[Tulip68]

This is not hyperbole: if this statement is accurate, a coup d'etat is in progress in which our illegitimate "President" is overriding the authority of the judicial branch and it is time for every American who still believes in our constitution and our fundamental values of equality, diversity and multiculturalism take a stand and along with every congressman, every law enforcement officer, reporter, corporation, etc. to put aside petty partisan bickering and remove this fascist con-man from office immediately. If we don't, history will judge us all the same way as we judge those who looked aside while Hitler made a mockery out of his country's democratic institutions en route to handing himself supreme power.

I cannot overstate the danger we are all in every day this psychopathic fascist is allowed to remain in that office. He must be stopped immediately. Our most fundamental and cherished values are at stake here.

[aerovistae]

Again, I will point out that the article linked to here says they will ALSO continue to comply with all judicial orders. Read carefully.

Really, the entire statement isn't that exciting, it just says "Agency will continue to follow legal structure of government as all agencies do." Mostly it's just an attempt to reassure people that things aren't as out of hand as they seem.

[sago]

First I acknowledge I don't know what I'm talking about. But.

It seems to me the last and the first paragraph are saying different things.

How can DHS be implementing ALL of the executive action, when part of it has been stayed by the court?

Assuming this statement is, as it says, a response to the litigation (i.e. the challenge which led the court to stay part of the executive action), I don't see how you can read that first paragraph as anything but a denial that they will abide by the partial stay.

Is there any evidence to suggest that they are following the court order and not enforcing that part of the action? The (admittedly hopelessly unreliable) twittering from human rights lawyers involved, seems to suggest they are not.

That last paragraph reads like a tack on to me.

But we're all trying to parse the words and I suspect the statement will be irrelevant, and what happens on the ground will decide how this goes forwards.

[colechristensen]

The stay was effective only for those (essentially) who had already begun travelling to the US when the executive order was signed. So they can't deport the people they detained in the airports. This isn't anything but a minor detail and it's reasonable for the DHS to consider itself complying with the court order and implementing all of the executive action.

It's just a minor difference in the people effected.

[sago]

I suspect this is the angle they are going for. And, as I said, I think it unwise to read stuff into words, when actions are what counts.

Just FWIW, from what I can interpret, the ruling is broader than just the people currently 'on the ground' - they were the petitioners, but the judgement was not limited to them, but to:

"individuals with refugee applications approved by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services as part of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, holders of valid immigrant and non-immigrant visas, and other individuals from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen legally authorized to enter the United States."

There's no indication that the stay is limited to the petitioners or current detainees. I assume it would prevent deportation of anyone with legal grounds to be here, who arrive tomorrow, or any time until the full case is heard.

So we'll have to see if anyone is deported. Or if DHS get their act together and stop people boarding.

[colechristensen]

Your interpretation isn't the interpretation being put forward by journalists. I am not a lawyer, but I am inclined to believe Reuters more.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-chao...

[sago]

Oh, I'd be inclined to believe anyone with an ounce of experience in the area over me!

That said, after another hour of research, I think I got it now :) I think I wasn't wrong, just my point about the judgement was totally moot. The deportation issue only arose because when the executive action came into force there were already flights with confirmed passengers (either in the air, or soon to leave). So they'd gone through the pre-flight checking under the old rules, but landed at immigration under the new rules. But the way of enforcing the action will be to prevent people flying in the first place. Passport details are required to be sent to DHS before a passenger boards a plane to the US, and have been for a long time, nothing new there. And DHS routinely prevents people flying at source. So the deportation issue shouldn't arise for new passengers (modulo edge cases like someone on a transatlantic cruise who'll ship up in New York at some point). So if I'm now right, the journalists are correct, this judgement will only apply in practice to those who are currently being detained for deportation.

But again, I'm happy to emphasise that I have done roughly 2 hours of online reading in this area now :) I'm posting here to try and figure it out, not to claim expertise!

[Kinnard]

It's doublespeak: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublespeak

[timClicks]

The tone of the release isn't neutral though.

Phrases like "first step" are anticipating stronger measures to come. The introduction makes it clear that the agency believes that these measures will in fact reduce security. I don't have enough information to refute that claim, but I don't believe it either.

As an outsider to the USA, I would have liked to have seen more balance. For instance, it would have been reassuring to hear that DHS had taken legal advice on its obligations and how best to implement them without rushing in.

I suspect that the release is written for individuals near to Cabinet who want to know that officials are complying without question. Does not bode well.

[sdenton4]

Cecilia Wang, one of the to lawyers for the aclu, along with others, report that CBP is not complying with the court order. Additionally:

"@pierre: This is unbelievable. When asked by two Congressmen [who they report to] CBP agents at LAX said "Donald J Trump" and hung up."

[skuhn]

If the point is actually to reassure the reader, the tone is completely off. I don't find seething rage to be very reassuring.

[Aloha]

It depends on the ideology of the reader its trying to reassure.

[timClicks]

You left out contempt and complete lack of sympathy. People die without access to asylum.

[skuhn]

No one has the right to demand entry!

(especially not people we gave green cards and visas to after subjecting them to years, or decades, of bureacracy and vetting)

[aerovistae]

I agree completely.

[org3432]

The point of the article is clearly to show they're not complying with the court order.

[vivekd]

There is no final court order yet, there is a temporary stay and this order merely prohibits deportation, not the detention or turning away of immigrants coming in. This order is just one small step in what is going to be a long hard case.

It'll probably end up going to the Supreme court, the Supreme court has two Obama appointees and with justice Scalia passed away there is a chance it could go in the ACLU's favor. . . but established constitutional law is clear, the Supreme court has ruled time and time again that America can turn away anyone at the boarder and non-citizens do not have a right to stay in America . . . so defeating this executive order at the Supreme court level will require some doing, which might happen because of the current composition of the court has judges that are willing to veer away from established precedent.

[smsm42]

It's not even given Trump's admin would actually defend the position of turning away green card holders. So far there was only emergency stay which AFAIK does not even require participation from the other side, so we have no idea what position or argument the administration has on the case. The judge (quite correctly) decided to issue an order that causes least harm (not deporting anyone, but not ruling any broader) so I think we'd know on Monday more about admin's position on this.

ACLU of course would argue the whole order is invalid, but I don't think this part would be easy to prove and not likely to get emergency order broad enough, and it probably would take more than 60 days to go through which means challenging this particular order in its entirety may be moot by the time it gets to any sort of trial. If the subsequent policy will match it though it still may have a point.

[org3432]

> Stephen Miller, a senior adviser to the White House, said: "Nothing in the Brooklyn judge's order in anyway impedes or prevents the implementation of the president's executive order which remains in full, complete and total effect."

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Following-Detainment-Re...

[gwright]

I find this sort of overwrought rhetoric more disturbing than lawful, if objectionable, policy changes.

We've got institutional processes for dealing with executive branch policies that we disagree with. It certainly looks like the legislature and the judiciary are responding and peaceful assembly and protest can help motivate change as can healthy reporting by the press.

On the other hand you are advocating for overthrow of the government and a complete disregard for the democratic process and the rule of law. Instead of arguing on the merits your spit out overwrought accusations of fraudulent, fascist, and psychotic behavior.

Our most cherished value is that of the rule of law. Even in the presence of flawed policies and corrupt practices, belief and adherence to the rule of law provides a way to respond to and rectify these mistakes. Asserting that things are so bad that the rule of law should be disregarded and that someone should be removed from office because you don't agree with their lawful policy changes is a certain path to disaster.

[jquery]

Congress has given the Executive broad powers to control immigration from countries. Please explain how a coup d'etat is happening. Obama bombed many of these countries and killed citizens of them, but I don't remember that being a scandal.

[gizmo686]

>but I don't remember that being a scandal.

I do remember that being a scandal.

To your main point, a story has been going around that a court has put a stay on the executive order. If true, this would mean that enforcing the order is currently illegal; and doing so could be called a "coup" by the executive branch (although I don't think this technically qualifies as a coup).

Having said that, my understanding is that the referenced court case only applies to the specific individuals who sued, so enforcement of the order is still legal in all other cases.

[maxlybbert]

One rule the courts generally follow is that they try to limit the scope of their rulings. Plus, of course, the country is divided into several federal districts, and a ruling in one district doesn't necessarily apply to other districts. So I understood the injunction out of a San Francisco courtroom only applied to particular travelers whom, via the ACLU, had filed a challenge to how the order was applied to them. The injunction does not apply to other travelers, other federal districts, or people who are affected by the order for other reasons.

I understand the DHS statement to simply amount to "we aren't lawyers, so until a judge rules on whether the entire order is constitutional, we have to assume it is and act accordingly. We have lawyers on staff who will tell us how other rulings affect our actions, and how far those rulings go."

It's important to remember that executive orders are legally binding on people who work for the president, but not anyone else. Usually, they say how an ambiguous law will be interpreted, or they add limitations on top of what the law requires.

In this case, the president has directed various people to take certain actions. The courts will have to determine if those actions are legal. It wouldn't surprise me if some actions are legal (cabinet members are supposed to review the policies for the refugee program) and others aren't (prioritize immigrants based on their religion). But DHS doesn't get to conduct its own review of the order; they have to assume the whole thing is legally binding.

If multiple federal courts start granting injunctions against particular parts of the order, then things might change. I'm not sure how that works; although I am sure that government-paid lawyers will conduct their own review of the order, and I strongly suspect that the president has to approve any decisions to not implement a portion of an executive order.

[maxlybbert]

News stories I've seen today suggest that the order covers more people than I expected. Even so, people working for DHS are legally bound to enforce the portions of the order that aren't covered by the injunction (and, of course, to honor the injunction for the people it covers).

[smsm42]

> a story has been going around that a court has put a stay on the executive order.

That story is false (at least as far as I know). The stay was put on one detail of the implementation of the order, not the whole order - namely, on deporting green card holders that has already arrived in US airports.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darweesh_v._Trump

> Having said that, my understanding is that the referenced court case only applies to the specific individuals who sued

ACLU is seeking class action status, but in the meantime if several judges agreed that the stay is warranted I imagine it would be not hard for any person (with access to law assistance etc. of course) to be able to obtain similar order.

[jquery]

I don't remember a call to assassination being the top upvoted comment on HN.

Maybe you can link me to the comment thread where HN was breathless about the need for assassination or civil war.

[grzm]

What are you referring to? I don't see any such words in either the top comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13512998) or your parent (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13513065). Perhaps you're equating coup d'état with assassination? If so, that's incorrect: coup d'état is just an illegitimate overthrow. Am I misunderstanding your post?

[closeparen]

A federal judge issued an injunction against enforcement of part of the executive order. In a release titled "Response To Recent Litigation," DHS announced that it would continue to enforce the order.

That sounds for all the world like the executive branch rejecting the authority of the judicial branch.

[anarazel]

The injunction was only about travelers in flight or already landed. Most of those have been released. The statement says "in a foreign land" and "without ties to the United States" - which is outside of what the injunction applies to.

[icelancer]

Yes, because the stay is not permanent. It only applies to those in transit and those affected now.

The statement then goes on to say:

"The Department of Homeland Security will comply with judicial orders..."

So no, the executive branch is not rejecting the authority of the judicial branch.

[jquery]

IANAL but the injunction was narrow in scope. Nothing in the DHS response contradicts that.

[pduszak]

The very first line implies that the injunction will be ignored. If they didn't want that interpreted that way, then they should have definitely written it differently.

[gotchange]

No, it was Bush who bombed and destabilized the ME, and Obama was the one who didn't do enough to save the region -- the red line controversy -- and watched idly while the Arab Spring crumbling which led indirectly to the rise of ISIS and the next wave of global Islamic terrorism that we're living through.

[myrandomcomment]

Trump is an asshole however he is our legitimate president no mater how much some of us do not like it. He won the election as the rules require. Period. Let's not forget that. The office should be respected no matter what asswipe he is in it. If you disagree with his policies then call your congressman, et. al. Protest by all means. That is your right as an American. He was elected because a large majority of people in individual states did not follow thought with their duty to vote pure and simple. Let's make sure that those voices are heard and we do not make this same mistake in 4 years. The man scares the hell out of me but I am not going to say he is not the ligitimate president because he won and I do not like him. It is our duty to protest and make our voice heard if we disagree. It would have been great if we did the before the election but your fellow Americans did not and we have to live with that. Please do not give me any bulsshit about the popular vote because that is not they way the rules work. If you do not like that then do something about it. He, president trump is the president no matter how much it sucks.

[corndoge]

100% agreed. Trump was elected fair and square, citizens still have recourse through official channels, and the American experiment will continue. I don't agree with most of his policies but these are facts.

To some extent it appears that the American public enjoys working itself into a hysteric frenzy. One might almost view it as political virtue signalling on a national scale.

[frisco]

The parent is not saying Trump is not the legitimate president. He's saying that the US government has three branches (congress, executive, judiciary) which provide checks and balances and Trump is ordering an executive agency to ignore that, and the agency is following this order. Characterizing this as a coup is not totally inaccurate.

[corndoge]

"...in which our illegitimate "President" is overriding the authority of the judicial branch..."

The subject is 'President' and the adjective is 'illegitimate'. If the parent meant that Trump's actions are not legally sound, then they would have written:

"...in which our "President" is illegitimately overriding the authority of the judicial branch..."

[grzm]

The parent is not saying Trump is not the legitimate president

Actually, the parent does explicitly say this:

our illegitimate "President"

[icelancer]

>Trump is ordering an executive agency to ignore that

>"The Department of Homeland Security will comply with judicial orders..."

Yeah, not seeing it. The stay is temporary, not permanent. He is allowed to continue enforcing his EO.

[notacoward]

Trump can only be a legitimate president under our constitution. If he fails to respect the limits on presidential power laid out by that constitution, including the right and responsibility of the judicial branch to block an order deemed unconstitutional, then he disavows the very document on which his legitimacy is predicated. To say that he's legitimate under those conditions is not even wrong. It's gibberish.

[pduszak]

And his point is that the president doesn't have the right to override judicial ruling? He's a president, not an emperor.

[icelancer]

His point is incorrect. DHS in the linked statement in this very post says they will comply with judicial rulings.

[sdenton4]

Disregarding the system of checks and balances means he's not acting within the system of government. This is a constitutional crisis.

[grzm]

As I understand it, your parent is (if verbosely) pointing out the use of the phrase our illegitimate "President", and points out that we can and should be protesting. These points aren't in contradiction of yours. Indeed, depending on the outcome of everything surrounding this Executive Order, your point as well as those of your parent may all well be true.

[downandout]

>...a coup d'etat is in progress in which our illegitimate "President..."

Well there's a rational statement. We had an election. Trump won it, under the rules which have been in place for centuries. Clinton knew what the rules were as well, and she didn't play the game as well. Another country attempted to influence public opinion during the election, which has also been going on for centuries.

I assume your "illegitimate President" comment is due to the leaked emails. If the Hillary/DNC emails had all been about how they were going to work hard for America, then the leak wouldn't have affected her and would have actually helped her. Instead, they were about unethical and illegal activity aimed at ensuring she won the election. If you engage in that sort of thing as a Presidential candidate/political party executive, you should get caught and you should lose.

[gotchange]

The ball now is in the Judiciary's court. If this dept goes rogue, they should intervene and make some arrests for people violating the court orders and laws.

This looks day after day like a classical far-right takeover of the govt and people in the US should be really alarmed by these developments.

[cmurf]

Alarmed also at their own naivety: Central Park Five, Birtherism, Steve Bannon the president's chief strategist and senior counsel and white nationalist former operator of Breitbart.com. The writing has been on the wall the whole time. Checkout the other executive order, the shakeup of the national security council which now has two conspiracy theorists on it (three if the president is included).

Don't count on Congressional Republicans to fix this. They've used coded bigotry since 1968. And now it's become uncoded. But either way always consistently there is the bigotry.

Now maybe some Republicans finally have an OMFG moment and can now actually hear the dirty dog whistle, and will revaluate. But for Pence, Ryan, McConnell, it's too late.

We keep failing each test. We couldn't flick them off at the primary. And then not at the general. At each step it gets harder and harder to fix, by design.

The policy is sadistic. They are attacking the weakest among us. It's easy for them to do it, and amounts to a test, how much they can get away with.

[douche]

Raising shibolleths about attacks on minorities is really not an effective strategies

[sdenton4]

Executive branch is the arm that makes arrests, though. If the executive decides to ignore the courts, we done here, no more Constitution.

[frisco]

If the executive decides to ignore the courts, the ball passes to the Senate. If the Senate chooses to ignore the situation, then yes, we're pretty much screwed.

[gotchange]

There's no Judiciary Police in the US?

[tn13]

> put aside petty partisan bickering and remove this fascist con-man from office immediately.

All I see is the fascist partisan bickering in your post. Trump has legitimately won the election and is doing what his powers let him do. He was clear about Muslim ban before election too and people voted for him.

I think we can make better arguments as to why his moronic executive orders hurt USA in a major way and perhaps work to gather political support to reduce the damage but getting angry and abusive does not help.

[kyrre]

http://quietkit.com/box-breathing/

[hyperdunc]

Since when are diversity and multiculturalism part of our fundamental values?

There's certainly an argument to be made that diversity of thought and behavior has a net positive effect on society.

However, it's become apparent that the dogma of multiculturalism is causing major problems where a certain religion is concerned. We'd be foolish to ignore this fact.

[peterwwillis]

That did, in fact, include hyperbole.

You are excited and over estimating the danger, and misstating facts such as his legitimacy. Those kind of things will cloud the discussion and prevent support from the kind of groups you need to defeat him.

The smart move would be to collect information and watch him fail, then move for impeachment. Then start dealing with Pence.....

[icelancer]

>The Department of Homeland Security will comply with judicial orders

The President is not issuing a coup. It says directly in the statement they will comply with the judicial orders.

[random_upvoter]

I'm sorry but this is exactly hyperbole. In a democracy you have elections, and the person who wins the election is invested with certain powers for a limited amount of time. If you want to undermine the whole game just because Trump is unpalatable to you, proceed at your own risk. You may set in motion a self-fulfilling catastrophe much worse than the worst Trump could ever do. At the very least keep in mind that roughly half of the country wanted Trump for president. Have you considered how they might feel about deposing the person they voted for?

[cmurf]

Yes exactly. Nixon's approval was about 24% upon departure. It will take far more damage than this ban to get an approval rating low enough to motivate and give cover to this Congress.

[mdsfwrz]

There is wide misconception about what the court stays were on-- they actually prevented deportation, not detention. DHS did not say they were going to deport people against the court orders.

[mdsfwrz]

Source: https://twitter.com/ShaunKing/status/825593794875813888

And in Mass (and Mass only) now they are not allowed to detain: https://twitter.com/sdooling/status/825602397007409153

Although some are reporting otherwise: http://nypost.com/2017/01/29/customs-agents-ignore-judge-enf... It seems they are mistaken

[douche]

Its interesting how overreach in executive orders on one side is greeted as business as usual, versus being viewed as grounds for secession when the shoe is on the other foot

[matthewmacleod]

No, it's not that interesting. Context obviously matters, and I am baffled that so many people are pretending not to understand that.

[douche]

What the hell is this context that you speak of? Defending the country's borders? Defending native industry? Preventing immigration from groups statistically likely to commit terrorist acts?

[DavidSJ]

Literally not a single terrorist attack has been committed on US soil by individuals from the affected countries in the last 42 years.

[Tulip68]

The statistics on these people committing terrorism is literally zero. Not a single act of terrorism within the United States has been committed by a single person from any of these targeted countries. The statistics are unambiguously clear that you are statistically far more at risk from some white Christian guy who's obsessed with abortion than from some frightened refugee just looking for a roof over her/his head who happens to be of the Muslim faith.

[wfunction]

-1 downvoted, this is definitely hyperbole.

[smsm42]

New rule: if post starts with "this is not a hyperbole", the chance of it being hyperbole are >95%. So far confirms very well.