Breaking: Washington judge grants nationwide restraining order on Immigration ban

[DarrinS]

Just send them all to sanctuary cities.

[ElNono]

Not saying I totally agree with how it was implemented but the executive clearly has jurisdiction on how VISA's to enter the US are issued.

They have jurisdiction, but always within the framework of the Cons ution. A religious (or racial) ban is uncons utional. This case centers on this being a not-so-subtle religion-based ban.

The case is just starting, tbh, there's no verdict yet as to the validity of the claim. The only thing established is that the State does have standing, and that's likely to prevail according to THIS judge.

[CosmicCowboy]

Up to 100,000 people got their visas revoked without warning.

Trump the imponpetent got.
breaks and violates cons utional laws in one week.

It was more like 60,000 and it's not clear at this point any cons utional law was violated.

[CosmicCowboy]

They have jurisdiction, but always within the framework of the Cons ution. A religious (or racial) ban is uncons utional. This case centers on this being a not-so-subtle religion-based ban.

The case is just starting, tbh, there's no verdict yet as to the validity of the claim. The only thing established is that the State does have standing, and that's likely to prevail according to THIS judge.

Thank you. I agree with your assessment but proving it's a religious ban will be a big hurdle.

[Reck]

It was more like 60,000 and it's not clear at this point any cons utional law was violated.

Oh so that makes it much better.

And of course it did. If you have a working Visa and it gets revoked for no reason, then something is not right.

So your visa gets revoked because....?

[CosmicCowboy]

Oh so that makes it much better.

And of course it did. If you have a working Visa and it gets revoked for no reason, then something is not right.

So your visa gets revoked because....?

Any number of reasons and after a vigorous review in most cases will probably be reinstated.

Or not. We don't "owe" entry to the US to anyone.

[Reck]

Any number of reasons and after a vigorous review in most cases will probably be reinstated.

Or not. We don't "owe" entry to the US to anyone.

And what about the people already in the US? They get to be held hostage by our own government? If they get out, they cant come in.

Again, why?

[ElNono]

Any number of reasons and after a vigorous review in most cases will probably be reinstated.

Or not. We don't "owe" entry to the US to anyone.

The problem is that such 'review' can be irreparably damaging to a number of companies, persons, etc. It's not that the government doesn't have the power of such changes of policies, it's that they could be damaging regardless, especially when they're unannounced and impossible to plan for. So the government might be within it's right, but that doesn't mean it's order is not damaging, and will have to respond for that damage. After all, it was the same government (regardless of the change of administration) that made assurances, through visa papers (which have expiration dates, and certain rules for revocation), that those persons were en led entry into the US.

In other words, a lot of this could've been avoided if handled differently: Should the government would've announced a review of all visas starting at a certain point, or not denying entry while such review process was ongoing, or decided to stop issuing visas until that process was complete, etc... this probably would look a lot different now.

[spurraider21]

Government can actually plead natsec directly, but judges can overrule (although the vast majority of the time, especially in cases of surveillance, they do defer to the government).

The administration will probably look to find an amicable court to certify the cons utionality of the EO, thus likely creating colliding rulings, and ignore the restraining order, while it escalates the case.

The case itself centers both on campaign and public statements to the effect of this being a religion-based ban. A hearsay defense might just be enough to make it go away, although the probative value seems to outweight prejudice in this case.

not a chance tbh... regardless of it being prejudicial. tons of ways to get around hearsay hurdles in this scenario.

- party admission
- state of mind (to show intent)
- statement of public office
- residual exception (trustworthy + evidence of material fact + more probative than other evidence available)... fed rules of evidence 807

[ElNono]

not a chance tbh... regardless of it being prejudicial. tons of ways to get around hearsay hurdles in this scenario.

- party admission
- state of mind (intent)
- statement of public office
- residual exception (trustworthy + evidence of material fact + more probative than other evidence available)

Yeah, that's why I was saying that the Hearsay rule will likely not apply here. Then again, you don't have a direct quote from the POTUS, in his capacity of POTUS, making the claim.
I haven't kept up, but I don't think Giuliani has an official government position at this time?

[Trill Clinton]

[CosmicCowboy]

The problem is that such 'review' can be irreparably damaging to a number of companies, persons, etc. It's not that the government doesn't have the power of such changes of policies, it's that they could be damaging regardless, especially when they're unannounced and impossible to plan for. So the government might be within it's right, but that doesn't mean it's order is not damaging, and will have to respond for that damage. After all, it was the same government (regardless of the change of administration) that made assurances, through visa papers (which have expiration dates, and certain rules for revocation), that those persons were en led entry into the US.

In other words, a lot of this could've been avoided if handled differently: Should the government would've announced a review of all visas starting at a certain point, or not denying entry while such review process was ongoing, or decided to stop issuing visas until that process was complete, etc... this probably would look a lot different now.

I agree.

[spurraider21]

Yeah, that's why I was saying that the Hearsay rule will likely not apply here. Then again, you don't have a direct quote from the POTUS, in his capacity of POTUS, making the claim.
I haven't kept up, but I don't think Giuliani has an official government position at this time?

hm, true, hadn't considered that dynamic. he has referred to it as a "ban" recently... could end up depending on whether SCOTUS is willing to make a disparate impact analysis

[spurraider21]

The problem is that such 'review' can be irreparably damaging to a number of companies, persons, etc. It's not that the government doesn't have the power of such changes of policies, it's that they could be damaging regardless, especially when they're unannounced and impossible to plan for. So the government might be within it's right, but that doesn't mean it's order is not damaging, and will have to respond for that damage. After all, it was the same government (regardless of the change of administration) that made assurances, through visa papers (which have expiration dates, and certain rules for revocation), that those persons were en led entry into the US.

In other words, a lot of this could've been avoided if handled differently: Should the government would've announced a review of all visas starting at a certain point, or not denying entry while such review process was ongoing, or decided to stop issuing visas until that process was complete, etc... this probably would look a lot different now.

how could you be such an idiot, tbh..

[ElNono]

hm, true, hadn't considered that dynamic. he has referred to it as a "ban" recently... could end up depending on whether SCOTUS is willing to make a disparate impact analysis

Correct. A "ban" itself wouldn't be uncons utional, and even unintentional disparate impact would be ok. But if the government becomes unable to present something akin to the business necessity defense (under natsec), then it will be struck down.

That said, there's a lot of lines to cross in this particular case, and if effectively a review is done in 90 days, then it will likely be over before a case actually starts (government could still be liable for damages though).

[ElNono]

how could you be such an idiot, tbh..

Well, that seems to tell me more about the quality of the upcoming review than about the "bad hombres" out there.

[spurraider21]

Correct. A "ban" itself wouldn't be uncons utional, and even unintentional disparate impact would be ok. But if the government becomes unable to present something akin to the business necessity defense (under natsec), then it will be struck down.

yep

That said, there's a lot of lines to cross in this particular case, and if effectively a review is done in 90 days, then it will likely be over before a case actually starts (government could still be liable for damages though).

yeah but what would the remedy even be at that point?

[ElNono]

yeah but what would the remedy even be at that point?

I suppose it depends on the strength or rationale of the new vetting process. I suspect companies could claim monetary damages under civil if the government is unable to prove why their star employee is a threat to natsec because he was born in Iran and had his H1B revoked, or a business opportunity was lost due to the temporary ban.

Then again, we don't even know what the new policy is going to look like in 90 days, so we'll know more by then. I'm sure lawsuits will be lining up if it's anything but extremely convincing.

[Thread]

Trump should sign a fresh EO.

[Thread]

Does the part where he stops immigration from the 7 countries stand?
Does the part where he stops immigration from Syria stand?

[ElNono]

Does the part where he stops immigration from the 7 countries stand?
Does the part where he stops immigration from Syria stand?

I don't know about right at this moment, but if I were a betting man, I would say he'll get away with it in due time.

[Thread]

I don't know about right at this moment, but if I were a betting man, I would say he'll get away with it in due time.

Thank Christ.

[Thread]

& here is a prime example of the delayed betrayal of (Bush). (Dems) never, ever make this mistake. They set someone somewhere with a Leftist bent and that er stays Left. You will not pass. Tonite, because of Bush we got ed by a sleeper cell activated at the opportune moment.

Same with Bush's appointment of Supreme Court Justice Roberts. He appoints him, but, only AFTER he tried to shove some other Justice thru that was leaning Left. Only because conservatives demanded he make another choice did we get Roberts who ended up ing us anyways on the Obamacare ruling.

[ElNono]

& here is a prime example of the delayed betrayal of (Bush). (Dems) never, ever make this mistake. They set someone somewhere with a Leftist bent and that er stays Left. You will not pass. Tonite, because of Bush we got ed by a sleeper cell activated at the opportune moment.

Same with Bush's appointment of Supreme Court Justice Roberts. He appoints him, but, only AFTER he tried to shove some other Justice thru that was leaning Left. Only because conservatives demanded he make another choice did we get Roberts who ended up ing us anyways on the Obamacare ruling.

There's two sides to every coin, Culbear... Donny ed up on this one (I'm not even pinning it on him, he probably delegated this to somebody and they ed up). But in the end, they'll get what they want and they'll get it right.

It's not like they care about perception anyways.

[Thread]

There's two sides to every coin, Culbear... Donny ed up on this one (I'm not even pinning it on him, he probably delegated this to somebody and they ed up). But in the end, they'll get what they want and they'll get it right.

It's not like they care about perception anyways.

That's MSM talking points, El.