4 ms·

We now have a government agency publicly disregarding an injunction by the Federal courts. This is bad. This goes far beyond this specific issue (which, while n

by daeken 10y ago

We now have a government agency publicly disregarding an injunction by the Federal courts. This is bad. This goes far beyond this specific issue (which, while nasty, affects relatively few people). This sets a fucking awful precedent. This cannot be allowed to happen. I would love to see everyone violating this injunction (and ordering others to do so) be put in jail, just as if I or anyone else were to violate such a court order.

Waterluvian 10y ago
Are they though? The last paragraph says they will comply. I think this says little new other than there being a lot of confusion everywhere.
- gotchange 10y ago
  Can't the press ask for a press conference to clarify these issues?
aerovistae 10y ago
> The Department of Homeland Security will comply with judicial orders; Think you might've read over that
- jrockway 10y ago
  Except reports are: they _aren't_ complying, and are being told not to comply. This press release is words, not actions.
  - smsm42 10y ago
    "Reports are" is rather vague. Which reports are about this non-compliance, in which form they are not complying?
    - jrockway 10y ago
      I had already posted this elsewhere in the thread: https://plus.google.com/+YonatanZunger/posts/T72eVRRHv39 https://plus.google.com/+YonatanZunger/posts/T72eVRRHv39
      - smsm42 10y ago
        This link says there are "confirmed reports" that DHS disregards the stays - namely, deports people - but does not provide any details, e.g. which person named in the stays was deported, by whom, on what grounds (e.g. people can be rejected not only on this exec order, people has been deported long before Trump), who confirmed it, etc. Even that report plainly says "I simply don't have enough information yet, and hope to update as we know more". I suggest to wait until that update before proclaiming DHS is actually refused court orders with no proof of such. I understand that if they do it it would be a big deal, that's exactly why saying it happened before we know it actually happened is wrong.
  - aerovistae 10y ago
    Yes, and that's quite disturbing.
- nullc 10y ago
  It seems to be meaningless since it is stated in a message which is _specifically_ announcing that the DHS is ignoring a court order.
  - smsm42 10y ago
    I couldn't find any mention of announcing that DHS is ignoring the court order in the message. Could you quote where it _specifically_ says so? I mean not you interpret its meaning as such, but it _specifically_ says these _specific_ words?
  - aerovistae 10y ago
    Can you point me to the sentence that says they're ignoring the court order? I think the intended interpretation of this seems pretty clear, maybe it's just me, but they seem to be saying "We will continue to enforce executive order minus any vetoes or alterations issued by courts." As you would expect them to.
    - solipsism 10y ago
      Can you point me to the sentence that says they're ignoring the court order? Yes, the first one. The Department of Homeland Security will continue to enforce all of President Trump’s Executive Orders... The whole thing is self-contradictory. They cannot enforce all the executive orders while complying with all judicial orders. Your reading of it is one reading, don't pretend like it's the only reasonable reading. In fact, it's notable that the sentence you're picking out," The Department of Homeland Security will comply with judicial orders does not say they will comply with all judicial orders. So, you want to revise how "pretty clear" it seems to you?
      - smsm42 10y ago
        > They cannot enforce all the executive orders while complying with all judicial orders Of course they can. They will enforce all the orders, except for the parts which are specifically prohibited (or otherwise instructed) by court orders. Exactly how it always happened before. > does not say they will comply with all judicial orders Of course not. They don't have to comply with all of the orders, just with those that relate to something they are doing. See, I can do it too. The point is that this release doesn't say anything but "we'll continue doing what we should be doing in accordance with the law" and all panic about it is completely self-generated, as so far we haven't seen even single case of non-compliance (actually, people are not only not being deported but are being released: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/queens/iraqi-man-free-detainment-jfk-airport-article-1.2958091 http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/queens/iraqi-man-free-de...). Of course, whatever floats you boat...
- noobermin 10y ago
  That is one sentence in an order in which almost every other sentence contradicts it. EDIT: I'm not sure who they are trying to speak to here, are they admitting they will follow the judicial order? Clearly to most people here, we are interpreting it as not following the order because the hint of "following judicial orders" is relegated to the end. The opening of the statement (first sentence) is: >The Department of Homeland Security will continue to enforce all of President Trump’s Executive Orders in a manner that ensures the safety and security of the American people. There, in the emphasis added by me, was a chance to mention the judicial order; they could have tacked "while respecting judicial orders" at the end of that sentence, and their intention would be clear, and that would set the tone of the rest of the order. The reason I mention who their audience is because if it addressed is to those against the ban, then it doesn't do its job as it comes off as oppositional. If it's to save face with those for the ban, then yes, leaving that till the end does make sense. Perhaps that's why it is written this way? Regardless, over analysing this seems unhelpful, I'm sure by tomorrow morning, their intention will be clear.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    It's a sentence in a press release, not an order. > I'm not sure who they are trying to speak to here, are they admitting they will follow the judicial order? It's a press release, so the audience is the press (and the public.) It's probably deliberately contradictory specifically so that people able to read their own preferences into it.
smsm42 10y ago
> We now have a government agency publicly disregarding an injunction by the Federal courts. Which one? One I heard of prevents deportation of green card holders pending resolution of their cases. I don't see anything in DHS press release conflicting with it. Was there another one? In fact, CNN reports that application of the order to green card holders may be misunderstanding: http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/donald-trump-travel-ban/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/donald-trump-travel-b... As of Saturday afternoon, Customs and Border Protection continued to issue the same guidance to airlines as it did Friday, telling airlines that fly to the US that green card holders can board planes to the US but they may get extra scrutiny on arrival, according to an airline official. "Extra scrutiny" is kind of vague and worrying, but it's not the same as ban (if the intent was to ban no point in allowing boarding and flying in).

by daeken 10y ago

Waterluvian 10y ago

Are they though? The last paragraph says they will comply. I think this says little new other than there being a lot of confusion everywhere.

gotchange 10y ago
Can't the press ask for a press conference to clarify these issues?

aerovistae 10y ago

> The Department of Homeland Security will comply with judicial orders; Think you might've read over that

jrockway 10y ago
Except reports are: they _aren't_ complying, and are being told not to comply. This press release is words, not actions.
- smsm42 10y ago
  "Reports are" is rather vague. Which reports are about this non-compliance, in which form they are not complying?
  - jrockway 10y ago
    I had already posted this elsewhere in the thread: https://plus.google.com/+YonatanZunger/posts/T72eVRRHv39 https://plus.google.com/+YonatanZunger/posts/T72eVRRHv39
    - smsm42 10y ago
      This link says there are "confirmed reports" that DHS disregards the stays - namely, deports people - but does not provide any details, e.g. which person named in the stays was deported, by whom, on what grounds (e.g. people can be rejected not only on this exec order, people has been deported long before Trump), who confirmed it, etc. Even that report plainly says "I simply don't have enough information yet, and hope to update as we know more". I suggest to wait until that update before proclaiming DHS is actually refused court orders with no proof of such. I understand that if they do it it would be a big deal, that's exactly why saying it happened before we know it actually happened is wrong.
- aerovistae 10y ago
  Yes, and that's quite disturbing.
nullc 10y ago
It seems to be meaningless since it is stated in a message which is _specifically_ announcing that the DHS is ignoring a court order.
- smsm42 10y ago
  I couldn't find any mention of announcing that DHS is ignoring the court order in the message. Could you quote where it _specifically_ says so? I mean not you interpret its meaning as such, but it _specifically_ says these _specific_ words?
- aerovistae 10y ago
  Can you point me to the sentence that says they're ignoring the court order? I think the intended interpretation of this seems pretty clear, maybe it's just me, but they seem to be saying "We will continue to enforce executive order minus any vetoes or alterations issued by courts." As you would expect them to.
  - solipsism 10y ago
    Can you point me to the sentence that says they're ignoring the court order? Yes, the first one. The Department of Homeland Security will continue to enforce all of President Trump’s Executive Orders... The whole thing is self-contradictory. They cannot enforce all the executive orders while complying with all judicial orders. Your reading of it is one reading, don't pretend like it's the only reasonable reading. In fact, it's notable that the sentence you're picking out," The Department of Homeland Security will comply with judicial orders does not say they will comply with all judicial orders. So, you want to revise how "pretty clear" it seems to you?
    - smsm42 10y ago
      > They cannot enforce all the executive orders while complying with all judicial orders Of course they can. They will enforce all the orders, except for the parts which are specifically prohibited (or otherwise instructed) by court orders. Exactly how it always happened before. > does not say they will comply with all judicial orders Of course not. They don't have to comply with all of the orders, just with those that relate to something they are doing. See, I can do it too. The point is that this release doesn't say anything but "we'll continue doing what we should be doing in accordance with the law" and all panic about it is completely self-generated, as so far we haven't seen even single case of non-compliance (actually, people are not only not being deported but are being released: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/queens/iraqi-man-free-detainment-jfk-airport-article-1.2958091 http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/queens/iraqi-man-free-de...). Of course, whatever floats you boat...
noobermin 10y ago
That is one sentence in an order in which almost every other sentence contradicts it. EDIT: I'm not sure who they are trying to speak to here, are they admitting they will follow the judicial order? Clearly to most people here, we are interpreting it as not following the order because the hint of "following judicial orders" is relegated to the end. The opening of the statement (first sentence) is: >The Department of Homeland Security will continue to enforce all of President Trump’s Executive Orders in a manner that ensures the safety and security of the American people. There, in the emphasis added by me, was a chance to mention the judicial order; they could have tacked "while respecting judicial orders" at the end of that sentence, and their intention would be clear, and that would set the tone of the rest of the order. The reason I mention who their audience is because if it addressed is to those against the ban, then it doesn't do its job as it comes off as oppositional. If it's to save face with those for the ban, then yes, leaving that till the end does make sense. Perhaps that's why it is written this way? Regardless, over analysing this seems unhelpful, I'm sure by tomorrow morning, their intention will be clear.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  It's a sentence in a press release, not an order. > I'm not sure who they are trying to speak to here, are they admitting they will follow the judicial order? It's a press release, so the audience is the press (and the public.) It's probably deliberately contradictory specifically so that people able to read their own preferences into it.

smsm42 10y ago

> We now have a government agency publicly disregarding an injunction by the Federal courts. Which one? One I heard of prevents deportation of green card holders pending resolution of their cases. I don't see anything in DHS press release conflicting with it. Was there another one? In fact, CNN reports that application of the order to green card holders may be misunderstanding: http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/donald-trump-travel-ban/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/donald-trump-travel-b... As of Saturday afternoon, Customs and Border Protection continued to issue the same guidance to airlines as it did Friday, telling airlines that fly to the US that green card holders can board planes to the US but they may get extra scrutiny on arrival, according to an airline official. "Extra scrutiny" is kind of vague and worrying, but it's not the same as ban (if the intent was to ban no point in allowing boarding and flying in).