4 ms·
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
by 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 agoThse 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 agoDual 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 agoIsn'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 agoYes 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 agoToday'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...
- umanwizard 10y agoThis case, too, was about habeas corpus and illegal detention.
- xyzzy4 10y agoGo read the 14th Amendment. Anyone within US borders has legal standing and rights. Here is an excerpt: nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws