Plus, instead of feeling overwhelmed, I feel empowered to choose the parts of the flurry that I can actually engage with. Then, I am able to appreciate how others in my community are dealing with their parts of the flurry, and do my best to support them, as we all try to make it through this storm.

And more importantly, it becomes an opportunity to get to know different perspectives and experiences within my community, and a way to build solidarity within the community.

Then it becomes not a distraction, it becomes an opportunity for some humility, a moment where I can just know that I don't know what that specific thing is all about because my life and my experiences haven't made that into a critical issue for me.

If I notice something that might not be relevant to my life, instead of calling it a distraction, I wonder who in my community may be impacted by this, who could explain the potential impact, or tell me about how that part of the flurry has been dealt with by folks recently as well as historically.

I recently decided that if I fell into thinking "this is all too overwhelming and distracting" that it meant I was losing perspective on the thing that I think is most important in life: community.

A community is made up of people with different perspectives, interests, values, and ways of being.

There are many people who have different needs or interests or expertise or experiences, or have different statuses socially or economically or politically. Who are we to decide that those interests and statuses are mere distraction?

Insisting that it's distraction is a dismissal of all the moving parts in these flurries that may appear irrelevant to our own interests or expertise, but that doesn't mean those parts of the flurry aren't matters of great importance to people out there who are not like us.

US law is more than just the Constitution. Hence them already interpreting precedents within the EO. But that’s a procedural point, and I’m talking about the intent.

And there is some history between the executive and the judiciary where the constitutional checks and balances give way to intent.

I don’t see that as a problem. I see that as perhaps by design, given how many of their friends and spouses would be impacted if it was retroactive lol

I also don’t see that as a bigger problem than a possible invention of an extrajudicial system to handle immigration cases and abuses.

My guess is such an invented jurisdiction would be marketed to the electorate as necessary, more efficient, and as allowing immigration enforcement officers more flexibility (as well as added layers of immunity) in carrying out their jobs.

But if we look at this another way, if they remove jurisdiction over temporary visitors, visa holders, or any other status that isn’t full citizen, then they can invent a new jurisdiction that covers such persons, as well as the children born of such persons on US soil.

If someone commits a crime within the borders of the US, that person falls under US criminal jurisdiction unless they have some ambassadorial position or special immunity. Right?

It seems they’re suggesting by this argument that someone here illegally isn’t under the jurisdiction of the US. But if that’s true, then there is no legal basis to arrest them or remove them, and clearly that’s not their goal.

That is, they’re saying that persons here under temporary visas are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US—which makes me (excuse the rhetorical Qs) wonder, then, who is issuing the visas? Aren’t visas evidence of coming under some kind of jurisdiction in the US?