How they upended the Trump travel ban. (It hurts us.)

[fiorello]

This is important. There were many lawsuits filed against the Trump ban on "certain people" coming to the US - usually on behalf of individual plaintiffs, would-be residents who were screwed over by the ban. They were all perfectly correct, very moral and went nowhere.

In Washington State, the took a different approach. They sued, not for the damage done to a few individuals (and furriners at that), but to the ENTIRE STATE for being denied the economic benefits that immigrants bring, because THEY HELP US. They got Amazon and Expedia testifying on their behalf. And they won (so far).

Two things struck me here. First, they didn't appeal to our sense of moral outrage (even though it is outrageous), but to self-interest. That meant they were not fighting over values (ours versus trump's), but on something all of us - even (especially) conservatives and xenophobes - agree on. Second, they were not asking for charity for the poor, the mistreated, the tempest-tossed [modern translation: losers]. They were asking to let them in because WE NEED THEM, they help us. That's not only more compelling as an argument - it's also gives them much more respect - the respect they are due.


https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/02/04/us/trump-travel-ban-washington-seattle-ferguson.html

[MFM008]

1. you gotta go with what will stick in court

......................

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. This is because the plaintiffs in the WA case were states. And without evidence of injury

to those states (WA and MN), they wouldn't have had standing to sue. Standing, in legal terms, means you, as plaintiff, have to show a direct interest or injury to you; a moral argument is not sufficient. The injury to the states was expressed in terms of how the states need the immigrants; without that argument they'd have been tossed out of court.

[fiorello]

3. Thank you. I may have read too much into this.