[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