posters who say “winning” are pointing to the ruling’s portion that allows most of the ban to stay in place _until_ they hear the case.
imo not a full win until we see just what all they’re allowing. By all accounts, it’s “mostly” going to stay in place.
i’m still looking into it
Thanks. That helps.
Proving that a relationship exists with someone here is going to be difficult for those without documentation, which was the primary obstacle to vetting them in the first place, ergo, vetting is now 'mandatory' in this form at least.
So, instead of our country being overrun by potential terrorists at the whim of progressives in the judicial system, we now have a de facto travel ban and mandatory vetting.
That's how I'm reading this, anyway.