Which leaves me a little confused as to what exactly you think is false. That QI is an immunity from suit? Or that there is no fact-finding prior to a QI dismissal?
As an idiot with a PACER account I think I deserve an explanation. If I promise not to argue with you, will you please explain this a little more deeply?
(And yes, I read Harlow although I admit it didn’t make me feel much smarter).
Under Harlow there is a presumption in favor of the official such that these suits are often dismissed at the 12(b)(6) stage. However, that is incidental. It is specific to Harlow. As such, while perhaps a valid criticism of the Harlow QI regime, it is not a valid criticism of QI; just as the valid criticism of coarse stop-the-world mark-and-sweep is nevertheless not a valid criticism of automatic memory management.
It's important to realize that the underlying principle of qualified immunity - that a person is distinct from their office - is centuries old and a fundamental bedrock of American democracy. It's why Marbury sought a writ of mandamus in the first place, rather than wringing money out of Madison. The qualified immunity regime we have now is not historically representative.