22 ms·

Federal judge stays deportations of travelers in Trump immigration order

664 points by anarazel 10y ago

coldcode 10y ago
I hope this is true. At least we still have a (mostly) independent judiciary.
- bjshepard 10y ago
  No, you don't.
  - umanwizard 10y ago
    Based on what?
philangist 10y ago
I think the title of this post is wrong. Here's another post - http://www.theverge.com/2017/1/28/14427086/federal-court-halts-trumps-immigration-ban http://www.theverge.com/2017/1/28/14427086/federal-court-hal... - that states that "The court specifically ruled on Darweesh and Alshawi’s petition; the ACLU will have to include all other similarly-affected immigrants as part of a class action to have it apply more broadly."
- anarazel 10y ago
  I think it's fairly unclear for the moment. Some ACLU affiliated account twittered "stay is national": https://twitter.com/dale_e_ho/status/825521534383095809 https://twitter.com/dale_e_ho/status/825521534383095809
  - MBCook 10y ago
    I think that may have meant it applied to all airports as opposed to just the New York airports, but it could still only apply to the people who have already been held and not future travelers.
  - sveiss 10y ago
    The wording of the ruling looks like it applies nationally to me: "WHEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the respondents, their officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all members and persons acting in concert or participation with than, from the date of this Order, 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."
- geofft 10y ago
  This is incorrect - the government tried to remove the ACLU's and NILC's standing by allowing Darweesh and Alshawi (the representative plaintiffs) through, but they prevailed in getting a stay on behalf of the class. It looks like The Verge has fixed the sentence to "The court specifically ruled on Darweesh and Alshawi’s petition; other similarly-situated people being detained and those in transit are covered by the ruling, which is only temporary." It is true that this doesn't stay the entire executive order. It just responds to the habeas-corpus bits for those who already made it to the US (including someone who was being placed on a plane leaving the US as the order was being made, and hopefully was allowed to get back off that plane).
tabeth 10y ago
I'm sorry to report that it's not over yet: > Stay covers the airport detainees and those currently in transit. Doesn't change ban going forward. Prev unclear tweet deleted https://twitter.com/JessicaHuseman/status/825525603491278848 https://twitter.com/JessicaHuseman/status/825525603491278848 > Important clarification. This does not prevent Trump admin from blocking new travelers. https://twitter.com/ericgeller/status/825525917602693120 https://twitter.com/ericgeller/status/825525917602693120
- joatmon-snoo 10y ago
  Link to the current stay: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C3TahZ_WEAAzGAK.jpg:large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C3TahZ_WEAAzGAK.jpg:large EDIT: better link https://www.scribd.com/document/337807824/Darweesh-v-Trump https://www.scribd.com/document/337807824/Darweesh-v-Trump
  - eternalban 10y ago
    https://www.aclu.org/news/federal-court-grants-stay-challenge-trump-immigration-ban https://www.aclu.org/news/federal-court-grants-stay-challeng...
- koheripbal 10y ago
  Clear from the judges order that this only helps those few immigrants caught in transit during the order being signed.
- throwaway5752 10y ago
  More than you know. The CBP was ignoring the court ruling in some airports (Dulles, at least). Federal Marshals were called upon to enforce it. https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/825571882586013696 https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/825571882586013696 (and others. This is a true constitutional crisis, the worst in at least several generations.
AdmiralAsshat 10y ago
I was at the solidarity rally at the Dulles International Airport in Herndon, VA for a few hours, although I had left by the time this story broke. I'd wonder if it got announced to the crowd.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
jackmott 10y ago
Please donate to the ACLU
- jhwhite 10y ago
  Joined today!
rdtsc 10y ago
What is the authority chain usually here. Can a Federal judge block other such executive orders? Is this used often
- shawn-butler 10y ago
  Depends on the President currently in power. The judiciary has no real authority to enforce anything. The Obama administration and the Bush administration before basically made up the law as it went along in some cases. In the US you can find a federal judge to block anything. You just shop around for a circuit with a politically friendly judge and file your suit there. I don't actually think the ACLU has any real standing here, to be honest. You can't sue in US federal court on behalf of non-citizens. They have no standing.
  - khuey 10y ago
    > I don't actually think the ACLU has any real standing here, to be honest. You can't sue in US federal court on behalf of non-citizens. They have no standing. You should refrain from talking about things you clearly know nothing about.
    - shawn-butler 10y ago
      Oh, I know nothing? Moderate your tone. It will be an interesting case for certain but people outside the US can't sue the US government demanding entry. They have no standing. As a citizen, I barely have legal standing to sue for a denial of passport. The affected people already present might have some standing to fight their denial of entry as they are here legally but people here illegally have no such right.
      - adjkant 10y ago
        > "The affected people already present might have some standing to fight their denial of entry as they are here legally but people here illegally have no such right." The biggest effect of this order is people here legally and those who previously had legal access to the US. There are a ton of people with legal grounding here, and this case holds significant precedent for them.
pmoriarty 10y ago
Trump and the Republican Congress are going to appoint many judges during his term, including Supreme Court judges. That could be Trump's most enduring legacy.
- bluejekyll 10y ago
  Unless the dems block all those nominnees. If they do, we could actually see some bipartisan work to appoint moderates.
  - sdenton4 10y ago
    Given the Republican commitment to popular bipartisan work over the last eight years, I wouldn't hold my breath.
    - bluejekyll 10y ago
      I'm not even holding my breath for the dems to put up a fight :/
      - freehunter 10y ago
        When Democracts decided to vote "yes" on some of the more ridiculous appointments, even though they would have been appointed even if those Democrats voted no, it was done for them. I can't take a single thing a Democrat congressman says seriously when opposing Trump if they couldn't even say no to Ben Carson being appointed as HUD secretary. Grow a spine. What do they even stand for these days?
        pmoriarty 10y ago
        I remember during Alito's nomination, the Democrats stomped their feet, huffed and puffed, but eventually confirmed him anyway.
        tempestn 10y ago
        This article speaks directly to your point: http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/27/14397448/democrats-trump-cabinet http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/27/14397448/de... Basically, the standard practice used to be for most cabinet appointments to be easily confirmed with bipartisan support. Obama's appointments saw unprecedented levels of push-back from republicans, but still received significant numbers of republican votes. Democratic opposition to Trump's nominations has been, again, unprecedented. My opinion: perhaps, given the fact that their votes are purely symbolic anyway, some democrats are choosing to 'pick their battles', and vote yes to the picks they feel are halfway reasonable, saving opposition for the cases where (again, in their opinions) it matters most.
woofyman 10y ago
So Tump ignores the court and we have a constitutional crisis.
- noobermin 10y ago
  Let's wait for that to happen. Seriously, if this occurs (and we are all damn well aware Trump is capable of it), this will approach a whole new level of madness.
  - dheera 10y ago
    Some part of me wants Trump to make this mistake, and make more big mistakes of the non-lethal variety quickly so that there is grounds to impeach him before he starts a war.
    - umanwizard 10y ago
      You are more optimistic than I am about the prospect of a GOP-controlled congress impeaching a GOP president. I think they would only do so if he did something that was obvious to everyone to be a serious existential threat to the US's existence as a country. I mean, it'd have to be something even more beyond the pale than ignoring the Constitution and transforming the US government into an authoritarian regime without the rule of law. Like, nuking China for no reason, or something.
      - seanp2k2 10y ago
        He's been in office for one week. At this rate, he won't last more than a few months. I'm fully confident that he'll piss off the wrong group of people at some point in the next 0-6 months and land himself in court. If Bill came close from lying about cheating on his wife...then again, sort the votes chart at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton by party affiliation. Then again, I'm sure many more Red Team would want Pence instead, so I'm sure we'll see.
      - filoeleven 10y ago
jseliger 10y ago
The ACLU is also reporting that the stay was granted: https://twitter.com/dale_e_ho/status/825520404777287680 https://twitter.com/dale_e_ho/status/825520404777287680. Many of you are probably watching the horror show unfold and wondering what tangible thing you can do. Joining or contributing to the ACLU is one small but important, specific way to help: https://action.aclu.org/secure/become-freedom-fighter-join-aclu-7 https://action.aclu.org/secure/become-freedom-fighter-join-a.... https://twitter.com/seligerj/status/825529092414046208 https://twitter.com/seligerj/status/825529092414046208
- RoboTeddy 10y ago
  Just signed up with a monthly donation. I think this is the only time I've left the "you may contact me" box ticked on a signup form.
  - methehack 10y ago
    Monthly is the way to go as it gives them a stable base of support that they can plan with.
- rallison 10y ago
  Good call. I just set up monthly contributions and would urge others to as well.
- knz 10y ago
  Is it possible to anonymously donate to the ACLU? As a PR in the process of obtaining citizenship, a small fear of mine is that USCIS will start penalizing applicants that support organizations opposed to Trump. Today just proved that anything is possible and I'm sure we've all seen the stories about CBP asking to see the social media feeds of travelers in the past.
  - pvg 10y ago
    I wouldn't worry about it, with the ACLU.
gdulli 10y ago
If the ban goes to the Supreme Court and is struck down because Trump didn't wait to fill the vacancy with a loyalist first, he'll have essentially failed the marshmallow test. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C2V-XWcVIAAoel4.jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C2V-XWcVIAAoel4.jpg
- JumpCrisscross 10y ago
  The only way it goes to SCOTUS is if the government appeals.
  - helthanatos 10y ago
    He could just play the executive order dance
    - ceejayoz 10y ago
      An injunction against new EOs would be a rather fascinating Constitutional crisis...
      - cderwin 10y ago
        Such an injunction would be without any basis in law whatsoever, the constitution instructs the President to "take care that laws be faithfully executed". Individual executive orders need to have their own constitutional reasoning, but since executive orders are really the means by which the president fulfills that clause, a court could not prohibit them altogether.
        ceejayoz 10y ago
        The question, then, is what recourse would the courts have against a President who just spams new EOs with the same text and new IDs? Can he be charged with contempt of court?
        10y ago
benmorris 10y ago
Donated to the ACLU for the first time today. I also plan to call my representative on Monday.
daodedickinson 10y ago
The text of Trump's temporary order is mostly copy-pasted from temporary orders enacted by Obama that have withstood scrutiny, so I wouldn't get hopes up for a full reversal.
- general_ai 10y ago
  It's quite telling that when Obama had summarily banned Iraqi refugees for 6 months in 2011 we have heard nary a peep from the press.
  - Malician 10y ago
    Did this apply to persons who had green cards or visas?
    - intro-b 10y ago
      No, it specifically relates to increased security checks and verification for refugee visa-seeking applicants (a major discussion point of R governmental agenda, but since it was enacted by a Dem president he is still clearly soft/weak on terrorism).
  - themooingpig 10y ago
    Trump is banning visa and Green Card holders from returning to the States. This is notably different.
    - seanmcdirmid 10y ago
      Not to mention dual citizens. Who the heck is downvoting factual information?
      - rbanffy 10y ago
        Someone with alternative factual information, it seems...
    - 10y ago
moflome 10y ago
FYI, Chris Sacca is matching grants to ALCU up to $150K... https://twitter.com/sacca/status/825475296614707200 https://twitter.com/sacca/status/825475296614707200
hackuser 10y ago
More precisely, it only blocks part of Trump's order: "Judge Ann Donnelly of the US District Court in Brooklyn granted a request from the ACLU to stay deportations of those detained on entry to the United States following President Trump's executive order." https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/refugees-detained-at-us-airports-challenge-trumps-executive-order/2017/01/28/e69501a2-e562-11e6-a547-5fb9411d332c_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/refugees-...
bexp 10y ago
Summary from http://hntop.org http://hntop.org The federal court for the Eastern District of New York has issued an emergency stay halting President Trump's executive order banning immigrants from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the U.S, The Verge reported Saturday night. The court ruled on a habeas corpus petition filed by the ACLU on behalf of two Iraqi men who were detained at John F. Kennedy International Airport on Friday after Trump's ban. Admission will resume only after vetting has been deemed "adequate" by the secretary of State, the secretary of Homeland Security and Director of National Intelligence. The order also denies entry for 90 days for individuals from seven predominantly Muslims countries: Iraq, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Libya and Yemen. –This breaking news report will be updated
- dang 10y ago
  Please stop.
  - zeroer 10y ago
    Are summaries against HN guidelines?
  - bexp 10y ago
    Sorry I was not aware that it violates guidelines
wslh 10y ago
Wow, it seems like US is a 24-hour reality show now.
- Delmania 10y ago
  What do you expect when a reality tv star is elected president?
  - jkelsey 10y ago
    We fucked up. We got too confident and comfortable. For one, I'm sorry. There's a lot of other Americans out here for think and feel the same way. To everybody that warned us about Trump, We cannot express to you how regretful we are. We've really got a lot to make up for.
funkju 10y ago
It's going to be a long four years if the front page of HN is filled with anti-Trump stories. Can't we leave these conversations on other news sites? Edited for typo
- Malician 10y ago
  This is affecting all the major tech companies directly, and many others' personal lives. This is definitely tech-related and important to many in the tech community. Or: Yes, when he stops doing these things.
  - funkju 10y ago
    I think you are overstating it. If it were not Trump, this would not be top story on HN.
    - mhneu 10y ago
      If the Trump administration wasn't making people think about authoritarianism with the totality of their actions and words, yes it might not be. https://storify.com/AndrewHickey/lusztig-arendt-and-trump https://storify.com/AndrewHickey/lusztig-arendt-and-trump
    - seanmcdirmid 10y ago
      It totally would be, it could be Mr. Rogers and it would still be the top story. Your tech employee with a green card, and hence a global tax obligation, is no longer allowed in the country? That is really just messed up. And as you know in our industry, a lot of our coworkers are on these visas. The only thing is, a sane president would never have done that. They might have banned new refugees or new visas from those countries, but preventing the entry of current visa holders...nope. If it were not Trump, this story wouldn't even exist.
    - geofft 10y ago
      This is just provably untrue. Take a look at the top stories on HN from, say, June 2013, in the wake of the Snowden leaks: http://www.daemonology.net/hn-daily/2013-06.html http://www.daemonology.net/hn-daily/2013-06.html A huge number of stories on the front page were about civil liberties / US politics, with titles like - CIA Agents Were Embedded With NYPD And Had “No Limits” - U.S. Government Surveillance: Bad for Silicon Valley, Bad for World Democracy - U.S. bugged EU offices, computer networks - Memories of Stasi color Germans’ view of U.S. surveillance programs - The Criminal N.S.A. - WikiLeaks Volunteer Was a Paid Informant for the FBI - SSL: Intercepted today, decrypted tomorrow - Two Senators Say the NSA Is Still Feeding Us False Information When Obama threatens the ability of tech to get things done, his politics end up on HN. When Trump threatens the ability of tech to get things done, his politics end up on HN.
thinkcomp 10y ago
Docket: https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/33xszihl6/new-york-eastern-district-court/darweesh--et-al/ https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/33xszihl6/new-york-eastern... Order PDF: https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/download.html?id=242131326&z=4584f490 https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/download.html?id=242131326... Related Cases: https://www.plainsite.org/tags/trump-muslim-immigration-ban-executive-order/ https://www.plainsite.org/tags/trump-muslim-immigration-ban-...
refurb 10y ago
If anyone thinks that this ruling is a surprise to the Trump administration, think again. I have no doubt that he conferred with his AG about his executive order and discuss possible outcomes such as a judge blocking his order. Maybe he expected this outcome? Regardless, we'll see what his next move is.
- woofyman 10y ago
  He doesn't have an AG yet.
  - refurb 10y ago
    Alright, good point. But I'm sure he has legal advisors.
- ceejayoz 10y ago
  > Maybe he expected this outcome? If you subscribe to the "provoke outrage to cover something else" theory, this might be it: https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/politics/trump-holds-calls-with-putin-leaders-from-europe-and-asia/2017/01/28/42728948-e574-11e6-a547-5fb9411d332c_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/politics/trump-holds-... Trump added Breitbart's Bannon to the National Security Council, and demoted the Director of National Intelligence and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from it to make room.
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    > Trump added Breitbart's Bannon to the National Security Council That's pure madness. That guy shouldn't even be close to a baseball bat, let alone sitting in on the NSC.
    - ue_ 10y ago
      Out of curiosity, why? What things has he done? I'm quite ignorant on the man.
  - alayne 10y ago
pizza 10y ago
Does anybody have experience with the logistics involved in organizing strangers against such actions?
- dvt 10y ago
  From what I've read, most of today's protests have been ad hoc. Most just famous or political people saying "Show up at JFK" or "Show up at LAX". The fact that so many people gathered (at so many airports) without any kind of major force behind them shows that this order was clearly misguided.
a3n 10y ago
A little OT, I guess, but the WaPo's story about this repeats a map I've seen that shows the seven countries. Conspicuously absent are Egypt, Saudi Arabia, UAE and Lebanon, which is where the people who hijacked the 9/11 planes, the worst, and most logistically complex, terrorist act against the US ever, were from. Where's the logic? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks#FBI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks#FBI I don't at all think that this order should be in effect, but I don't see the logic in its implementation.
- hyperpape 10y ago
  I have yet to see anyone try to justify the choice of countries. I know I live in a bit of a bubble with regard to the particular Trump brand of conservatism, but I usually see people arguing the opposite side, even if it's just being quoted by people who agree with me.
  - sveiss 10y ago
    The choice of countries actually dates back to a 2015 Act of Congress restricting access to the Visa Waiver Program to nationals or prior recent visitors of certain countries. These people will have had to apply for a visa instead, and presumably are subject to more stringent checking than most. The list of countries wasn't defined by Congress beyond Iraq and Syria (presumably thanks to those being specifically called out in the name "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria"). It did include provision for the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security to designate additional countries. My gut feeling is that the current administration didn't choose to target the same countries deliberately, but rather chose to incorporate the prior legislation by reference as a defence against legal challenges. The EO wording is that "immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States". The referenced legislation is here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1187#a_12 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1187#a_12 .
  - grzm 10y ago
    I haven't seen this list referenced by the administration as the rationale, but the list of countries is the same as those included in a question added to the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) application in June 2016, which addresses countries DHS considers at higher risk: Have you traveled to, or been present in, Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, or Yemen on or after March 1, 2011? https://www.cbp.gov/travel/international-visitors/visa-waiver-program/visa-waiver-program-improvement-and-terrorist-travel-prevention-act-faq https://www.cbp.gov/travel/international-visitors/visa-waive... Please note that I really don't understand the details of the visa process in general or this program in particular, or how DHS arrived at this list of countries. I'm just submitting it as an pre-existing list of countries the DHS has expressed concern about with respect to immigration and visas. Nor do I have any reference that this list was used for the Executive Order. That said, it does seem reasonable to imagine that similar reasoning was used in choosing the countries listed in the Executive Order.
jayess 10y ago
No one seems to be talking about that fact that Trump can do these things because the Congress has specifically authorized the president to do so. It seems as though a massive amount of power in one person's hands is OK is some situations but not in others, depending on one's political persuasion. And the list of countries is from Homeland Security's list of "countries of concern" compiled during the Obama administration. And signed into law by Obama himself. https://sethfrantzman.com/2017/01/28/obamas-administration-made-the-muslim-ban-possible-and-the-media-wont-tell-you/ https://sethfrantzman.com/2017/01/28/obamas-administration-m... Of course some will blast me as supporting Trump or supporting this ban. Not true.
- mhneu 10y ago
  Criticism of Franzman who called Arendt a white supremacist: https://engageonline.wordpress.com/2016/06/16/7958/amp/ https://engageonline.wordpress.com/2016/06/16/7958/amp/ Also, Trump's order applies to green card holders. This is a major and worrying expansion beyond a refugee pause. http://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN15C0R4 http://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN15C0R4 Also the problem isn't the "amount of power", the problem is using that power badly. And yes many wish Obama accepted even more refugees. https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/08/25/opinion/anne-frank-today-is-a-syrian-girl.html https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/08/25/opinion/anne-frank-tod...
  - FrancoDiaz 10y ago
    Also the problem isn't the "amount of power", the problem is using that power badly. That's disturbing, but not surprising. I guess unchecked power is ok with you as long as it's policies that you're OK with being implemented.
    - pitaj 10y ago
      It's a hypocritical, authoritarian, and dangerous belief that many people of every demographic share.
    - karlmdavis 10y ago
tonyztan 10y ago
> "IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that to assure compliance with the Court's order, the Court directs service of this Order upon the United States Marshal for the Eastern District of New York, and further directs the United States Marshals Service to take those actions deemed necessary to enforce the provisions and prohibitions set for in this order." Is the U.S. Marshals Service part of the judicial or executive branch? (Source: https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/darweesh-v-trump-decision-and-order?redirect=legal-document/darweesh-v-trump-order https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/darweesh-v-trump-decisio...)
- cderwin 10y ago
  Executive. It is part of the Department of Justice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Marshals_Service https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Marshals_Service
  - rayiner 10y ago
    Its in a weird situation where it is technically part of the DOJ, but its primary statutory duty is to carry out the orders of the judicial branch: 28 U.S.C. § 566.
    - seanmcdirmid 10y ago
      It's part of the power separation. Congress makes laws, can impeach the executive, and confirms judges, judiciary interprets laws, orders, and constitution, executive nominates judges, vetoes or signs laws, and enforces them.
mhneu 10y ago
While many Trump stories should be flagged, some are important for society and for HN to discuss. This is one of those important stories. Americans can not stick their heads in the sand about these anti-muslim actions. Please do not delete this story. The American and global tech community needs to discuss this. Trump and his advisors win when HN deletes stories like this.
- fixxer 10y ago
  "We did it HN! We solved politics!"
- geezerjay 10y ago
  > This is one of those important stories. Americans can not stick their heads in the sand about these anti-muslim actions. The thing is, Trump was elected mainly because a large percentage of americans explicitly asked for these anti-muslim actions to be implemented. It would be disingenuous to assume that these actions, no matter how much ill-advised they are, aren't sought by a significant number of US citizens. In a related issue, tech forums are typically packed with discussions regarding immigration, where US citizens complain about foreign workers, including legal workers and the visa programs that enabled them to work in the US. Now that Trump was democratically elected, US citizens shouldn't just pretend that the US has some unresolved issues regarding immigration, protectionism, and even issues regarding race, religious, and cultural differences.
- zeroer 10y ago
  I feel alone on this board in thinking this. While I believe the execution of the order was clumsy (why ban green card holders who have already made a life for themselves here and people already mid-flight?), the people of any nation have the right to self determination and have to have complete control over who comes into their country. Trump did not hide his intentions about what he was going to do once in office. He said it loudly and repeatedly. And he still got roughly half the votes.
  - matt4077 10y ago
    Two issues: Regarding the specific cases currently making the news, I believe there's a competing argument that people should have the assurance that their personal relation with the government is governed by a set of predictable rules and not subject to sudden and dramatic changes. That would include that any administration is in some way bound by the commitments of their predecessors. To use a less controversial example: If I painted the walls in the white house, finishing 10 minutes before Trump was sworn in, should the new administration be required to pay me? Secondly, there are limits to the power of the majority, even in a democracy: "Democracy isn't two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner". These limits are defined by the constitution. The bill of rights for individual rights, and much of the rest for the mechanisms of government. That's why Trump won't be God-Emperor His Trumpitrump the First, even though he could probably get the electoral college votes for it. That may seem somewhat unconstitutional, and it requires a definition of "democracy" that is far more complicated than majority-rule, which is sometimes called "the tyranny of the majority".
anthony_romeo 10y ago
This is an embarrassment. Even if you completely agree with what the order does, it's impossible to claim that the implementation of this was anything other than a complete and utter disaster. No warning, no clear way to enforce the order, widespread protest, and getting the courts involved within 24 hours. This is going to have ramifications for years to come. We want to encourage the world's best and brightest to come here, and a precedent of unannounced, widespread, severe changes to enforcement of the laws will cause people to reconsider. This is utter negligence and I'm ashamed of my country.
- waqf 10y ago
  Yes, a big question I have is whether Mr. Trump will learn to draft his executive orders a little more carefully. If he doesn't, then needless crises like this will be a regular occurrence. And if they are, then I don't think the country will endure that for four years without someone eventually taking it into their head to stop him one way or another.
  - heifetz 10y ago
    I doubt trump actually drafts anything. His alt-right neo-nazi minions Bannon will draft it up, and he'll just sign it. I doubt he actually even reads what he signs. He's too busy looking at himself on tv and twittering.
  - village-idiot 10y ago
    I sure hope he doesn't learn. I can deal with a Trump who can't clear basic legal bars and gets his orders shot down in 24 hours.
- bby 10y ago
  He is being tough. Promoting America first. He did what he intended to do.
known 10y ago
Can US survive without "importing" OPEC Oil? bloom.bg/1O04ymn
- problems 10y ago
  Note that he didn't ban Saudis who have a fairly well known record for state sponsored terrorism. They also have lots of oil.
smegel 10y ago
#FakeNews. It only applies to a small number of VISA HOLDERS at airports. Thankfully anyone else who tries to get on a plane will be stopped before they board. Thank God for Trump.
woofyman 10y ago
CNN is reporting that the White House over ruled the DHS when it came to green cards. >Friday night, DHS arrived at the legal interpretation that the executive order restrictions applying to seven countries -- Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Sudan and Yemen -- did not apply to people who with lawful permanent residence, generally referred to as green card holders. The White House overruled that guidance overnight, according to officials familiar with the rollout. That order came from the President's inner circle, led by Stephen Miller and Steve Bannon. Their decision held that, on a case by case basis, DHS could allow green card holders to enter the US.
- problems 10y ago
  I've seen a few references to this applying to people with dual citizenship too - is that true or is this only effecting permanent residents?
  - tempestn 10y ago
    Dual citizenship with one of the listed countries and another country (including close allies like UK and Canada), not dual citizenship with the US.
    - problems 10y ago
      Ah okay, that makes much more sense.
- TorKlingberg 10y ago
  It is truly scary that someone like Bannon has power.
hj88 10y ago
>> For one, I'm sorry Pure Cuckold. You are the reason why there is so much mess. Why don't you leave this country and live in the seven countries banned?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
Pocketsnakes 10y ago
207 comments and I'm the only one you'll find who believes these people don't belong here. Guess I represent the other 50%. Come visit the white(nd-out text's) side once in a while.
james-watson 10y ago
Calling for the assassination of the POTUS in 2017, while you spent the last eight years proclaiming the divinity of King Obama, who was the man that gave the office of the President such sweeping powers. You reap what you sow. Create turn-key totalitarianism, and one day someone will come along and turn the key.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- dang 10y ago
  We've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the HN guidelines and using this site for political battle, despite our requests to stop. You're right that the parent comment was out of line as well, but you've been consistently abusing HN. Please don't create accounts to break the site guidelines with. We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13512078 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13512078 and marked it off-topic.
mrtree 10y ago
He is doing what people voted him to do. Stop whining already.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- mwfunk 10y ago
  If someone expresses concern about something happening in America that is fundamentally immoral, unethical, un-American, and historically counterproductive, it ain't whining, it's called having principles and giving a shit about them. Nothing wrong with that.
- dang 10y ago
  Commenting like this will get your account banned, so please don't do it. Comments here need to become more civil and substantive, not less, as topics get more divisive. If you can't do that, please don't post. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html
mrtree 10y ago
Flash News! US tech immigrants get angry at president for fullfilling the promises he was voted for.
- grzm 10y ago
  Please stop making inflammatory comments. Please contribute constructively and civilly.
pandaman 10y ago
And the DHS has responded to this ruling already: https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/01/29/department-homeland-security-response-recent-litigation# https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/01/29/department-homeland-secu... No foreign national in a foreign land, without ties to the United States, has any unfettered right to demand entry into the United States or to demand immigration benefits in the United States.
- macrael 10y ago
  What do we do when the executive branch starts ignoring the orders of the judiciary?
  - MisterBastahrd 10y ago
    It's Congress' responsibility to impeach him.
DanBC 10y ago
For the people who support the ban: do you realise it was catching people in transit, who had no intention of staying in the US? Here's one woman who was flying from Costa Rica to Scotland. Her initial flight transited through the US, where she was told her transit visa was no longer valid. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-38788116 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-38788116
_andromeda_ 10y ago
I'd like to know why anyone thinks America owes anyone anything? The ban is absolutely necessary. You Americans have a great country but you're going to ruin it if you don't take your time to listen to Trump. There is no way that unchecked immigration is a good thing for any country in the world let alone America. I've heard what has been said about how immigration made America what it is today - great. However, immigration should be based on whether the immigrant will add value to your country. If an immigrant is coming to set up a business, do further studies and other positive things like that, then by all means provide them with a way to come in. However, if there's a threat of terrorism from the immigrant or if they aren't adding value but will instead be recipients of welfare all I can ask is, WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON? How can you sustain this? You cannot save everyone in the world. You just can't. The best you can do is help them from a camp in their own country and even then, it's your choice as a country that has fair elections. Why did you even have these elections if you're going to disallow the president that you yourselves chose in FAIR elections to do his jobs. Is there anything new that Trump is doing that he did not promise his voters he would do? If not, then you're saying that the majority of the people that chose Trump don't deserve to be heard and that only your views matter. And don't even get me started on that business of, 'we didn't vote for him...he didn't get the popular vote'. Why is it okay for previous presidents who won in the electoral college to be legitimized but not Trump? This is absolutely UNFAIR and selfish of anti-Trumpians. Remember, you take away California and Trump actually wins the popular vote anyway. To me, this is a clear indication that one state wants to bully the rest of the country into doing things their way and their way only. So UNFAIR. Without getting into my country of origin, I will tell you this; we too are building a wall to stop illegal aliens from a neighboring Muslim country from getting in. These fundamentalists are really terrible human beings. We have lost so many lives to their suicide attacks. Friends and families losing their loved ones to these actions. I remember a time we were so scared of the attacks that we had to close offices in the daytime when working and verify you knew who was knocking on the door before letting them in. It was a terrible time and with a recent attack, last week to more precise, the fear is coming back. I just wish we had finished putting up our wall by now and that it was as strong as the proposed American one. People have to be responsible for their own country. They have to build their own countries and stop the fundamentalism.
- 10y ago
75dvtwin 10y ago
I personally support the executive order in its motif. Radicalization of US-born or US-admitted Muslims by clerics, relatives, social media -- is real, eg [1] (Fort-hood terrorist), San-Bernardino terrorists [2]. Therefore, the argument could not just be about questioning if any visa/green card holder for the initial list of 7 'banned-county -->to--> Muslim terrorist perpetrating killing on US soil'. It is a preventive measure, with a time limit . Very appropriate for this period of time, given the war with ISIS. I am not, however, impressed with the execution or the preparation that went into this particular order. I would like to see a different level of scrutiny and reduced personal inconvenience afforded to US green card holders. Appreciate that majority on this forum, including highly respected scientists, will disagree with me. But please allow the expression of, at-least partially informed dissent. [1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/09/AR2009120904422.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rizwan_Farook_and_Tashfeen_Malik#Marriage_and_entry_into_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rizwan_Farook_and_Tashfeen_Mal...
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- aclissold 10y ago
  All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.
  - ryanx435 10y ago
    Not all terrorists are muslims, just a majority of them in our current time. This is due to the destabilization of the region more than their religion, although the more radical versions of the religion certainly play a part. Similar things occured in Ireland back in the day: terrorism created by destabilization and fueled by radical religious zeal. Edit: my auto correct sucks
    - 542458 10y ago
      > Not all terrorists are muslims, just a majority of them in our current time In terms of terrorism in the US, that's not actually true by most counts. The US has seen more far-right terrorists than radical Islamic terrorists. Casualty counts for the Islamic terrorists are typically higher, but there are both more events and more individuals involved in far-right terrorism. It's still worth noting that in terms of actual risk-per-individual both are astonishingly rare, and if your goal is to save lives that might otherwise be lost to violence there are far, far better ways of doing it.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

664 points by anarazel 10y ago

coldcode 10y ago

I hope this is true. At least we still have a (mostly) independent judiciary.

bjshepard 10y ago
No, you don't.
- umanwizard 10y ago
  Based on what?

philangist 10y ago

I think the title of this post is wrong. Here's another post - http://www.theverge.com/2017/1/28/14427086/federal-court-halts-trumps-immigration-ban http://www.theverge.com/2017/1/28/14427086/federal-court-hal... - that states that "The court specifically ruled on Darweesh and Alshawi’s petition; the ACLU will have to include all other similarly-affected immigrants as part of a class action to have it apply more broadly."

anarazel 10y ago
I think it's fairly unclear for the moment. Some ACLU affiliated account twittered "stay is national": https://twitter.com/dale_e_ho/status/825521534383095809 https://twitter.com/dale_e_ho/status/825521534383095809
- MBCook 10y ago
  I think that may have meant it applied to all airports as opposed to just the New York airports, but it could still only apply to the people who have already been held and not future travelers.
- sveiss 10y ago
  The wording of the ruling looks like it applies nationally to me: "WHEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the respondents, their officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all members and persons acting in concert or participation with than, from the date of this Order, 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."
geofft 10y ago
This is incorrect - the government tried to remove the ACLU's and NILC's standing by allowing Darweesh and Alshawi (the representative plaintiffs) through, but they prevailed in getting a stay on behalf of the class. It looks like The Verge has fixed the sentence to "The court specifically ruled on Darweesh and Alshawi’s petition; other similarly-situated people being detained and those in transit are covered by the ruling, which is only temporary." It is true that this doesn't stay the entire executive order. It just responds to the habeas-corpus bits for those who already made it to the US (including someone who was being placed on a plane leaving the US as the order was being made, and hopefully was allowed to get back off that plane).

tabeth 10y ago

I'm sorry to report that it's not over yet: > Stay covers the airport detainees and those currently in transit. Doesn't change ban going forward. Prev unclear tweet deleted https://twitter.com/JessicaHuseman/status/825525603491278848 https://twitter.com/JessicaHuseman/status/825525603491278848 > Important clarification. This does not prevent Trump admin from blocking new travelers. https://twitter.com/ericgeller/status/825525917602693120 https://twitter.com/ericgeller/status/825525917602693120

joatmon-snoo 10y ago
Link to the current stay: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C3TahZ_WEAAzGAK.jpg:large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C3TahZ_WEAAzGAK.jpg:large EDIT: better link https://www.scribd.com/document/337807824/Darweesh-v-Trump https://www.scribd.com/document/337807824/Darweesh-v-Trump
- eternalban 10y ago
  https://www.aclu.org/news/federal-court-grants-stay-challenge-trump-immigration-ban https://www.aclu.org/news/federal-court-grants-stay-challeng...
koheripbal 10y ago
Clear from the judges order that this only helps those few immigrants caught in transit during the order being signed.
throwaway5752 10y ago
More than you know. The CBP was ignoring the court ruling in some airports (Dulles, at least). Federal Marshals were called upon to enforce it. https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/825571882586013696 https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/825571882586013696 (and others. This is a true constitutional crisis, the worst in at least several generations.

AdmiralAsshat 10y ago

I was at the solidarity rally at the Dulles International Airport in Herndon, VA for a few hours, although I had left by the time this story broke. I'd wonder if it got announced to the crowd.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

jackmott 10y ago

Please donate to the ACLU

jhwhite 10y ago
Joined today!

rdtsc 10y ago

What is the authority chain usually here. Can a Federal judge block other such executive orders? Is this used often

shawn-butler 10y ago
Depends on the President currently in power. The judiciary has no real authority to enforce anything. The Obama administration and the Bush administration before basically made up the law as it went along in some cases. In the US you can find a federal judge to block anything. You just shop around for a circuit with a politically friendly judge and file your suit there. I don't actually think the ACLU has any real standing here, to be honest. You can't sue in US federal court on behalf of non-citizens. They have no standing.
- khuey 10y ago
  > I don't actually think the ACLU has any real standing here, to be honest. You can't sue in US federal court on behalf of non-citizens. They have no standing. You should refrain from talking about things you clearly know nothing about.
  - shawn-butler 10y ago
    Oh, I know nothing? Moderate your tone. It will be an interesting case for certain but people outside the US can't sue the US government demanding entry. They have no standing. As a citizen, I barely have legal standing to sue for a denial of passport. The affected people already present might have some standing to fight their denial of entry as they are here legally but people here illegally have no such right.
    - adjkant 10y ago
      > "The affected people already present might have some standing to fight their denial of entry as they are here legally but people here illegally have no such right." The biggest effect of this order is people here legally and those who previously had legal access to the US. There are a ton of people with legal grounding here, and this case holds significant precedent for them.

pmoriarty 10y ago

Trump and the Republican Congress are going to appoint many judges during his term, including Supreme Court judges. That could be Trump's most enduring legacy.

bluejekyll 10y ago
Unless the dems block all those nominnees. If they do, we could actually see some bipartisan work to appoint moderates.
- sdenton4 10y ago
  Given the Republican commitment to popular bipartisan work over the last eight years, I wouldn't hold my breath.
  - bluejekyll 10y ago
    I'm not even holding my breath for the dems to put up a fight :/
    - freehunter 10y ago
      When Democracts decided to vote "yes" on some of the more ridiculous appointments, even though they would have been appointed even if those Democrats voted no, it was done for them. I can't take a single thing a Democrat congressman says seriously when opposing Trump if they couldn't even say no to Ben Carson being appointed as HUD secretary. Grow a spine. What do they even stand for these days?
      - pmoriarty 10y ago
        I remember during Alito's nomination, the Democrats stomped their feet, huffed and puffed, but eventually confirmed him anyway.
      - tempestn 10y ago
        This article speaks directly to your point: http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/27/14397448/democrats-trump-cabinet http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/27/14397448/de... Basically, the standard practice used to be for most cabinet appointments to be easily confirmed with bipartisan support. Obama's appointments saw unprecedented levels of push-back from republicans, but still received significant numbers of republican votes. Democratic opposition to Trump's nominations has been, again, unprecedented. My opinion: perhaps, given the fact that their votes are purely symbolic anyway, some democrats are choosing to 'pick their battles', and vote yes to the picks they feel are halfway reasonable, saving opposition for the cases where (again, in their opinions) it matters most.

woofyman 10y ago

So Tump ignores the court and we have a constitutional crisis.

noobermin 10y ago
Let's wait for that to happen. Seriously, if this occurs (and we are all damn well aware Trump is capable of it), this will approach a whole new level of madness.
- dheera 10y ago
  Some part of me wants Trump to make this mistake, and make more big mistakes of the non-lethal variety quickly so that there is grounds to impeach him before he starts a war.
  - umanwizard 10y ago
    You are more optimistic than I am about the prospect of a GOP-controlled congress impeaching a GOP president. I think they would only do so if he did something that was obvious to everyone to be a serious existential threat to the US's existence as a country. I mean, it'd have to be something even more beyond the pale than ignoring the Constitution and transforming the US government into an authoritarian regime without the rule of law. Like, nuking China for no reason, or something.
    - seanp2k2 10y ago
      He's been in office for one week. At this rate, he won't last more than a few months. I'm fully confident that he'll piss off the wrong group of people at some point in the next 0-6 months and land himself in court. If Bill came close from lying about cheating on his wife...then again, sort the votes chart at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton by party affiliation. Then again, I'm sure many more Red Team would want Pence instead, so I'm sure we'll see.
    - filoeleven 10y ago

jseliger 10y ago

The ACLU is also reporting that the stay was granted: https://twitter.com/dale_e_ho/status/825520404777287680 https://twitter.com/dale_e_ho/status/825520404777287680. Many of you are probably watching the horror show unfold and wondering what tangible thing you can do. Joining or contributing to the ACLU is one small but important, specific way to help: https://action.aclu.org/secure/become-freedom-fighter-join-aclu-7 https://action.aclu.org/secure/become-freedom-fighter-join-a.... https://twitter.com/seligerj/status/825529092414046208 https://twitter.com/seligerj/status/825529092414046208

RoboTeddy 10y ago
Just signed up with a monthly donation. I think this is the only time I've left the "you may contact me" box ticked on a signup form.
- methehack 10y ago
  Monthly is the way to go as it gives them a stable base of support that they can plan with.
rallison 10y ago
Good call. I just set up monthly contributions and would urge others to as well.
knz 10y ago
Is it possible to anonymously donate to the ACLU? As a PR in the process of obtaining citizenship, a small fear of mine is that USCIS will start penalizing applicants that support organizations opposed to Trump. Today just proved that anything is possible and I'm sure we've all seen the stories about CBP asking to see the social media feeds of travelers in the past.
- pvg 10y ago
  I wouldn't worry about it, with the ACLU.

gdulli 10y ago

If the ban goes to the Supreme Court and is struck down because Trump didn't wait to fill the vacancy with a loyalist first, he'll have essentially failed the marshmallow test. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C2V-XWcVIAAoel4.jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C2V-XWcVIAAoel4.jpg

JumpCrisscross 10y ago
The only way it goes to SCOTUS is if the government appeals.
- helthanatos 10y ago
  He could just play the executive order dance
  - ceejayoz 10y ago
    An injunction against new EOs would be a rather fascinating Constitutional crisis...
    - cderwin 10y ago
      Such an injunction would be without any basis in law whatsoever, the constitution instructs the President to "take care that laws be faithfully executed". Individual executive orders need to have their own constitutional reasoning, but since executive orders are really the means by which the president fulfills that clause, a court could not prohibit them altogether.
      - ceejayoz 10y ago
        The question, then, is what recourse would the courts have against a President who just spams new EOs with the same text and new IDs? Can he be charged with contempt of court?
        10y ago

benmorris 10y ago

Donated to the ACLU for the first time today. I also plan to call my representative on Monday.

daodedickinson 10y ago

The text of Trump's temporary order is mostly copy-pasted from temporary orders enacted by Obama that have withstood scrutiny, so I wouldn't get hopes up for a full reversal.

general_ai 10y ago
It's quite telling that when Obama had summarily banned Iraqi refugees for 6 months in 2011 we have heard nary a peep from the press.
- Malician 10y ago
  Did this apply to persons who had green cards or visas?
  - intro-b 10y ago
    No, it specifically relates to increased security checks and verification for refugee visa-seeking applicants (a major discussion point of R governmental agenda, but since it was enacted by a Dem president he is still clearly soft/weak on terrorism).
- themooingpig 10y ago
  Trump is banning visa and Green Card holders from returning to the States. This is notably different.
  - seanmcdirmid 10y ago
    Not to mention dual citizens. Who the heck is downvoting factual information?
    - rbanffy 10y ago
      Someone with alternative factual information, it seems...
  - 10y ago

moflome 10y ago

FYI, Chris Sacca is matching grants to ALCU up to $150K... https://twitter.com/sacca/status/825475296614707200 https://twitter.com/sacca/status/825475296614707200

hackuser 10y ago

More precisely, it only blocks part of Trump's order: "Judge Ann Donnelly of the US District Court in Brooklyn granted a request from the ACLU to stay deportations of those detained on entry to the United States following President Trump's executive order." https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/refugees-detained-at-us-airports-challenge-trumps-executive-order/2017/01/28/e69501a2-e562-11e6-a547-5fb9411d332c_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/refugees-...

bexp 10y ago

Summary from http://hntop.org http://hntop.org The federal court for the Eastern District of New York has issued an emergency stay halting President Trump's executive order banning immigrants from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the U.S, The Verge reported Saturday night. The court ruled on a habeas corpus petition filed by the ACLU on behalf of two Iraqi men who were detained at John F. Kennedy International Airport on Friday after Trump's ban. Admission will resume only after vetting has been deemed "adequate" by the secretary of State, the secretary of Homeland Security and Director of National Intelligence. The order also denies entry for 90 days for individuals from seven predominantly Muslims countries: Iraq, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Libya and Yemen. –This breaking news report will be updated

dang 10y ago
Please stop.
- zeroer 10y ago
  Are summaries against HN guidelines?
- bexp 10y ago
  Sorry I was not aware that it violates guidelines

wslh 10y ago

Wow, it seems like US is a 24-hour reality show now.

Delmania 10y ago
What do you expect when a reality tv star is elected president?
- jkelsey 10y ago
  We fucked up. We got too confident and comfortable. For one, I'm sorry. There's a lot of other Americans out here for think and feel the same way. To everybody that warned us about Trump, We cannot express to you how regretful we are. We've really got a lot to make up for.

funkju 10y ago

It's going to be a long four years if the front page of HN is filled with anti-Trump stories. Can't we leave these conversations on other news sites? Edited for typo

Malician 10y ago
This is affecting all the major tech companies directly, and many others' personal lives. This is definitely tech-related and important to many in the tech community. Or: Yes, when he stops doing these things.
- funkju 10y ago
  I think you are overstating it. If it were not Trump, this would not be top story on HN.
  - mhneu 10y ago
    If the Trump administration wasn't making people think about authoritarianism with the totality of their actions and words, yes it might not be. https://storify.com/AndrewHickey/lusztig-arendt-and-trump https://storify.com/AndrewHickey/lusztig-arendt-and-trump
  - seanmcdirmid 10y ago
    It totally would be, it could be Mr. Rogers and it would still be the top story. Your tech employee with a green card, and hence a global tax obligation, is no longer allowed in the country? That is really just messed up. And as you know in our industry, a lot of our coworkers are on these visas. The only thing is, a sane president would never have done that. They might have banned new refugees or new visas from those countries, but preventing the entry of current visa holders...nope. If it were not Trump, this story wouldn't even exist.
  - geofft 10y ago
    This is just provably untrue. Take a look at the top stories on HN from, say, June 2013, in the wake of the Snowden leaks: http://www.daemonology.net/hn-daily/2013-06.html http://www.daemonology.net/hn-daily/2013-06.html A huge number of stories on the front page were about civil liberties / US politics, with titles like - CIA Agents Were Embedded With NYPD And Had “No Limits” - U.S. Government Surveillance: Bad for Silicon Valley, Bad for World Democracy - U.S. bugged EU offices, computer networks - Memories of Stasi color Germans’ view of U.S. surveillance programs - The Criminal N.S.A. - WikiLeaks Volunteer Was a Paid Informant for the FBI - SSL: Intercepted today, decrypted tomorrow - Two Senators Say the NSA Is Still Feeding Us False Information When Obama threatens the ability of tech to get things done, his politics end up on HN. When Trump threatens the ability of tech to get things done, his politics end up on HN.

thinkcomp 10y ago

Docket: https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/33xszihl6/new-york-eastern-district-court/darweesh--et-al/ https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/33xszihl6/new-york-eastern... Order PDF: https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/download.html?id=242131326&z=4584f490 https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/download.html?id=242131326... Related Cases: https://www.plainsite.org/tags/trump-muslim-immigration-ban-executive-order/ https://www.plainsite.org/tags/trump-muslim-immigration-ban-...

refurb 10y ago

If anyone thinks that this ruling is a surprise to the Trump administration, think again. I have no doubt that he conferred with his AG about his executive order and discuss possible outcomes such as a judge blocking his order. Maybe he expected this outcome? Regardless, we'll see what his next move is.

woofyman 10y ago
He doesn't have an AG yet.
- refurb 10y ago
  Alright, good point. But I'm sure he has legal advisors.
ceejayoz 10y ago
> Maybe he expected this outcome? If you subscribe to the "provoke outrage to cover something else" theory, this might be it: https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/politics/trump-holds-calls-with-putin-leaders-from-europe-and-asia/2017/01/28/42728948-e574-11e6-a547-5fb9411d332c_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/politics/trump-holds-... Trump added Breitbart's Bannon to the National Security Council, and demoted the Director of National Intelligence and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from it to make room.
- jacquesm 10y ago
  > Trump added Breitbart's Bannon to the National Security Council That's pure madness. That guy shouldn't even be close to a baseball bat, let alone sitting in on the NSC.
  - ue_ 10y ago
    Out of curiosity, why? What things has he done? I'm quite ignorant on the man.
- alayne 10y ago

pizza 10y ago

Does anybody have experience with the logistics involved in organizing strangers against such actions?

dvt 10y ago
From what I've read, most of today's protests have been ad hoc. Most just famous or political people saying "Show up at JFK" or "Show up at LAX". The fact that so many people gathered (at so many airports) without any kind of major force behind them shows that this order was clearly misguided.

a3n 10y ago

A little OT, I guess, but the WaPo's story about this repeats a map I've seen that shows the seven countries. Conspicuously absent are Egypt, Saudi Arabia, UAE and Lebanon, which is where the people who hijacked the 9/11 planes, the worst, and most logistically complex, terrorist act against the US ever, were from. Where's the logic? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks#FBI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks#FBI I don't at all think that this order should be in effect, but I don't see the logic in its implementation.

hyperpape 10y ago
I have yet to see anyone try to justify the choice of countries. I know I live in a bit of a bubble with regard to the particular Trump brand of conservatism, but I usually see people arguing the opposite side, even if it's just being quoted by people who agree with me.
- sveiss 10y ago
  The choice of countries actually dates back to a 2015 Act of Congress restricting access to the Visa Waiver Program to nationals or prior recent visitors of certain countries. These people will have had to apply for a visa instead, and presumably are subject to more stringent checking than most. The list of countries wasn't defined by Congress beyond Iraq and Syria (presumably thanks to those being specifically called out in the name "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria"). It did include provision for the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security to designate additional countries. My gut feeling is that the current administration didn't choose to target the same countries deliberately, but rather chose to incorporate the prior legislation by reference as a defence against legal challenges. The EO wording is that "immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States". The referenced legislation is here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1187#a_12 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1187#a_12 .
- grzm 10y ago
  I haven't seen this list referenced by the administration as the rationale, but the list of countries is the same as those included in a question added to the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) application in June 2016, which addresses countries DHS considers at higher risk: Have you traveled to, or been present in, Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, or Yemen on or after March 1, 2011? https://www.cbp.gov/travel/international-visitors/visa-waiver-program/visa-waiver-program-improvement-and-terrorist-travel-prevention-act-faq https://www.cbp.gov/travel/international-visitors/visa-waive... Please note that I really don't understand the details of the visa process in general or this program in particular, or how DHS arrived at this list of countries. I'm just submitting it as an pre-existing list of countries the DHS has expressed concern about with respect to immigration and visas. Nor do I have any reference that this list was used for the Executive Order. That said, it does seem reasonable to imagine that similar reasoning was used in choosing the countries listed in the Executive Order.

jayess 10y ago

No one seems to be talking about that fact that Trump can do these things because the Congress has specifically authorized the president to do so. It seems as though a massive amount of power in one person's hands is OK is some situations but not in others, depending on one's political persuasion. And the list of countries is from Homeland Security's list of "countries of concern" compiled during the Obama administration. And signed into law by Obama himself. https://sethfrantzman.com/2017/01/28/obamas-administration-made-the-muslim-ban-possible-and-the-media-wont-tell-you/ https://sethfrantzman.com/2017/01/28/obamas-administration-m... Of course some will blast me as supporting Trump or supporting this ban. Not true.

mhneu 10y ago
Criticism of Franzman who called Arendt a white supremacist: https://engageonline.wordpress.com/2016/06/16/7958/amp/ https://engageonline.wordpress.com/2016/06/16/7958/amp/ Also, Trump's order applies to green card holders. This is a major and worrying expansion beyond a refugee pause. http://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN15C0R4 http://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN15C0R4 Also the problem isn't the "amount of power", the problem is using that power badly. And yes many wish Obama accepted even more refugees. https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/08/25/opinion/anne-frank-today-is-a-syrian-girl.html https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/08/25/opinion/anne-frank-tod...
- FrancoDiaz 10y ago
  Also the problem isn't the "amount of power", the problem is using that power badly. That's disturbing, but not surprising. I guess unchecked power is ok with you as long as it's policies that you're OK with being implemented.
  - pitaj 10y ago
    It's a hypocritical, authoritarian, and dangerous belief that many people of every demographic share.
  - karlmdavis 10y ago

tonyztan 10y ago

> "IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that to assure compliance with the Court's order, the Court directs service of this Order upon the United States Marshal for the Eastern District of New York, and further directs the United States Marshals Service to take those actions deemed necessary to enforce the provisions and prohibitions set for in this order." Is the U.S. Marshals Service part of the judicial or executive branch? (Source: https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/darweesh-v-trump-decision-and-order?redirect=legal-document/darweesh-v-trump-order https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/darweesh-v-trump-decisio...)

cderwin 10y ago
Executive. It is part of the Department of Justice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Marshals_Service https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Marshals_Service
- rayiner 10y ago
  Its in a weird situation where it is technically part of the DOJ, but its primary statutory duty is to carry out the orders of the judicial branch: 28 U.S.C. § 566.
  - seanmcdirmid 10y ago
    It's part of the power separation. Congress makes laws, can impeach the executive, and confirms judges, judiciary interprets laws, orders, and constitution, executive nominates judges, vetoes or signs laws, and enforces them.

mhneu 10y ago

While many Trump stories should be flagged, some are important for society and for HN to discuss. This is one of those important stories. Americans can not stick their heads in the sand about these anti-muslim actions. Please do not delete this story. The American and global tech community needs to discuss this. Trump and his advisors win when HN deletes stories like this.

fixxer 10y ago
"We did it HN! We solved politics!"
geezerjay 10y ago
> This is one of those important stories. Americans can not stick their heads in the sand about these anti-muslim actions. The thing is, Trump was elected mainly because a large percentage of americans explicitly asked for these anti-muslim actions to be implemented. It would be disingenuous to assume that these actions, no matter how much ill-advised they are, aren't sought by a significant number of US citizens. In a related issue, tech forums are typically packed with discussions regarding immigration, where US citizens complain about foreign workers, including legal workers and the visa programs that enabled them to work in the US. Now that Trump was democratically elected, US citizens shouldn't just pretend that the US has some unresolved issues regarding immigration, protectionism, and even issues regarding race, religious, and cultural differences.
zeroer 10y ago
I feel alone on this board in thinking this. While I believe the execution of the order was clumsy (why ban green card holders who have already made a life for themselves here and people already mid-flight?), the people of any nation have the right to self determination and have to have complete control over who comes into their country. Trump did not hide his intentions about what he was going to do once in office. He said it loudly and repeatedly. And he still got roughly half the votes.
- matt4077 10y ago
  Two issues: Regarding the specific cases currently making the news, I believe there's a competing argument that people should have the assurance that their personal relation with the government is governed by a set of predictable rules and not subject to sudden and dramatic changes. That would include that any administration is in some way bound by the commitments of their predecessors. To use a less controversial example: If I painted the walls in the white house, finishing 10 minutes before Trump was sworn in, should the new administration be required to pay me? Secondly, there are limits to the power of the majority, even in a democracy: "Democracy isn't two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner". These limits are defined by the constitution. The bill of rights for individual rights, and much of the rest for the mechanisms of government. That's why Trump won't be God-Emperor His Trumpitrump the First, even though he could probably get the electoral college votes for it. That may seem somewhat unconstitutional, and it requires a definition of "democracy" that is far more complicated than majority-rule, which is sometimes called "the tyranny of the majority".

anthony_romeo 10y ago

This is an embarrassment. Even if you completely agree with what the order does, it's impossible to claim that the implementation of this was anything other than a complete and utter disaster. No warning, no clear way to enforce the order, widespread protest, and getting the courts involved within 24 hours. This is going to have ramifications for years to come. We want to encourage the world's best and brightest to come here, and a precedent of unannounced, widespread, severe changes to enforcement of the laws will cause people to reconsider. This is utter negligence and I'm ashamed of my country.

waqf 10y ago
Yes, a big question I have is whether Mr. Trump will learn to draft his executive orders a little more carefully. If he doesn't, then needless crises like this will be a regular occurrence. And if they are, then I don't think the country will endure that for four years without someone eventually taking it into their head to stop him one way or another.
- heifetz 10y ago
  I doubt trump actually drafts anything. His alt-right neo-nazi minions Bannon will draft it up, and he'll just sign it. I doubt he actually even reads what he signs. He's too busy looking at himself on tv and twittering.
- village-idiot 10y ago
  I sure hope he doesn't learn. I can deal with a Trump who can't clear basic legal bars and gets his orders shot down in 24 hours.
bby 10y ago
He is being tough. Promoting America first. He did what he intended to do.

known 10y ago

Can US survive without "importing" OPEC Oil? bloom.bg/1O04ymn

problems 10y ago
Note that he didn't ban Saudis who have a fairly well known record for state sponsored terrorism. They also have lots of oil.

smegel 10y ago

#FakeNews. It only applies to a small number of VISA HOLDERS at airports. Thankfully anyone else who tries to get on a plane will be stopped before they board. Thank God for Trump.

woofyman 10y ago

CNN is reporting that the White House over ruled the DHS when it came to green cards. >Friday night, DHS arrived at the legal interpretation that the executive order restrictions applying to seven countries -- Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Sudan and Yemen -- did not apply to people who with lawful permanent residence, generally referred to as green card holders. The White House overruled that guidance overnight, according to officials familiar with the rollout. That order came from the President's inner circle, led by Stephen Miller and Steve Bannon. Their decision held that, on a case by case basis, DHS could allow green card holders to enter the US.

problems 10y ago
I've seen a few references to this applying to people with dual citizenship too - is that true or is this only effecting permanent residents?
- tempestn 10y ago
  Dual citizenship with one of the listed countries and another country (including close allies like UK and Canada), not dual citizenship with the US.
  - problems 10y ago
    Ah okay, that makes much more sense.
TorKlingberg 10y ago
It is truly scary that someone like Bannon has power.

hj88 10y ago

>> For one, I'm sorry Pure Cuckold. You are the reason why there is so much mess. Why don't you leave this country and live in the seven countries banned?

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

Pocketsnakes 10y ago

207 comments and I'm the only one you'll find who believes these people don't belong here. Guess I represent the other 50%. Come visit the white(nd-out text's) side once in a while.

james-watson 10y ago

Calling for the assassination of the POTUS in 2017, while you spent the last eight years proclaiming the divinity of King Obama, who was the man that gave the office of the President such sweeping powers. You reap what you sow. Create turn-key totalitarianism, and one day someone will come along and turn the key.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
dang 10y ago
We've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the HN guidelines and using this site for political battle, despite our requests to stop. You're right that the parent comment was out of line as well, but you've been consistently abusing HN. Please don't create accounts to break the site guidelines with. We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13512078 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13512078 and marked it off-topic.

mrtree 10y ago

He is doing what people voted him to do. Stop whining already.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
mwfunk 10y ago
If someone expresses concern about something happening in America that is fundamentally immoral, unethical, un-American, and historically counterproductive, it ain't whining, it's called having principles and giving a shit about them. Nothing wrong with that.
dang 10y ago
Commenting like this will get your account banned, so please don't do it. Comments here need to become more civil and substantive, not less, as topics get more divisive. If you can't do that, please don't post. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html

mrtree 10y ago

Flash News! US tech immigrants get angry at president for fullfilling the promises he was voted for.

grzm 10y ago
Please stop making inflammatory comments. Please contribute constructively and civilly.

pandaman 10y ago

And the DHS has responded to this ruling already: https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/01/29/department-homeland-security-response-recent-litigation# https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/01/29/department-homeland-secu... No foreign national in a foreign land, without ties to the United States, has any unfettered right to demand entry into the United States or to demand immigration benefits in the United States.

macrael 10y ago
What do we do when the executive branch starts ignoring the orders of the judiciary?
- MisterBastahrd 10y ago
  It's Congress' responsibility to impeach him.

DanBC 10y ago

For the people who support the ban: do you realise it was catching people in transit, who had no intention of staying in the US? Here's one woman who was flying from Costa Rica to Scotland. Her initial flight transited through the US, where she was told her transit visa was no longer valid. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-38788116 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-38788116

_andromeda_ 10y ago

I'd like to know why anyone thinks America owes anyone anything? The ban is absolutely necessary. You Americans have a great country but you're going to ruin it if you don't take your time to listen to Trump. There is no way that unchecked immigration is a good thing for any country in the world let alone America. I've heard what has been said about how immigration made America what it is today - great. However, immigration should be based on whether the immigrant will add value to your country. If an immigrant is coming to set up a business, do further studies and other positive things like that, then by all means provide them with a way to come in. However, if there's a threat of terrorism from the immigrant or if they aren't adding value but will instead be recipients of welfare all I can ask is, WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON? How can you sustain this? You cannot save everyone in the world. You just can't. The best you can do is help them from a camp in their own country and even then, it's your choice as a country that has fair elections. Why did you even have these elections if you're going to disallow the president that you yourselves chose in FAIR elections to do his jobs. Is there anything new that Trump is doing that he did not promise his voters he would do? If not, then you're saying that the majority of the people that chose Trump don't deserve to be heard and that only your views matter. And don't even get me started on that business of, 'we didn't vote for him...he didn't get the popular vote'. Why is it okay for previous presidents who won in the electoral college to be legitimized but not Trump? This is absolutely UNFAIR and selfish of anti-Trumpians. Remember, you take away California and Trump actually wins the popular vote anyway. To me, this is a clear indication that one state wants to bully the rest of the country into doing things their way and their way only. So UNFAIR. Without getting into my country of origin, I will tell you this; we too are building a wall to stop illegal aliens from a neighboring Muslim country from getting in. These fundamentalists are really terrible human beings. We have lost so many lives to their suicide attacks. Friends and families losing their loved ones to these actions. I remember a time we were so scared of the attacks that we had to close offices in the daytime when working and verify you knew who was knocking on the door before letting them in. It was a terrible time and with a recent attack, last week to more precise, the fear is coming back. I just wish we had finished putting up our wall by now and that it was as strong as the proposed American one. People have to be responsible for their own country. They have to build their own countries and stop the fundamentalism.

10y ago

75dvtwin 10y ago

I personally support the executive order in its motif. Radicalization of US-born or US-admitted Muslims by clerics, relatives, social media -- is real, eg [1] (Fort-hood terrorist), San-Bernardino terrorists [2]. Therefore, the argument could not just be about questioning if any visa/green card holder for the initial list of 7 'banned-county -->to--> Muslim terrorist perpetrating killing on US soil'. It is a preventive measure, with a time limit . Very appropriate for this period of time, given the war with ISIS. I am not, however, impressed with the execution or the preparation that went into this particular order. I would like to see a different level of scrutiny and reduced personal inconvenience afforded to US green card holders. Appreciate that majority on this forum, including highly respected scientists, will disagree with me. But please allow the expression of, at-least partially informed dissent. [1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/09/AR2009120904422.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rizwan_Farook_and_Tashfeen_Malik#Marriage_and_entry_into_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rizwan_Farook_and_Tashfeen_Mal...

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
aclissold 10y ago
All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.
- ryanx435 10y ago
  Not all terrorists are muslims, just a majority of them in our current time. This is due to the destabilization of the region more than their religion, although the more radical versions of the religion certainly play a part. Similar things occured in Ireland back in the day: terrorism created by destabilization and fueled by radical religious zeal. Edit: my auto correct sucks
  - 542458 10y ago
    > Not all terrorists are muslims, just a majority of them in our current time In terms of terrorism in the US, that's not actually true by most counts. The US has seen more far-right terrorists than radical Islamic terrorists. Casualty counts for the Islamic terrorists are typically higher, but there are both more events and more individuals involved in far-right terrorism. It's still worth noting that in terms of actual risk-per-individual both are astonishingly rare, and if your goal is to save lives that might otherwise be lost to violence there are far, far better ways of doing it.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]