Even so, it is of only limited practical harm to would-be asylees. [See bolded advice below.]
Back in the District Court in Oakland, I predict the nationwide scope of the injunction will shortly be restored, on a now more-developed record -- of Trump's lawless aim to thwart well settled federal law. Here is the particularly ill-considered interim 14 page order; and a bit from the very cogent four page dissent, to it:
. . . .There is also a glaring inconsistency -- a contradiction -- in the majority’s split-the-baby approach. If, as the majority and I agree, [Donald Trump's] failure to meet the first Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987), factor -- likelihood of success on the merits, because of its failure to comply with the APA -- means that its stay motion with respect to the preliminary injunction’s application within the Ninth Circuit fails, it is perplexing to me why that failure does not infect the balance of [Trump's] stay motion and require that a stay of the nationwide aspect of the injunction also be denied.
The majority, in its rush to address the merits of the nationwide aspect of the injunction, simply elides this contradiction. . . .
Do stay tuned. . . but my watch word -- and considered advice -- now: cross along the California or Arizona portions of the US - Mexico border, and. . . avoid (for a few weeks, at least) the Texas and New Mexico stretches. . . as the injunction still prevents Trumpian lawlessness in California and Arizona -- within the Ninth Circuit. Not so, Texas and New Mexico, for now at least. Thus, you'll be in better shape, legally, should you get end up getting caught, crossing. No matter what -- (and no matter where you cross, if caught) immediately claim asylum, by citing a fear of persecution if you are returned. Now you know.
I'll close with a fun mosaic shot. . . of what's in store, on my summer weekend, ahead, at right.
नमस्ते
No comments:
Post a Comment