Supreme Court agrees with Trump administration, says some refugees can be barred

Anthony60 said:

It doesn't matter what I like or not, it matters what a competent judge would do. If a judge thinks that a travel ban's legality is dependent on statements the President made several months ago, then there is a serious problem with that judge. The text of the travel ban is unaffected by such statements. Completely foolish.

Click to expand...

MTAtech said:

The plaintiffs who are a number of states, are suing to block President Donald Trump’s decision regarding the travel ban. The legal arguments is, while the Executive Branch has the authority to regulate immigration, the basis of their determination can't be discriminatory based upon religion, race or ethnicity. The plaintiffs in the suit have plenty of video documentation to argue that Trump's decision was ethnicity and religiously based.

Click to expand...

MTAtech said:

The SCOTUS has wide latitude and can consider the frame of mind a decision-maker holds. They can consider his statements that a judge ruling on a case of his should be excluded because of his ethnicity. They can weigh statements he said about Muslims and terrorism, etc.

Bottom line: You can't tell the SCOTUS what evidence they can consider. They'll be the judges of that.

Click to expand...

bearpoker said:

Again, your opinion on what a supreme court judge can consider is irrelevant. They'll consider whatever they want. They're competent because the presidents and senate that put them on the court said so. That's the criteria.

Click to expand...

MTAtech said:

The SCOTUS has wide latitude and can consider the frame of mind a decision-maker holds. They can consider his statements that a judge ruling on a case of his should be excluded because of his ethnicity. They can weigh statements he said about Muslims and terrorism, etc.

Bottom line: You can't tell the SCOTUS what evidence they can consider. They'll be the judges of that.

Click to expand...

Anthony60 said:

I'm assuming you are saying that in jest, tongue-in-cheek?


Let me try to simplify it. The DOJ writes the travel ban. It is either written in a legal way or not. It is either in accordance with the law or not. Statements by a Presidential candidate months or years prior should have no effect on the legality of the text written by the DOJ.

Click to expand...

Kal'Stang said:

Then why didn't they consider the statements of the author of the 14th Amendments words in US vs Wong Kim Ark? He plainly said that the citizenship clause in the 14th Amendment did not apply to those in the country illegally.

Click to expand...

Kal'Stang said:

Never mind the fact that those countries are also hotbeds for terrorists or that Trump was just following a document produced by the Obama admin right? Also never mind the fact that the amount of Muslims in those countries don't even make up a quarter of the amount of Muslims that are quite free to come to the US in the entire world right? Not to mention the fact that SCOTUS has ruled plenty of times that the Constitutional Rights that people have in the US are not held by those outside of the US.

I also find it hypocritical when many of those same states wanted people that are on the no fly list banned from buying guns. Where is their concern over those peoples Rights? Not just 2nd Amendment Rights, but also their due process Rights?

Sorry, but I'm not buying their "outrage". This is nothing more than a political ploy being used to create outrage against the Trump admin. Another chance to cry racism (even though race has nothing to do with religion) and bigotry.

Click to expand...

MTAtech said:

I don't know why this is so hard for you to grasp. It's not only the words that matter but the intent. If the intent is discriminatory, it violates the First Amendment. The intent matters because Trump's lawyers could structure wording that is legal and hides behind pretexts (e.g. 'I'm not banning Muslims, I'm banning people coming from certain countries [which happen to be predominantly Muslim.])

Click to expand...

MTAtech said:

I don't know why this is so hard for you to grasp. It's not only the words that matter but the intent. If the intent is discriminatory, it violates the First Amendment. The intent matters because Trump's lawyers could structure wording that is legal and hides behind pretexts (e.g. 'I'm not banning Muslims, I'm banning people coming from certain countries [which happen to be predominantly Muslim.])

Click to expand...

MTAtech said:

United States v. Wong Kim Ark established that persons born on U.S. soil (except those born to parents of diplomats of a foreign nation in the U.S. on a diplomatic mission) are natural born citizens. What you wrote above is contrary to what the ruling actually said and is also moot in the context of who has a right to immigrate and not become a citizen.

Click to expand...

MTAtech said:

No need to re-litigate this matter. The courts already settled that. The 3-judge panel in February said, “The Government has pointed to no evidence that any alien from any of the countries named in the Order has perpetrated a terrorist attack in the United States.” Moreover, by your argument, Saudi Arabia should be on your list since nine of the 9/11 terrorists were from there. Yet, persons from Saudi Arabia are free to immigrate to the U.S.

Click to expand...

Kal'Stang said:

Irrelevant to the fact that the Obama administration deemed those countries that Trump put on the ban as being countries of high risk. It's not MY argument. It was the Obama Administrations argument.

Click to expand...

The Facts

The only country actually named in the order is Syria, which was also subject to an undefined ban on refugee admissions. The other six countries — Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Yemen and Somalia — are not specifically named. Instead, the order refers to sections of the U.S. code:

“I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order.”

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

MTAtech said:

No need to re-litigate this matter. The courts already settled that. The 3-judge panel in February said, “The Government has pointed to no evidence that any alien from any of the countries named in the Order has perpetrated a terrorist attack in the United States.”

Click to expand...

bearpoker said:

Again, your opinion on what a supreme court judge can consider is irrelevant. They'll consider whatever they want. They're competent because the presidents and senate that put them on the court said so. That's the criteria.

Click to expand...

MTAtech said:

I don't know why this is so hard for you to grasp. It's not only the words that matter but the intent. If the intent is discriminatory, it violates the First Amendment.

Click to expand...

MTAtech said:

I don't know why this is so hard for you to grasp. It's not only the words that matter but the intent. If the intent is discriminatory, it violates the First Amendment. The intent matters because Trump's lawyers could structure wording that is legal and hides behind pretexts (e.g. 'I'm not banning Muslims, I'm banning people coming from certain countries [which happen to be predominantly Muslim.])

Click to expand...

Athanasius68 said:

Its not discriminatory because people who are not in the country, who have no legal right to be in the country, cant claim USA constitional rights.

Click to expand...

Four federal judges so far have issued injunctions blocking the enforcement of President Donald Trump's executive order on immigration, and the reasons include one that might surprise some Trump supporters: The U.S. Constitution.

How does the Constitution apply to a non-citizen blocked from entering at JFK International Airport?
The same way it applied to enemy combatants held at the U.S. base in Guantanamo Bay in a 2008 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Boumediene v. Bush, which held that the basic right of habeas corpus to challenge illegal detentions extends even to non-citizens on foreign territory.
..
“I’m not arguing the Constitution gives each person a right to enter," said Jennifer Gordon, a professor of immigration law at Fordham University Law School. But "when the U.S. government establishes a preferred religion, it violates the Constitution.”

Click to expand...

MTAtech said:

That's not true at all. Please educate yourself on the 14th Amendment, Sec. 1:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

“Freedom of speech and of press is accorded aliens residing in this country” (Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U.S. 135, 148).

In his concurring opinion, Justice Frank Murphy went even further, saying that “once an alien lawfully enters and resides in this country he becomes invested with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to all people within our borders. Such rights include those protected by the First and the Fifth Amendments …” (161).

Also, in the 1982 case Plyler v. Doe (457 U.S. 202), the Supreme Court said the cihildren of undocumented immigrants have the right to a public education.

Does The Constitution Protect Non-Citizens? Judges Say Yes

Click to expand...

Athanasius68 said:

Yes sir. And somebody who does not reside in the USA, who is not a citizen of the USA or lacks lawful status in the USA, isnt covered.

Click to expand...

bearpoker said:

Again, your opinion on what a supreme court judge can consider is irrelevant. They'll consider whatever they want. They're competent because the presidents and senate that put them on the court said so. That's the criteria.

Click to expand...

MTAtech said:

That's not true at all. Please educate yourself on the 14th Amendment, Sec. 1:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

“Freedom of speech and of press is accorded aliens residing in this country” (Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U.S. 135, 148).

In his concurring opinion, Justice Frank Murphy went even further, saying that “once an alien lawfully enters and resides in this country he becomes invested with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to all people within our borders. Such rights include those protected by the First and the Fifth Amendments …” (161).

Also, in the 1982 case Plyler v. Doe (457 U.S. 202), the Supreme Court said the children of undocumented immigrants have the right to a public education.

Does The Constitution Protect Non-Citizens? Judges Say Yes

Click to expand...

Mason66 said:

Please explain how a foreign national not on US Soil is being deprived of life, liberty, or property by any state.

Also please explain how any foreign national not on US soil is covered under the last part of the 14th as it explicitly uses the words "within its jurisdiction".

Thanks

Click to expand...

MTAtech said:

Because a ban that was designed to affect Muslims violates at least the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibits government from denying any “person” the equal protection under the law. It violates the First Amendment's "establishment clause," unconstitutionally disenfranchising Muslims, as a class.

Click to expand...

MTAtech said:

Because a ban that was designed to affect Muslims violates at least the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibits government from denying any “person” the equal protection under the law. It violates the First Amendment's "establishment clause," unconstitutionally disenfranchising Muslims, as a class.

Click to expand...