Donald Trump's Immigration and Refugee Ban

[Prodromos]

So, people have a right to ignore court ruling as they see fit? That seems to be the message you're championing here.




Where was it confirmed before?

Kerry v Din I think.

[Ludicus]

Very disappointing for Trump's supporters that this administration isn't capable of framing a constitutionally valid EO on this matter.

Keep in mind that as a candidate (12/2015)Trump first proposed to bar all Muslims from entering the US.
He added that,

it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension​

He likes to talk about himself a lot...

[ByzantinePowerGame]

Another basic problem is that so far, ALL of the plaintiffs challenging Trumps executive order, *clearly* lack standing [Article III standing] to challenge the law.


It is all speculative, "we have green cards, we might not be able to return to the USA if we leave and try to come back, we want to challenge this law."

It is the equivalent of my saying, "you have a dog, your dog *MIGHT* bite me in the future, I want to sue now."

Until an actual green-card holder is stopped and turned away, because of the executive order, none of them have standing to bring forth suit.


Standing requires, amongst other elements, that the harms alleged must be fairly traceable to those from whom relief is sought. Massachusetts v. E.P.A., 549 U.S. 497 (2007).

Not a single one of the plaintiffs challenging the executive order has alleged a concrete, tangible, harm or a legal injury of any sort, let alone one that can be fairly traceable to Trump, the State Department, or the Executive Order.

[Cyclops]

In February one district court judge held that it was constitutional/valid and he refused to block it.

The first EO was challenged and the supreme court ruled the challenge was worth a hearing, so the judge's right to challenge has been vindicated in the first instance. I'll go with the US supreme court ruling on matters of US law over your assertions.

The EO is constitutionally valid and this area of law is not even subject to judicial review. Of the judges who think they are capable of reviewing it, most are getting it wrong.

Once again that will be tested by the courts competent to decide the matter: your assertion lacks much weight. Its not looking good for Trump though, he claimed "I think nobody knows the system better than I do" but he keeps stumbling over technical details. He may well force some kind of travel ban through eventually but if he keeps fumbling his moves like this his 100 days will be up and nothing will be done, then its quack limp quack.

Maybe he wants this ban to fail and that's why he keeps flubbing it? Or is he just incompetent?

[ByzantinePowerGame]

Trump should just go to Congress, and get Congress to pass a 20-30 year, or permanent [I could live with this], ban on entrance into the USA by Somali nationals. Invoke Art. 3, Sec 2. and make it clear the legislation is not subject to judicial review. Somalians can move to Australia if they want.

I do not believe Iran should be on the list because I have a very favorable view of Iran and all of the Iranians I know are respectful and decent people.


Trump does not want the ban to fail, he simply has an uphill battle against activist judges.

The first EO was challenged and the supreme court ruled the challenge was worth a hearing, so the judge's right to challenge has been vindicated in the first instance. I'll go with the US supreme court ruling on matters of US law over your assertions.

Just so you know, the Supreme Court of the United States has *NOT* ruled on any of Trumps EOs as of yet, so cite the case or retract your remark.

Trump's first EO was ruled on by a few District Courts and a partial panel from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals [which happens to be the Circuit Court of Appeals with the highest rate of being overturned by the Supreme Court of the United States].

The first EO was *NEVER* taken to SCOTUS [Supreme Court of the United States].

[PointOfViewGun]

Kerry v Din I think.

Care to quote the section where it has relevant judgment on the case of a blanket ban?

[Cyclops]

...

Just so you know, the Supreme Court of the United States has *NOT* ruled on any of Trumps EOs as of yet, so cite the case or retract your remark.

Trump's first EO was ruled on by a few District Courts and a partial panel from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals [which happens to be the Circuit Court of Appeals with the highest rate of being overturned by the Supreme Court of the United States].

The first EO was *NEVER* taken to SCOTUS [Supreme Court of the United States].

Quite right, thanks for pointing out my error.

The US justice system has allowed the point to be argued, and I will take that opinion over yours.

"Opting out" of a refugee influx the US has done a lot to create is a fairly weak and immoral position, and one designed I think to appeal to scum in the US. It may have some reasonable admirers as well but my strong impression is its for the Klan.

...Trump does not want the ban to fail, he simply has an uphill battle against activist judges.

Not 4D chess again?

[Infidel144]

It may have some reasonable admirers as well but my strong impression is its for the Klan.

Because it is very important to play to an organization with like 5000 members and no power or relevance...

[Ludicus]

Fresh news,

Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) | TwitterFOX NEWS ALERT: Jihadis using religious visa to enter US, experts warn (via @FoxFriendsFirst)

Fox news,

A U.S. visa program designed to temporarily admit religious workers from other countries may be letting jihadists into the country, security experts and religious leaders warn

Ah, religious leaders warn

[ByzantinePowerGame]

Quite right, thanks for pointing out my error.

The US justice system has allowed the point to be argued, and I will take that opinion over yours.

"Opting out" of a refugee influx the US has done a lot to create is a fairly weak and immoral position, and one designed I think to appeal to scum in the US. It may have some reasonable admirers as well but my strong impression is its for the Klan.



Not 4D chess again?

Stating a "law is designed to appeal to scum" in a thread where some of the posters support the law, is probably highly offensive and might even be flaming or flame-baiting.


I believe the gun confiscation in Australia was a law that was designed to appeal to the weak, the stupid, and those with a collectivist herd mentality, but I don't go around broadcasting that view into the faces of Australians.

[Prodromos]

Care to quote the section where it has relevant judgment on the case of a blanket ban?

Well US law and tradition shows that the president can ban virtually any foreigner's entry, regardless of whether it's a batch of five people or fifty million, especially in cases of national security or if it is part of the country's foreign policy. Trump is not issuing a ban on all Canadians here. It is not even a Muslim ban. It's just a handful of terrorist and failed states, and likely with exceptions for refugees and medical emergencies, etc.

[Cyclops]

Stating a "law is designed to appeal to scum" in a thread where some of the posters support the law, is probably highly offensive and might even be flaming or flame-baiting.


I believe the gun confiscation in Australia was a law that was designed to appeal to the weak, the stupid, and those with a collectivist herd mentality, but I don't go around broadcasting that view into the faces of Australians.

That's little fragile and hasty of you to misread and oversensitively respond like this, maybe have a cup of tea and reread? Trump spouted lots of bigoted dog whistling promising a "Muslim ban" I believe these measures are an attempt at a half arsed fulfilment of that promise. They serve little purpose, and there's already MEGA SCREENING to in place so that waffle was more window dressing for frightened Okies.

Whatever the case for specific acts against certain places (and like you I have a difficult time equating Iran with say Somalia) I don't think this instances of US foreign policy is aimed at resolving real issues: like the majority of US foreign policy it plays almost 100% for domestic appearances (as we saw so disastrously under Obama, Bush, Clinton).

i agree the gun control measures in my country are largely window dressing for old ladies who were a bit concerned: we've had a lucky streak of no massacres but it's hardly a correlation. It was an act of good faith on the part of our shooters that they largely complied with it so it's a meh measure that let some people show maturity. Not mocking the US but we have a less divided society so we can have koombaya legislation occasionally.

[ByzantinePowerGame]

That's little fragile and hasty of you to misread and oversensitively respond like this, maybe have a cup of tea and reread? Trump spouted lots of bigoted dog whistling promising a "Muslim ban" I believe these measures are an attempt at a half arsed fulfilment of that promise. They serve little purpose, and there's already MEGA SCREENING to in place so that waffle was more window dressing for frightened Okies.

Whatever the case for specific acts against certain places (and like you I have a difficult time equating Iran with say Somalia) I don't think this instances of US foreign policy is aimed at resolving real issues: like the majority of US foreign policy it plays almost 100% for domestic appearances (as we saw so disastrously under Obama, Bush, Clinton).

i agree the gun control measures in my country are largely window dressing for old ladies who were a bit concerned: we've had a lucky streak of no massacres but it's hardly a correlation. It was an act of good faith on the part of our shooters that they largely complied with it so it's a meh measure that let some people show maturity. Not mocking the US but we have a less divided society so we can have koombaya legislation occasionally.

The vetting is clearly insufficient because a number of green card holders, refugees, K1 fiancées from Islamic nations, have gone on to commit major acts of terrorism or attempted to commit such acts.

Although Saudi Arabia has been a highly problematic nation in terms of spawning radicals, they are not on the list, for obvious political/economic/oil reasons. They should be on the list.

[Infidel144]

The US justice system has allowed the point to be argued, and I will take that opinion over yours.

It seems five 9th Circuit judges have offered up an opinion on the decision from the 3 judge panel:
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...0en%20banc.pdf

There is a summary here:
http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/five...-ban-decision/

"In one of the most ruthless opinions issued of fellow panel judges, five judges from across the political spectrum in the Ninth Circuit went out of their way to issue an opinion about a dismissed appeal, to remind everybody just how embarrassingly bad the prior Ninth Circuit stay panel decision was on Trump’s travel ban."

[ByzantinePowerGame]

It seems five 9th Circuit judges have offered up an opinion on the decision from the 3 judge panel:
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...0en%20banc.pdf

There is a summary here:
http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/five...-ban-decision/

"In one of the most ruthless opinions issued of fellow panel judges, five judges from across the political spectrum in the Ninth Circuit went out of their way to issue an opinion about a dismissed appeal, to remind everybody just how embarrassingly bad the prior Ninth Circuit stay panel decision was on Trump’s travel ban."

The Executive Order of January 27, 2017, suspending the entry of certain aliens, was authorized by statute, and presidents have frequently exercised that authority through executive orders and presidential proclamations. Whatever we, as individuals, may feel about the President or the Executive Order, the President’s decision was well within the powers of the presidency, and “[t]he wisdom of the policy choices made by [the President] is not a matter for our consideration.” Sale v. Haitian Ctrs. Council, Inc., 509 U.S. 155, 165 (1993).

[Cyclops]

The vetting is clearly insufficient because a number of green card holders, refugees, K1 fiancées from Islamic nations, have gone on to commit major acts of terrorism or attempted to commit such acts.

Although Saudi Arabia has been a highly problematic nation in terms of spawning radicals, they are not on the list, for obvious political/economic/oil reasons. They should be on the list.

Our thinking is pretty close on all these issues. The Saudis in particular have shaped a lot of US foreign policy in Iraq and Syria which has increased the already devastated tide of refugees.

Not many refugees have done anything serious but that's possibly just luck. There is a certain amount of trouble that comes with brining refugees into your country, its the price citizens pay for their leaders being generous. In my country we have a problem with Sudanese kids forming gangs that are just beginning to realise they can swarm large public events with waves of phone stealing and other petty crime.

The cops are adjusting but there's been one or two ugly looking scenes (a hundred people robbed at a fireworks display in a quiet suburb) and it will take these kids a few off-the-books beatings (the cops have a fair amount of practice quelling the various ethnic-based gangs down the years from Irish vs English, Italian, Greek, Turk, Vietnamese, Lebanese, Somali and Islander) and quiet chats to their parents to calm them down.

In Sudan kids don't go out alone, they are told to look after each other, maybe try to be a bit entrepreneurial and many people think its wise to be armed in public just in case. In my country that adds up to gang activity, so they have to unlearn that to fit in. In the past it has worked, even for "alien" (that is non majority British culture) groups like the Pacific Islanders and Somalis.

So we have some bashings, a rash of petty thefts and that's the price we pay for being nice to Africa.

As for terrorism I think both the US and Australia have had more problems from citizens born in the country proportionately and absolutely: happy to be corrected if that's not right.

The Executive Order of January 27, 2017, suspending the entry of certain aliens, was authorized by statute, and presidents have frequently exercised that authority through executive orders and presidential proclamations. Whatever we, as individuals, may feel about the President or the Executive Order, the President’s decision was well within the powers of the presidency, and “[t]he wisdom of the policy choices made by [the President] is not a matter for our consideration.” Sale v. Haitian Ctrs. Council, Inc., 509 U.S. 155, 165 (1993).

Wow thanks for setting me straight on that one, seems you were completely right and my comment were completely uninformed.

I realised Trump has been getting the long handle from the Washington establishment, its real shame for judges to be getting in on the act. I know many (including me) find him an unattractive presidential option but there's no justification for political obstruction like this.

[PointOfViewGun]

Well US law and tradition shows that the president can ban virtually any foreigner's entry, regardless of whether it's a batch of five people or fifty million, especially in cases of national security or if it is part of the country's foreign policy. Trump is not issuing a ban on all Canadians here. It is not even a Muslim ban. It's just a handful of terrorist and failed states, and likely with exceptions for refugees and medical emergencies, etc.

Is that opinion of yours in the court case decision? If not, that's not what I asked for.

[B. W.]

Another victim of Obama's, Bush's, and the Left's legacy of open borders:

http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/14-y...-boys-bathroom

[Ludicus]

Another victim of Obama's, Bush's, and the Left's legacy of open borders:http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/14-y...-boys-bathroom

OK, let's talk about rape- most victims know their perpetrator. (82%).
Ex-USA Gymnastics team doctor faces 16 more abuse allegations
Rape on U.S. university campuses reaches 'epidemic' levels
Statistics, RAINN

Every 98 seconds, an American is sexually assaulted
The average age of rapists at arrest is 31
On average, American Indians ages 12 and older experience 5,900 sexual assaults per year. Native Americans are at the greatest risk of sexual violence.
18,900 military members experienced unwanted sexual contact in the year 2014.

--

[PointOfViewGun]

Another victim of Obama's, Bush's, and the Left's legacy of open borders:

http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/14-y...-boys-bathroom

They invented rape now? Plus, isn't open borders a legacy of the founding fathers?