Travel Ban Blocked

Aristaeus said:

1965 immigration act prohibits the government from denying people visas based on nationality, which is exactly what Trump's EO does.

Click to expand...

Good point, but it didnt amend 1182, so that law is still in effect as well. Now maybe the court needs to deal with the conflict in the literal writing, but the intention by congress appears to be only to deal with making sure the govt isnt discriminating in issuing visas to those we want here for jobs and such, while still allowing keeping out security risks. So, keeping out the French because we dont like them is not allowed. Keeping out Iranians because they could be Hezzbollah is.

upsideguy said:

Yawn, in case you have not been paying attention, there has never been a terrorist attack on US soil from someone from one of these countries. Terrorism enters the US via the Internet and plants is seed in US born disenfranchised youth, usually Muslim. This EO is far more likely to disenfranchise Muslim youth than prevent a terrorist coming in from one of those countries. Thus, perpetrating the hate and fear of Muslims creates more "disenfranchised youth" and creates additional fertile ground for the seed of terrorism to germinate.

The EO was poorly thought out and the execution even worse. The net-net of this the EO is security theatre: it makes people feel good that something is being done, but it does nothing. In fact, a good argument may be made that it makes things worse.

Click to expand...

LMAO! "There has never been a terrorist attack on US soil with a Ph balance of 8.34 from someone who came from one of those countries wearing two left shoes and sombrero..."

How many qualifiers? HOW MANY?:lamo

Mall knife attack spotlights Minn. tensions with Somali immigrants

This little incident wasn't too long ago.

Minnesota Somali organizations receive terrorism grants

Then there's this. I don't know, maybe I'm showing my age but there was a time when after school activities were put into place to keep kids off drugs, or away from gangs, or a variety of other mischievous activities... but now, no, no, now money hasn't to be given to immigrant communities to prevent the little SOB's from turning into suicide bombers.

Anyone "radicalized" is in desperate need of a purpose for their pathetic, miserable lives. It doesn't matter if there is a temporary stay on admittance from 7 countries or a Porky Pig Marathon on the telly... The latter could just as easily send them off on their quest for martyrdom as the former.

And if it's as you say, (I'm not saying I agree with you, but...) With the potential for homegrown terrorists so clearly a clear and present danger than putting a hold on admittance from 7 areas of conflict in which the US is in active or have had recent hostilities would only make the most sense as we obviously don't need to import any more crazy as we have an abundance in supply already.


I will agree that the execution of this was horrible. Yes, there is some theatre involved, but no, it doesn't do 'nothing' it does 'something'. It insures that we don't import more crazies from those countries for the period of time that the hold is in place.

As I've explained and will reiterate -- it is impossible for things to be made worse as it isn't an event of which the magnitude should bring about a violent reaction in normal, stable individuals. Their reasoning and subsequent mental snap off could just as easily be caused by seeing one too many :

Chomsky said:

You know, you bring-up an interesting point here.

I know the President does not have to support an order he finds unconstitutional. I assumed the same applies to the AG.

At the least, she would be considered a good American for not defiling the Constitution, irrespective of the administration's desire to possibly do so.

I would argue it's every American's duty to support the Constitution. My wife had to swear an oath to this effect in a legal ceremony in order to become a citizen. Actually, I don't believe any individual can legally force an American to do an unconstitutional act either, U.S. President or otherwise. Similar to military commanders ignoring an unlawful order. So I think she's on good legal standing here. But I honestly don't know the answer to this question.

Click to expand...

I don't like the President picking and choosing what (s)he wants to enforce, either. The laws of the land are made by the legislator and the President is supposed to support it. If a law is not constitutional then, again, it comes back to judges to decide such. All this stuff is various branches trying to play the role of other branches of government.

Let people bring it to court and get it fixed there.

-edit- I'm in the military now and I can assure you that refusing orders and such better be something super clear-cut, like not executing civilians or something. If I were to refuse doing a deployment because I think the President shouldn't be able to conduct war without a declaration of war from Congress, which I believe needs to happen, I'd get **** on.

Fishking said:

I don't like the President picking and choosing what (s)he wants to enforce, either. The laws of the land are made by the legislator and the President is supposed to support it. If a law is not constitutional then, again, it comes back to judges to decide such. All this stuff is various branches trying to play the role of other branches of government.

Let people bring it to court and get it fixed there.

-edit- I'm in the military now and I can assure you that refusing orders and such better be something super clear-cut, like not executing civilians or something. If I were to refuse doing a deployment because I think the President shouldn't be able to conduct war without a declaration of war from Congress, which I believe needs to happen, I'd get **** on.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I was bringing-up the military chain-of-command exception as a technical exception - a technicality - rather than a common practicality.

Hell, I can't imagine anything much more important (in the military) than duly following one's specific orders.

Because the ban was lifted by a judge, many very bad and dangerous people may be pouring into our country. A terrible decision

Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump

It is after 5 ET with nothing to indicate that a stay was attempted, I do believe that Team Trump has decided to let this one go, to call it a win and move on to other things.

chromium said:

They haven't presented any security evidence. The fact there's been 0 murders committed by nationals of those 7 countries in the past 40 years tells me they have none. Until they present a convincing case for an outright travel ban, let alone immigration ban, i have to conclude it's being done entirely for political reasons
s)

Click to expand...

That is certainly your prerogative. The EO did in fact make an argument (the political chaos in those 7 countries make it very difficult to properly vet prospective travellers.
But regardless of your opinion of the merits of the Trump argument, to argue that the president lacks constitutional authority to ensure that travelers are properly vetted is absurd.
If not the president, then who has that authority?

FYi here is the order.

1. The petitioners have a strong likelihood of success in establishing that the removal of the petitioner and others similarly situated violates their rights to Due Process and Equal Protection guaranteed by the United States Constitution;
2. There is imminent danger that, absent the stay of removal, there will be substantial and irreparable injury to refugees, visa-holders, and other individuals from nations subject to the January 27, 2017 Executive Order;
3. The issuance of the stay of removal will not injure the other parties interested in the proceeding;
4. It is appropriate and just that, pending completion of a hearing before the Court on the merits of the Petition, that the Respondents be enjoined and restrained from the commission of further acts and misconduct in violation of the Constitution as described in the Emergency Motion for Stay of Removal.

Click to expand...

Light on legal reasoning. The judge basically says people in other countries will be harmed by not letting them in. I dont see how this will hold up on appeal unless someone comes up with some actual reason why the order was illegal.

ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED from, in any manner or by any means, removing individuals with refugee applications approved by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services as part of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, holders of valid immigrant and non-immigrant visas, and other individuals from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen legally authorized to enter the United States.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that to assure compliance with the Court's order, the Court directs service of this Order upon the United States Marshal for the Eastern District of New York, and further directs the United States Marshals Service to take those actions deemed necessary to enforce the provisions and prohibitions set forth in this Order.

Click to expand...

Trump Immigration Ban: Transcript of Judge Ruling Against It | Fortune.com

Re: Federal Judge Temporarily Blocks Donald Trump’s Travel Ban

apdst said:

Trolling accusations prove that you know that your argument has fallen apart.

Click to expand...

Apparently you don't know what proof is. Add that to the list.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

chromium said:

They haven't presented any security evidence. The fact there's been 0 murders committed by nationals of those 7 countries in the past 40 years tells me they have none. Until they present a convincing case for an outright travel ban, let alone immigration ban, i have to conclude it's being done entirely for political reasons

They were clearly going to incrementally going to work their way up to including more and more muslim and the EO mentioned this is just the first step. In fact, i said right away i expect all but Saudi and Egypt on the final list (locations of Trump businesses)

Click to expand...

The President's authority in this area is virtually absolute.

Beaudreaux said:

If it is, that brings up even more issues with the need for the SCOTUS appointee to get approved, which means that the GOP may go nuclear on his approval.

Click to expand...

They won't have to go nuclear. Gorsuch will get approved with 60 votes. Neither the GOP nor the Dems will want to set a precedent going nuclear.

Watch this if you have time. It's really funny (IMHO).

Re: Federal Judge Temporarily Blocks Donald Trump’s Travel Ban

roughdraft274 said:

Apparently you don't know what proof is. Add that to the list.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Anytime Liberals start the snark, that concrete evidence.

chromium said:

They haven't presented any security evidence. The fact there's been 0 murders committed by nationals of those 7 countries in the past 40 years tells me they have none. Until they present a convincing case for an outright travel ban, let alone immigration ban, i have to conclude it's being done entirely for political reasons

They were clearly going to incrementally going to work their way up to including more and more muslim and the EO mentioned this is just the first step. In fact, i said right away i expect all but Saudi and Egypt on the final list (locations of Trump businesses)

Click to expand...

There's no requirement that evidence be presented.

Aristaeus said:

1965 immigration act prohibits the government from denying people visas based on nationality, which is exactly what Trump's EO does.

Click to expand...

FYI --

8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens

(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.

Chomsky said:

Seattle's in the 9th, and I wouldn't doubt if the 9th affirms the order.

I think it's headed to the SC, where if still 4 x 4 it may be broken into pieces, some passing, some failing.

Click to expand...

A judge, appointed by Obama, in Massachusetts also looked at the EO and did not grant a TRO. Seemed a lot more willing to let part of the order continue.
Absurd Fed Ct TRO halts enforcement of entire Executive Order on visas, refugees

https://www.scribd.com/document/338...p-Executive-Order-on-Refugees-February-3-2017
There may be more common ground than people think and this may not be a 4-4 thing.

Eric7216 said:

A judge, appointed by Obama, in Massachusetts also looked at the EO and did not grant a TRO. Seemed a lot more willing to let part of the order continue.
Absurd Fed Ct TRO halts enforcement of entire Executive Order on visas, refugees

https://www.scribd.com/document/338...p-Executive-Order-on-Refugees-February-3-2017
There may be more common ground than people think and this may not be a 4-4 thing.

Click to expand...

I think the Travel Ban will pass Constitutional muster in some form.

The problem isn't as much the ban IMO, as Trump and his administration.

He's arrogant, antagonistic, secretive, and harried. He rolled this out without even consulting the affected agencies, and the Keystone Cops analogy it's been given is appropriate. He makes those around him want to resist.

But regardless, the ban will eventually likely pass, and Trump gets a lesson in that he's pissing-off the judiciary and many government departments. But if he isn't careful, he could have the CIA or DOJ turn on him, or even worse - Congress. The Dems would impeach as a bloc in a heartbeat, so it wouldn't take a lot of disenchanted GOP Congress Critters to cause a Pence-Ryan coup de etat. And Trump gives them plenty of material to use for political cover.