The President Trump Immigration Thread

[bwframe]

Smart legal talking heads have been suggesting this for the past couple days.
Write a new order minus the tiny bits that the court feels they have a say in and resend the original order.

It'd be good if they could get this done quick, while the libs and press are still giddy, breaking arms patting themselves on the back.

 

[KG1]

Smart legal talking heads have been suggesting this for the past couple days.
Write a new order minus the tiny bits that the court feels they have a say in and resend the original order.

It'd be good if they could get this done quick, while the libs and press are still giddy, breaking arms patting themselves on the back.

Some of those smart legal talking heads think the Trump administration could win the argument on the SCOTUS level but it would take too long. That's why they suggest going with a new EO.

 

[foszoe]

The irony is that to get it faster and cheaper, he'd have to use the labor that he's trying to stop.

Pay minimum wage and give citizenship to all who build the wall providing they are vetted properly

 

[hoosierdoc]

Trump won't immediately appeal travel ban halt to Supreme Court - CNNPolitics.com

Looks like his knee-jerk "SEE YOU IN COURT" tweet was followed with some advisement.

oh I think he still needs to go to court over the old one. Once we have a 9th justice. Is there a time frame on appeals like that?

 

[BugI02]

Allowing for the caveat that almost any thoughts I have on this usually turn out to be wrong, could a viable strategy be to amend the EO to address the concerns of the sc-judge and if the new EO is still found to be TRO-able thus strengthen the governments case that Robart was channeling his feelings and not the law?

What say you barristers. If the DOJ made a good faith effort to address the concerns of the court and the court responded by moving the goalposts, would that strengthen the gov't's hand when this get's to SCOTUS?

 

[BugI02]

oh I think he still needs to go to court over the old one. Once we have a 9th justice. Is there a time frame on appeals like that?

I don't know about time limits but I think the clock is ticking on the 90 - 120 days. If your rationale for the EO was to give that time to review and improve vetting from those countries, one would expect that the interval you asked for would be sufficient to that task. If you win on appeal and still seek to halt immigration/refugees for 90-120 days it will certainly look like a ban was the purpose and improvements to vetting was the fig leaf

 

[T.Lex]

Smart legal talking heads have been suggesting this for the past couple days.

Why thank you! Just when I think you don't read my threads, you say something complimentary like that.

Allowing for the caveat that almost any thoughts I have on this usually turn out to be wrong, could a viable strategy be to amend the EO to address the concerns of the sc-judge and if the new EO is still found to be TRO-able thus strengthen the governments case that Robart was channeling his feelings and not the law?

What say you barristers. If the DOJ made a good faith effort to address the concerns of the court and the court responded by moving the goalposts, would that strengthen the gov't's hand when this get's to SCOTUS?

So, we're kinda in uncharted territory. With multidistrict litigation like this, there's a process to combine the cases so 1 judge can decide things. (Well, a magistrate, then a judge, but that's a peek behind the curtain.)

Generally, what 1 judge decides in 1 district won't really impact what another judge in another district might do, partly because the issues are framed differently even if only in small ways. What I would usually expect would be an order for the cases to be consolidated and decided together so there's only 1 appeal to rule on. But, that takes time.

A wrinkle there is that if Trump accepts the TRO and decides to litigate the substantive issues, they could all be consolidated without issue. If he pushes on with the appeal of the TRO, the advancement of the other cases may be stayed until that's decided. If the TRO is vacated, then another district might try a different angle.

There's many permutations.

And that's if he doesn't come out with a new EO or amend the existing one. That can add a whole different dimension - either mooting the existing litigation or aggravating it if he doubles down.

I don't know about time limits but I think the clock is ticking on the 90 - 120 days. If your rationale for the EO was to give that time to review and improve vetting from those countries, one would expect that the interval you asked for would be sufficient to that task. If you win on appeal and still seek to halt immigration/refugees for 90-120 days it will certainly look like a ban was the purpose and improvements to vetting was the fig leaf

It is not mutually exclusive. He can be "investigating" whatever it is he wants to during the litigation and in 90 days come out with the new process, or whatever his goal is. It isn't like he can only do that if there's a suspension of immigration from these countries. Nothing - literally nothing - is stopping him from formulating a new vetting policy.

 

[hog slayer]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0KMz_AUBFM

Semper Fidelis! Don't be jealous

SSgt Gern bringing the hard truth in few words.

 

[1DOWN4UP]

8 USC 1182f......[FONT=&quot]Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.[/FONT]

 

[KG1]

8 USC 1182f......[FONT=&amp]Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.[/FONT]

pffftt...Pesky things like this don't matter to some judges apparently.

 

[1DOWN4UP]

Looks like ICE is doing the rodeo round-up the last couple of days.......

 

[hoosierdoc]

pffftt...Pesky things like this don't matter to some judges apparently.

they literally relied on comments he made while running for office to come up with their ruling. Idiots. Rumor was this code was not cited in the ruling. Idiots.

 

[KG1]

they literally relied on comments he made while running for office to come up with their ruling. Idiots. Rumor was this code was not cited in the ruling. Idiots.

Blog: The law that never was

 

[Alamo]

A judge on this Court [9th]has made a sua sponte request that a vote be taken as to whether the order issued by the three judge motions panel on February 9, 2017, should be reconsidered en banc.

Tangent: I have always thought that one of the primary techniques and practices of law is arguing that a clearly written piece of text really doesn't mean what it plainly says; and in fact may mean the opposite, or something completely orthogonal.

I present irrefutable evidence from the Chief Judge of the 9th Circuit that this is so, written by him in his own order:

The supplemental briefs shall be filed electronically and consist of no more than 14,000 words.

If the total number of words from all the briefs combined could not exceed 14,000, then maybe the briefs might actually be brief, but being lawyers, I'm sure this means each.

 

[KG1]

The judiciary elements involving this case thus far want to be the arbiters of whats in the best interest of national security therefore usurping the constitutional and statutory authority of the political branches.

Their basic claim from what I can tell is that the EO isn't necessary. They don't even delve into the legalities that grant the Executive branch the authority for such an EO.

 

[printcraft]

The judiciary elements involving this case thus far want to be the arbiters of whats in the best interest of national security therefore usurping the constitutional and statutory authority of the political branches.

Their basic claim from what I can tell is that the EO isn't necessary. They don't even delve into the legalities that grant the Executive branch the authority for such an EO.

I wonder if they are regularly briefed and have access to national security information?

(not really)

 

[KG1]

I wonder if they are regularly briefed and have access to national security information?

(not really)

They don't need such things. They only go by interpreting stuff like the mindset of the President and not seeing any evidence that any terrorists from the listed travel ban countries have entered into the United States.

 

[BugI02]

This is an interesting take, from: https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-ni...nt-and-threatens-national-security-1486748840

The plaintiff states assert that their public universities are injured because the order affects travel by certain foreign students and faculty. But that claim involved no legally protected interest. The granting of visas and the decision to admit aliens into the country are discretionary powers of the federal government. Unadmitted aliens have no constitutional right to enter the U.S. In hiring or admitting foreigners, universities were essentially gambling that these noncitizens could make it to America and be admitted. Under the theory of standing applied in this case, universities would be able to sponsor any alien, anywhere in the world, then go to court to challenge a decision to exclude him.

It is also settled law that a state can seek to vindicate only its own rights, not those of third parties, against the national government. The U.S. Supreme Court held in Massachusetts v. Mellon (1923) that it is not within a state’s duty or power to protect its citizens’ “rights in respect of their relations with the Federal Government.” Thus the plaintiffs’ claims that the executive order violates various constitutional rights, such as equal protection, due process and religious freedom, are insufficient because these are individual and not states’ rights.

 

[KG1]

This is an interesting take, from: https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-ni...nt-and-threatens-national-security-1486748840

Basically the plaintiff States have no standings. The judges that are involved in this whole debacle have dropped the ball on two occasions IMO. Ignoring the constitutional/statutory authority of the Executive and the proper standing issue.

Case in point on the latter.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a Seattle judge’s nationwide temporary restraining order against the refugee pause and travel suspension from seven countries with heightened terrorism risks. The court ruled that the government wasn’t likely to prevail on the merits in a suit brought by Washington state and Minnesota.

How can they even make that claim if the suit brought by Washington State and Minnesota doesn't even have any standing?

 

[T.Lex]

Ok, trying to catch up, and if I miss something, please bring my attention to it.

Third party standing: the Order addresses this. Caselaw has developed since 1923. Plus, the universities are arguing direct harm because of actions taken toward specific individuals. It is not limited to an abstract "We might want someone someday" (like the employers appear to be arguing). Rather, it is specific, concrete harm that they are alleging. Also, developments in the 1960s allowed universities to have standing on behalf of their students.

Word count/en banc: in big cases it is common to request, and receive, permission to exceed the limits. I think I only had to do that one time, and it was a REALLY big case. Similarly, big cases will usually get en banc (the entire court would review) rehearing. It is unusual for a member of the panel to ask for it (which is what "sua sponte" means), but it makes sense in something like this that involves other branches of government.

Section 1182 discretion: again, this is nuanced. The issue isn't whether the executive has discretion to take the action. The issue is better framed in terms of whether the discretion was executed consistent with the constitution and other laws. The POTUS is still subject to legal requirements, even in areas that he otherwise has discretion. About the only place this doesn't apply is pardons/commutations. Even then, he does have to do certain things, like put them in writing. Otherwise, his execution of laws has to be consistent with laws and constitutional principles.

How many INGOers who are complaining about the 9th circuit opinion have read it?