd greatly appreciate it. (see update below)

What Obama did in 2015 might have been negative for Arabs who come from the nations affected, but he still left the process better than he had received it.

Also, he didn't campaign on banning Muslims from entering the US, didn't thoughtlessly keep out Green Card holders and dual citizens, didn't say "Islam doesn't like us".

There is no comparison between Obama and Trump.

Edit: it was NSEERS. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Entry-Exit_R...

I should point out I'm not criticizing your opinion, which is entirely valid. Just pointing out how I see it myself.

justthefacts• 9 years ago

6 of the 7 countries facing a temporary ban, are happy to enforce a permanent ban on Israeli Jews from entering their lands.

geezerjay5• 9 years ago

I can tell you that what Trump is doing is unequivocally worse than what Obama did.

The point was that Obama established the legal infrastructure to enact this law, and without this legal infrastructure Trump's actions wouldn't be possible to implement.

Sure, Trump is responsible for his policies. Yet, no one can turn a blind eye on the mishap that enabled these mistakes to be made.

Even if a straw ultimately broke the proverbial camel's back, that doesn't eliminate the responsibility of the predecessor who piled heaps of straw on the camel.

aomurphy• 9 years ago

No, the point of the stay is that he cannot.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/opinion/trumps-immigratio...

See:

8 U.S. Code § 1152 - Numerical limitations on individual foreign states

See this analysis https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/opinion/trumps-immigratio...

Also, the ACLU's complaint is that permanent residence holders are being denied due process by being kicked out of the country without legal recourse, so it is not purely by the policy. See Judge Donelly's Stay Order: https://twitter.com/joshleitzel/status/825529124986900480/ph...

jandrewrogers• 9 years ago

The "No Fly List" unilaterally revoked the right of countless innocent American citizens to travel for many months without any notice or redress -- most found out when they tried to travel. The precedent has been around for a long time and is still winding its way through the courts 15 years later. (Americans have the right to travel freely by common conveyance per the Supreme Court from way back. The government has managed to avoid having this question adjudicated through a variety of procedural gimmicks, keeping the list in force.)

Visa holders can explicitly have their entry privileges revoked without cause at any time; it may be a questionable practice but it is still entirely within the express letter of the law for such things. If American citizens don't have standing to travel freely even to return home, then visa holders certainly don't and the former abhorrent practice still has not been fully adjudicated. Visa holders are not going to have rights that have eluded American citizens in recent years.

matwood• 9 years ago

Border detainment and no fly lists have been an ongoing problem for the last 2 administrations. There was some outrage on sites like HN, but generally no one seemed to care. It's nice that people are getting mad, but it is bothersome that Trump had to get elected for people to finally notice.

grzm8• 9 years ago

You're right that Congress has been slowly ceding a lot of its presidential oversight responsibilities. That's been going on a long time, not just during the Obama administration. It goes back at least as far as 9/11 and likely well before.

While it would have been great to see more opposition to this earlier, I'm glad to see people making noise about it now. With the hyper-polarization we've got right now in the US it's hard for people to step back and realize there are actually things that we agree on, regardless of who we may have voted for. Knee-jerk reactions that rationalize why we can't work together is one of the things that's been keeping us from moving forward as a country.

Gibbon1• 9 years ago

Trump can do these things because the Congress has specifically authorized the president to do so.

Brighter liberals I know have complained that Obama and the Democrats in congress by passing these laws were handing the next Republican President the legal equivalent of a loaded gun.

village-idiot7• 9 years ago

Largely unrestricted executive power is like leaving bear traps open and armed in your living room. 9 times out of 10 you're going to step around them, but one day your trip to make coffee is going to really suck.

tony101• 9 years ago

"IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that to assure compliance with the Court's order, the Court directs service of this Order upon the United States Marshal for the Eastern District of New York, and further directs the United States Marshals Service to take those actions deemed necessary to enforce the provisions and prohibitions set for in this order."

Is the U.S. Marshals Service part of the judicial or executive branch?

(Source: https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/darweesh-v-trump-decisio...)

cderwin6• 9 years ago

Executive. It is part of the Department of Justice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Marshals_Service

rayiner6• 9 years ago

Its in a weird situation where it is technically part of the DOJ, but its primary statutory duty is to carry out the orders of the judicial branch: 28 U.S.C. § 566.

mhneu2• 9 years ago

While many Trump stories should be flagged, some are important for society and for HN to discuss.

This is one of those important stories. Americans can not stick their heads in the sand about these anti-muslim actions.

Please do not delete this story. The American and global tech community needs to discuss this. Trump and his advisors win when HN deletes stories like this.

geezerjay5• 9 years ago

This is one of those important stories. Americans can not stick their heads in the sand about these anti-muslim actions.

The thing is, Trump was elected mainly because a large percentage of americans explicitly asked for these anti-muslim actions to be implemented.

It would be disingenuous to assume that these actions, no matter how much ill-advised they are, aren't sought by a significant number of US citizens.

In a related issue, tech forums are typically packed with discussions regarding immigration, where US citizens complain about foreign workers, including legal workers and the visa programs that enabled them to work in the US. Now that Trump was democratically elected, US citizens shouldn't just pretend that the US has some unresolved issues regarding immigration, protectionism, and even issues regarding race, religious, and cultural differences.

zeroer10• 9 years ago

I feel alone on this board in thinking this. While I believe the execution of the order was clumsy (why ban green card holders who have already made a life for themselves here and people already mid-flight?), the people of any nation have the right to self determination and have to have complete control over who comes into their country. Trump did not hide his intentions about what he was going to do once in office. He said it loudly and repeatedly. And he still got roughly half the votes.

matt40774• 9 years ago

Two issues:

Regarding the specific cases currently making the news, I believe there's a competing argument that people should have the assurance that their personal relation with the government is governed by a set of predictable rules and not subject to sudden and dramatic changes. That would include that any administration is in some way bound by the commitments of their predecessors. To use a less controversial example: If I painted the walls in the white house, finishing 10 minutes before Trump was sworn in, should the new administration be required to pay me?

Secondly, there are limits to the power of the majority, even in a democracy: "Democracy isn't two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner". These limits are defined by the constitution. The bill of rights for individual rights, and much of the rest for the mechanisms of government. That's why Trump won't be God-Emperor His Trumpitrump the First, even though he could probably get the electoral college votes for it.

That may seem somewhat unconstitutional, and it requires a definition of "democracy" that is far more complicated than majority-rule, which is sometimes called "the tyranny of the majority".

village-idiot7• 9 years ago

Beyond moral rules, the President's power is constrained both by the Constitution and Congress. He is not within his right to issue executive orders that violate the previous.

anthony_romeo• 9 years ago

This is an embarrassment.

Even if you completely agree with what the order does, it's impossible to claim that the implementation of this was anything other than a complete and utter disaster. No warning, no clear way to enforce the order, widespread protest, and getting the courts involved within 24 hours.

This is going to have ramifications for years to come. We want to encourage the world's best and brightest to come here, and a precedent of unannounced, widespread, severe changes to enforcement of the laws will cause people to reconsider.

This is utter negligence and I'm ashamed of my country.

known• 9 years ago

Can US survive without "importing" OPEC Oil? bloom.bg/1O04ymn

problems3• 9 years ago

Note that he didn't ban Saudis who have a fairly well known record for state sponsored terrorism.

They also have lots of oil.

woofyman3• 9 years ago

CNN is reporting that the White House over ruled the DHS when it came to green cards.

Friday night, DHS arrived at the legal interpretation that the executive order restrictions applying to seven countries -- Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Sudan and Yemen -- did not apply to people who with lawful permanent residence, generally referred to as green card holders. The White House overruled that guidance overnight, according to officials familiar with the rollout. That order came from the President's inner circle, led by Stephen Miller and Steve Bannon. Their decision held that, on a case by case basis, DHS could allow green card holders to enter the US.

problems3• 9 years ago

I've seen a few references to this applying to people with dual citizenship too - is that true or is this only effecting permanent residents?

tempestn2• 9 years ago

Dual citizenship with one of the listed countries and another country (including close allies like UK and Canada), not dual citizenship with the US.

TorKlingberg• 9 years ago

It is truly scary that someone like Bannon has power.

pandaman• 9 years ago

And the DHS has responded to this ruling already: https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/01/29/department-homeland-secu...

No foreign national in a foreign land, without ties to the United States, has any unfettered right to demand entry into the United States or to demand immigration benefits in the United States.

macrael• 9 years ago

What do we do when the executive branch starts ignoring the orders of the judiciary?

MisterBastahrd• 9 years ago

It's Congress' responsibility to impeach him.

DanBC3• 9 years ago

For the people who support the ban: do you realise it was catching people in transit, who had no intention of staying in the US?

Here's one woman who was flying from Costa Rica to Scotland. Her initial flight transited through the US, where she was told her transit visa was no longer valid.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-38788116

_andromeda_15• 9 years ago

I'd like to know why anyone thinks America owes anyone anything?

The ban is absolutely necessary. You Americans have a great country but you're going to ruin it if you don't take your time to listen to Trump.

There is no way that unchecked immigration is a good thing for any country in the world let alone America.

I've heard what has been said about how immigration made America what it is today - great. However, immigration should be based on whether the immigrant will add value to your country. If an immigrant is coming to set up a business, do further studies and other positive things like that, then by all means provide them with a way to come in.

However, if there's a threat of terrorism from the immigrant or if they aren't adding value but will instead be recipients of welfare all I can ask is, WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON?

How can you sustain this? You cannot save everyone in the world. You just can't. The best you can do is help them from a camp in their own country and even then, it's your choice as a country that has fair elections.

Why did you even have these elections if you're going to disallow the president that you yourselves chose in FAIR elections to do his jobs. Is there anything new that Trump is doing that he did not promise his voters he would do? If not, then you're saying that the majority of the people that chose Trump don't deserve to be heard and that only your views matter.

And don't even get me started on that business of, 'we didn't vote for him...he didn't get the popular vote'.

Why is it okay for previous presidents who won in the electoral college to be legitimized but not Trump? This is absolutely UNFAIR and selfish of anti-Trumpians. Remember, you take away California and Trump actually wins the popular vote anyway. To me, this is a clear indication that one state wants to bully the rest of the country into doing things their way and their way only. So UNFAIR.

Without getting into my country of origin, I will tell you this; we too are building a wall to stop illegal aliens from a neighboring Muslim country from getting in. These fundamentalists are really terrible human beings. We have lost so many lives to their suicide attacks. Friends and families losing their loved ones to these actions. I remember a time we were so scared of the attacks that we had to close offices in the daytime when working and verify you knew who was knocking on the door before letting them in. It was a terrible time and with a recent attack, last week to more precise, the fear is coming back. I just wish we had finished putting up our wall by now and that it was as strong as the proposed American one.

People have to be responsible for their own country. They have to build their own countries and stop the fundamentalism.

DanBC3• 9 years ago

Here's a woman who was travelling from Costa Rica to Scotland. The flight stops in the US. She had a correct transit visa. She was stoppend because of Trump's ban.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-38788116

How many Americans have been killed by Scottish-Iranian vets?

_andromeda_15• 9 years ago

How do you suppose you can deal with radicalized immigrants if you're indiscriminate about immigration?

It is a temporary ban first of all.

Secondly, it is not just about security. It is also about welfare.

I'm not a proponent of welfare but if you must have it, then you cannot possibly combine that with unrestricted immigration because the logical outcome of that is a population full of immigrants on welfare voting themselves more welfare. Is that how America was built? No. It was built by hard working intelligent people to a country that is the envy of many today.

danso9• 9 years ago

In what way does the U.S. have "unchecked immigration"?

Edit: also, you have a bizarrely pessimistic view of immigrants' and refugees' potential to contribute to their host country. My parents were part of the flood of refugees that came after the fall of Saigon. Like the incoming Syrians today, they were taken in by American families and lived off of welfare for years. Now they, and their children, contribute to the nation's bottom-line, never mind the goodwill that America incurs by taking in people of need.

_andromeda_15• 9 years ago

I am against indiscriminate immigration policies.

There are always trade-offs. For every good immigrants such as your folks, there are those who are utterly destructive. This is just a fact. Therefore, you cannot be careless about who comes into your country. Some people just don't want the same things that you do. They prefer chaos because after death, they will meet their maker and get rewarded for their fundamentalism.

It then becomes a question of, do you accept the downside if the upside is as mundane as perceived goodwill. I think not.

I repeat, not all can be saved and for that matter, not all want to be saved. Some of them actually hate America and as soon as they are in, they will hurt Americans on purpose.

aliakhtar2• 9 years ago

Why is it okay for previous presidents who won in the electoral college to be legitimized but not Trump?

The only other president who won EC but not popular vote was George W Bush.

_andromeda_15• 9 years ago

Yes but all others weren't legitimized because of the popular vote. It was because of the electoral college. If ever there was a problem with the current system, you should have fixed it then and not complain now that Trump won.

75dvtwin• 9 years ago

I personally support the executive order in its motif.

Radicalization of US-born or US-admitted Muslims by clerics, relatives, social media -- is real, eg [1] (Fort-hood terrorist), San-Bernardino terrorists [2].

Therefore, the argument could not just be about questioning if any visa/green card holder for the initial list of 7 'banned-county -->to--> Muslim terrorist perpetrating killing on US soil'.

It is a preventive measure, with a time limit . Very appropriate for this period of time, given the war with ISIS.

I am not, however, impressed with the execution or the preparation that went into this particular order. I would like to see a different level of scrutiny and reduced personal inconvenience afforded to US green card holders.

Appreciate that majority on this forum, including highly respected scientists, will disagree with me. But please allow the expression of, at-least partially informed dissent.

[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rizwan_Farook_and_Tashfeen_Mal...

aclissold• 9 years ago

All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.

ryanx435• 9 years ago

Not all terrorists are muslims, just a majority of them in our current time. This is due to the destabilization of the region more than their religion, although the more radical versions of the religion certainly play a part. Similar things occured in Ireland back in the day: terrorism created by destabilization and fueled by radical religious zeal.

Edit: my auto correct sucks

Federal judge stays deportations of travelers in Trump immigration order

Related Stories