(Reuters) – The future of four million undocumented immigrants in the U.S. rests on the subtle and surprisingly ill-defined distinction between a policy statement and a substantive rule.
(Reuters) – U.S. District Judge David Godbey of Dallas didn’t do a lot of explaining in his order Wednesday denying the Texas Health and Human Services Commission a temporary restraining order to block the resettlement in Houston of nine Syrian refugees. The entire ruling is less than three pages long, and, as Reuters reported, concludes simply that Texas hasn’t met the requisite showing of irreparable harm.
Remember the diplomatic crisis with India that followed the arrest last December of a deputy consul general named Devyani Khobragade? Khobragade, who worked at the Indian consulate in Manhattan, was picked up by the Diplomatic Security Services for allegedly committing visa fraud to get her nanny into the United States. Indian officials were outraged when Khobragade said she’d been strip-searched, even though the U.S. Marshals later said that she was not subjected to an internal cavity search. The crisis took a peculiar turn when Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara – whom the Indian government criticized for abusing his prosecutorial discretion – put out a statement defending Khobragade’s arrest and processing. Among Bharara’s points in the Dec. 18 announcement: State Department agents had arrested the deputy consul, not prosecutors from his office.