Timeline for Are non-citizen Muslim professors and students going to be removed from US universities and subsequently deported by Trump's ban?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 6, 2017 at 14:00 | comment | added | thanby | @BobBrown They ignored the local courts. As soon as the federal court got involved they complied. It's not really a position, it's what actually happened. | |
| Feb 6, 2017 at 13:59 | comment | added | Bob Brown | @thanby So, your position is that DHS ignored judicial stays until there was a judicial stay? | |
| Feb 6, 2017 at 13:49 | comment | added | thanby | @BobBrown Not now that the federal court suspended the ban. When I made that statement, it was accurate. | |
| Feb 6, 2017 at 12:28 | comment | added | Bob Brown | @thanby "DHS has said they're ignoring these judicial stays..." That is not the case. | |
| Feb 6, 2017 at 2:19 | vote | accept | User001 | ||
| Feb 2, 2017 at 23:17 | history | edited | Franck Dernoncourt | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 2800 characters in body
|
| Jan 31, 2017 at 23:00 | comment | added | thanby | @DanielR.Collins Very true, I hadn't considered that, but that doesn't seem likely. | |
| Jan 31, 2017 at 22:00 | comment | added | Daniel R. Collins | @thanby: Theoretically, the courts could send in the U.S. Marshals (as officers of the court). | |
| Jan 31, 2017 at 21:28 | comment | added | thanby | Also the DHS has said they're ignoring these judicial stays and enforcing the EO regardless of what the courts have done. Unfortunately they're the ones that ultimately control entry, so there's nothing the courts can really do about it. | |
| Jan 30, 2017 at 22:15 | comment | added | reirab | I'm not sure that the advice in the message from the university is correct. AFAIK, the judicial orders only effectively applied to anyone who was already at a port of entry or in transit there. In theory, if you could get to Logan airport, it might cover you, but in practice I'd assume that airlines would deny you boarding per the EO unless you were already there or already in transit. | |
| Jan 30, 2017 at 22:12 | comment | added | reirab | @BobBrown It is true that green card holders are included by the language of the EO. However, the government later decided not to apply it to them, after a bit of equivocation. The language of Section 3(c) of the EO applies to all 'aliens' from those countries. Per the definition in 8 USC 1101, 'alien' for the purpose of the relevant U.S. laws includes anyone who isn't a national or citizen of the U.S. | |
| Jan 30, 2017 at 16:19 | history | edited | Franck Dernoncourt | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 53 characters in body
|
| Jan 29, 2017 at 23:51 | history | edited | Franck Dernoncourt | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Added Bob Brown's correction
|
| Jan 29, 2017 at 23:49 | comment | added | Bob Brown | It is not correct that green card holders are "targeted" by the executive order, although it is true that some green card holders were detained or delayed. wsj.com/articles/… | |
| Jan 29, 2017 at 18:14 | history | answered | Franck Dernoncourt | CC BY-SA 3.0 |