Tweety Twump needs to fire anyone involved in his immigrant order and revise it immediately, including the people who allowed for NO VETING from significant Cabinet and staff members.
This EO embarrasses Tweety. He is looking stupid!
"Acting attorney general declares Justice Department won’t defend Trump’s immigration order"
By Mark Berman and Matt Zapotosky By Mark Berman and Matt Zapotosky Post Nation
January 30 at 5:15 PM
"Acting Attorney General Sally Yates has ordered Justice Department lawyers not to defend challenges to President Trump’s immigration order temporarily banning entry into the United States for citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries and refugees from around the world, declaring in a memo Monday she is not convinced the order is lawful.
Yates wrote that, as the leader of the Justice Department, she must ensure the department’s position is both “legally defensible” and “consistent with this institution’s solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right."
And several federal judges, FEDERAL JUDGES, agreed with the Acting Attorney General . . . Tweety will shortly Tweet disrespectful comments about the federal judges. What a buffoon Tweety is!
"Four federal judges issue orders blocking parts of Trump’s executive order on immigration"
By Orin Kerr By Orin Kerr The Volokh Conspiracy opinion
January 29
What is the duty of the Attorney General? To tell the truth? Did the Acting AG tell Tweety Twump the truth about his "travel ban?'
Faced with the TRUTH, Tweety Twump FIRES THE ACTING AG? If the truth hurts . . .
"Trump’s executive order on refugees closes America to those who need it most"
It lays the groundwork for a fundamental shift in how the US allows people to enter the country.
Updated by Dara Lind dara@vox.com Jan 27, 2017, 7:42pm EST
http://www.vox.com/2017/1/27/14370854/trump-refugee-ban-order-muslim
"Malevolence Tempered by Incompetence: Trump’s Horrifying Executive Order on Refugees and Visas"
By Benjamin Wittes
Saturday, January 28, 2017, 10:58 PM
The immigrant ban Executive Order could not have been more poorly written! Tweety Twump needs to fire the writer / author and everyone who reviewed it, NOW. Power to the people, right?
"The malevolence of President Trump’s Executive Order on visas and refugees is mitigated chiefly—and perhaps only—by the astonishing incompetence of its drafting and construction."
"NBC is reporting that the document was not reviewed by DHS, the Justice Department, the State Department, or the Department of Defense, and that National Security Council lawyers were prevented from evaluating it. Moreover, the New York Times writes that Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services, the agencies tasked with carrying out the policy, were only given a briefing call while Trump was actually signing the order itself. Yesterday, the Department of Justice gave a “no comment” when asked whether the Office of Legal Counsel had reviewed Trump’s executive orders—including the order at hand. (OLC normally reviews every executive order.)
This order reads to me, frankly, as though it was not reviewed by competent counsel at all."
"The President has created a target-rich environment for litigation that will make his policies, I suspect, less effective than they would have been had he subjected his order to vetting one percent as extreme as the vetting to which he proposes to subject refugees from Bashar al-Assad and the bombing raids of Vladimir Putin."
" . . . it is most emphatically not good news to have a White House that just makes decisions with no serious thought or interagency input into what those decisions might mean. In fact, it’s really dangerous."
"How incompetent is this order? An immigration lawyer who works for the federal government wrote me today describing the quality of the work as “look[ing] like what an intern came up with over a lunch hour. . . . My take is that it is so poorly written that it’s hard to tell the impact." One of the reasons there’s so much chaos going on right now, in fact, is that nobody really knows what the order means on important points.
Some examples:
Sec. 3(c) bans "entry"—which to the best of my knowledge has had no meaning in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) since the passage of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) in 1996. Pre-IIRIRA law did use the term “entry,” but that is no longer the case.
Section 3(g) talks of waivers on a case-by-case basis for people who are otherwise denied visas or other benefits under the immigration laws pursuant to the order. If a person needs a waiver to obtain "other benefits," does that mean that nationals of the seven countries are denied any benefit under the INA without a waiver, benefits such as naturalization, adjustment of status, or temporary protected status, even if they are already in the US?
On its face, the order bars entry of both immigrants and non-immigrants. Again, as entry is not defined, and no one was given any time to draft implementing guidance or to clarify any points, it’s no surprise that Customs and Border Protection doesn’t seem to know how to apply it to lawful permanent residents (LPRs). The INA, at section 101(a)(13)(C), says that green card holders will not be deemed as seeking admission absent the factors enumerated therein—factors that do not include an executive order banning entry. Yet Reuters and The Guardian are both reporting quotations from a DHS public relations official, stating that the order does apply to LPRs. If that interpretation lasts, look for DHS to get its ass handed to it on a platter in federal court—a defeat it will richly deserve.
Another big mystery is how the order will apply to asylees. Will people even be allowed to apply? On the one hand, the right to seek asylum is right there in the INA. But to apply for asylum, you have to be interviewed by a U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services officer to determine if you have a credible fear of persecution. Is that interview a benefit under the act? And if so, is it barred? From what I hear, right now anyway, Customs and Border Protection is not allowing anyone to claim asylum and have a credible fear interview.
I could go on, but you get the point. This order is a giant birthday present to the ACLU and other immigration litigators. And godspeed to them in going after it—which, as I noted above, they are already succeeding in doing."
Obama's Executive Orders were not appreciated, BUT THEY WERE NOT SO CRUEL, THOUGHTLESS, AND HAM HANDED, not to mention Obama's EOs were better written, better vetted, enforceable, and had an honest purpose, not a ban on Muslims as Rudy Giulianihas confessed.
Rudy Giuliani, Former Mayor of New York City, stated on TV that Tweety intended a Muslim ban, but Rudy helped him rewrite the ban to "make it legal."
"Three Ways Obama's Executive Orders are the Worst of Any President"
by Joel B. Pollak4 Feb 2014
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2014/02/04/ruth-marcus-obama-executive-order/
"There are three basic ways in which Obama’s behavior exceeds that of any his predecessors.
The first is that Obama is using executive orders and actions to alter his own legislation. It’s one thing to claim that you are forced to act because Congress will not. It’s quite another thing to re-write the law after Congress has done what you asked–and after you have offered, time and time again, to entertain formal amendments to the legislation. Obama has simply invoked executive authority to cover up his own errors. That’s unprecedented.
The second way in which Obama’s abuse of executive power is different is that he has done it to prevent the legislature from acting. It is now widely acknowledged that the president issued his “Dream Act by fiat” in 2012 not just because Congress wouldn’t pass his version of immigration reform, but to outflank Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), who was preparing his own version, embarrassing Obama among Latino voters. Such pettiness is rare.
The third way in which Obama’s behavior is unusual is that he commands sweeping executive power on some issues while arguing, on other issues, that he has no power to act. The president’s recent speech about the NSA surveillance programs is a prime example of such self-contradiction. There is no constitutional doctrine behind the president’s executive orders, actions, and omissions: there is just pure, cynical political expediency."
To answer: no federal judge held up any of Obama's EOs, opinion on changing legislation and political purpose also not proven by Breitbart article. Bottom line on this Breitbart material: weak, opinionated, and vague.
