AILA lawsuit

[Dougefresh56 201]

5 hours ago, Paul & Mary said:

Zeron, nada, zilch chance to have any affect.   If AILA or anyone wanted to make a change they would change the laws.   That is they way it works.  The suit is simply to magnify a perceived problem as political rather than logistical.  I am very good friends with several current a retired foreign service officers.  None of them are returning to overseas, none of them are being asked to go if they are uncomfortable with the COVID situation.

I guess they are still getting paid too. Funny how govt employees get that benefit not going to work 

[Dougefresh56 201]

2 hours ago, Lucky Cat said:

You said that you doubt POTUS has broad powers regarding immigration.

This is why there needs to be changes. Get out and Vote. One man has been given too much power 

[geowrian 22,336]

2 hours ago, James120383 said:

Not being able to enter on the visa does not mean Consulates  are barred from issuing Visa.  Issuing Visa vs being not able to enter on the Visa are completely different things.

They are different, but that doesn't mean they are unrelated. DOS cannot issue a visa to somebody who is ineligible to use it.

If this was not the case, why hasn't this been (successfully) challenged for any other INA 212(f) refusal in the past? it's been there (and has been used) for decades, and the visa refusal as a means of enforcement for preventing entry has always been there.

[MaleAlpha 314]

11 hours ago, Lucky Cat said:

I think the suit will go nowhere. The POTUS has broad authority by law  in immigration matters.

Well, that is an incorrect assumption to say the case won’t go anywhere.  There have been many lawsuits that were filed against decisions that POTUSes have broad authority over - and in some cases federal judges turned those decisions or turned some parts of it. Recent cases that come to mind are DACA etc. That’s the power the judiciary wields. Yes, federal decisions can be overturned as well via the appellate courts etc. but the point I am trying to make is that it takes 1 federal judge to overturn a decision that a President makes even if the president has authority to make such a decision. 

[Crazy Cat 39,352]

7 hours ago, MaleAlpha said:

Well, that is an incorrect assumption to say the case won’t go anywhere.  There have been many lawsuits that were filed against decisions that POTUSes have broad authority over - and in some cases federal judges turned those decisions or turned some parts of it. Recent cases that come to mind are DACA etc. That’s the power the judiciary wields. Yes, federal decisions can be overturned as well via the appellate courts etc. but the point I am trying to make is that it takes 1 federal judge to overturn a decision that a President makes even if the president has authority to make such a decision. 

Incorrect assumption?  Trump has won almost all the immigration related challenges.  All the travel bans were upheld in court, if I remember correctly.

Edited August 31, 2020 by Lucky Cat

[Quarknase 1,072]

12 hours ago, Lucky Cat said:

""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 nonimmigrants,""

 

That looks pretty broad to me.

Pretty broad indeed. The only reason why I personally think it's 50/50, is that the entire PP (both, April and June 22nd) is based on immigrants being a threat to the American labor market. This is not backed up by data, and DOS and other agencies state that immigration does the opposite (as in immigration helps grow the economy). I certainly have no clue where this is going, but I can imagine that even a PP must be based on actuals, not on personal feelings of an individual and his racist advisor.

[Quarknase 1,072]

9 hours ago, Dougefresh56 said:

This is why there needs to be changes. Get out and Vote. One man has been given too much power 

One bad man... A good person could make so much positive change.

 

"It's excellent to have a giant's strength. But it's tyrannous to use it like a giant."

[Crazy Cat 39,352]

47 minutes ago, Quarknase said:

This is not backed up by data, and DOS and other agencies state that immigration does the opposite (as in immigration helps grow the economy).

An unemployment rate of 14% isn't data?  I think that was the figure a few months ago.

Edited August 31, 2020 by Lucky Cat

[Quarknase 1,072]

5 minutes ago, Lucky Cat said:

An unemployment rate of 14% isn't data?  I think that was the figure a few months ago.

That is not data that backs up that the situation for Americans would become worse (or better) if family based immigration continues. In addition, the exemptions given weaken the argument since the biggest category (spouse/children of USC) does not appear to be a threat to the labor market.

[Angela & Brendon 160]

To those saying this has no chance, here's a counter opinion - 

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/08/us/harvard-mit-trump-ice-students.html

 

Harvard and M.I.T. sued the Trump administration, along with more universities, and the J1 visa was put back on track. I'm aware these cases are quite different but I believe the people saying there is 0 chance of success are not speaking accurately. 

Maybe there won't be any result, but there could be. 

[igoyougoduke 1,605]

 

1 hour ago, Quarknase said:

That is not data that backs up that the situation for Americans would become worse (or better) if family based immigration continues. In addition, the exemptions given weaken the argument since the biggest category (spouse/children of USC) does not appear to be a threat to the labor market.

 

apparently like magic spouses and children will not take away any american job as per the proclamation

[igoyougoduke 1,605]

2 hours ago, Lucky Cat said:

Incorrect assumption?  Trump has won almost all the immigration related challenges.  All the travel bans were upheld in court, if I remember correctly.

DACA was lost

Muslim ban was revoked. 

 

Almost all of the 2020 proclomations are going to be lost

 

so much losing yet some people cant see it

[Crazy Cat 39,352]

20 minutes ago, James120383 said:

DACA was lost

Muslim ban was revoked. 

 

Almost all of the 2020 proclomations are going to be lost

 

so much losing yet some people cant see it

What travel bans were revoked?  The travel bans were upheld in the Supreme Court, if I remember correctly.  

Edited August 31, 2020 by Lucky Cat

[MaleAlpha 314]

3 hours ago, Lucky Cat said:

Incorrect assumption?  Trump has won almost all the immigration related challenges.  All the travel bans were upheld in court, if I remember correctly.

Yeah but your premise was still wrong. You were concluding it won't go anywhere because the president has broad authority over the subject but as we all know, that is not correct. Like I said earlier, a Federal judge who listens to both sides of the argument can still rule for or against the President's decision. So a president having broad authority over a subject does not mean, that decision is 100% suit-proof.

[Crazy Cat 39,352]

5 minutes ago, MaleAlpha said:

So a president having broad authority over a subject does not mean, that decision is 100% suit-proof.

Who said it was "suit proof"?    Anyone can sue anyone else in this country..........I said I think the challenges will end in Trump's favor because the law gives the POTUS a lot of authority in immigration matters.  Consider the travel bans......they were challenged, but the Supreme Court ruled that Trump was within his authority.   The law is pretty clear in its wording about restricting entry into the US.

Edited August 31, 2020 by Lucky Cat