Trump Signs Order to Restrict Refugees from 7 Countries But Not Saudi Arabia

LOL, no that's not what I mean at all. By "politically motivated" I mean that they were making a political decision instead of a decision based on the law.

 

Obviously, I was pointing out that you were wrong, on the law

 

Obviously you were mistaken, but I get that you thought that's what you were doing. If there was a solid case for what the lower courts did then the SCOTUS wouldn't have ruled unanimously to lift the injunction against travel ban, that step was not necessary in order to hear the case but it was taken because there was so little legal basis for the lower courts blocking the travel ban.

 

I just want to police my own, which I understand is a thing now.

 

trump admin adds fiances to list of "bonafide" family members exempted from Muslim travel ban. Grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins... well, you aren't "bonafide" family members.

 

Still pimping out the narrative that this is a "Muslim ban" despite the fact that the SCOTUS pretty much b**** slapped that narrative and sent it packing?

 

What? Do you understand what the Supreme Court did? They didn't make any ruling on that issue. They merely allowed part of the ban to continue until they could hear the case and judge the actual moments. At that time they might b**** slap that narrative, or they might uphold that narrative. No decision on that has been made as of yet.

 

Yeah, they did. By allowing the ban to continue until they could hear the case they were effectively ruling that there was no valid reason to prevent it. If it truly was a "Muslim ban" then there would have been valid reason to block it until the case could be heard. By putting the ban back in effect the court was ruling that the government successfully made a case that they were likely to prevail on the merits of their claim when the case was heard....that wouldn't be the case if it actually was a "Muslim ban" or at the very least, there would have been some distension against allowing the ban to go into effect.

 

Well, this is no surprise.

The Administration's Travel Ban Guidance Falls Short of Good Faith

First, recognize that the reason that the Court limited the lower court injunctions in the first place was to account for “foreign nationals abroad who have no connection to the United States at all.” The burden imposed when denying entry is at a minimum when it comes to “a foreign national who lacks any connection to this country.” Thus, the Court said, what matters is “a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.” For the Administration to read that reasoning and conclude that a person’s grandparent or fiance in the US is per se insufficient is troubling, to say the least.

Second, the Administration’s interpretation conflicts with the Court’s explanation of who can and cannot be subject to the ban. When defining “close familial relationship,” the Court gave the example of a mother-in-law, and stated that a mother-in-law would “clearly satisfy such a relationship.” Reasonable people would find it extremely counterintuitive that a person’s mother-in-law “clearly” qualifies as close, but his or her grandparents do not. In fact, the Administration’s interpretation is even more extreme: A person’s relationship with his or her grandparents or fiancé is so remote that it is per se excluded from being a “close familial relationship.” Even if a person was raised exclusively by his or her grandparents, those grandparents would not be considered a “close familial relationship.”

The Supreme Court gave "wife" and "mother-in-law" as its examples because those were the relationships of the particular plaintiffs before the Court. By essentially taking those examples and making them the outer limit, the Administration has frustrated the Court’s desire to protect people who would face similar “concrete burdens” if denied entry.

 

Trump claim a huge victory. That's enough to turn otherwise normal people to stupid.

 

I'm not outraged by where the WH decided to draw the line. It is in keeping with the earlier decision to tighten visa rules, generally. A citizen can sponsor a close relative, using pretty much the same definition here. I'm sure the SC saw this coming. I'm not altogether happy about the definition because it is so ethnocentric. They reflect a typical Western family construct, and don't really do anything to accommodate other cultures (many of which are still embraced by US citizens) that have more extensive family units. My relative's in-laws were able to immigrate before the rules were changed. They want to be part of the household and raise their only grandchildren, which is pretty common for Chinese.

 

Grandmothers are important to American culture also right?

 

Not saying they aren't important, but grandparents don't commonly live in the same house as their grown children and grandchildren in white American families. I think that culture of extended family cohabitation makes a significant difference. Honestly, I wouldn't have a problem barring grandmothers if the whole country had the same nuclear family model white Americans tend to have (and there was wiggle room for exceptions where needed), but we don't just have white people here.

 

Visit then go home. That's very different than sponsoring someone to become a US permanent resident or to work.

The SC was pretty clear. The Trump WH, as Trump has done throughout his private life, ignore court orders and push pass the edge.

Wouldn't be surprise that this get back into the lower court than right back to the SC again.

 

If the SC wants to hear it, I have no problem with that. But as I had said, I think they could have guessed the line the Admin would draw and they didn't say anything that explicitly precluded the Admin from drawing that line. So, I think they're cool with it, essentially. This is supposedly a temporary measure anyway (not that I believe that -- I feel very confident the Admin will try to make it permanent if it survives the court in September). Look, I know it is a benighted policy idea that only makes people's lives harder without giving us any benefit at all in security. And I know Trump is an idiot and I pretty much hope he fails to accomplish everything he sets out to accomplish. But I also think we need to respect the powers of the office of the president because we will need them some day when we have a smart person in office. The legislature makes the rules, the courts interpret the rules, and it's up to the Admin to execute. When the legislature and the judiciary are silent on the details, we should defer to the executive on the minutiae of the regulatory framework. Nobody made an explicit decision on grandmas until the White House made a list. If there's grounds for a complaint, the court will eventually figure it out. But I'm not going to second guess whether the line should be drawn at grandma or great-grandma, or if kissing cousins are allowed or what. The line has to be drawn somewhere.

 

Breaking up families to pander to an ignorant base that will never be harmed by these people. SAD!

 

Predictable. That's how Trump rolls. The bare minimum required.

 

Don't assume what the SC is ok with. The court often leave room for interpretation, but in this case they provided examples and pretty clear instructions. Just read the SC's order. It's clear Trump WH is playing loose and pass the edge. I posted an article about it.

You can continue to try to defend how grandparent and grandchildren are not relative and more importantly, how they would make the US less safe. The WH wouldn't answer.

At least they reversed course on fiances today. Maybe Grandma tomorrow?

 

Are you referring to the article that argues that if mother-in-law and wife "clearly satisfy such a relationship" then a grandparent must as well? I found that argument unconvincing. A person may be very close to his grandparents or to his cousin or what have you, but the Order says the relationship must be "a close familial relationship" that is "formal" and "documented." The Admin makes a reasonable assumption that nuclear families were close and that having that titular relationship of being a parent, sibling or child of someone in the US was formal and documented enough. In the case of parents and children, there is not merely an emotional bond, but a legal accountability that makes it closer than other relationships (even after a child is of age, they still have a next-of-kin relationship). A grandmother might be emotionally close, but there is no documentation of that closeness that makes it formal, unless there is something like an adoption along the way. Maybe the Admin could have drawn the line differently, but I don't see any merit to the argument that they were flaunting the orders of the SC.

 

I'm referring to, are grand-parent and grand-children families? And more importantly, how are they a danger? Reasonable my a$$. You might be in a semi-slightly better position if it was in-laws that weren't allowed.