5 ms·

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. The

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.
noobermin 10y ago
>people here illegally have no such right. People granted a Green Card are here illegally?
Spooky23 10y ago
Your citizen status has nothing to do with your standing to seek redress from a court.
khuey 10y ago
Non-citizens can absolutely sue the government in Federal court. What do you think Boumediene v Bush was? Nice to see you already walking back your incorrect claims though. Perhaps in the future you will refrain from making blanket and false assertions on the law.
- shawn-butler 10y ago
  Walking back? Now you are placing words in other people's mouths? The order is to prevent people from specified countries from travelling to the US for a set period of time. Thse citizens of those countries have ZERO, none, less than zero standing to sue in US federal court. Any less clear? The only people who might have standing are those already in US airports with proper visas who are being denied entry because they can show imminent harm and that is their only standing. Boumedine v Bush is about haebaus corpus and unlawful imprisonment and has absolutely nothing to do with the executive order under discussion.
  - rgbrenner 10y ago
    Thse citizens of those countries have ZERO, none, less than zero standing to sue in US federal court. Any less clear? This is clearly wrong. Dual citizens, for example. Can you please clarify your legal qualifications? Or at least provide some references to back up the claims you're making?
    - shawn-butler 10y ago
      Dual citizens do not require visa issuance. The order is about denying visas to foreign nationals and denying status to some refugees and directing the various departments to submit plans, etc on a timeline. The only reference required to back up this claim is the text of the order itself? The NYTimes has the full text for you to read at https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/politics/refugee-muslim-executive-order-trump.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/politics/refugee-musli...
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
  - burkaman 10y ago
    Isn't this what the Alien Tort Statute is about? Actual question, I could easily be wrong. But clearly citizens of other countries sometimes have standing in US court.
    - shawn-butler 10y ago
      Yes if they can show harm and that the court is the proper forum to address it. Alien Tort Statute establishes (among other things) that non-citizens can seek remedy in US courts for civil actions to remedy violations of treaty obligations or international law in the absence of any more proper legal forum. There is no treaty obligation to allow entry into the US from the countries listed in the executive order.
  - dvt 10y ago
    Today's stay was de facto motivated by a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed by the ACLU[1]. [1] https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/darweesh-v-trump-petition-writ-habeas-corpus-and-complaint-declaratory-and-injunctive?redirect=legal-document/petition-writ-habeas-corpus-and-complaint-declaratory-and-injunctive-relief https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/darweesh-v-trump-petitio...
dvt 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. Even people here illegally might have some standing in court (under international and amnesty laws). You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
- shawn-butler 10y ago
  Yes, absolutely no idea regarding what has been the policy of the United States for several years: 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... Do you think magically that no one was previously denied entry and faced irreparable harm based on this longstanding policy of the previous administration and passed into law by Congress? https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1187 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1187 You will have to state specifically which "international and amnesty laws" you think the US has been violating for the past several years if you wish for me to comment.

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.

noobermin 10y ago

>people here illegally have no such right. People granted a Green Card are here illegally?

Spooky23 10y ago

Your citizen status has nothing to do with your standing to seek redress from a court.

khuey 10y ago

Non-citizens can absolutely sue the government in Federal court. What do you think Boumediene v Bush was? Nice to see you already walking back your incorrect claims though. Perhaps in the future you will refrain from making blanket and false assertions on the law.

shawn-butler 10y ago
Walking back? Now you are placing words in other people's mouths? The order is to prevent people from specified countries from travelling to the US for a set period of time. Thse citizens of those countries have ZERO, none, less than zero standing to sue in US federal court. Any less clear? The only people who might have standing are those already in US airports with proper visas who are being denied entry because they can show imminent harm and that is their only standing. Boumedine v Bush is about haebaus corpus and unlawful imprisonment and has absolutely nothing to do with the executive order under discussion.
- rgbrenner 10y ago
  Thse citizens of those countries have ZERO, none, less than zero standing to sue in US federal court. Any less clear? This is clearly wrong. Dual citizens, for example. Can you please clarify your legal qualifications? Or at least provide some references to back up the claims you're making?
  - shawn-butler 10y ago
    Dual citizens do not require visa issuance. The order is about denying visas to foreign nationals and denying status to some refugees and directing the various departments to submit plans, etc on a timeline. The only reference required to back up this claim is the text of the order itself? The NYTimes has the full text for you to read at https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/politics/refugee-muslim-executive-order-trump.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/politics/refugee-musli...
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
- burkaman 10y ago
  Isn't this what the Alien Tort Statute is about? Actual question, I could easily be wrong. But clearly citizens of other countries sometimes have standing in US court.
  - shawn-butler 10y ago
    Yes if they can show harm and that the court is the proper forum to address it. Alien Tort Statute establishes (among other things) that non-citizens can seek remedy in US courts for civil actions to remedy violations of treaty obligations or international law in the absence of any more proper legal forum. There is no treaty obligation to allow entry into the US from the countries listed in the executive order.
- dvt 10y ago
  Today's stay was de facto motivated by a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed by the ACLU[1]. [1] https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/darweesh-v-trump-petition-writ-habeas-corpus-and-complaint-declaratory-and-injunctive?redirect=legal-document/petition-writ-habeas-corpus-and-complaint-declaratory-and-injunctive-relief https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/darweesh-v-trump-petitio...

dvt 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. Even people here illegally might have some standing in court (under international and amnesty laws). You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

shawn-butler 10y ago
Yes, absolutely no idea regarding what has been the policy of the United States for several years: 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... Do you think magically that no one was previously denied entry and faced irreparable harm based on this longstanding policy of the previous administration and passed into law by Congress? https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1187 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1187 You will have to state specifically which "international and amnesty laws" you think the US has been violating for the past several years if you wish for me to comment.