#MuslimBan 3.0 is out. I'm very concerned, because I think it's legal.

I hope I'm wrong. And that doesn't mean don't resist. But this ban is different than the two prior ones.

First - the affected countries are Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen. Each country has their own restrictions - but no new immigrant visas for any of these countries except Venezuela. For other nonimmigrant visas, it varies - see this fact sheet for details.
​
Second - Nationals from affected countries who are in the US already, or have a visa already, have a green card, or are granted asylee status, or are admitted refugees are NOT affected by the new ban.
Third - there are much more express guidelines for waivers of the travel restrictions if one is subject to the ban. And you'll need a waiver: unlike before, EO-3 travel restrictions are indefinite.
Fourth - the administration makes much ado about how it has created a vetting procedure that was the first of its kind in US history. That's a load of horsecrap. You don't put new tires on a car and claim you invented the automobile.
So here's why I'm worried. Since this whole #MuslimBan saga began - back when Trump called for a "total and complete shutdown on Muslim immigration" - there has been an unbroken chain of religious animus. Trump himself kept sinking his own travel bans with his ridiculous tweets and posturing. Coupled with incompetence in implementation and crudity of the actual Executive Orders, it was short work for most courts in this country to ban the bans.
While I have no doubt the same religious animus flows into EO-3, this one is different.

• EO-1/2 weren't based on specific factfinding. EO-3 is.
• EO-1 wasn't tailored. EO-2 was somewhat tailored. EO-3 is much more narrowly tailored.
• EO-3 includes two token non-Muslim majority countries: Venezuela and North Korea. Legally, this makes it much more difficult to prove religious animus, despite Venezuela's ban only affecting national leadership and their families, and North Korea - well, no one's coming from North Korea anyway.
• There was a crude waiver process in EO-2, but a more detailed one in EO-3. Legally, this makes it harder to challenge since a court could find no right to bring challenge until the waiver process was completed.

A few months ago the 4th Circuit decided to keep EO-2 banned, but it was a fractured decision across 13 judges. The one that worried me the most was Judge Niemeyer. He dissented (meaning he would have upheld EO-2) but his reasoning was not unsound. I can see 5 Supreme Court justices siding with him: his position gave ample reason to not even get to the question of religious animus. That means the judicial spotlight remains dim, which increases the likelihood a court will not find a reason to strike EO-3. Add that to the fact that EO-3 does not suffer from many of the same deficiencies as its predecessors, and you've got a recipe for success.
The courts banning of EO-1 and EO-2 was heartwarming. But most folks don't know the number of things that had to go wrong for the administration in order for those bans to be banned. The law of the land is, and has been, that the President does have sweeping (though not unbridled) authority to ban entry of noncitizens. While that's eroded somewhat in recent years, it's still very solid law.
I hate to say it. But EO-3 is what a legal Muslim ban would look like. Again - I hope I'm wrong.
Resisting EO-3 will look different. Like EO-2, it won't be fought in the airports, but at consulates. We are going to have to create resources to navigate through the waiver process, backed up with federal court action at the hint of delay. Those with the know-how from the State Dept can weigh in on how to shed light on verifying that the administration did what it said: talked to every country to determine whether vetting procedures were sufficient.

​I'm concerned that a legal challenge to EO-3 - if not successful - may either embolden the administration, create bad law, or both.

Some legal options for Dreamers to start thinking about during #DACApolypse.

I preface this by saying don't let up advocacy and working with allies on the ground, and in the halls of Congress. Ultimately we need our leaders to act. But I'm a lawyer, and so I'm going to talk about legal options that can help at least some people. These are NOT exhaustive options and are meant to shed light on options that MAY exist. Nothing can substitute for the targeted advice of a lawyer, and every case is different. But this way you can collect the information a lawyer may need to fashion a way for you to stay.



Broadly, Dreamers fall into three categories:

1. Kids who entered legally and overstayed or otherwise fell out of status.

2. Kids who entered illegally and were not caught.

3. Kids who entered illegally, were caught, and now have final orders of removal for various reasons.

For (1), options such as bona fide marriage to a US citizen spouse may work. Be sure it's a real marriage with intent to live together and establish a life together! And if DACA was obtained before age 18 years 6 months, or if some other status like TPS exists, employment-based immigration options may work, though this has to be very carefully planned and will require consular processing instead of green card filing inside the US.

It may also work for those in category (2) if the DACA holder has left the US and re-entered on advance parole (travel document/permiso para viajar)

Otherwise, those in all categories need to (while they still can) talk to a lawyer about potential asylum claims. By definition, if they have DACA, they will have been here for more than 1 year, which usually bars asylum - unless one can show changed country conditions or personal circumstances or other extraordinary reasons why asylum wasn't filed within 1 year of entry.

That means finding out what's going on with your family back home.

• Have any family members been threatened or targeted by a criminal gang?
• Did your religion change?
• Did you come out as gay, lesbian, bisexual?
• Did you take part in political activities or make any statements your home country's government would harm you for?
• Did any of your family members make such statements, write a song, publish something?
• Do you belong to an ethnic or religious minority and your home country has begun targeting other members of your group?
• Do you have tattoos that might be misinterpreted by the police or a gang in your home country?
• Did you survive something terrible in your home country and couldn't file asylum because you couldn't bring yourself to talk about it?
• Do you have any family members who held any jobs or positions that a gang, extremist group, criminal enterprise, or the government itself might not like?
• Is there a new war or conflict going on that might affect you or your family/community/tribe?

These are the types of questions I'd want to ask you if you came to my office. Again - not exhaustive. Just something to start thinking about.

If you have an order of removal, collect all evidence from when you came into the US. If you don't have it, it may be possible (and even necessary, though risky) to file a Freedom of Information Act request (FOIA) to get copies of your immigration paperwork. A lawyer can then determine whether there were any legal deficiencies with that paperwork that might entitle you to have your deportation case reopened, cancelling the deportation order, which means ICE would not be able to just pick you up and deport you.

If you have *any* pending criminal charges, get an immigration lawyer in addition to your defense attorney. It will be that much more important for the immigration consequences of the case to be considered.

If nothing works, it's time to think about options to lessen the chance that ICE picks you up.

Bottom line: *now* is the time to explore your options. You might not qualify right now for anything, but you might make yourself qualify by, say, finding an employer or learning something about new dangers back home. It's a lot harder to do this from inside a detention center. Right now you have your freedom, so use it. I meant what I said earlier: fear kills your intelligence and your courage, and you'll need both to get through this. But you're not alone.

We are with you.
Estamos con todos Uds.
Nous sommes avec vous.
ہم آپ کے ساتھ ہیں۔
نحن معکم۔
हम आपके साथ हैं 
ਅਸੀਂ ਤੁਹਾਡੇ ਨਾਲ ਹਾਂ
我们与你同在！

Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced the end of #DACA today. Here is what that means (based on info we have now):

1. If you have never filed for DACA, it's too late, as of today. You'll have to find another way to stay. There may be options depending on your particular history, so seek counsel.
2. If you are filing for renewal of DACA, you have until Oct 5 to get your application in. You can only renew if your DACA expires on/before Mar 5, 2018. If your DACA expires after that, you will not be able to renew.
3. There is a new standard: even DACA renewals accepted by USCIS will be adjudicated on a "case by case" basis. I expect this to mean more arbitrary denials. Just because you file it correctly doesn't mean you'll get the renewal.
4. If granted, renewals will be for the full 2 year period.
5. No more advance parole for DACA holders. This closes the ability to travel, reenter, and apply for a green card (for those familiar: no more "DACAbally." This applies to advance parole requests that are pending as of today, 5 Sep 2017.
6. If you have DACA, and it's approved, it may not be terminated based on today's announcements, but it still can be terminated for any other reason.

If you're a Dreamer - please do not despair. We've been getting the weeping phone calls today. But fear kills your intelligence and courage, and you'll need both. There are thousands of people - lawyers, advocates, elected officials - with you on this. You're not alone.

On policy:

This is every bit the narrative expected from the likes of Jefferson Beauregard Sessions, III. Trump delegated the task of rescinding DACA to his AG, who isn't supposed to dictate policy. And his presser was filled with omissions and falsehoods that belie the real impetus for today's shameful action.

1. Sessions again repeated the white nationalist battle cry that immigrants are to be feared, and "we can't admit everybody" and those we do admit should "assimilate" (as opposed to integrate) - a clear nod to the ill-conceived RAISE Act. Yet he supposedly is waiting for Congress to do something to admit the 800,000 Dreamers anyway.​
2. Just like he did in his confirmation hearing, Sessions said the law must be enforced. But the law itself gives wide discretion to immigration officers. The ramped up deportations without regard to criminal history is testament to this. I suspect this is what he meant when he said his officers are now "inspired." Apparently the slow death of DACA is the "compassionate" way to do things - the new buzzword being an "orderly winding down" of a supposedly illegal program. The 6 month period will make it more difficult to obtain an injunction halting the rescission - but let's hope I'm wrong about that.
3. Separation of powers: It is frightening that the head of the US Department of Justice does not understand our system of government. He says the President (Obama) had no authority to temporarily shield whole classes of immigrants from deportation. Yet President (Trump) has unbridled authority to ban classes of immigrants and deport them. Sessions can't have it both ways. If he had a problem with the way DACA was rolled out, then roll it out properly instead of rescinding it. If DACA is illegal no matter how it was rolled out, then *so is the travel ban.*
4. The 5th Circuit did indeed rule that DAPA (which was similar to DACA) was probably an excess. But let me say this clearly: the Supreme Court has *never* ruled that DAPA was unconstitutional. Let's also remember that a lawsuit to shut down DACA would go before the very same judge Hanen who shut down DAPA in the first place. Hanen is far from a neutral arbiter, and I don't make that statement lightly.
5. The supposed legislative fix. Sessions conveniently left out something that should have been made very clear: Congress has had since 2001 to find a solution for Dreamers and have failed. Now, they're supposed to get their act together in the next 6 months. The implication - and perhaps expectation - is that nothing will happen, and all Dreamers will lose their ability to work, be arbitrarily labeled a "public threat" under Trump's March 6 executive order, and be put in line for deportation.
6. Lest it be forgotten, this is textbook bad faith. Coax immigrants to come out of the shadows with promises of a work permit and no deportation, get their information, and then use it against them. I am not blaming Obama's administration for DACA - but it was always meant to be a stop-gap measure. And the very same Congressmen now clamoring for the "rule of law" are the ones who stonewalled every single attempted legislative fix.

This is one campaign promise the administration has been able to keep. Rescission of DACA makes no sense economically, and it's certainly the immoral thing to do. No court has ruled it illegal. The only possible explanation: xenophobia. Now structural and government-certified.
What can you do?

Use your citizenship. Please follow these steps:

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members

Type in your address. Get your congressmens' contact info. Then CALL them ON THE PHONE and tell them:

1. You want to see them #DefendDACA publicly, and strongly denounce the administration's cruel treatment of 800,000 young immigrants who know no other home. You will use your vote to speak for those who have none.
2. Ask them whether they will support the #DreamAct and a path to citizenship.

If you can't get through, keep calling. If you have no more time to try to get through, visit their webpage and at least send in an email.

Remember - revoking DACA comes from a place of hatred and exclusion, not respect for the law. By advocating for change, you are actually standing up for our Constitution and promoting respect for the law.