Immigration

Federal Judge Orders 'Sweeping' Stay of Trump's Immigration Ban

Says officials may not remove, detain or block entry of those with valid immigration visas.

|

protests
Ronen Tivony/ZUMA Press/Newscom

Add another significant federal judge ruling to the complex mess that has followed President Donald Trump's executive order blocking immigrants—even those with green cards and visas—from entering the United States from a handful of countries.

A federal judge in Los Angeles, in response to case filed on behalf of 28 Yemeni-born folks who got caught up in Trump's order, has put out an order intended to halt the whole thing for now. Based on the Los Angeles Times report of the order, this is a broader ruling than what a judge decided on Saturday, which only stopped the government from removing those affected by the order. Here's this newest order (via the Los Angeles Times):

Notably, in his ruling, [U.S. District Judge Andre] Birotte forbade federal officials from "removing, detaining, or blocking the entry" of affected travelers or "cancelling validly obtained and issued immigrant visas of plaintiffs." The wording would seem to mean that government officials would not be allowed to continue the practice of instructing airlines and border officials in other countries to stop immigrants from the affected countries from boarding planes bound for the U.S.

The Times does not provide a link to the ruling as yet and the story isn't widely being picked up at the moment. And there have been other relevant court rulings as well since the first stay on Saturday night. As reporter Joel Rubin notes, though, it's hard to determine what the actual impact of the ruling may be, because it's not even clear to the extent that the administration is abiding by previous rulings. Rubin said they're seeing reports at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) of travelers still being turned back.

Below, Reason went and chatted with protesters at LAX:

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

110 responses to “Federal Judge Orders 'Sweeping' Stay of Trump's Immigration Ban

    1. yes.

      I suspect the likelihood is that these judges are hoping the admin will be so pressured to back off the thing that they don’t bother appealing it.

      because from everything i’ve seen, most of it is probably entirely constitutional. (*with exceptions re: the green-card holders)

      1. It’s constitutional, but the statutes re immigrant visa holders are at issue.

      2. But it’s a mess, a mess that could have been mostly avoided. And again, I fail to see how any of this helps Trump even if it all is eventually ruled to be constitutional.

        1. Considering the polls show that a majority is in favor of this EO I’m not sure that this was a net loss for Trump.

          1. Considering the polls show that a majority is in favor of this EO

            Was that what it said? i don’t think so. I think it was a plurality (not majority) think we need to ‘limit refugees’ (or some similar wording), but that would only sort-of apply to part of the EO, rather than the whole thing, which included more than just a reduction of the target # being taken in 2017.

            i’ve pointed out a couple of times that refugees are not really ever that popular in the US. We tend to be skeptical of people from “fucked up countries” and tend to be more welcoming of immigrants from places we ourselves like to visit.

            1. I think it was a plurality (not majority) think we need to ‘limit refugees’

              “1* Do you favor or oppose a temporary ban on refugees from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen until the federal government improves its ability to screen out potential terrorists from coming here?
              2* Do you favor or oppose a temporary block on visas prohibiting residents of Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen from entering the United States until the federal government improves its ability to screen out potential terrorists from coming here?”

              57% and 56% support, 33% 32% oppose.

              1. Oh, but apparently Reason reported 49% for a different poll Tuesday.

        2. I fail to see how any of this helps Trump even if it all is eventually ruled to be constitutional.

          I don’t think it does.

          I’m not on board with the people who think its Nth dimensional chess… but can see the “its what his supporters want”-argument, at least partly.

          I do realize that the ‘costs’ mostly come in the form of “outrage” from a group of people who would be outraged regardless of what he does. It effectively amounts to “there’s no point to doing things ‘the easy way’ – or the least-disruptive-way, because the opposition is going to call you Hitler regardless”

          I don’t really think that makes a lot of sense – because i think there are probably plenty of people like me who didn’t vote for Trump, but ARENT particularly outraged or disgusted by him… and are just tired of the retardation from both sides.

          I do think there is a political argument for “do as much of the awful/unpopular stuff ASAP” that you need to do in order to claim you were keeping your campaign promises…. so that you can free yourself up to be ‘statesmanlike’ later on in your term.

          The corporate-earnings version of it is, “get the bad news out fast, and slow pedal the good news”; I think trial lawyers do the same thing = evidence which is bad for your side, get it out ASAP and dump it on the jury. That leaves you the rest of the case to deal with other things.

        3. Because it satisfies an “honest attempt” at meeting one of his biggest campaign promises I suppose. It is a mess no doubt, but 90% of this mess is due to it being Trump who signed the EO vs (pick your democrat.) They should have done their homework though and narrowed their focus to just refugees and called it good..the Green Card holders is an issue.

          1. Yes. No more refugees, stop issuing visas and green cards. Those already holding visas and green cards simply grandfather them in. The EO was overly broad, clumsy and unnecessarily disruptive.

            The whole damned thing is temporary anyway.

        4. Any immigration changes would be a mess, on top of an already existing mess. Crusty’s either doubling down on phony outrage or smoking the industrial strength crack tripping balls about a time when government processes weren’t a catastrophe.

          Looks like the same old regular order to me. Righties are happy their champion is out fighting the good fight, the lefties are happy out there pretending to be the underdog, Obama’s playing golf and Trump’s having steaks in the White House. The people who see this as any kind of catastrophe, watch too much fucking TV or are just purely delusional.

      3. Its definitely constitutional but parts of it are likely unlawful. I’d like to see the order.

        “cancelling validly obtained and issued immigrant visas of plaintiffs.”

        As opposed to non-immigrant visas (like student or tourist).

        It is likely that discriminating on the basis of national origin for immigrant visas is illegal but it is certainly not for non-immigrant visas or refugees. I only say likely because the are multiple statutes that contradict each other and themselves and it will need to be litigated.

      4. It was what a 120 day ban? I think Trump was just trying to placate his base supporters, make a show right out of the gates that he’s keeping promises; but at the end of the day not really change shit.

        Obviously though, Trump breathing is a mortal sin to some at the moment, so executive orders might as well be death sentences.

        1. I think Trump was just trying to placate his base supporters, make a show right out of the gates that he’s keeping promises; but at the end of the day not really change shit.

          I agree. This accomplishes very little other than really pissing off people that Trump’s base delights in pissing off. Since, as Gilmore points out, his opposition goes straight to “worse than Hitler” no matter what he does, there’s no reason not to do the most offensive-yet-ineffective thing possible as his supporters cheer him on.

          1. Even conservative sites like National Review state that the ban would have had far less resistance and media blowup if it had been done without confusion, for example green card holders first being held, and then later clarified that they were not part of the ban. I know it’s a no-no to criticize anything that the amazing leader has done, but I think in this case, he brought on the media backlash and created unnecessary drama. As a CEO, I would expect him to realize that laying people off on a Friday with absolutely no forewarning and no severance, and no advance notice for the managers that have to perform the layoffs is bad for company morale and bad PR.

            1. I think there might have been an attempt to start off hardline, and then moderate over time to try to appear receptive to criticism and whatnot (since that’s allegedly the Trump MO), but the whole thing just came off looking amateur hour.

          2. It might actually be good to keep them in a froth. They’ll be too worn out when it really matters and the sane people will be tired of it all.

  1. I’m glad we’re finally numbering them

    1. How many of them are about the Cuban refugee ban? Any courts jumping on that one?

      1. Cubans are icky because they love America.

  2. Andre Birotte is the Yom Kippur Judge – so ethnically sensitive!

    1. You know who else issued an order on Yom Kippur?

      1. Anwar Sadat?

        1. Got it one! I’m impressed. (I’d have also accepted Hafiz Assad).

          Your winnings, sir.

            1. It represents the ultimate Arab victory over Israel, which…

              fuck it, I SugarFreed. I will provide a better, less trolly link.

              1. Um, yeah, well, anyway…what were we talking about, again?

          1. Also, god.

      2. I did, I ordered (“issued an order for”) a “kosher” ham and cheese sandwich!!!!

  3. From the LA Times: “Birotte’s order did not address people trying to enter the country as refugees or on non-immigrant visas, such as tourists.”

    It’s people with immigrant visas he’s dealing with – an issue that got discussed on H&R recently.

    1. Yep.

  4. Great, LA Times does not have a link to the actual order. Oh well, if they can’t do their job, I can’t be bothered.

    I wonder how her ruling squares with State Dept FAQ on what a visa does

    Having a U.S. visa allows you to travel to a port of entry, airport or land border crossing, and request permission of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Customs and Border Protection (CBP) inspector to enter the United States. While having a visa does not guarantee entry to the United States, it does indicate a consular officer at a U.S. Embassy or Consulate abroad has determined you are eligible to seek entry for that specific purpose.

    I guess it is illegal to order airlines not to let people with valid visas onto planes. Letting them come to point of entry and then denying them entry into the country is A-OK.

    1. We can’t be bothered with precedent and settled law when we have political points to score.
      -everybody

      1. First, my sympathies about your mom. But…

        fuck it, I’ll be the Nikki here – she wasn’t beaten in Texas

        Second, I’m not sure how it relates to Immigrant Visa, as someone pointed, but the page does first have the above paragraph and then next part says, “There are two kinds of visas, immigrant and visitor…” so to my rules-lawyery mind, the above encompases both kinds.

      2. To the extent this is settled law, parts of the EO are unlawful. The government will have to win the argument that 1965 statute is super cede by some other portion of the statute or the earlier statute. It is certainly not a bullshit legal argument.

    2. And the airline still gets fined for a rejected entry (in addition to the transport costs they then have to return the rejected person to their country/point of origin). Winn win.

      1. Holy shit, government multiplier in action!

    3. No its illegal to deny an immigrant visa, as opposed to a non-immigrant visa, on the basis of national origin.

      1. So, they have to allow the visa, but not the actually entry?

  5. He’s just looking to promote his new company, Cash for Stash.

    http://l7.alamy.com/zooms/775a…..ment-while

    1. I get an error when I click the link.

  6. This is broader than the previous order, but it certainly won’t “halt the whole thing”. New visas still won’t be issued to people from the 7 countries in question, and the refugee program has not been restarted. There will be further court cases, including the question of whether the 1952 law Trump relied on to issue his order was superceded by the 1965 immigration law.

    1. Just to be clear – the 1965 law applies to immigrant visas only, Trump’s order covers all visas, so even if immigrant visa-holders can get exempt from the order, others will still be excluded.

      1. Yep, and the correct thing to do in the meantime is to stay enforcement on the immigrant visas until it is litigated.

        1. Or not. Stays are only issued when there is irreperable harm and a strong likelihood of winning.

          A 90 day delay is not an irreparable harm.

          Interestingly, Gorsuch has ruled in favor of immigrants in similar circumstances but the stakes were higher. 7 years. Not 90 days.

  7. There’s a procedure for doing things, a set of rules, guidelines, a process if you will, for doing things. And what is that process? Well, when you poke the rules so full of exceptions for your own convenience that the rules are more exception than rule, there is no real process, there’s a hundred different processes, every petty bureaucrat in the land gets to say what the process is. This is the process you get when the overarching general principle guiding the process is FYTW.

  8. IMMIGRANT visa, not IMMIGRATION visa. God almighty, Reason’s ignorance is UNLIMITED.

    An immigrant visa is issued overseas to only those people selected for permanent residence. As soon as they first set foot in the US, they become permanent residents at that moment and the immigrant visa becomes moot.

    So the court order only applies to immigrant visas, and not to visitor visas, work visas, etc.

    If you don’t understand the topic, please don’t write about it. You sound like liberals writing about guns and gun control.

    1. Thanks for the clarification. Sad to see Reason publishing fake news (again).

      1. I’m not really seeing Reason making much of an attempt, if any, to be objective when it comes to Trump. They seem to be in the same no holds barred assassination mode as CNN or NYT.

        1. I just wish they’d fuck up more on their own, instead of second-hand fucking up by repeating what LA Times/HuffPo/whoever say.

          1. This! If Reason weren’t so beholden to the MSM prog ginned up crisis of the day, I think their “commenter revolt” would wither away. We don’t disagree that Trump is an authoritarian. Now, instead of playing catch the red laser dot, let’s do some actual journalism. Y’know, like collecting facts, weighing both sides, and coming to a conclusion supported by the facts and your reasoning. I can go to any one of a thousand websites if I want to watch a bunch of people I don’t know stroke their outrage boners about something they don’t understand. I ended up at Reason because they avoided that for the last decade or so.

    2. “An immigrant visa is issued overseas to only those people selected for permanent residence. As soon as they first set foot in the US, they become permanent residents at that moment and the immigrant visa becomes moot.”

      When they arrive, at least some of them are ‘conditional’ permanent residents. Not unconditional permanent residents until they apply and are granted unconditional permanent residency, 2 years after arrival.

    3. All of this presented without analysis because I honestly have no idea where things stand right now.

    4. Don’t they have to go through Customs before they are technically on US soil?

  9. I will say, as much as I loathe Reason writers, the producer and/or whomever the interviewer is (I can’t remember his name) do a decent job.

    The moody tonal music is a bit askance, but where others Reason contributors would lend credence to idiot protesters, the interviewer does a decent job of pointing out that protesters, in fact, don’t care if an administration is issuing executive orders to literally and directly kill people as much as they care that Trump has inconvenienced some people.

    1. My cynical side says that this is part of their ongoing effort to recruit progs to the libertarian cause.

      “OK, you’re criticizing Republicans, you’re halfway there, all we need to do is show you how abuses by Democratic Presidents provide precedents for abuse by Republican Presidents…””

      “This pussy bites back! No Trump, no KKK, no fascist USA!”

      “I think we’re getting through…”

      1. “My cynical side says that this is part of their ongoing effort to recruit progs to the libertarian cause.”

        By being prog-like? That isn’t how it works.

        1. They’re just try to meet the progs halfway. They are so dedicated to the plan that the move halfway to the prog position every single day.

          The only problem is, they aren’t retreating back anymore.

          1. If they want to gain progs they’ll have to shed libertarians. If they keep it up they just might manage it.

        2. REASON: “So, you see, given how bad the Republicans are…”

          PROG: “I know, right? Trump is the Hitleriest Hitler ever!”

          REASON: “So, doesn’t it concern you that the government has so much power that someone like Trump…”

          PROG: “What a fascist! And you people who voted third party helped make it happen.”

          REASON: “But when both parties have been making the government more powerful, that means there’s more power for Trump to abuse…”

          PROG: “And the way Trump is so anti-science and anti-woman, I can’t believe all the sexists who wouldn’t vote for Hillary.”

          REASON: “But you see, it is in the nature of arbitrary power to be abused, so when Democrats support more arbitrary power for the government…”

          PROG: “And now Trump is trying to roll back all the progress we made under Obama, when will people wake up?”

          1. I guess some of it may be externalities and/or the format/medium. Jay Leno built a career out of ‘man on the street’ and ‘conversations with idiots at their idiot convention’-style interview. I guess I feel the same or similar levels of intellectual confrontation without the same level of intellectual derision as say, Colbert or John Oliver.

            Whereas I see Reason writers having a beat and needing to cover it and, despite that liberty, still having a decidedly proggy stance/position, I see this interview team as being told “Go cover the protest at LAX.” They’ve gotta know, when they get there, that they aren’t going to convert anyone to libertarianism or Trump and that they can’t really get into a protracted argument. So, the best they can do is ask cogent and pointed questions and, in that regard, they’re raising reasonable points and pointing out cogent facts or asking pointed questions (if only to be dismissed).

            I guess if they choose to cover the protests at LAX and give ‘Idiots at an idiot convention’ more air time, you’re right in the overall context of staring into the echo chamber until it stares back.

            1. I was thinking of their overall strategy, of which the questions in the video were simply an example, IMHO.

          2. *Turns the applause sign on and begins clapping*

          3. REASON: “So, you see, given how bad the Republicans are…”

            When Robby or Nick says the equivalent, he’s talking to either libertarians or the public at large using a dog whistle to call out to those who can hear it. Robby’s trying to avoid getting uninvited to a cocktail party. This guy’s trying not to let slip anything that might cause someone to start screaming he’s a Nazi. When this interviewer says it ‘evil RethugliKKKanz’ (not that he really does), he’s talking directly to militant or activist non-libertarians. He’s not use the dog whistle to call out to the dogs, he went to the pack, he’s using the dog whistle to make sure he doesn’t get bit.

  10. Well this certainly isn’t “hyper-local”, even if it completely misunderstands what the fuck is going on.

  11. Follow up on the breathless report from this site earlier today:

    Report: Man who claimed his mother died in Iraq because of Trump’s immigration ban was lying

    http://hotair.com/archives/201…..was-lying/

    1. What difference, at this point, does it make?

      1. Nobody here was buying the angle that story was pushing anyway.

      2. ^This^ aspect of the magazine I’m 1000% on board with you Eddie.

        Behavior verging on par with Rolling Stone.

      3. For many of the authors here? Probably not much. For many of the readers here? Just helpful information.

        1. How do you know that he was lying?

          The site to which you linked offered no compelling evidence that he was lying – unless you take the word of an Imam as compelling evidence.

          1. As I noted, this is information that appears to contradict the original report. You’re right, at best this is a he said, he said scenario and some documentation is required to verify their stories. As the leader of a religious community — a religion whose many adherents do not like Trump — the fact that the Imam is contradicting the original report does carry some weight for me.

            1. Oh, and even Think Progress has abandoned the original report, so it’s starting to smell like fake news.

              1. It may very well be. The Imam could be telling the truth. I sure as hell don’t know when the granny died.

    2. Note that if your survival depends on a timely arrival by plane from Iraq, perhaps you shouldn’t be traveling in the first place, since there are many more things that commonly go wrong besides EOs.

  12. Uh oh. Now the terrorists have really won.

  13. Hurrah! LA Times added the actual order to the story!

    1. Yup, it’s all about the immigrant visas.

      There’s other kinds of visas, and those aren’t affected by this litigation.

  14. National Security. Feds will continue to do whatever they want.

  15. Has anybody thought about what consequences might ensue should it be demonstrated that the WH has ordered federal employees to disregard any of the court orders?

    1. Has it been demonstrated?

    2. No consequences. They will say the order isn’t binding while under appeal.

      1. So, the executive branch is not bound to obey court orders upon pain of contempt?

  16. I’m as tired as the next commenter hearing Reason treat the asylum ban like it’s all about religion, but I’m sick of seeing people that support the kernel of Trump’s policy treating it like it’s all about keeping Muslims out, too.

    In fact, the second reason I object to Reason making the ban all about religion is that it becomes self-fulfilling prophecy. The more Reason (and others) make this about Muslims, the more people will support the policy because they think it’s about Muslims.

    The first reason I object to Reason making the asylum ban about religion is that it isn’t about religion. I’ve read it. The ban goes out of its way to comply with the First Amendment–and does so successfully.

    This isn’t a referendum on Islam, but if they keep acting like it is, it will become a referendum on the First Amendment–and that does not serve the libertarian cause at all.

    1. Well, it’s not about Islam, for sure. But it’s sure as hell not about terrorism either! If it were, fucking Saudi Arabia and Pakistan would be on the list. In bold letters. Yet, both countries are curiously absent. So I have no fucking clue what this temporary hold is about.

      1. My initial thinking was that this was about asylum seekers and refugees, and the reason you don’t see Saudi Arabia on this list is because it isn’t a source of either asylum seekers or refugees.

        Then someone turned me onto this link:

        “The seven Muslim-majority countries targeted in President Trump’s executive order on immigration were initially identified as “countries of concern” under the Obama administration.

        White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer on Sunday pointed to the Obama administration’s actions as the basis for their selection of the seven countries. Trump’s order bars citizens from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen from entering the U.S. for the next 90 days.

        “There were further travel restrictions already in place from those seven countries,” Spicer said on ABC’s “This Week.””

        http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/29/…..countries/

        Perhaps that’s cover and perhaps the Obama administration only identified those seven countries because they were a significant source of refugees and asylum seekers; regardless, it ain’t about Muslims. There are dozens of other Muslim countries that aren’t on the list, it impacts refugees from those countries regardless of their religion, etc., etc.

        1. Typical of Obama to be hoisted on his own petard.

        2. “But it was Obama’s idea in the first place” isn’t exactly the best of rationales when it comes to foreign policy.

        3. It’s not about Muslims or Terrorism. It’s about Trump pointlessly harming innocent people – mostly suffering people who are fleeing war and terrorism – so he can throw a bone to his voters. Yeah, it doesn’t really keep out Muslims, and it doesn’t really keep out terrorists, but it successfully makes random brown people who look like Muslims suffer on TV, which is what his base wants to see.

      2. But it’s sure as hell not about terrorism either! If it were, fucking Saudi Arabia and Pakistan would be on the list.

        Indeed, it is mainly about whether countries have a functioning bureaucracy and record keeping for their citizens. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan generally do, the other countries do not.

        Whether the countries have societies and educational systems compatible with democracy is a secondary concern, one that this order doesn’t seem to address.

  17. I’ve seen other reporting – maybe here or NR that clarified that those 7 (in contrast to other problematic countries like SA and Pakistan/Afghanistan) are ones with very limited functioning governments (excepting Iraq? Although the ongoing ISIS violence there is a modifier). Iran is the obvious one where we have no diplomatic presence (consulate, etc) – but I think we’ve effectively shut down most of our facilities in all those other 6 countries as well.

    1. Without official consular facilities, the visa issuing processes are very different – more time consuming, complicated, etc. This change lets a lot of things get sorted out.

  18. I’ve read the full order now. My reading is that it allows everyone with an immigrant visa into the country and says they can’t be cancelled. It does not apply to non-immigrant visas or refugees. It also does not appear to apply to the granting of immigrant visas going forward.

    Pretty limited and pretty much matches what I expected.

  19. Notably, in his ruling, [U.S. District Judge Andre] Birotte forbade federal officials from “removing, detaining, or blocking the entry” of affected travelers or “cancelling validly obtained and issued immigrant visas of plaintiffs.”

    No matter what you may think of Trump’s EO (I think it’s pretty awful), this is pretty serious: non-citizens should have no rights, under any circumstances, to demand entry to the US against the orders of the executive branch.

    1. Should ask congress to repeal or amend the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 then, which forbids discrimination in immigrant visas on the basis of national origin. It also has nothing to do with rights but with the law.

      1. Someone somewhere else pointed out that a visa is not an absolute guarantee of entry into the US. So, if they were still permitted to get visas, but not permitted to enter, then… maybe it would not violate the law? Who knows.

        Of course, this is an opportunity for Trump to pressure Congress to change the statute as regards immigrant visas, excluding green cards; after all, Congress has already flagged these countries as being high risk and imposed some restrictions on them, and Republicans are now on record as supporting the EO provided that it exclude green cards and does not discriminate on the basis of religion.

        Just for reasons of sanity, it seems like it should at least be permissible to restrict immigration from any country with which we are either formally at war or have cut diplomatic ties, or within which we are otherwise lawfully conducting combat operations (attempts to attack restrictions via that last provision can only work out in favor of liberty/constitutionalism)

        1. Someone somewhere else pointed out that a visa is not an absolute guarantee of entry into the US. So, if they were still permitted to get visas, but not permitted to enter, then… maybe it would not violate the law? Who knows.

          It will be litigated because frankly the statutes are a mess but the current case law leans to it being unlawful. Certainly enough for a Judge to issue a TRO. It makes sense too, saying “well I granted the visa I just didn’t let them in” entirely defeats the purpose of the statute.

          EO provided that it exclude green cards and does not discriminate on the basis of religion.

          Immigrant visas are essentially green card holders and those who will be getting one so that’s basically already what the current law is. Non-immigrant visas (student, travel, etc.) and refugrees are not covered and the TRO does not apply to them. Discrimination on the basis of religion is also already one of the other prohibited categories already.

          it seems like it should at least be permissible to restrict immigration from any country with which we are either formally at war or have cut diplomatic ties, or within which we are otherwise lawfully conducting combat operations)

          I believe there are already exceptions for stuff like this and more but the government needs to apply it to each individual not a wholesale ban on people. We also haven’t been in a declared war for decades.

          1. It will be litigated because frankly the statutes are a mess but the current case law leans to it being unlawful. Certainly enough for a Judge to issue a TRO. It makes sense too, saying “well I granted the visa I just didn’t let them in” entirely defeats the purpose of the statute.

            The purpose of the law was a principle for visa allocations, not an individual right to non-discrimination.

            I’m sure the same kinds of contorted logic that turns Title IX into a witch hunt or comes up with a concept like “disparate impact” can fabricate an individual right to non-discrimination in immigration as well, but that doesn’t make such a conclusion logical or rational.

            In any case, no matter what the law may be, as I was saying, to create an individual right for a non-citizen to enter a country is fundamentally wrong; if the law were to create such a right, the law ought to be changed.

      2. The Act repealed the previous quota system for allocating regular immigrant visas. Calling that “forbidding discrimination” in immigrant visas is utter bullshit. In fact, both immigrant and non-immigrant visa issuance has clearly discriminated based on national origin ever since, with no complaint from either Congress or the courts.

        Furthermore, the Act was passed under the assumption, and with the intent, that it wouldn’t much affect the ethnic makeup of the US; that assumption has turned out to be false.

  20. Well that’s on the Judge’s shoulder if something happens.

  21. There simply is no right for a non USC to enter the U.S. Valid visas and resident cards can and do get revoked for a variety of reasons all of the time. Also, everyone gets detained when entering the country. The officer looking at you, your documents and belongings has to detain you or otherwise delay your movements momentarily in order to do their job.

    1. Sure but the government can’t do it on the basis of national origin which is what the EO did. They could have crafted it in a legal manner but instead chose to rush it out without any consultation.

      1. Visas are issued based on national origin in many cases. Citizens of certain countries get preferential treatment over others. Citizens from visa waiver countries don’t even need visas. That to me seems like blatant discrimination based on national origin.

        1. That’s for non-immigrant visas which are not covered by the law. That part of the EO is legal.

          1. No, there are many immigrant visas whose issuance is based on arbitrary quotas regarding national origin. No one had a problem with that sort of discrimination up until this executive order for some reason.

      2. Look, that is just utter bullshit. US immigration strongly discriminates based on national origin. For the same category of immigrant visa, it may take you 11 years longer to get it if you’re from Mexico than if you’re from Europe. The State Department publishes monthly data on this, by national origin and visa category: http://tinyurl.com/h7awp93

        A 90 day delay or temporary restriction based on national origin is laughably insignificant in comparison to these everyday, staggering differences.

  22. before I saw the check saying $8075 , I did not believe …that…my mother in law woz like they say actualie receiving money in their spare time at there labtop. . there sisters roommate has been doing this less than 14 months and as of now repayed the mortgage on there villa and bourt a gorgeous Subaru Impreza .
    =============== http://www.moneytime10.com

  23. I’ve seen other reporting – maybe here or NR that clarified that those 7 (in contrast to other problematic countries like SA and Pakistan/Afghanistan) are ones with very limited functioning governments (excepting Iraq? Although the ongoing ISIS violence there is a modifier). Iran is the obvious one where we have no diplomatic presence (consulate, etc) – but I think we’ve effectively shut down most of our facilities in all those other 6 countries as well.

  24. My last month paycheck was for 11000 dollars… All i did was simple online work from comfort at home for 3-4 hours/day that I got from this agency I discovered over the internet and they paid me for it 95 bucks every hour… This is what I do

    =========================== http://www.4dayjobs.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.