NurRauch

No. Many of these applications for LPR status start with the assumption that they are not here legally. The question the application wants to know is if they are otherwise law-abiding.

-Crim Defense lawyer, with some experience in immigration as well

Yep -- lawyers feel the same way about courtroom dramas, and dear God I bet doctors want to peel their face off when they're forced to watch Grey's Anatomy. A lot of these shows have running themes of idealism -- where if you just put your mind to something hard enough, you'll come out on top and win over people who lack your same resolve and morality. Reality is, these professions are complicated as hell and good, decent people fail at them all the damn time.

Public defender here. Just want to say, bless you. One of the most important fights that happens in the courtroom happens long before any jurors sit down on a venire panel to be selected for service. It's a fight in the media for influence over the minds of jurors -- narratives and truths they come to understand before they ever enter the courtroom. The work you are doing to dispel junk science (and to dispel it early, before it catches on in the psyche of everyday people across the country) is so important. It saves lives. So, thank you.

Hi Dean Chemerinsky. (Thanks for that Conlaw supplement. It saved my ass in law school.)

I think a lot of these cases involve warrants. Is it as constitutionally problematic or an issue of law catching up with the times if law enforcement have a warrant to compel the password?

No. The Supreme Court held that the travel ban was an overreach of executive discretion because it primarily concerned documented immigrants that already had legal status (refugees, lawful permanent residents, and work visas). The travel ban ran afoul of statutes that were already in place. Congress did not give the executive discretion to unilaterally undo lawfully granted residency and work permit status on previously vetted immigrants.

There were other complications with the travel ban as well. It also violated the rights of states and businesses that relied on that legal migration for labor and business.

One issue that the Supreme Court tabled for the time being was whether the executive can use discretion that is racially or religiously discriminatory. There was much evidence in the record that the President created the travel ban for reasons of religious discrimination rather than legitimate safety concerns. The Supreme Court has not yet addressed that issue on the travel ban.

Edit: Downvote all you want because you just don't like the correct legal answer to your question. I'm an actual lawyer that has read the Supreme Court case on the travel ban. You obviously have not read it or you wouldn't be confusing discretion with documented and undocumented immigrants together.