Yes, moving on...Can't the White House or the Justice Department appeal and have an injunction put in place?

Honestly, like everyone else, I don't get the reasoning behind the judge's decision.

a double post to emphasize an important report

http://www.breitbart.com/big-g...top-using-h1b-trump/

worth reading the whole thing

Indian Software Mogul: Hire Americans Now Because Trump Opposes H-1B Outsourcing Visas


U.S. officials say the H-1B program suffers from fraud and extensive corruption, especially in India where inflated resumes and faked documentation are used to get poorly trained and poorly paid Indian workers into American job sites. One U.S. government cable released via Wikileaks said that:

H-1B fraud is one of the top two visa categories for fraud throughout Mission India. All posts regularly encounter inflated or fabricated educational and employment qualifications. The vast majority of these documents come from Hyderabad.

In the 18 months prior to the start-up of consular operations in Hyderabad, FPU Chennai investigated 150 companies in Hyderabad, 77 percent of which turned out to be fraudulent or highly suspect (ref F). Most of those cases slated for site visits were to verify the experience letters for H-1B applicants who did not meet minimum educational qualifications.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
Yes, moving on...Can't the White House or the Justice Department appeal and have an injunction put in place?

Honestly, like everyone else, I don't get the reasoning behind the judge's decision.

And does it really happen immediately as this judge claims. Don't airports take their orders from the feds - Homeland Security, etc?

quote:

Originally posted by radioman:
Do you even know the definition of the word "Immigrant." ???

One that has immigrated? By definition, physically leaving one country and taken up permanent residence in another country? That kind of immigrant? I'm fairly certain that what is being pointed out by bald1 is that there is no way that our Constitution can extend past our borders offering protection for those that are in any of the 7 listed countries before they have even started their journey.

I'm not wanting to start an argument but you seem a little combative with regard to the President's EO and I am wondering why.

quote:

Originally posted by grumpy1:
as this judge claims.

Have you read something directly from "this judge?" Do you have a link?

quote:

Originally posted by grumpy1:

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
Yes, moving on...Can't the White House or the Justice Department appeal and have an injunction put in place?

Honestly, like everyone else, I don't get the reasoning behind the judge's decision.

And does it really happen immediately as this judge claims. Don't airports take their orders from the feds - Homeland Security, etc?

The order directs the feds to do what the judge says, so the fed directs its employees. It takes time for the word to get around, but it better not take long.

Has the judge signed an order yet?

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
Yes, moving on...Can't the White House or the Justice Department appeal and have an injunction put in place?

http://q13fox.com/2017/02/03/w...s-immigration-order/

“At the earliest possible time, the Department of Justice intends to file an emergency stay of this outrageous order and defend the executive order of the President, which we believe is lawful and appropriate,” White House press secretary Sean Spicer said in a statement.

“The president’s order is intended to protect the homeland and he has the constitutional authority and responsibility to protect the American people.

“As the law states, ‘Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.’ ”

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
Yes, moving on...Can't the White House or the Justice Department appeal and have an injunction put in place?

Yes. But, it is called a stay of the injunction that is subject to the appeal.

Preliminary injunctions are not often issued. I have had to pull several all nighters to get things together in the short time afforded a response to such petitions.

Usually courts do not issue them, favoring a decision on the merits after both parties have a full opportunity to prepare and be heard.

It is a high hurdle to get a preliminary injunction. Often, if the bid for a prelim is unsuccessful, petitioners lose heart and walk away because in the process, the judge will give the parties a sense of the judge's leanings.

But, when challenging President Trump with pots of money waiting to be showered on attorneys, we are likely to see a lot of this legal maneuvering, and forum shopping, to hinder and obstruct the President's agenda.

Edit - Well the above post came in while I was typing. There you go.

Sorry for my previous mistake - here is the text of the judge's temporary restraining order :

https://www.documentcloud.org/...91-Robart-Order.html

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
Hire Americans Now Because Trump Opposes H-1B Outsourcing Visas.

U.S. officials say the H-1B program suffers from fraud and extensive corruption

I have been emailing and calling my senators and congressmen to work with President Trump to eliminate both the H-1B and OPT (Optional Practical Training) programs. I sent it out to the link to the President also. And there are probably more programs we don't even know about.

quote:

Originally posted by Hound Dog:
But if they are still in Syria or Iraq, they do NOT have 'Constitutional rights.'

Exactly my point. Alan read it the way he feels and not in the context of the recent Presidental Executive Order.

quote:

Originally posted by mutedblade:

quote:

Originally posted by radioman:
Do you even know the definition of the word "Immigrant." ???

One that has immigrated? By definition, physically leaving one country and taken up permanent residence in another country? That kind of immigrant? I'm fairly certain that what is being pointed out by bald1 is that there is no way that our Constitution can extend past our borders offering protection for those that are in any of the 7 listed countries before they have even started their journey.

I'm not wanting to start an argument but you seem a little combative with regard to the President's EO and I am wondering why.

Thank you. My intent with the word imigrant was in the context of the Executive Order. Heck the thread was discussing the Bush appointee judge blocking the temporary ban so why a couple choose to spin my words has me shaking my head.

quote:

Originally posted by rh:
Sorry for my previous mistake - here is the text of the judge's temporary restraining order :

https://www.documentcloud.org/...91-Robart-Order.html

Thanks for finding the order. It is sparse but problematic.



Reading the court's order, it is hard to see how the following immigration authorization would be illegal every time. Basically, his finding invalidates a statute that has been in use and existence since 1952. That's a big bite for an emergency TRO with one judge in conflict with other courts.

The judge found that using the 1952 statute, even though used for over 60 years, suddenly now causes an immediate, irreparable harm that must be stopped.

Congress authorized the President to impose a variety of restrictions on access to the United States and President Trump says that he is imposing the travel restriction to enhance the vetting needed to ensure our safety.

‘Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.’

There are other issues, too. But, the order was not robust. Often judges know that their orders are going to be appealed so they say as little as possible to let all intendments in the trial court to be filled in by the appellate court as they review matters on a low "abuse of discretion" basis. In other words. they hope the appellate court will generously fill in any blanks they might perceive.

From Brietbart:



Ferguson’s ruling was on the basis that states had already suffered harm from the travel ban. He also said the lawsuit challenging the legality of the order has a good chance of succeeding. Lawyers for the government had argued the states lacked standing to sue, according to the Seattle Times, and that the order was within Trump’s executive powers.

That said, it is likely that like last Saturday’s Brooklyn decision, that this ruling oo is being blown out of proportion: to wit, a Department of Homeland Security official told NBC News that “the judge’s order will have no immediate practical effect” adding that “all previously issued visas from the seven affected countries were canceled by last week’s executive order” meaning all travelers would have to reapply.

Furthermore, the Trump administration could seek a stay of the Seattle judge’s order.

quote:

Originally posted by Tubetone:

quote:

Originally posted by rh:
Sorry for my previous mistake - here is the text of the judge's temporary restraining order :

https://www.documentcloud.org/...91-Robart-Order.html

Thanks for finding the order. It is sparse but problematic.

I'm no attorney, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but that right there is some weak nonsense at best. And adversely affecting "family relations"? Really. This judge sounds like a loon. This has to be prime of overturning.

Some judges think they are God emperors of the universe. Which really irritates those of us who are.

The Governor of Washington State was on Fox tonight (Tucker Carlson's show).
After some pushing he said the basis for the injunction was that the 1952 Law was amended in 1964 (or 1965 I forget) to prevent blocking immigrants on the basis of their country of origin.
Also a lot of blather about being based on religion.

The show
https://youtu.be/C5vfbnGlQ3o

I'm sorry--I guess I'm a little dense. To me, the phrase "any class of aliens" is very broad and I think it would cover just about any way that individuals could be grouped, including LGBTQ, Muslim, Greek, blue-eyed, left-handed, etc. There does not seem to be wording in the law that removes any of those categories from consideration. (Yes, I know--religious testing is against the Constitution, but we have already agreed that our Constitution does NOT extend to persons not yet within the bounds or control of the United States.)

flashguy

quote:

Originally posted by bald1:

quote:

Originally posted by Hound Dog:
But if they are still in Syria or Iraq, they do NOT have 'Constitutional rights.'

Exactly my point. Alan read it the way he feels and not in the context of the recent Presidental Executive Order.

Sorry, bald1. I did indeed take your comments out of the context of the discussion.

Riding in the Suburban?