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.
It's just a minor difference in the people effected.
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.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-chao...
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!
Phrases like "first step" are anticipating stronger measures to come. The introduction makes it clear that the agency believes that these measures will in fact reduce security. I don't have enough information to refute that claim, but I don't believe it either.
As an outsider to the USA, I would have liked to have seen more balance. For instance, it would have been reassuring to hear that DHS had taken legal advice on its obligations and how best to implement them without rushing in.
I suspect that the release is written for individuals near to Cabinet who want to know that officials are complying without question. Does not bode well.
"@pierre: This is unbelievable. When asked by two Congressmen [who they report to] CBP agents at LAX said "Donald J Trump" and hung up."
(especially not people we gave green cards and visas to after subjecting them to years, or decades, of bureacracy and vetting)
It'll probably end up going to the Supreme court, the Supreme court has two Obama appointees and with justice Scalia passed away there is a chance it could go in the ACLU's favor. . . but established constitutional law is clear, the Supreme court has ruled time and time again that America can turn away anyone at the boarder and non-citizens do not have a right to stay in America . . . so defeating this executive order at the Supreme court level will require some doing, which might happen because of the current composition of the court has judges that are willing to veer away from established precedent.
ACLU of course would argue the whole order is invalid, but I don't think this part would be easy to prove and not likely to get emergency order broad enough, and it probably would take more than 60 days to go through which means challenging this particular order in its entirety may be moot by the time it gets to any sort of trial. If the subsequent policy will match it though it still may have a point.
http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Following-Detainment-Re...
Really, the entire statement isn't that exciting, it just says "Agency will continue to follow legal structure of government as all agencies do." Mostly it's just an attempt to reassure people that things aren't as out of hand as they seem.