It's a 90 day travel ban. How fast can a lawsuit reach the courts? It'll be over before it goes to trial. I guess it could be ready if the ban is extended.
It'll start with this 90 day Muslim ban and devolve into something much longer and much worse.
Legally, it could be, but politically, it probably won't.
This temporary ban is political theatre.
First - migrants from different parts of the world already face very different degrees of scrutiny - this has been ongoing for a very long time, certainly under Obama etc.. - so the issue of 'national discrimination' will hold up under legal pressure, I think.
Second - the commenters point is pragmatically valid because this exec order is a political means for Trump to show that 'he's doing what he said he would do' and to give impetus to his base. That's mostly it. It's not a real operational measure.
After 90 days, Trump will declare that 'we've made changes to the vetting process and have 'extreme vetting' (even though there was already 'extreme vetting' under Obama) - and this will be over.
Caveat - your point about Iran is valid - but Iran is a very different country than the others, and is on the list for different reasons.
I believe that stronger restrictions may be put in place for Iranian citizens after 90 days - this is the beginning of the 're-establishment' of a new Iran-USA relationship which will go in the opposite direction Obama had it going in, for better or worse. Probably worse, but hey. Remember that Trump promised to 'end' the deal that Obama made with Iran - and this ban is going to be part of Trump's 'negotiating process', if you can call it that.
It may be worthwhile to legally challenge the order anyhow - for local political reasons (institutions and governments want to seem like they are 'doing something about this injustice) - but also to make sure that, as you say, this could go on for longer than 90 days - but I doubt that.
Anyhow - it's important to look at this from a political perspective as much as a legal one, because the game that's being played is mostly political.
You could be right, but I'll bet $1000 that almost all of this is going to be legally moot in 90 days.
Listen, I don't like Trump, but I think we have to sit outside the political game to see it clearly.
It's a 90 day ban on certain countries followed by an permanent ban by countries that don't meet as-yet-unspecified information sharing standards.
Plus some other parts (like the complete refugee ban) with different timelines.
> How fast can a lawsuit reach the courts?
Pretty near instantly.
> It'll be over before it goes to trial.
Perhaps (or, more likely, the parameters and legal issues will shift before that happens), but that just means that getting a TRO pre-trial may be as good as prevailing at trial, as far as the initial 90 day ban policy is concerned.
"Complete" ban on any excess over 50,000 refugees within FY2017.
It would also establish precedent against a new ban of this sort being established.
That was enough to stay execution for people who had already arrived in the US or were in transit at the time of the ruling. If Microsoft gets just a stay for future travelers within even a few weeks, that will be enough to allow them to continue business while fighting the legality of the order itself in the courts.
I'd guess they can also seek penalties or restitution.
"In what is a dark, and fascist time in Trump's America, brave companies like Microsoft and Amazon and standing up to the Orange Dictator in a brave cry for Freedom" and yadda yadda.
Also, they want to make sure they don't lose out on any future prospects to the competition - can't have too many college grads deciding getting a green card in America isn't worth all the vitriol and hatred being spewed at you by the Administration and starting their own companies or going to the competition, I imagine.
It is not a religious ban, and it's not a blanket ban. Most people so far delayed have been cleared for entry.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/...
Several courts have already found that the ban is likely arbitrary or capricious. In other words, the order appears to have been made on unreasonable grounds or without proper consideration.
*Some provisions apply to "citizen" while others, including the 14th amendment, apply to "all persons."
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
People not within our borders that are not also citizens are not within the US's jurisdiction, and those are not afforded the same protection under the Constitution.
Also yes, the Constitutional status of foreign nationals in U.S. custody within and without U.S. territory is a much litigated rabbit hole.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01/...
Is this "I'm a christian so please let me in" or "I'm a christian/wrong kind of muslim (sunni vs shiite) and facing persecution so please let me in"?
Furthermore, it is not clear that the Sunni/Shia split meets the standard defined in this document (though I agree that it absolutely should).
No other reason for persecution is stated. Text:
(b) Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of
State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security,
is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by
law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the
basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion
of the individual is a minority religion in the individual's
country of nationality. Where necessary and appropriate, the
Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall recommend
legislation to the President that would assist with such
prioritization.Can we please not allow HN to become the type of place where garbage like this is allowed? Pointing out bias is one thing, but the campaign against reputable news sources is ridiculous. If you believe they are wrong then provide evidence, any sort of alternative viewpoint.
The wholesale writing off of news (previously reputable) news organizations is nothing more than a brazen attempt to weaken trust in the media and remove their ability to act as a check on government actions. The washington post is "fake news", they can't be trusted, the story they just broke which is clear and reliable evidence of watergate level misconduct is obviously a lie.
i think that's an assertion that a judge would have to establish.
the states sued obama over immigration issues and got a 4-4 scotus decision.