SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Intercept reports
A Federal judge in New York issued a nationwide temporary injunction [1], halting the implementation of President Donald Trump's executive order on immigration on Saturday night, blocking the deportation of travelers with valid visas detained at airports in the past 24 hours.
Judge Ann Donnelly, a United States District Court Judge in Brooklyn, issued the ruling at an emergency hearing on a lawsuit [2] filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups on Saturday, as Trump's executive order temporarily banning citizens of seven nations with Muslim majorities from entering the U.S. took immediate effect.
The judge ruled that the government must immediately stop deporting travelers from those nations, including refugees who already went through a rigorous vetting process, and provide a complete list of all those detained, immigrants rights lawyer Lee Gelernt told reporters in Brooklyn.
[Ed Note (martyb): Original text and links from The Intercept are reproduced here — to bypass indirections and Javascript use the following links.]
[1] Direct link to a PDF of the Emergency Motion for Stay of Removal (Case 1:17-cv-00480 Document 8 Filed 01/28/17).
[2] Direct link to a PDF of the Original ACLU Complaint (Case 1:17-cv-00480 Document 1 Filed 01/28/17).
Previously:
Breaking News: Immigration Ban Includes Green Card Holders
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by Runaway1956 on Sunday January 29 2017, @02:24PM
No, but yo Mama? How in hell am I supposed to keep my head, while your mama gives head?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KaWSOlASWc [youtube.com]
Candy came from out on the island
In the backroom she was everybody's darlin'
But she never lost her head
Even when she was giving head
She says, 'Hey babe, take a walk on the wild side'
He said, 'Hey babe, take a walk on the wild side'
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @02:34PM
> No, but yo Mama? How in hell am I supposed to keep my head, while your mama gives head?
Its revealing that when your beliefs are criticized all you can respond with are generic meaningless insults.
Shows how empty and unsupportable your beliefs are to begin with. You've always been shallow
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday January 29 2017, @02:39PM
Offer something better than mindless insults of your own, and you may get something better than generic insults in return.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @02:46PM
Again, when your beliefs are criticized you respond with insults of nothing.
You can't even defend your beliefs.
Your beliefs are literally mindless.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday January 29 2017, @04:04PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STRqg0m13eo [youtube.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @04:14PM
What's that?
Porn of your mommy diddling you?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday January 29 2017, @04:31PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTbkbH3x7LQ [youtube.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @04:46PM
More video of you masturbating to ISIS beheadings?
No thanks!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @07:14PM
Offer something better than mindless insults
OK, stand back, hold my beer, and watch this! "Runaway, you are a doo-doo head!" Ha! Got ya! Man, that has got to hurt! Runaway is a poopy-head! Ha ha ha! I am invincible!!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @06:02PM
He asked a specific question without any partisan crap and he got your shitty angry response instead.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @07:18PM
He asked a specific question without any partisan crap
Not really, he asked a stupid question that revealed a extensive ignorance of how the US legal system works, which is not surprising for a Trump Voter, so really it was not non-partisan, it was just stupid. Oh, but wait! While it is true that there are no "stupid questions", there are stupid people who ask things they could easily find out for themselves, stupid, lazy people. I believe we have found at least two!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Monday January 30 2017, @02:28AM
Most people have extensive ignorance about most things, how email works, what makes their car go, what doctors know, how science operates, and on and on. I would even go so far as to say that most lawyers have extensive ignorance about how the US legal system works, except in their own particular, narrow specialty. It can even vary quite a bit from state to state, which is why you frequently have to take the bar exam in the state where you mean to practice law, even though you might have previously passed the bar somewhere else.
So if you stop and think about it ignorance is the natural lot of modern man, amid bodies of knowledge too large to be fully absorbed by anyone given our common limitations of time, capacity, and appetite. Willful ignorance, and asserting certitude based on impressions rather than actual facts and knowledge, are a different matter. Discourage the latter, but practice understanding for the former.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 30 2017, @04:19AM
Maybe so. But how disconnected from reality do you have to be to believe that The Intercept would straight up lie about such a simple, mechanical issue of whether a federal injunction is "nationwide?" The only reason he asked the question is because he really, really wanted to disbelieve. Asking the question was the way he released the pressure of the cognitive dissonance of thinking muslims totally deserve to be fucked over hard and the fact that courts don't see it that way.
Just yesterday that asshole posted that standard islamofoe canard that "islam is not a religion its a political system" so 1st amendment protections don't apply.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 30 2017, @12:49PM
YOU'RE A MIND READING COCKSUCKER!!
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:04AM
You don't have to be disconnected from reality at all. You only have to be generally ignorant of how courts and jurisdiction work. I am not disconnected from reality, but I too am in the dark about such matters. Why? Because I studiously avoid the entire subject; I loathe lawyers, judges, and courts and politicians, who are themselves mostly lawyers. There are far too many interesting things in the world to learn and understand, without wasting time on people and a general profession that irritate the crap out of me. When it does come time to hang the lot of 'em, I will be jockeying to be the guy that pulls the lever.
So, choose to judge Runaway and everyone else a little more kindly before rushing to judgement. Perhaps he was being coy as you suspect, but his initial question seemed legitimate to me. And, in the end, what did it gain anyone to jump on it as an invitation to a flame war? We are really at a time as a global society when those small decisions, to fight, or to try and get along, will doom or save us.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @03:59PM
I'm sure yo mamma jokes are more than enough consolation to those children being sent back to syria.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday January 29 2017, @04:36PM
Uhhhhhh - yeah. Got video of children being torn from their mother's breasts, to be cast from the battlements, to certain death?
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @04:43PM
Two brothers, their wives and children left war-torn Syria with 16 suitcases and crossed the border into Lebanon. They were finally on their way to the United States after working for almost 15 years to join their family members stateside.
But after a flight from Beirut to Doha, Qatar, and then to Philadelphia on Saturday, the two families were told to get on a flight back to Doha. It was because President Donald Trump had just signed an executive order denying citizens from seven countries, including Syria, entry into the United States.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/28/us/syrian-family-trump-travel-ban/ [cnn.com]
Of the more than 8,000 Syrian refugees admitted to the country so far, 78% are women or children, according figures released by the State Department this month. Fifty-eight percent are children, with a roughly even split between girls and boys.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/08/09/syria-refugees-united-states-women-children/88446226/ [usatoday.com]
Don't let facts get in your way.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @05:26PM
Don't let facts get in your way.
They won't.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @07:05PM
That family sent back to Doha was christian.
I guess this isn't a muslim ban after all!
Nah... Just unintended consequences.
Hey derpaway, how's that christofacism working out?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @08:47PM
The 7 countries under Donnie Tiny Hands' blanket ban are Iran, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Libya, and Somalia.
The Christian sect in Egypt are called Copts.
They are a minority of the population and are persecuted.
That non-Muslim sect and other non-Muslim sects have also taken root in adjoining lands. [msu.edu]
Note the overlap with the list of 7.
In their countries, those Christians are being targeted.
2015 kidnapping and beheading of Copts in Libya [wikipedia.org]
At least 25 killed in explosion at Coptic Christian chapel in Cairo [upi.com]
Christian Persecution in Somalia [opendoorsuk.org]
Cheating Donald [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [commondreams.org] claims to be a Christian, but his actions aren't anything like what the Nazarean taught.
It should come as no surprise that he has no empathy for those persecuted Christians.
...or even knowledge of their existence.
Expecting a president who gets his "information" from cable TeeVee to be well-informed and make wise decisions is just silly.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday January 29 2017, @07:26PM
Second link first - looks like a partisan paid advertisement. FFS, MSM makes some claim that Obama is bringing in women and children. But - that's not what your first link says, either. The wives and the children didn't come until the fathers were on their way, as well.
That first link is pretty tough, really. They flew all the way here, only to be turned around. But - wait a second.
"According to the Assalis, their family members do not speak English very well and were told by authorities they could either be detained and have their visas taken away, or they could take the first flight back to Doha.
Frightened and facing a language barrier, the six family members chose the second option. Sarmad Assali told CNN she wished she had been able to speak with them, since she would have told them to stay until she could arrive with her attorney."
So, the Assalis weren't *exactly* "kicked out". They were given a choice between detention, or returning to whence they came. They chose to return. Now, if they had just left a hot war zone, why didn't they choose to stay in a relatively safe detention center, until things could be worked out one way or the other?
It's still a rough deal for them, but they chose.
Maybe they aren't actually flying back into the danger you paint?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @07:33PM
What a masterful display of motivated reasoning!
First, straight up widely reported facts are actually "partisan paid advertisement."
Because everybody knows reality has a well-known liberal bias. So who needs reality anyway?
Second "eh, fuck'em they were weak, tough shit!"
You are the best, man!
I think I saw you on American Horror Story: Freakshow.
You were the logical contortionist!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @07:44PM
Yup, this is the example where Runaway goes from reasonable questions / points and wanders into the crazy zone. I'm all for personal responsibility, but you have to take extenuating circumstances into account. Instead, you double down on "their fault if they made a mistake" instead of "fucking fascists screwing with people's lives for no good reason". And it is no good reason, as many have pointed out the ban doesn't target the right countries and so does nothing to keep us safe. Not to mention that protecting against "terrorism" is statistically the worst allocation of resources possible.
Why would a family opt to take their chances in their home country instead of being "detained"? Gee, because many people detained in the US spend several years in detention along with the very real chances of abuse or even torture. Yeah, why would a responsible parent not send their kids into a foreign system they know nothing about? Come on Runaway, time to work on your "compassion" circuits.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Monday January 30 2017, @02:30AM
Or forced labor or extermination, as our own dear VLM has advocated. Let's hope that's a bridge too far for Trump's team.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 30 2017, @05:00AM
Don't worry, I got this one for you: You are sure this is just another partisan advertisement.
Trump Ban Leaves 12-Year-Old Girl Facing Return to War-Torn Yemen [propublica.org]
The girl, whose parents are U.S. citizens, was barred from boarding a plane yesterday and is now in limbo in Djibouti.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday January 30 2017, @07:07AM
Your grasp of the English language needs some work - but that's cool. Apparently, you grew up speaking another language.
That's a tougher story than the other one. It really sucks. But - again, it results from decisions made by her parents.
First, let me clarify that I disagree with that stupid-assed residency law for mothers. Any child born to an American mother should automagically become an American citizen, for the same reasons that anchor babies born to Mexican mothers should NOT automagically become American citizens. Nothing is more natural than for an American woman to give birth to an American baby - or for a Mexican mother to give birth to a Mexican baby. Citizenship should NOT depend on some accidental mis-location at the time of birth.
But, the law is the law. Mother decided to move to Yemen, to give birth there, and NOT to ensure that her baby would be considered an American citizen when she grew up. Mother did not value her citizenship enough to ensure that her baby would have all of her privileges of citizenship.
As a result, today, that baby is a pawn in a political game. That really sucks.
What is the solution? Hell, I don't know. Djibouti has to be one of the most suck-ass places to be stranded. I've been there. About the only thing worse than Djibouti, are places recently struck by earthquakes, and warzones. Maybe it's improved since I was there, but it still has to suck. Worse than Chicago or Detroit, if you need some kind of reference.
Bottom line here, is that parents should protect their children's rights, whether the laws make sense, or not. There have been tens of thousands of similar sob stories involving citizens of the UK, and people who THOUGHT they were citizens, over the years. People do get burnt sometimes.
Maybe someone will start one of those funds for this little girl? If you see one, let me know, I'll send her a little money.
After a little additional thought - parents made another mistake. Daddy is the sole breadwinner in the family? Why did Daddy have to go to Yemen? If Mommy has no job, it would have made more sense for HER to go pick up her daughter. Daddy could have kept on working, winning that bread, while Mommy took care of business in Africa. Poor decision making has a way of burning people.
But, I'll still send them some money if you can find a fund for them. I'll look around a little . . .
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 30 2017, @10:18AM
It is frickin a mazing to see the lengths you will go to rationalize cruelty.
"The law is the law." -- The circular justification of fascists everywhere.
After all, sending jews to the concentration camps really sucked, but it was the law and it was their choice to continue living in europe!
Baphomet's dick is so far up your ass that its the tongue you speak with.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday January 30 2017, @11:51AM
I didn't rationalize it. I attempted to explain that facts are facts. The world is a harsh fucking place, and her parents didn't take the proper measures to protect their child. If a mad dog attacks you child, there is no rationalizing that. But, you can take responsibility for your child, and keep her from being put in danger by the mad dog.
Once again - the residency law for female American citizens is obscenely fucking stupid. An American mother can only give birth to an American child. Unless the mother takes measures to renounce her citizenship, then citizenship is the birthright of her child, it's just that simple.
Let's get THAT stupid law changed, and a whole lot of children will avoid the kind of bullshit and heartache you see in this case.
But, Mommy put her child in that position, when all is said and done. Mommy had all the same opportunity that any of us has had to peruse citizenship laws. Mommy CHOSE to reside in a foreign land, and put her child's citizenship into jeopardy. Don't blame it all on Trump. Don't even blame it on me. I didn't write the law, didn't even get to vote on it.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday January 30 2017, @05:25PM
Hold on a second here. Why was the child not automatically a US citizen, with her parents both already being US citizens? Location shouldn't matter.
Otherwise, how the heck did Ted Cruz qualify for running for President? He was born in Canada (to US citizen parents).
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday January 30 2017, @06:17PM
Residency requirements for a female parent. Let me find that thing for you . . . .
First link I find that mentions residency is this one - https://au.usembassy.gov/u-s-citizen-services/birth/transmit-citizenship/ [usembassy.gov]
Scroll down low on the page, to "if parents are unmarried at time of child's birth - the mother is a US citizen" - (javascript enabled, or it won't open)
"The mother must have had physical presence in the U.S. or its possessions for one continuous year.
(This is only for children born on or after December 24, 1952.)"
Similar heading, "If parents are unmarried at the time of the child's birth - the father is a US citizen"
"The father must have had physical presence in the U.S. or its possessions for five years, two years of which were after the age of 14; and blood relationship established between father and child; and father (unless deceased) agrees in writing, prior to the child turning 18, to support child while child is under age 18. Conditions include:
child is legitimated; or
father acknowledges paternity under oath; or
paternity is established by court adjudication.
(This is only for children born on or after November 14, 1986.)"
Note that link is in Australia, apparently published by the US emabassy.
This is NOT what I have read in the past - when the Birthers brought this issue up.
For a mother to confer residency on her child born abroad, she should have lived (continuously, I believe) for seven years within the US, AFTER having reached the age of 14. Meaning, no woman under the age of 21 can possibly give birth to a US citizen abroad, before she reaches the age of 21.
This site is some better, in that it shows pretty clearly that the law has been changed over time.
https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal-considerations/us-citizenship-laws-policies/citizenship-child-born-abroad.html [state.gov]
Birth Abroad to Two U.S. Citizen Parents in Wedlock
A child born abroad to two U.S. citizen parents acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under section 301(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) provided that one of the parents had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions prior to the child’s birth. The child is considered to be born in wedlock for the purposes of citizenship acquisition when the genetic and/or gestational parents are legally married to each other at the time of the child’s birth and both parents are the legal parents of the child under local law at the time and place of birth.
Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock
A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) of the INA provided the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen, is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen, is required for physical presence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.) The U.S. citizen parent must be the genetic or the gestational parent and the legal parent of the child under local law at the time and place of the child’s birth to transmit U.S. citizenship.
Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock
A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) of the INA provided the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen, is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen, is required for physical presence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.) The U.S. citizen parent must be the genetic or the gestational parent and the legal parent of the child under local law at the time and place of the child’s birth to transmit U.S. citizenship.
Birth Abroad Out-of-Wedlock to a U.S. Citizen Father – “New” Section 309(a)
A person born abroad out-of-wedlock to a U.S. citizen father may acquire U.S. citizenship under Section 301(g) of the INA, as made applicable by the “new” Section 309(a) of the INA provided:
A blood relationship between the person and the father is established by clear and convincing evidence;
The father had the nationality of the United States at the time of the person’s birth;
The father was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions prior to the child’s birth for five years, at least two of which were after reaching the age of 14.
The father (unless deceased) has agreed in writing to provide financial support for the person until the person reaches the age of 18 years, and
While the person is under the age of 18 years --
the person is legitimated under the law of his/her residence or domicile,
the father acknowledges paternity of the person in writing under oath, or
the paternity of the person is established by adjudication of a competent court.
Birth Abroad Out-of-Wedlock to a U.S. Citizen Father – “Old” Section 309(a) of the INA- A child born out-of-wedlock to a U.S. citizen father may acquire U.S. citizenship under the former Section 301(a)(7) of the INA as made applicable by the “old” Section 309(a) of the INA if the U.S. citizen father, prior to the child’s birth, had been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for ten years, five of which were after the age of 14, and if the paternity of the child had been established by legitimation prior to the child reaching the age of 21. The “old” Section 309(a) of the INA is applicable to individuals who were 18 on November 14, 1986 and to individuals whose paternity had been established by legitimation prior to that date. Individuals who were at least 15 on November 14, 1986, but under the age of 18, could opt to have their claim determined in accordance with the provisions of either the “old” or the “new” Section 309(a).
Birth Abroad Out-of-Wedlock to a U.S. Citizen Mother:
A person born abroad out-of-wedlock to a U.S. citizen mother may acquire U.S. citizenship under Section 309(c) of the INA if the mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of the person’s birth and if the mother was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the person’s birth. The U.S. citizen mother must be the genetic or the gestational mother and the legal parent of the child under local law at the time and place of the child’s birth to transmit U.S. citizenship.
*** PLEASE NOTE ONCE AGAIN: I do not agree with any of that residency BS. It really needs to be stricken from US Code. The more stringent versions of this law that I've read in the past can only be considered barbaric - this less stringent version is much less so, but still barbaric. Border control can't deny the woman entry into the country, because she is a citizen - but they can bar her baby?
But then, we have Mexican anchor babies, whose parents can't be deported because the baby was born on US soil?
Preposterous.