FREE SPEECH UNDER ATTACK: Marco Rubio just had a man arrested and jailed, and is seeking to deport him, because he publicly criticized a presidential candidate in Colombia that Donald Trump would prefer to be elected.
He committed no crimes and had an asylum application pending.
@DHSgov What is worse than DHS's gutter claim is Trump stooping into the gutter and reveling in its slime while he hosts the UFC crass fight where one of the fighters claim Michele Obama is a man
The order blocking the H1B 100K tax has been stayed based on the argument that not staying it would lead to a “rush” of INCREDIBLY HIGHLY SKILLED PEOPLE seeking to make America even wealthier. Good lord save us!
The district court in the Dorcas action about the pause etc. has entered its judgment (and indicated that the order should have been binding even without this):https://t.co/N7Q8I3ORwO.
If the Trump tries to deport Trita Parsi based on Rubio's determination under INA 237(a)(1)(4) it will offend our First Amendment rights to free speech and it should give further incentive to federal courts to declare this provision unconstitutional https://t.co/zV4SONZit5
USCIS withdraws Eight Circuit appeal in Mukherji v. Miller knowing that it might lose post-Loper Bright, thus preserving its ability to deny extraordinary ability petitions even after the petitioner meets the regulatory criteria. https://t.co/XSOtlo6k2o
Sorokin’s decision, along with a separate June 5 ruling that vacated the government’s freeze on certain immigration benefits, shows 212(f) can’t be wielded as broadly as the Trump administration would like, said Cyrus Mehta, founder and managing partner at Cyrus D. Mehta & Partners PLLC.
“There’s more power to that argument since Learning Resources,” he said. “It’s moved the needle in favor of plaintiffs challenging the $100,000 fee now.”
https://t.co/9GG5QixrTD
@ScottMechkowski Scott,
Congress has not authorized this administration to impose a blanket pause on immigration applications based solely on their country of nationality that or to impose a $100,000 fee. Two courts have agreed with the plaintiffs thus far.
People who support Trump on immigration should realize that they are supporting fear, panic, and misery among human beings. It is not good for one's conscience and spiritual well being to cheer the hurting people. Fortunately, courts are stepping in like angels to protect victims of Trump's cruel immigration policies as in Dorcas v USCIS last Friday and California v. Mullin today.
Today’s ruling confirms what AILA has said all along: turning the H-1B program into a pay to play system through a $100K fee is unlawful. Policies that shut out teachers, researchers, rural doctors, clergy, & innovators undermine our economy & communities. https://t.co/C5SsE7MFxc
The judge rejected the Trump admin’s argument that the $100,000 fee was not a “tax” but merely “a regulatory payment.” The Supreme Court has ruled the power to tax belongs to Congress, not the president (or Stephen Miller). @David_J_Bier@gsiskind https://t.co/e37kQFOd5d
The Supreme Court's tariffs decision in Learning Resources influenced the court in finding Trump's $100,000 fee unlawful, and although this court did not state so explicitly, under the major questions doctrine where executive actions have major economic or political significance there has to be explicit Congressional authorization, and here there was none notwithstanding the broad authority given to the President under INA 212(f) in determining the entry of aliens into the US @forbes https://t.co/40FVp2LyPy