Congressmen: 11 held at Atlanta airport after Trump’s executive

“At first, a U.S. Customs and Border Protection official would not say how many were being held, Lewis said. So Lewis turned to a gathering crowd of activists and attorneys at the airport and declared: ‘Why don’t we just sit down and stay a while.'”

God bless Rep. John Lewis.

Federal immigration authorities detained 11 people in all Saturday at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport based on an executive order President Donald Trump signed this week, a pair of Georgia congressmen confirmed.

Nine had been released by 10 p.m., U.S. Reps. John Lewis and Hank Johnson said after emerging from a closed-door meeting with a U.S. Customs and Border Protection official. They were subjected to “extreme vetting” — or additional questioning — under Trump’s order, Johnson said. At least five of those detained are lawful permanent residents who had just returned from trips to Iran, several relatives said.

“As far as we can tell there are no written protocols that have been issued to the Customs and Border Protection officers,” Johnson said. “So they are kind of winging it, like we are winging it. And it puts them at a disadvantage because, of course, they have a job to do to keep us safe under normal conditions.”

Source: Congressmen: 11 held at Atlanta airport after Trump’s executive

Despite Court Order, US Officials Won’t Allow Lawyers at Dulles to See Detainees | Washingtonian

The Trump Administration flips the bird at the judicial branch. This does not normally end well.

The US Customs and Border Protection Agency at Dulles International Airport has refused to grant attorneys access to any detainees it may be holding, according to Sharifa Abbasi, who is coordinating the volunteer lawyer efforts underway there. Yesterday, a federal judge for the Eastern District of Virginia ordered respondents, who include CBP, President Trump, and the CBP Port Director for Dulles Wayne Biondi, to “permit lawyers access to all legal permanent residents being detained at Dulles International Airport.”

Abbasi says late Sunday morning a border agent told lawyers that agents have been instructed not to speak with them. About 15 lawyers have been directed to call Steve Sapp, an official with the CBP Office of Public Affairs, but have so far have not had their calls answered or returned. Washingtonian called the number, which directed reporters to a cellphone number whose voicemail was full.

Abbasi and one other lawyer we spoke to say officials at Dulles have refused to engage with the lawyers since this morning. A border agent who agreed to bring the lawyers’ request for access to detainees, as well as a copy of the order, to her supervisor came back with this message: “It’s not going to happen.”

Source: Despite Court Order, US Officials Won’t Allow Lawyers at Dulles to See Detainees | Washingtonian

Over 1,000 rally at Raleigh-Durham International Airport to protest Donald Trump’s ban on travelers from mostly Muslim countries | News & Observer

Glad to see that the Triangle represented. There will be more demonstrations.

LinkedIn Google+ Pinterest Reddit Print Order Reprint of this StoryRaleighProtesters at Raleigh-Durham International Airport on Sunday joined other demonstrators across the nation expressing opposition to President Donald Trump’s executive order temporarily banning many Muslims from entering the United States.

Trump’s order targets refugees and travelers from seven predominantly Muslim countries, but demonstrators at RDU pledged Sunday that Muslims and refugees were welcome in the Triangle.

“I’m hoping protests across the country will show solidarity to immigrants, especially Muslim immigrants,” said Phaedra Kelly of Carrboro. “I hope it sends a message to the Democrats in Congress that they need to speak out fervently and maybe get a couple GOP to speak out as well. Because the ban is unconstitutional.”

Source: Over 1,000 rally at Raleigh-Durham International Airport to protest Donald Trump’s ban on travelers from mostly Muslim countries | News & Observer

Unnamed White House official on implementing travel ban: ‘It really is a massive success story.’ – The Washington Post

We’ll see how “massively successful” this turns out to be, especially if I can help it.

Two days into President Trump’s new ban on refugees, migrants and foreign nationals from seven countries, there was still mass confusion about the details. On Sunday evening, the White House organized a briefing for reporters with two senior administration officials who agreed to explain the president’s executive order — but only on the condition of anonymity.

One senior administration official explained the ground rules to reporters gathered at the White House and listening on a conference call, then said: “With that, I’ll turn it over to a senior administration official.”

“Thank you,” the other senior administration official said before beginning a 45-minute defense.Their overarching message: Everything is going exactly according to plan, nothing has changed since the order was signed, and the news media need to calm down their “false, misleading, inaccurate, hyperventilating” coverage of the “fractional, marginal, minuscule percentage” of international travelers who have been simply “set aside for further questioning” for a couple hours on their way into the greatest country in the world.

“It really is a massive success story in terms of implementation on every single level,” the administration official said at one point.

Source: Unnamed White House official on implementing travel ban: ‘It really is a massive success story.’ – The Washington Post

Federal court halts Trump’s immigration ban – The Verge

So, some madness happened over the weekend. Trump officials, with little to no input from the relevant federal agencies, instituted a “Muslim Ban” on travelers from seven countries, blocking their entry into the United States. This included people legally authorized to enter the U.S., including green-card-holding permanent residents. Protests erupted around the country as innocent people were detained at airport Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) checkpoints for hours without access to legal counsel. Finally, late Saturday evening, Federal judge Ann Donnelly issued a temporary stay, ordering CBP to release all affected travelers. Another federal judge, Leonie Brinkema in the Alexandria district, ordered any detainees at Dulles be provided access to counsel.

Judge Donnelly’s order did result in the release of travelers, however CBP officials are defying Judge Brinkema’s order – no attorneys have been allowed to visit their clients. We are in the middle of a deepening constitutional crisis.

The federal court for the Eastern District of New York issued an emergency stay halting deportations under President Donald Trump’s executive order banning entry to the US from seven majority-Muslim countries tonight, following widespread protests at airports around the country.You can read the full text of the stay here.

The court order prevents the government from sending immigrants back to their home countries because it would cause them “irreparable harm,” but it is unclear if they will have to remain in detention until a substantive ruling on the constitutionality of the ban is delivered. “If someone is not being released, I guess I’ll just hear from you,” Judge Ann Donnelly told the plaintiff’s lawyers, according to The New York Times.

Source: Federal court halts Trump’s immigration ban – The Verge

Trump Bars Refugees and Citizens of 7 Muslim Countries – The New York Times

This is what happened over the weekend. It will not stand.

WASHINGTON — President Trump on Friday closed the nation’s borders to refugees from around the world, ordering that families fleeing the slaughter in Syria be indefinitely blocked from entering the United States, and temporarily suspending immigration from several predominantly Muslim countries.

In an executive order that he said was part of an extreme vetting plan to keep out “radical Islamic terrorists,” Mr. Trump also established a religious test for refugees from Muslim nations: He ordered that Christians and others from minority religions be granted priority over Muslims.

“We don’t want them here,” Mr. Trump said of Islamist terrorists during a signing ceremony at the Pentagon. “We want to ensure that we are not admitting into our country the very threats our soldiers are fighting overseas. We only want to admit those into our country who will support our country, and love deeply our people.”

Source: Trump Bars Refugees and Citizens of 7 Muslim Countries – The New York Times

Trial Balloon for a Coup? – Medium

While I’m not convinced that a coup is where we’re headed, I do find it disturbing how Trump and his crew have been pushing the boundaries of legality, seemingly without pushback. We will see if our country’s checks-and-balances are up to the task, or if American democracy is headed down a dark road.

The theme of this morning’s news updates from Washington is additional clarity emerging, rather than meaningful changes in the field. But this clarity is enough to give us a sense of what we just saw happen, and why it happened the way it did.

I’ll separate what’s below into the raw news reports and analysis; you may also find these two pieces from yesterday (heavily referenced below) to be useful.

Source: Trial Balloon for a Coup? – Medium

Rules for a constitutional crisis – Medium

Excellent advice on the way forward from super-lawyer Larry Lessig.

I became a lawyer because of a story told to me about Watergate, by my uncle, Richard Cates. Cates was a lawyer from Madison. When the House started investigating Nixon, he was hired to be counsel to the House Committee on Impeachment. His job was to put together the facts supporting a case against Nixon, and convince the members of the House that those facts merited impeachment. (Working for him, just out of law school: Hillary Clinton.)

In Code and other Laws of Cyberspace, I described how he described to me the job of being a lawyer:

It is what a lawyer does, what a good lawyer does, that makes this system work. It is not the bluffing, or the outrage , or the strategies and tactics. It is something much simpler than that. What a good lawyer does is tell a story that persuades. Not by hiding the truth or exciting the emotion , but using reason, through a story, to persuade. When it works, it does something to the people who experience this persuasion. Some, for the first time in their lives, see power constrained by reason. Not by votes, not by wealth, not by who someone knows?—?but by an argument that persuades. This is the magic of our system, however rare the miracles may be.

But the part of the story he told me then that I didn’t describe there connects directly with the constitutional crisis that is brewing within America just now. Because the real magic that my uncle described to me was the effect that this work done well had on politicians. Even he was almost moved by the seriousness with which both sides considered the impeachment. There was no politics, at least as he saw it. At least with him, Democrats weren’t grandstanding and Republicans weren’t flinching from the facts they were being shown. They knew that they were engaged in the most serious job a member of Congress could have?—?because they knew that in a critical sense, the very stability of the Republic depended on them behaving as adults.

Source: Rules for a constitutional crisis – Medium

We Asked an Ethicist if It’s OK to Punch Nazis in the Face – VICE

As I was saying.

President Donald Trump’s inauguration brought up a lot of fiery emotion in people, and if the left’s anger and frustration can be distilled into a single image, it’s that clip of white supremacist and Trump supporter Richard Spencer being decked by an anti-fascist protester while giving an interview on camera.

Unsurprisingly, people on the internet really, really liked this, setting the video to music and generally rejoicing in this bit of violence that was part World Star Hip Hop, part Captain America, and part, “eh, whatever, fuck that guy.”

But this punch inspired a lot of debate. If you think nonviolence is generally the answer, is it OK to hit someone if you really, really don’t like them? On the other hand, if you disagree with socking Nazis in the face, are you giving a pass to literal fascists? If you’re conflicted about all this, is it still OK to giggle at the whole thing?

To settle this, I called up Randy Cohen, the former ethicist from the New York Times Magazine, and the person I generally ask when confronted with moral quandaries.

Source: We Asked an Ethicist if It’s OK to Punch Nazis in the Face – VICE