Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Travel&Dining > Travel Safety/Security > Checkpoints and Borders Policy Debate
Reload this Page >

Executive orders banning entry to US ... [merged threads]

Executive orders banning entry to US ... [merged threads]

Old May 8, 2017, 6:09 pm
  #406  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: GAI
Programs: TK *G, all statuses that come with Ritz, Amex Plat, Citi Prestige cards
Posts: 363
Originally Posted by Xyzzy
Of course the administration hasn't backed off of the 'temporary' nature of this -- the whole goal is permanency. But they can't admit that... Aye -- there's the rub.
Right... so why did Jadwat refer to it as temporary? Surely the ACLU must recognize what is going on. Why are so many of the mainstream, respectable "fake news" outlets using the word "temporary" in their reporting? Are we all taking the bait?

Have we abandoned any pretense of "rule of law" versus the politics of the situation? That's outrageous.
I'm no lawyer, but it sounded to me like the poor guy was caught off guard from the beginning with the questioning about whether he had standing to represent NIV cases (for some reason he went into the details of the individual John Does instead of simply arguing that it shouldn't matter), and never really regained his footing.

From reading the subsequent reporting tonight, though, it sounds like a lot more judges were grilling the government attorney than Jadwat. It was easy to forget how many judges were in the room without a video feed.

Last edited by lonelycrowd; May 8, 2017 at 6:11 pm Reason: Typo
lonelycrowd is offline  
Old May 8, 2017, 6:11 pm
  #407  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 41,236
Originally Posted by Xyzzy
Clinton isn't n record in favor of a Muslim ban. Trump is. The courts found that his comments were germane.
The original order included prioritizing Christians, a form of reverse discrimination. He pulled it in the second version, but it clearly demonstrated intent.
chollie is offline  
Old May 8, 2017, 7:10 pm
  #408  
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: LHR, HKG
Programs: gate lice
Posts: 315
Originally Posted by MSPeconomist
Are you kidding? I realize that the ACLU is generally a liberal organization, but how can a supposedly competent lawyer make this argument with a straight face? Have we abandoned any pretense of "rule of law" versus the politics of the situation? That's outrageous.
I don't think it has much to do with politics, but the creative structuring of legal arguments.

EO 1.0 would've been unconstitutional no matter who enacted it. It would be easy pickings even for someone fresh out of law school. It violated no less than a dozen SCOTUS cases.

To defeat EO 2.0 requires more skill. The ACLU successfully struck down EO 2.0 on the district level by stringing together two judicial precedents: 1) Lemon test and 2) McCreary County vs ACLU (2006).

Lemon test basically requires that the government prove secular purpose in any action that it takes to abide by the establishment clause. McCreary, while unrelated, allows the judiciary to take into account evidence beyond the plain text of the matter at hand. That would include social media, public speeches, etc...

So what the ACLU did was take Trump's campaign rhetoric and tweets into the equation. They made a good case that the words "Muslim ban" means this ban does not fulfill the secular purpose requirement. Hence EO 2.0 was struck down.

This time around, the DOJ lawyer asked whether the ban would be constitutional under a Clinton presidency. Since much of the ACLU's argument hinged on this "secular intent" argument, and said argument relied upon an examination of Trump's intent, I'm guessing the ACLU lawyer didn't expect this curveball. Of course, a better attorney would've deflected.
leungy18 is offline  
Old May 8, 2017, 11:34 pm
  #409  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Between AUS, EWR, and YTO In a little twisty maze of airline seats, all alike...
Programs: CO, NW, & UA forum moderator emeritus
Posts: 35,339
Originally Posted by chollie
The original order included prioritizing Christians, a form of reverse discrimination. He pulled it in the second version, but it clearly demonstrated intent.
Plus Trump's campaign web site had his "Muslim ban" statement up here until today. ops... It was the statement that started like this:
Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on.
It seems the news media asked about it and suddenly the statement disappeared.
Xyzzy is online now  
Old May 9, 2017, 2:04 am
  #410  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,103
Intent -- repeatedly stated intent at that -- matters. That is why EO 2.0 may be judged differently depending upon who pushed it forward and why it was pushed forward. The ACLU lawyer's assessment on that part wasn't flawed; the ACLU lawyer's credibility matters if wanting to win this case and others; and responding as he did to the question about whether or not the concerns about the EO would be different if there were a different US President is not entirely a bad idea.

Last edited by essxjay; Jun 15, 2017 at 1:26 pm Reason: unnecessary wholesale quote
GUWonder is offline  
Old May 9, 2017, 8:43 am
  #411  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Between AUS, EWR, and YTO In a little twisty maze of airline seats, all alike...
Programs: CO, NW, & UA forum moderator emeritus
Posts: 35,339
Exactly, and Hillary Clinton has shown n such intent.

Last edited by essxjay; Jun 15, 2017 at 1:26 pm Reason: unnecessary wholesale quote
Xyzzy is online now  
Old May 10, 2017, 9:00 am
  #412  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: GAI
Programs: TK *G, all statuses that come with Ritz, Amex Plat, Citi Prestige cards
Posts: 363
Originally Posted by lonelycrowd
I've now seen the full email and it also requested the 15 years of travel, work, and residence...

Perhaps this is wishful thinking, but could there be some sort of "forms clearance" process going on through which there would be a formal channel for public comment? I'd imagine a paperwork reduction act comment period on this would be record-setting for Regulations.gov...
Somehow it slipped past me with all the ongoing news surrounding both the "ban" and the general state of the administration, but it looks like for the next eight days this is actually happening on an expedited "emergency" basis. No reasoning is stated for requesting an emergency review rather than the standard 90 days, though it looks like one can comment to OMB about the emergency status in addition to commenting directly to State about the policy merits.

The register notice is extremely vague and doesn't tell us whether individuals currently in administrative processing may be subject to this - all we get is an estimate of 65,000 respondents. Regardless of whether my brother-in-law ends up being hit by this, I have so many problems with the vagueness of some of the questions as presented (define "travel," "social media," "source of funds," ect...) and the vast logistical difficulties in tracking down some of this information from 15 years ago that I don't know where to start. Maybe they can legitimately estimate that it will only take an hour to write this information out on paper, but I imagine the background research is likely to be a heck of a lot more than one hour for anyone with a significant amount of business travel now that they're broadening the focus to include domestic trips.
lonelycrowd is offline  
Old May 13, 2017, 9:07 am
  #413  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,103
The role of NYC's former mayor (RG, not the others)in this ban is up for discussion in federal court in Michigan:

A federal judge has ordered the Trump administration to hand over a memo drafted with guidance from former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani outlining a proposed new travel ban designed to be more “palatable” to the public as well as legally sound.

The latest draft is designed so that it does not obviously target Muslims, in the way that the first controversial ban – ruled unlawful by several judges – was considered to do.

.....

He was reportedly instructed during the campaign to form a commission tasked with drawing up a “Muslim ban” that appeared legally sound, according to papers filed in court by the Arab American Civil Rights League. The commission recommended that nationality “be used as a proxy for religion” according to the filing in Detroit by the group.
https://us.yahoo.com/news/judge-orde...095002002.html

Last edited by GUWonder; May 13, 2017 at 9:52 am
GUWonder is offline  
Old May 25, 2017, 3:19 pm
  #414  
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 245
Looks like the 4th Circuit just voted 10-3 against the newer EO, upholding the block on enforcement. The administration is expected to appeal to the Supreme Court.
mauve is offline  
Old May 25, 2017, 5:42 pm
  #415  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,103
US AG Sessions has gone on the record today as saying he is taking this to SCOTUS.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/federal-...ps-travel-ban/

It will be interesting to see which SCOTUS Justices vote and how.

Last edited by essxjay; Jun 15, 2017 at 1:26 pm Reason: unnecessary wholesale quote
GUWonder is offline  
Old May 25, 2017, 8:09 pm
  #416  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Pacific Northwest
Programs: UA Gold 1MM, AS 75k, AA Plat, Bonvoyed Gold, Honors Dia, Hyatt Explorer, IHG Plat, ...
Posts: 16,632
Wasn't the ban supposed to be temporary for 90 days while they work out "extreme vetting"? Those 90 days are up (at least counting from the original ban), so I assume they finished their vetting "redesign" and are ready to apply it?
notquiteaff is online now  
Old May 26, 2017, 1:22 am
  #417  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,103
That claim about being temporary and designing "extreme vetting" seems to have been an excuse to do what they claimed (for over several months) that they wanted to do: block the "undesirable" populations. And the part of the EO that hasn't been completely blocked has shown the intention was to materially slow or stop "undesirable" immigration/migration rather than to work out "extreme vetting" in the 90 days (which was but a fake out too). The refugee resettlement numbers and resource allocation this year speak to that too.

Last edited by essxjay; Jun 15, 2017 at 1:26 pm Reason: unnecessary wholesale quote
GUWonder is offline  
Old May 26, 2017, 2:50 am
  #418  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 38,320
Yeah, typical Washington--do something temporary, then make the temporary permanent.

Last edited by essxjay; Jun 15, 2017 at 1:26 pm Reason: unnecessary wholesale quote
Loren Pechtel is offline  
Old May 26, 2017, 3:36 am
  #419  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,103
Even that implemented with a sunset provision often ends up not sun-setting when the sunset provision is right on the horizon. Rather it just creates time for the provision to become so tolerated/relied upon as to more easily enable it to be made permanent in some way or another. And once the machinery of government gets used to operating in one way, it's slow to change gears so as to do things entirely differently from the grinding/disruptive way it wanted and instituted. This is the way of DHS -- CBP, TSA or otherwise -- even as it's not entirely unique to just this part of our government.

Last edited by essxjay; Jun 15, 2017 at 1:27 pm Reason: unnecessary wholesale quote
GUWonder is offline  
Old May 31, 2017, 9:50 am
  #420  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: GAI
Programs: TK *G, all statuses that come with Ritz, Amex Plat, Citi Prestige cards
Posts: 363
I'm hearing reports this week from the final wave of diversity visa interviews for the 2016 lottery cycle (shared in a Farsi-language Telegram group and translated by my wife) that conoffs at posts that issue visas to Iranians (at least Abu Dhabi and Ankara) are telling all applicants as they come to their interviews to try to reach US soil and establish residency immediately due to the risk of a sudden overruling of the preliminary injunction on EO 13780.

My personal read of 13780 was that all visas granted during an injunction period should in theory remain valid even if the injunction is withdrawn or the order itself is found valid in court, though I suspect that they are probably right to give such advice given the unpredictability with which CBP has been acting in recent months. I would hope that we would have at least a week or two of warning that a Supreme Court ruling may be imminent seeing as the courts have thus far not bought into the Administration's argument that there is an truly time-sensitive national security imperative to enact the "ban," but I could be wrong.
lonelycrowd is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.