Patterico's Pontifications

1/28/2017

Judge Issues Nationwide Injunction on Portions of Trump’s Immigration Order

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 8:49 pm

A judge has issued an order temporarily staying portions of Donald Trump’s executive order, signed yesterday. The order is here. Relevant government officials 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.

The bottom line here is that people already approved to come into the country are not going to be put on a plane tonight and taken back.

More as developments occur.

77 Responses to “Judge Issues Nationwide Injunction on Portions of Trump’s Immigration Order”

  1. Ding.

    Patterico (861bfc)

  2. So how does that differ from the law, frantzman pointed out.

    narciso (d1f714)

  3. Will be interesting to see how long it takes Trump to go after the judge, imply she’s menstruating, ugly, fat, etc.

    Dave (711345)

  4. It’s not the end. It’s not even the beginning of the end. It’s the beginning of the beginning. https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_65

    Pretty sneaky, though. Nothing about a contested hearing on the merits, leaving it to the government to come in with a motion to dissolve.

    nk (dbc370)

  5. Dissolve what it stands on statutory authority

    narciso (d1f714)

  6. @nk I don’t think that’s right. There will be a hearing on the merits – it is even mentioned in the order. The stay is to preserve the status quo until that time.

    Dave (711345)

  7. I expect the Trump Admin to test the concept of whether a district judges order has any effect outside the district where it’s issued.

    Shipwreckedcrew (acc927)

  8. Yes, I expect there will most definitely be a hearing on the merits, but the court did not set a date for one. The order, if not challenged by the government, can go on forever in 14-day increments.

    nk (dbc370)

  9. I would note that this particular judge has been a federal judge for less than 2 years. I don’t expect the Admin to allow her order to go unchallenged. I think they will act as soon as Monday in the 2nd Circuit.

    Shipwreckedcrew (acc927)

  10. I should have been clearer.

    nk (dbc370)

  11. Actually the judge is doing Trump a favor. The Leftist crowds and microphone hogs get what they demanded, and the ugly optics dissipate.

    A part of me wonders if this sudden surge of strict enforcement of the EO is not an effort by the bureaucracy to make Trump look bad.

    Kishnevi (1e395f)

  12. The text of the petition is here.

    They ask the court

    for declaratory and injunctive relief, to prohibit the policy, pattern, and practice of Respondents detaining class members and prohibiting class members from entering the United States when they arrive at U.S. borders with valid entry documents

    and there will be a hearing on that, eventually.

    Violation of the 5th Amendment’s due process guarantees seems to be major element of their case.

    Dave (711345)

  13. I think the proper reading of the order is that it only applies to people already in the US either as refugees, immigrants or other visa holders. They must have entered the US with proper authorization under some program.

    Shipwreckedcrew (acc927)

  14. Since this Judge’s injunction only pertains to persons already detained who, prior to the Executive Order, had valid visas or refugee applications already approved- or legally entered the U.S. from one of the 7 countries subject to the Executive Order, I think the President may actually be OK with it. It may actually solve a short term problem for him and remove the drama from the nation’s airports. Still can hold some travelers from these countries for additional vetting it sounds like, especially if their prior vetting seems expedited, questionable or faulty.

    elissa (8b3e8e)

  15. Detainees at Dulles not being allowed access to lawyers. CPB saying no, in spite of order. What happens next?

    Dana (023079)

  16. It may be, knish except for the wet foot /dry foot. These eo. Don’t immediately go into effect

    narciso (d1f714)

  17. I. Guess one of the dc judges will determine that.

    narciso (d1f714)

  18. ==A part of me wonders if this sudden surge of strict enforcement of the EO is not an effort by the bureaucracy to make Trump look bad.==

    Kish–I’ve noticed you are not the only one around the internets who is wondering if some in the deep state may have intentionally interpreted and administered the EO in an unnecessarily aggressive manner right out of the gate.

    elissa (8b3e8e)

  19. There is some very interesting case law that limits EP and DP application at points of entry. Most 4th amendment protections don’t apply.

    Shipwreckedcrew (acc927)

  20. Its just an another example of his negotating MO – go hard than pull back to the optimal outcome.

    Another theory is that it has actually little to do with the islamic refugees per se wrt to terrorism. It has been said that the trade war with Mexico is practice for a bigger one with China. What if this 24 hours of fury was a way to show Mexico and its diaspora of varying legal status in the
    U.S. not to root so hard for the brown eagle.

    urbanleftbehind (847a06)

  21. SWC @ 19. Yes, one guy going home to Canada, via JFK airport, found himself extraordinarily renditioned to a Syrian prison. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_Arar

    nk (dbc370)

  22. Except according to sources, miller and bannon, pushed for a case by case determination, what fresh hell is this!

    narciso (d1f714)

  23. The TRO us only for the weekend, too, I read.

    Is this his negotiating style, or is this pushback from the bureaucracy to create as much chaos as possible? I think he overplayed his hand.

    All the cameras and lawyers sure showed up quickly. And SEIU, the LATimes admitted, organized the protest at LAX.

    Uh-huh, spontaneous.

    Patricia (5fc097)

  24. Ex parte (only one side, the plaintiffs) hearing, and the judge shooting from the hip is still my impression.

    nk (dbc370)

  25. Searches are one thing. I would be very surprised (and frightened) if due process rights could be ignored though.

    The customs people can search your luggage, but they can’t decide to keep it without cause under the law.

    Same goes for your person.

    Dave (711345)

  26. Apparently the relevant revision was as much a secret as the colonels original recipe. Only frantzman seemed aware of it.

    narciso (d1f714)

  27. How can a district court judge create a nationwide ruling? Didn’t realize that judges were clergy.

    NJRob (43d957)

  28. So what is your proposed solution here, Dave?

    elissa (8b3e8e)

  29. And one of the new immigrant martyrs says that…the US is a great country and he likes Trump!

    https://twitter.com/KlayVolk/status/825415982755639296/video/1

    Patricia (5fc097)

  30. Conclaves are reserved for upper division, but yes nj they are designated as such, and have been blackballed by the likes of Leahy and schumer.

    narciso (342636)

  31. Catch nydia Velasquez, the reaction is as they say priceless.

    narciso (342636)

  32. @Patricia

    Cool, let’s deport him then.

    Dave (711345)

  33. Shirley he can’t be serious.

    narciso (342636)

  34. The point Dave is that you don’t have due process rights under the US Constitution until you are inside the US. They do not extend worldwide.

    Shipwreckedcrew (acc927)

  35. Oh cool your jets, “Dave,” I thought it was an interesting and funny twist to the story.

    Patricia (5fc097)

  36. The front line will be the airline counters at overseas airports. There’s a law, with criminal penalties, against bringing people here without proper documentation, and I expect the airlines to play it safe and do what the administration tells them and not what the judge says.

    nk (dbc370)

  37. How can a district court judge create a nationwide ruling? Didn’t realize that judges were clergy.

    Same way Andrew Hanen did when he stayed Obama’s executive amnesty.

    Did you complain about that?

    Patterico (115b1f)

  38. @28 Elissa

    My proposed solution for what?

    Subjecting innocent people who are suspected of no wrong-doing to torment and (in some cases) perhaps even mortal danger is not something we should be doing as a sop to entertain Trump’s white nationalist cheerleaders.

    How many Muslims have committed acts of terrorism in the US? This page, which looks pretty complete, lists 13 incidents since 2009, perpetrated by 16 terrorists. 11 of them were US citizens (9 natural-born, 2 naturalized). 4 were refugees (2 from Chechnya – the Boston Marathon assholes – and 2 from Somalia). The last was the wife of a natural-born citizen. So over half of the Islamic terrorists in the past 8 years were natural-born US citizens.

    (The 19 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia, which is not even subject to the order).

    Trump’s executive order is a publicity stunt out of all proportion to the actual problem.

    My preferred solution is that Donald Trump leaves office as soon as possible, by whatever mechanism.

    Short of that, I think we should of course do whatever we can to improve our ability to identify the near-zero fraction of entering Muslims who present an actual threat to us.

    But we should treat the others, the overwhelming majority who have done nothing to give any reasonable cause for suspicion, with the same respect and empathy we would ask for ourselves. You know, kind of like the golden rule?

    Dave (711345)

  39. Didn’t some of these people get green cards from the Obama administration even when there was a court order preventing them from issuing those green cards? What happens to those people?

    I also suspect the administrative state doing this on purpose to make Trump look bad.

    Tanny O'Haley (c674c7)

  40. @Dave: So over half of the Islamic terrorists in the past 8 years were natural-born US citizens.

    If their parents hadn’t immigrated, they’d not have been born here. Nonetheless, by your logic stopping Muslim immigration and asylum-seeking would cut domestic Muslim terrorism in half.

    And remember that Muslims of any kind in the US, native born or not, are an exceedingly tiny fraction of the population, and exceedingly overrepresented as terrorists.

    It is not the “white nationalist” population that has noticed this… it is the American people generally. The perception is that establishment politicians have put their heads in the sand, hence the Trumpening. Continuing to argue that it’s not really a problem is something that is just going to work in favor of Trump.

    Gabriel Hanna (61adec)

  41. Except Hansen was preventing a class legalization contract statute, whereas trump had statutory authority, of course the lead inspiration for attacks on every continent has been Awlaki for nearly 6nyears, a American born of Yemeni parents

    narciso (d1f714)

  42. @Dave:But we should treat the others, the overwhelming majority who have done nothing to give any reasonable cause for suspicion, with the same respect and empathy we would ask for ourselves. You know, kind of like the golden rule?

    The Golden Rule is for the behavior of individuals, it is not a license to demand that others bear risks simply because you don’t think it’s much to worry about.

    And mind that in many of these nations, they do not extend the respect and empathy they would ask for themselves to others. It is a sad fact of a fallen world, that we have to be wary of those who would abuse our empathy to seek our harm, like the Tsarnaevs did.

    Gabriel Hanna (61adec)

  43. @Gabriel

    It is a fundamental principle of justice, among nations or individuals, that you do not hold the innocent accountable for the acts of the guilty.

    At least, great nations don’t do that.

    But, your argument is full of holes anyway. A total of 2 out of the 16 individuals mentioned (both Somalis, responsible for a total of zero deaths) would have been prevented from entering the US by these orders. It is an admission that not only is this a publicity stunt, but a horribly stupid and ineffective one at that.

    Further, you appear to argue that we should exclude people not on the basis of what they have done, or even might do, but on the basis of what their children yet unborn might do. Madness.

    Dave (711345)

  44. ==The front line will be the airline counters at overseas airports. There’s a law, with criminal penalties, against bringing people here without proper documentation==

    nk @10:34–I witnessed a kind of interesting story along those very lines although it involved a different country and a boat. On a recent trip by small ship where travelers were from many different countries our U.S., French, Irish, German, Australian, New Zealand, etc., passports were all sufficient to get us into Canada where we had several scheduled stops. But for a guy from a South American country, his passport needed also to be augmented by a special Canadian Visa which he did not realize until the day before our arrival in Canadian waters. The travel company tried to help him get an emergency Visa but no go. They tried to see if he could be “confined” on shipboard under the captain’s jurisdiction whenever the rest of us were off ship on Canadian soil, but no go. Finally right after breakfast a pontoon plane landed and he and his wife and their luggage were shuttled out to the pontoon plane by zodiac. We other passengers were upset and unhappy. The ship captain explained that not only could the traveler get into serious trouble, but they could be fined and even lose their license if they were ever caught facilitating/bringing someone into Canadian waters without proper documentation and the required papers. Just minutes later we crossed a boundary line and Canadian customs and immigration officials boarded our craft and checked all passports so we could disembark.

    elissa (8b3e8e)

  45. Dave – Kindly explain why a non U.S. citizen is to be afforded the same level of scrutiny and protections under our constitution.

    Ed from SFV (3400a5)

  46. Well, I finished my post responding to McCarthy.

    It’s scheduled to go up around 4 a.m. tomorrow.

    2500 words.

    I think it’s pretty convincing, though. I like McCarthy at times, but this was not his best effort, I think.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  47. Quite apart from the legality of this EO (dubious), the decision to halt immigration from many of these countries is a bad strategic idea.

    For its own security, the US and its allies need good working relationships with foreign governments and their citizens/subjects. A blanket ban on immigrants from friendly states, with little to no warning to those states (e.g. Iraq), is a sure-fire way to lose goodwill and potential recruits for intelligence work.

    JP (c12630)

  48. @Ed

    The Constitution applies to everyone subject to the authority of the United States.

    In particular, the Fifth Amendment says

    “No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; …”

    Note: “no person”, not “no citizen”

    Of course, certain provisions, like the right to vote, are specifically reserved to citizens, for instance:

    “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”

    When the Constitution applies only to citizens, it makes that clear.

    Dave (711345)

  49. No problem with this. I would also want any prohibition on current green card holders stayed. Although ANYONE coming in from some of these countries (and a few others) ought to expect more than the usual questions. That’s not new or unusual. If you came in from Peru in 1992 you were never waved through the green door.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  50. How can a district court judge create a nationwide ruling? Didn’t realize that judges were clergy.

    Folks can always appeal. I was giving Patterico sh1t earlier about the law being what a court says it is. It works both ways. Someone *could* appeal this to whatever circuit, although no one will. Two days from now it won’t matter.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  51. @Dave:you do not hold the innocent accountable for the acts of the guilty.

    Controlling our borders is not a punishment. No non-citizen has a right to enter the United States, any more than any American citizen has a right to enter any other country.

    At least, great nations don’t do that.

    There is no nation in the world considers border and immigration controls to mean what you say it means. If I’m denied entry to Canada or China, for any reason or none, I am not being “punished” or “held accountable” or “treated unjustly”.

    This is an application that you have invented out of the air, which is practiced nowhere in the world.

    everyone subject to the authority of the United States.

    A person entering the United States, not a citizen of the United States, is not “subject to the authority of the United States. That’s why we can’t issue writs of habeas corpus or pardons to free illegally imprisoned people in other countries.

    Gabriel Hanna (61adec)

  52. @JP: A blanket ban on immigrants from friendly states, with little to no warning to those states (e.g. Iraq),

    Then the damage was done back in 2015 when Obama did the very same thing.

    Gabriel Hanna (61adec)

  53. The ACLU is reporting that CBP agents are ignoring the judge’s order…now what? How does a federal judge enforce an order if the executive branch ignores it?

    Horatio (5d352e)

  54. 44 — Elissa has a very good point, and it will be interesting to see how it plays out.

    The Judge’s order puts in place a barrier to enforcement of the EO with regard to anyone who has made it to US shores — even if they have not made it through a port of entry.

    What that means is that under immigration laws, if you are attempting to enter the US at a port of entry, you are not deemed to have legally entered the US until you have been cleared by Customs to do so. You might think you are in JFK/LAX/O’Hare/Dulles, and therefore “in” the United States. But until that Customs official waives you through, you haven’t gotten there yet. You are only in line to take a magic “step”.

    If you are denied entry, then you can voluntarily return to where you came from, or to any other place you have authorization to travel. If you refuse, you are subject to “removal”. The Judge’s order halts any such “removal” efforts for persons denied entry under the Pres. EO.

    So, as Elissa points out, the “front line” is at the airport where the visa holders depart. Once they are on a plane en route, the Judge’s Order is going to afford them some protections upon arrival.

    But as also pointed out, there are some enforcement mechanisms in place for airlines that disregard US entry restrictions, and deliver persons not eligible for admission at US ports of entry.

    US carriers are not going to mess with violating the EO, but foreign carriers — especially state owned foreign carriers — might opt to act in violation of the EO and put people on their flights into the US that are barred from entry by the terms of the EO.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  55. #AdiosStarbucks you are so slutty #AdiosStarbucks we don’t want your gringo coffee

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  56. 54 — she can set a hearing for an “Order to Show Cause re Contempt” and ask the Gov’t to explain why it is disregarding her order. She can site the Government for Contempt if she’s not satisfied.

    But, this has long been an issue of some debate at the federal level — is there a legitimate basis in the separation of powers for a single district court judge to issue an order that applies nationwide.

    The reason this issue exists is that appeals decisions by federal circuit courts of appeal DO NOT apply nationwide — only Supreme Court decisions apply nationwide. The appeals courts’ decisions only apply within the jurisdictional boundaries of the particular appeals court that issues the decisions, and conflicts between different circuits on same/similar subjects are common. Where the conflicts are significant, the Supreme Court usually takes up the matter to create a national uniform outcome by resolving the conflict.

    So, its never been conclusively established to my knowledge whether a federal district judge sitting in Brooklyn can issue an order that binds the Admin. with regard to actions its taking in Los Angeles. Generally, the Exec. has never wanted to really test the issue, and usually backs down.

    But this is the Trump Admin., with its very stark “Us v. Them” approach to governing, and this judge has now placed herself among the “Them”. So who knows what the Admin might do in response.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  57. On the issue of foreign airlines adjusting — there’s a story that the United Emirates Airline, one of the biggest flying in Europe now, has had to make radical adjustments to its crew rosters in order to comply with the EO. Pilots and attendants normally overnight after arriving in the US, and maybe stay a day or two depending on how many hours they have flown, and in order to do so they have to be able to clear Customs. If the pilot is a national of one of the 7 banned countries, they can’t fly to the US.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  58. Apparently, a big winner in all of this will be Uber.

    NYC Taxi drivers are staging a “strike” in protest of the EO.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  59. uber is owned by nasty terror-loving saudi royal perverts

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  60. 54 — she can set a hearing for an “Order to Show Cause re Contempt” and ask the Gov’t to explain why it is disregarding her order. She can site the Government for Contempt if she’s not satisfied.

    When politician takes an oath of office to uphold the Constitution, the oath doesn’t state “…as determined by SCOTUS or any Federal court.” Given the independence of each branch, other than tradition to follow a court’s directive, what power other than public opinion does any court have to enforce its decision?

    The courts don’t control th DOJ, or the US Marshalls office…or for that matter, any law enforcement agency…

    Horatio (1eb918)

  61. shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 1/29/2017 @ 8:04 am

    If you are denied entry, then you can voluntarily return to where you came from,

    That might not be the case from some of people detained. It was the fact that one of them was a Syrian refugee (who most definitely was not coming from an area under Assad’s rule) that prompted the judge to issue an injunction. Although it might very well be that he could go back to where he was just before.

    Trump’s order also denied re-entry to permanent residents (green card holders) even those wihina few months of the 5-year minimum eligiblity for citizenship or longer. There were a good number of Iranians on vacation in Iran and/or to see family, with jobs here and everything, who did not expect this or they wouldn’t have made the trip.

    Also students from some of the affected countries who were attending universities in the United States..

    The people who did make sure to get back before January 20th were “Dreamers” who were iven permission to leave and come back, whom Trump has not done anything about yet.

    They had to have some kind of special reason and prior approval to temporarily leave, and many colleges organized special programs to get out and in, because once they got back in their legal status, under the old, pre-existing, law, changed. They then were legally admitted to the United states, and adjustment of status (for instance in the event of marriage to a U.S. citizxens or permanent resident) is easier and less risky for people who have been “inspected” than those who just crossed the border. There is no requiremet in that case to apply to immigrate from outside the United States.

    Mark Krikorian called that laundering and he didn’t like it.

    Trump has revoked visas already granted, which is different from what Obama did with the Haitians coming from Brazil (whom he suddenly stopped paroling) and with the Cubans arriving at the U.S. border (Actually, maybe the Cubaa doctors, which was a special program, did have visas, I’m not sure)

    Both of these last two split families, but Obama didn’t suddenly revoke visas on a mass scale.

    Sammy Finkelman (dec35d)

  62. Sammy — where in the Order does Trump revoke visas that have already been granted? If you are referencing people holding visas who have not yet traveled to the US, the order doesn’t revoke the visas, it suspends the entry process for a fixed period of time.

    But people in the US with valid visas are not having their visas revoked under the terms of the EO as I read it.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  63. Sammy — “voluntary deport” is a term of art. It simply means the person opts to not make further efforts to enter the US, and agrees to return to their own country.

    If they are allowed by the laws of the country they departed from to return to that country, they can do so rather than return to their own country. Or, if they have travel authorization, they may use the US as a transit point, and simply continue their travel on to another country. Canada apparently announced this morning that it will accept entry for persons attempting to travel to the US who are from one of the 7 countries covered by the EO. Presumably, anyone detained at JFK — or anyone denied boarding on a flight headed from JFK, can change their destination to Montreal or Toronto. From there they can make application under the waiver process that is established in the EO.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  64. elissa @49, Re Glenn Kesler:

    Since every thing Obama knew he learned by reading it in the paper, or so he often claimed, this admission of malfeasance by the MSM suggests that Obama had no knowledge of his OE either. The entire government was careening down the road with no one driving if you put these two factoids together.

    Obama’s management style, crisis exploitation while leading from behind, doomed him to failure. But he got to play a lot of golf in Hawaii. Now that he has a lot of free time, it will be interesting to see if he spends as much time playing golf as before. The difference being, of course, that he has to pay the fees and the transportation costs himself henceforth.

    BobStewartatHome (c24491)

  65. 64. What are the permissable physical mechanics of a detained person who choses to use a US airport as a transfer point to a 3rd accepting country. E. G. assuming one either does not have a mobile device or it is drained of power by the time of. Are they accompanied by CBP agents to a gate or the departure desk to book the flight? Are they providec access to a laptop or a workstation with at least wifi?

    urbanleftbehind (847a06)

  66. 24. nk (dbc370) — 1/28/2017 @ 9:51 pm

    Ex parte (only one side, the plaintiffs) hearing, and the judge shooting from the hip is still my impression

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/28/us/refugees-detained-at-us-airports-prompting-legal-challenges-to-trumps-immigration-order.html

    The judge’s one-page ruling came swiftly after lawyers for the A.C.L.U. testified in her courtroom that one of the people detained at an airport was being put on a plane to be deported back to Syria at that very moment. A government lawyer, Gisela A. Westwater, who spoke to the court by phone from Washington, said she simply did not know.

    Sammy Finkelman (dec35d)

  67. elissa (8b3e8e) — 1/28/2017 @ 9:36 pm

    Kish–I’ve noticed you are not the only one around the internets who is wondering if some in the deep state may have intentionally interpreted and administered the EO in an unnecessarily aggressive manner right out of the gate.

    That might be the case, at least with the idea of including green card holders.

    Latest update:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/29/us/politics/white-house-official-in-reversal-says-green-card-holders-wont-be-barred.html

    On Saturday night, the Department of Homeland Security said that Mr. Trump’s order did apply to green card holders who were traveling to the United States from the seven countries affected.

    White House officials reiterated that position in a briefing for reporters on Saturday afternoon, saying that green card holders from the seven countries would need a case-by-case waiver to return.

    Mr. Priebus appeared to change that position Sunday morning. “As far as green card holders, moving forward, it doesn’t affect them,” he said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” program.

    It seems like even (lower ranking) people in the White House didn’t even know what it did. But it is true – barring green card holders from returning was not on table before ot was issued. Tha still leave sthe questions of students with multiple entry visas.

    Sammy Finkelman (dec35d)

  68. Then the damage was done back in 2015 when Obama did the very same thing.

    You may be quite correct on this, Gabriel, but which specific state or states was or were targeted, and what was the stated rationale for doing so?

    During his campaign, Trump went on record asking for “… a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.” As obnoxious as some Muslim-majority governments can be, this is not the way to win over US allies.

    Barack Obama gave the general impression of treating hostile or noisome states (e.g. Iran and Russia, respectively) amenably but keeping friendly and even fulsomely “progressive” states (e.g. Israel, Canada) at arm’s length throughout his Presidency.

    JP (c12630)

  69. Same way Andrew Hanen did when he stayed Obama’s executive amnesty.

    Did you complain about that?

    Patterico (115b1f) — 1/28/2017 @ 10:44 pm

    You mean the one Obama ignored?

    Where was the alleged contempt?

    NJRob (54da42)

  70. NYC Taxi drivers are staging a “strike” in protest of the EO.

    Yes, taxi drive solidarity is legend.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  71. The Executive Order addresses “removable aliens”.

    nn (e43530)

  72. NYC Taxi drivers are staging a “strike” in protest of the EO.

    I think that was yesterday. It was pointed out by the televisoon news that 94% of taxi drivers are foreign born (if I understood what the 94% was) They are mostly either Muslim or Sikh. I think this is yellow cab drivers. The taxis had stopped picking up passengers.

    There was also a big demonstration and disruption at Kennedy airport. At lesst two members of Congress were there: Jerry Nadler (and Nydia Velasquez I think)

    The Port Authority police stopped the air train on he grounds that it was going to get overcrowded but Governor Cuomo overruled them and said people had the right to demonstrate or something like that.

    Then they got the judge’s ruling and the TV news said the demonstration had turned into a celebration.

    I heard some statistics on TV last night. Altogether 375 people were scheduled to travel to the United States from the seven countries. Most were stopped from boarding or staying on the plane, but 109 were stopped at the airport. Some were sent back (across the Atlantic) before the judge’s order, and in Dallas they tried to prevent lawyers from contacting them. A judge in Virginia also issued an injunction. shipwrecedcrew says that (all refugees detained in the airports?) can be admitted to Canada.

    The 10,000 Syrian refugees Barack Obama aranged the admisson of are a small fraction of all srian refugees, but it seems like he wanted to set an example for Europe.

    Donald Trump was said to be thinking about establishing a safe zone in Syria.

    The issue with that has been that either Russian agreement or a willingness to shoot down Russian plans is required for a safe zone either in Syria or outside of it. What makes Turkeysafe is a willingness to shoot down Russian planes – what else?

    I don’t know if anyone is going to establish any factories or make any onvestments inside of a safe zone in Syria.

    Sammy Finkelman (dec35d)

  73. Subjecting people to “torment” and holding them responsible for the actions of others??

    When I traveled to London from Dublin during the terrorist era, I flew solo once and was pulled aside and questioned by two officials, neither of whom smiled, at all, and also had my luggage searched. I was quite nervous, not TORMENTED, and then I continued my trip. The people coming to the US yesterday were not tormented either.

    The hyperbole of this resistance BS is hurting your cause, Dave. Unless of course you are just trolling.

    Patricia (5fc097)

  74. meanwhile not a single American was murdered by a murderous terrorist immigrant refugee today

    the policy is working

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  75. The judge’s order is not legal. See http://voxday.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-order-is-illegal.html

    “U.S. visas, of any class, are different from those issued by other countries. They do not confer the right to enter the United States, but the right to present oneself at a Port of Entry (including airports) to ask for permission to enter the United States.”

    xsssx (ff83c2)

  76. Hollywood summed up in a nutshell by a starlet:

    “The protests at LAX are important but so are the SAG Awards, otherwise I’d be there!”

    All that glitters is not bold.

    “Oh, we’re going to talk about me again, are we? Goody!” – Tracy Lord [Katharine Hepburn] ‘The Philadelphia Story’, 1940

    DCSCA (797bc0)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4109 secs.