Changes: Immigration EO Comparison · GitHub
In its current form, it’s not that different from the temporary visa freeze Obama did, and it will be much harder for parties to show they have standing, so you’d really have to go to intent to throw it out. I don’t think federal judges are going to be willing to go there with an injunction without a trial.
“…to speak about tolerance, understanding, unity and the rule of law”.
Looks like a hoax at the moment, but it’s so plausible I can’t rule it out.
Ain’t that some shit? The one guy that literally keeps a copy of The Constitution on him all the time, and we have to review his travel?
That’s how a dictatorship works… it’s not just about who breaks the law but who is against your message.
That has to be a hoax. As an actual US Citizen he could certainly fear that he would be subject to ridiculous amounts of over-zealous scrutiny on a return trip to the U.S., but there is no way he would not be allowed back in. In fact, knowing how bravely Mr. Khan stood up to Trump and his ilk during the campaign, I would think that he would actually welcome such a challenge as an opportunity to draw attention to the ridiculousness of what is happening. Nothing says “bad optics” more than a Gold Star family being hassled as they try to re-enter the country their son fought and died for.
There’s a huge difference between defying candidate Trump and President Trump. I can’t blame the guy for not taking his chances at the border.
At worst, he’d be stuck in Canada and become a cause célèbre for Trumpian evil. It’s not like he’d be shipped back to Pakistan. I don’t blame him either, but I do think that he demonstrated ample bravery in the past and for him to back down like this… Seems weird. Which is why I’m not sure I put much credence in this report as it currently stands.
If you have a US passport, then you cannot be denied entry to the US. In fact, if you have a US passport then any country can deport you to the US. And refuse to take you back.
So, what does “reviewing his travel” mean in that context? Can they deny you the ability to leave the US?
Yes, if they revoke his passport then it would be very hard to leave the country.
But revoking a passport is complicated. Putting him on the “no-fly list” is trivial in comparison, so I’m guessing that’s what is going on. There are other possibilities, too, but all of them involve restricting his ability to leave, not his ability to come back.
How about DHS leader Kelly saying they plan to separate children from their parents on CNN (supposedly to deter Central Americans from using a smuggling system that exposes females to sexual abuse)?
MAGA
They’re about 10 minutes away from noting that since a certain percentage of detainees at the border camps will regrettably die there, it would be wasteful not to use their body parts.
Seriously fuck this country.
“Too brown” is now probable cause to deny entry to passport holding Canadians and Europeans in Trump’s 'Murica.
I also like how this is yet again another example of people of Indian descent being targeted by moronic Americans that can’t tell the difference between Indian and whatever the fuck they think a terrorist looks like. News flash 'Murica, only about 14% of India is Muslim, and the percentage of Muslims of Indian descent living abroad is very very small (relative to non-Muslim Indians), which means the odds of a person of Indian descent from Canada, Great Britain or America being an Islamic extremist are far less than those of a U.S. Border Patrol agent being a raging racist shitheel.
I suppose one bright spot in all of this is that it’s helping to illustrate just how deluded many of us were that racism was being defeated in America. There’s still a lot of work to do, and a lot of ignorant people that need to either die off or have some sense beat into them.
That’s all true. i also wonder if it shows just how traumatic 9/11 was to some segments of the population. There was/is a certain group that wanted/wants to rationalize terrorism by making it proportional; there is another that very much is in a “never forget, never forgive” mindset that, maybe only now, we’re seeing come out when being P.C. isn’t culturally “mandatory”.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/07/politics/hawaii-travel-ban-lawsuit/index.html
“To be sure, the new executive order covers fewer people than the old one,” Neal Katyal, one of the lead attorneys for Hawaii, said in an interview with CNN. But in his view, the new travel ban still “suffers from the same constitutional and statutory defects.”
Both sides in the Hawaii case have now asked for the judge to approve a tight briefing schedule in order for the state’s request to be heard before the new executive order goes into effect on March 16.