• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US judge blocks Trump executive order on refugee resettlement

Rogue Valley

Lead or get out of the way
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
112,229
Reaction score
102,395
Location
Barsoom
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
US judge blocks Trump executive order on refugee resettlement

937877c03f0a411789d0da33422b5795_18.jpg


1/15/20
A United States federal judge has blocked an executive order from President Donald Trump that gave state and local governments effective veto power over having refugees resettled within their jurisdictions. US District Judge Peter Messitte issued a preliminary injunction in Maryland on Wednesday at the request of three national refugee resettlement agencies that are suing to challenge the executive order. Agency leaders argued the order, which required resettlement agencies to get written consent from state and local officials before resettling refugees, effectively gives governors and county leaders the ability to override the resettlement process. The agencies also argue the order illegally conflicts with the 1980 Refugee Act, which enshrines the federal procedure of refugee resettlement. Messitte said the agencies are likely to succeed in showing that the executive order is unlawful. "Refugee resettlement activity should go forward as it developed for the almost 40 years before the (executive order) was announced," he wrote in his 31-page ruling. Messitte added Trump's order doesn't appear to serve the "overall public interest". The Trump administration announced the directive in November. The order would have applied to any refugees being resettled beyond June 2020. After being resettled, refugees are free to move anywhere within the US, but at their own expense.

Church World Service, Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service and HIAS - a Jewish nonprofit - filed the lawsuit in Greenbelt, Maryland, on November 21. They represent three of the nine national organisations that have agreements with the federal government to provide housing and other services for refugees. Texas, which took in more refugees than any other state during the 2018 fiscal year, became the first state known to reject the resettlement of new refugees. Governor Greg Abbott said in a letter released January 10 that the state, which borders Mexico, "has been left by Congress to deal with disproportionate migration issues resulting from a broken federal immigration system". The head of Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, Krish O'Mara Vignarajah, told The Associated Press news agency the ruling, for now, puts on hold a policy that was causing "irreparable harm to refugee families and resettlement agency's already". She added that it essentially re-opens the door to refugees being resettled in Texas. "It's a significant day in which the rule of law won," O'Mara Vignarajah said.

Yet another Trump Executive order is found to violate US law.
 
There was no violation of law. This was a decision by the courts to a suit that was filed.

The court ruled against state rights.
I'm sure there will be appeals to the decision.

What will you say when blue sanctuary states can no longer handle the influx of illegals?

The court ruled according to US law. Don't like the law? Change it.
 
The court ruled according to US law. Don't like the law? Change it.

LOL
So when I go to court and the judge rules against my motion based on wording in a statute, I'm in "violation of law"? Interesting. Looks like I'm on my way to jail.
Your wording shows you have no clue what you are talking about.
 
LOL
So when I go to court and the judge rules against my motion based on wording in a statute, I'm in "violation of law"? Interesting. Looks like I'm on my way to jail.
Your wording shows you have no clue what you are talking about.

And I quote, so you perhaps can understand why the judge ruled the way he did....

[Judge] Messitte said the agencies are likely to succeed in showing that the executive order is unlawful. "Refugee resettlement activity should go forward as it developed for the almost 40 years before the (executive order) was announced," he wrote in his 31-page ruling. Messitte added Trump's order doesn't appear to serve the "overall public interest".

I know you may get flummoxed, but try and digest the gist of what the judge stated.
 
The court ruled according to US law. Don't like the law? Change it.

Let me make it easy for you. I'll give you an example.
Did the court rule against Trump on his travel ban restriction, based on your wording "according to US law"?
What happened in that case?
That case was appealed and the Supreme Court upheld the ban.
 
Let me make it easy for you. I'll give you an example.
Did the court rule against Trump on his travel ban restriction, based on your wording "according to US law"?
What happened in that case?
That case was appealed and the Supreme Court upheld the ban.
I'm not I understand your argument here.

Are you saying that the Court will rule for Trump this time because they did previously on an entirely different issue?
 
And I quote, so you perhaps can understand why the judge ruled the way he did....



I know you may get flummoxed, but try and digest the gist of what the judge stated.

Wasn't the same wording used when Obama issued an executive order for DACA?
Obama even admitted that he overstepped Congress authority on the issue.
 
I'm not I understand your argument here.

Are you saying that the Court will rule for Trump this time because they did previously on an entirely different issue?

No that's not the discussion.
If you read the posts, Rogue Valley says "Yet another Trump Executive order is found to violate US law."
His wording is wrong. He wants to make the impression that Trump has another impeachable offense, he violated the law once again.
It's possible their will be appeals, not by the feds, but by the states that don't want forced resettlement in their states. I don't think Trump cares where the illegals resettle. He was giving the states the option to opt out.
 
The court ruled according to US law. Don't like the law? Change it.

not reading your own article makes you lose again.
this is just an injunction to stop it from taking affect.
that does not mean that it is not unlawful.

they haven't ruled on that yet.
 
No that's not the discussion.
If you read the posts, Rogue Valley says "Yet another Trump Executive order is found to violate US law."
His wording is wrong. He wants to make the impression that Trump has another impeachable offense, he violated the law once again.
It's possible their will be appeals, not by the feds, but by the states that don't want forced resettlement in their states. I don't think Trump cares where the illegals resettle. He was giving the states the option to opt out.

Obama had plenty of Eo's over turned by courts.
So i guess obama was a very unlawful president.
Same with clinton etc ...

no idea where these people get this nonsense from but it is scary.
 
Back
Top Bottom