Jump to content

elmcitymaven

Members
  • Content count

    13,567
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    31

elmcitymaven last won the day on October 7 2016

elmcitymaven had the most liked content!

About elmcitymaven

  • Rank
    class traitor
  • Birthday June 5
  • Member # 31091

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female
  • City
    Los Angeles, CA
  • Interests
    Abiding by the TOS.

Immigration Info

  • Immigration Status
    Naturalization (approved)
  • Local Office
    Los Angeles CA
  • Country
    United Kingdom

Recent Profile Visitors

28,440 profile views
  1. Point 1: NYU is a private university, not a public one, and it's a pretty great one too. Point 2: The money funding the the grants has been raised by this private university from "more than 2,500 supporters, including trustees, alumni, and friends. Visionary support was provided by Kenneth G. and Elaine Langone; trustee William Berkley and Marjorie Berkley; trustee Walter W. Buckley Jr. and Marjorie Buckley; Fiona Druckenmiller, co-chair of the Board of Trustees, and Stanley Druckenmiller; Laurence Fink, co-chair of the Board of Trustees, and trustee Lori Fink; trustee Larry Silverstein and Klara Silverstein; and trustee Jan T. Vilcek, MD, PhD, and Marica Vilcek." (source: https://nyulangone.org/press-releases/nyu-school-of-medicine-offers-full-tuition-scholarships-to-all-new-current-medical-students) This isn't about the gubmint giving your money away to feckless young people. Jesus. This is a plan to help increase the number of doctors who go into general practice and pediatrics, instead of more lucrative specializations that many new doctors feel they must pursue in order to pay off their debt. As a society we all benefit from greater access to healthcare, which increasing the number of GPs and pediatricians will further. Higher education is expensive -- outrageously so, and it is absolutely correct to be angry about it. But it is what it is right now, and this plan is one way to help keep a pipeline of talented students flowing into the medical profession. Law school and medical school are prohibitively expensive, and really for no good reason (especially law school, since the ridiculous cost is mostly used to pay salaries of tenured professors who rarely teach much anyway but I digress). This is a private initiative funded by a group of private individuals, including Ken Langone who is hardly a pinko. You should be HAPPY about it. Peace out -- back to bar study.
  2. An immigrant who has been naturalized and votes is a citizen. The context of the OP's post is that the USCIS program creates "immigrant voters" by providing naturalization support to those who are eligible to apply for citizenship, and that somehow that is reprehensible because... ? The point of the USCIS program is to assist organizations that provide citizenship support services, like ESL and tools in assimilating to the American way of life, and how to navigate the citizenship application process, to people who are eligible to become citizens. Education must be in English. If one is eligible for citizenship, and one elects to become a citizen, then becoming a voter at the completion of the process of naturalization is rather non-controversial. At least in polite society. Edit: removed confusing part of speech for clarity.
  3. They're called citizens, at least in polite society.
  4. elmcitymaven

    Peter Fonda should go to jail !!

    Preparing for the California Bar right now!
  5. elmcitymaven

    Peter Fonda should go to jail !!

    Peter Fonda's speech, as abhorrent as it is (and it is absolutely repellent and beyond the pale), is protected by the First Amendment. While it is true that some speech is unprotected, this does not fall into that category. In order to do so, it would have to pass this test: Are the words intended to incite immediate criminal action, and is there a likelihood of imminent danger of such action? We're not talking about whether some loony takes this into their head that the suggestion is a good idea. The example I recall from school is where there's a seething mob, and guy is standing there handing out pitchforks saying, "Go get that [*expletive deleted*]!" If the danger is imminent that the mob will take those pitchforks and stab the [*expletive deleted*] because (1) they've now got weapons and (2) there is an immediate opportunity that there's going to be some stabbing because the SOB is just around the corner, the speech is unprotected. But, if there's a mob, and pitchforks, and the guy telling the mob to go get the SOB, but the SOB is, say, on the other side of the country, or anywhere where the danger of criminal activity is not IMMINENT, the speech is protected, even if it is abhorrent. There's no imminence here, and there's probably no likelihood of harm. It's gross, but it's protected speech. It is a high hurdle to pass for good reason, because we have a super-awesome First Amendment and it is meant to protect us from government action except in certain, very circumscribed instances. Funtimes reading here: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/395/444/case.html
  6. Here's another husband of a US citizen who faces deportation -- he was detained at his green card interview. Story from today: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/queens/ny-pol-deport-immigrant-ice-20180614-story.html
  7. My understanding is that a deportation order prior to marriage does not prevent successful adjudication of an I-485. There is, I believe, a higher burden on proving a bona fide marriage, and the circumstances surrounding the marriage. If there's a quick marriage after a deportation order; if the spouses aren't living together, or didn't know each other very long; etc. etc. The usual stuff we hear about in Stokes interviews. The wrinkle is that applicants are now getting arrested at their AOS interviews on the deportation orders, where before they were not, regardless of whether the I-485 is approved. It's like these two processes -- AOS and deportation -- are running on separate tracks, so that even if you're approved, it's totally immaterial to an order of deportation. There's also no apparent rationale as to which people are getting deported during the process and which aren't, which gives rise to a question as to whether ICE are acting in an arbitrary and capricious manner in enforcing immigration law. I see a number of ways the current state of affairs could be challenged. Either people are eligible for AOS, and if their AOS is approved, they are not subject to deportation, or people under an order of deportation are not eligible for AOS. Lack of certainty is not a good thing.
  8. I was really responding more to those who thought he should just be chucked out, and that the judge didn't have any legal basis for granting a TRO and keeping the guy in immigration lockup. But... why not boycott? No one is required to sell or deliver a pizza to a military base. If the restaurant owners wish to cut off that stream of income, it is their decision in our big, beautiful capitalist economy.
  9. The question is: does this man have a valid claim to have his I-485 adjudicated? If he does, and he is deported before it is adjudicated, the government will have not given him due process. No due process can give rise to a claim for violation of his civil rights, which can result in $$$$$$$$$$$ the government will have to pay. Now, if there were no I-485 on file, that would be a different story. But there is one, and he *might* be eligible to have it adjudicated -- we just don't know yet, hence the petition. On a separate note, I think it's not that he was deported once before, and now is being deported again. If I'm reading what you posted correctly, he's an overstay and has been ordered removed. If that's the case, and he entered with inspection, then he really could have standing. Does he? Dunno. We don't need additional laws here, but we do need to justly and consistently apply what is on the books.
  10. I tried to access a copy of the petition that was filed in this case but it is not yet available online. Going by the description on the docket, and the wording of the TRO, here's what has happened, stripped of emotion: Villavicencio's attorneys have filed a petition for declaratory relief, and for a permanent injunction preventing his removal. The dec relief is probably (and I'm going to say probably, since the petition isn't available) for the court to decide whether he has a right to have his I-485 petition adjudicated before removal. It is common for a petition for dec relief to be accompanied by a request for injunctive relief, and for a TRO to be sought. The standard of proof for TROs is the same for preliminary injunctions: “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that [1] he is likely to succeed on the merits, that [2] he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, [3] that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and [4] that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. NRDC, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). There's a fifth requirement -- that no legal (i.e., pecuniary) remedy will suffice. So, you might ask, why would a judge rule that Villavicencio could satisfy all of these elements? I mean, look at number 1 -- that he is likely to succeed on the merits! Without seeing the petition, it is currently not possible to state the argument that was persuasive here, but bear in mind the standard is not will succeed on the merits, but likely. If there is a cognizable claim that he is entitled to have his I-485 adjudicated (not granted) prior to deportation, he is likely to succeed on the merits. That's it. No one is saying that adjudication will lead to a successful adjustment of status; rather the question is, does he have a right to have this adjudicated? And if he does have that right, it's going to require the opportunity for his claim to be heard. If he's deported before adjudication, he will not have an opportunity to have his claim heard, which is a violation of his right to due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments (the right to have his permanent residency application is classified as a property right, so you gotta have due process). Annndddd of course even non-citizens and those in the states without permission have the protections of nearly all of the Constitution (and what they don't have access to is spelled out pretty plainly). What about number 2? That's pretty easy -- if his deportation isn't stayed, his I-485 can't be adjudicated. Fine. What about the balance of equities? Well, in order for the balance of equities to tip in Villavicencio's favor, the harm he must suffer if the injunction is not granted must outweigh the detriment the government will suffer if the relief sought is granted. What is the detriment to the government if the injunction is granted? They have to pay for continued detention or supervised monitoring if released (which hasn't happened), and there's a decent but kinda fuzzy argument that by granting injunctive relief, others similarly situated to Villavicencio will be encouraged to live their lives assuming that they can live without fear of detention. On the other side, we have both a property interest (I-485 adjudication) and a liberty interest (immigration lockup) that are real and concrete. If Villavicencio has a right to have the application adjudicated, depriving him of the opportunity is, um, unconstitutional. These interests are likely to outweigh the monetary price of detention, and the murky "other people are going to do it" argument, assuming those were made in opposition. How is this injunction in the public interest, element number 4? Well, people with life, liberty and property interests have a right to due process. The court is trying to figure out through the declaratory relief petition whether Villavicencio has the right to due process in relation to his I-485. It is in the public interest to know that people can rely on their right to due process being executed and not curtailed by the government. If they can do this to this guy -- assuming he has a right -- who's to say the government can't curtail your rights in a way that is violative of due process? We need to know we can rely on our institutions. Finally, no pecuniary remedy will suffice. If Villavicencio is deported before declaratory relief is granted, no amount of money will remedy the wrong. If he is entitled to adjudication of the I-485, and that I-485 was approved, he would have permanent residency, which has no monetary value. Of course, he may not be approved, but that really isn't the point. The point is that curtailing adjudication is potentially violative of the Constitution, and there is no price tag on preventing a person who has a (possible and undetermined) claim for permanent residency from having that claim decided. Could another judge have found differently? Yeah! You can see some of the paths another judge could have followed quite easily. But this is a TRO, and this guy is still in lockup. Nothing's happening; the status quo is being maintained until July 20th at the next hearing. CAUTION: For the eighty bajillionth time, I have not read the petition, so I don't know the arguments definitively. I'm just making an educated guess.
  11. This is what I was thinking. Chinese citizens don't need a visa to enter Saipan, and same sex marriage is legal in the Northern Marianas. It doesn't matter whether the marriage is recognized in China, it only has to be a marriage that is recognized as legal in the United States. At the same time, the amount of time for the security checks is outrageous. It could be writ of mandamus time, in which case it's time to get an attorney who knows his/her stuff in that arena.
  12. Unless your state says you can't, you can definitely refuse to serve people if they drive Fords, although I think that is wrong-headed as a driver of a Michigan-made Focus (I buy American whenever I can). Ford drivers aren't a protected class. However, you can bet your bottom dollar that an attorney will take that Ford driver's case and say refusal of service was on some other basis which IS protected. And as long as that filing isn't frivolous, it can cause a lot of headaches, even if you prevail, in terms of loss of business/goodwill, attorneys' fees, etc.
  13. Several thoughts on a busy day: 1) A Justice Department opinion is not law, nor are law review articles, or other secondary sources. Depending on their provenance and the robustness of their legal foundations, they can be at most persuasive. It is premature to say that a president cannot be subpoenaed, because this is a matter that has never been adjudicated. 2) It is literally Week One in Constitutional Law II where you learn that a President can obstruct justice if he or she has a corrupt motive. 3) It is most likely that if a president -- any president -- were to commit a crime in office, any statute of limitation would be tolled pending the completion of his or her term(s) of office. 4) My opinion (no charge) is that if Mueller subpoenaed Trump (which he won't), the Supreme Court would probably have in mind what one of the main points in becoming our own sovereign nation was: that we are a nation that does not deal in absolute power. Ciao, y'all, back to work.
  14. 1) No 1st Amendment issue -- government not trying to regulate speech. 2) Probably there was a morality clause in her contract -- if you love free enterprise, you have to accept that people are free to negotiate contract terms, and that when those terms are breached, there are consequences. No charge.
×