Judge halts implementation of Trump's immigration order

[Watchmen]

I would rather die in my circle than "live" in yours.

(I'll take singing over whimpering any day).

Not whimpering at all. Just kicking ***.

 

[Watchmen]

You're very paranoid and frightened. You probably have a better chance of being struck by lightning than your mythical situation. You must not live in America.
What are hippie songs? Classic rock? I bet you hate Jimi Hendrix too.

Nope. Just need to secure are horse

You're very paranoid and frightened. You probably have a better chance of being struck by lightning than your mythical situation. You must not live in America.
What are hippie songs? Classic rock? I bet you hate Jimi Hendrix too.

nope. Just want secure borders.

 

[Watchmen]

Talk about being short-sided.

Nope! It's those who don't want to secure our borders who are short sighted!

 

[Jainarayan]

the Supreme Court will try to rule it unconstitutional, which is their job.

Then they will do their job. The melodrama, hyperbole and emotions from all quarters are not making the situation any clearer.

 

[Jainarayan]

are you sure? do they not have any agreements and treaties and laws concerning immigration.

You tell me. Immigration to the United States - Wikipedia
Most claims about Trump's visa Executive Order are false or misleading

Did you read the link to 8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens? 8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens

 

[Curious George]

Read the code. If you think something is amiss go to Congress and the Supreme Court. No one has offered anything but their armchair lawyers oinions and emotions. Read the code.

I think that plenty here are not responding emotionally. I think it rather matter of fact to say that Trump suggested he was going to issue a ban based on religion. Then to see this which disproportionately effects Muslims and comment that Trump has signed an act that is not constitutional. This is not a knee jerk response. And while I am not filing suit, others are based on violations of due process and equal protection. You may not like that others have rational opinions on the matter, but they do. Why not debate the opinions instead of bemoaning and whining that such opinions exist.

 

[tytlyf]

Nope. Just need to secure are horse

nope. Just want secure borders.

The borders are already secure. How's the wall on the Canada side coming along? Can't have secure borders without it.

 

[Jainarayan]

I think it rather matter of fact to say that Trump suggested he was going to issue a ban based on religion.

Give me the reason why it's unconstitutional. Cite court cases. What one thinks the Constitution is for is not the same as what it actually is for, or what the Supreme Court says it's for.

Wishing, hoping and wanting do not make something so.

Then to see this which disproportionately effects Muslims

The countries on the list are overwhelmingly Muslim. That is a shame, and sad for the truly honest people wanting to flee their native countries. However, those countries have without question been the ones to foment, condone, encourage terrorism. Sorry, but I'd rather err on the side of caution. Moreover, these people haven't been permanently banned or denied entrance to the US.

...Trump has signed an act that is not constitutional.

Again, prove it. If I am wrong, so be it. But I've posted a couple of links about it. Where are yours countering mine?

You may not like that others have rational opinions on the matter, but they do. Why not debate the opinions instead of bemoaning and whining that such opinions exist.

People can have opinions, just don't tout them as facts. Opinions are:

• "I think the US should have open immigration and permit everyone to enter."
• "I don't."

Those are opinions.

 

[esmith]

The borders are already secure. How's the wall on the Canada side coming along? Can't have secure borders without it.

If the borders are secure how come there seems to be an epidemic of opiate deaths here from opiates crossing the Mexico-U.S. border?

 

[tytlyf]

If the borders are secure how come there seems to be an epidemic of opiate deaths here from opiates crossing the Mexico-U.S. border?

Opiates are good business. A wall won't stop any of it. Opiates have been coming from Mexico and beyond for decades. Do you really think a wall will change anything?

 

[esmith]

Opiates are good business. A wall won't stop any of it. Opiates have been coming from Mexico and beyond for decades. Do you really think a wall will change anything?

Depends on the implementation of a wall also whether it is a physical wall or of some other sort or a combination of. No nothing is going to totally stop drugs from crossing the borders but could slow them down. Are you against reducing the flow of drugs into the US?

 

[tytlyf]

Depends on the implementation of a wall also whether it is a physical wall or of some other sort or a combination of. No nothing is going to totally stop drugs from crossing the borders but could slow them down. Are you against reducing the flow of drugs into the US?

When Trump mentioned wall prior to the election, he was referring to a physical wall. Currently, Obama has expanded our secure borders with additional technology that does a better job than a wall. So now Mexico is going to pay for this stuff that isn't a physical wall? Or is Trump flip-flopping on his core policy that got him elected?
The only thing that will slow down drugs coming in from Mexico is to either start legalizing certain drugs or cut down the demand. Cartels are extremely wealthy and intelligent. They'll always find a way in.
I don't care if the drugs stop coming in or not. Doesn't affect me.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

The borders are already secure. How's the wall on the Canada side coming along? Can't have secure borders without it.

After we elected Trump the Canadians gladly built and paid for a wall.

 

[Curious George]

Give me the reason why it's unconstitutional. Cite court cases. What one thinks the Constitution is for is not the same as what it actually is for, or what the Supreme Court says it's for.

Wishing, hoping and wanting do not make something so.



The countries on the list are overwhelmingly Muslim. That is a shame, and sad for the truly honest people wanting to flee their native countries. However, those countries have without question been the ones to foment, condone, encourage terrorism. Sorry, but I'd rather err on the side of caution. Moreover, these people haven't been permanently banned or denied entrance to the US.



Again, prove it. If I am wrong, so be it. But I've posted a couple of links about it. Where are yours countering mine?



People can have opinions, just don't tout them as facts. Opinions are:

• "I think the US should have open immigration and permit everyone to enter."
• "I don't."

Those are opinions.

Your argument is that the law does not target Muslims? Or your argument is the Muslims that are targeted are not protected therefore the action is legal?

I'm not sure where you are going. Or what exactly is your opinion. We will have to define which part of the argument you want to address as there is no silver bullet case of which I am aware.

 

[Nous]

Read the code.

Did you read the statute? Nothing in it suggests that persons such as Mr. Darweesh and Mr. Alshawi and the many others similarly situated can be denied entry into the US without due process. Correct?

Are you just bewildered as to how a federal judge could possibly grant these these immigrants and the others included in the order (i.e., all “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”) injunctive relief? What do you think could be Judge Donnelly's basis for her order?

You are welcome to answer those questions from your armchair.

 

[Nous]

Thanks for sharing someone's personal legal opinion. However, the Supreme Court states, in terms of foreigners:

"The power to deport aliens is inherent in every sovereign state ... The policy toward aliens is so exclusively entrusted to the political branches of the Government as to be largely immune from judicial inquiry or interference ... " HARISIADES v. SHAUGHNESSY, Supreme Court

I didn't see where Professor Cole stated any “personal opinion” in that article. If you believe that he stated any opinion that is contrary to the Court's holdings, then quote it and show it. He cited Harisiades v. Shaughnessy in the most relevant context to the discussion here, together with Dennis v. United States in footnote 69:

Perhaps the most common argument for reduced constitutional protection for noncitizens invokes what the Supreme Court has called the political branches' "plenary power" over immigration.[66] The doctrine, founded on notions of the sovereign's inherent power to control its borders, counsels considerable judicial deference in reviewing the substantive terms Congress sets for admission. But the plenary power doctrine is frequently overstated and has been narrowed by Supreme Court decisions. In 2001, for example, the Court summarily rejected the government's assertion of plenary power in a case involving indefinite detention of criminal non-nationals, insisting that the plenary power "is subject to important constitutional limitations."[67]

In particular, the plenary immigration power does not justify differential treatment of foreign nationals' First Amendment speech and associational rights or Fifth Amendment due process rights. Indeed, the Supreme Court has insisted that the First and Fifth Amendments acknowledge no distinctions between citizens and noncitizens residing here.[68] When the United States government argued in the Cold War that Congress had plenary power to deport foreign nationals for their speech and associations, the Court declined to adopt that contention, but instead upheld the challenged immigration law under the then-prevailing First Amendment standard for citizens.[69] Similarly, with one exception, the Court has generally applied the same due process analysis to preventive detention of foreigners in immigration proceedings and of citizens in criminal and civil commitment settings, treating the cases interchangeably.[70]​

http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1302&context=facpub

Do you find any erroneous opinion there?

 

[Mister_T]

Nope! It's those who don't want to secure our borders who are short sighted!

Did you know that you can secure borders and not blanket-ban entire groups of people? Of course you did, but it's so much easier I guess to embrace prejudice than have any inconvenient grey areas that require some critical thinking.

 

[Nous]

Give me the reason why it's unconstitutional.

Trump's EO is unconstitutional because it violates the Due Process and Equal Protection rights of immigrants such as Mr. Darweesh and Mr. Alshawi.

 

[Jainarayan]

Your argument is that the law does not target Muslims?

Correct. And it's not a law, it's an executive order. The powers are granted in Article II of the Constitution to the POTUS.

Or your argument is the Muslims that are targeted are not protected therefore the action is legal?

Christians from those countries are affected too. As of now, the EO is not illegal.

I'm not sure where you are going. Or what exactly is your opinion.

My opinion is my own. I'm simply presenting the laws.

We will have to define which part of the argument you want to address as there is no silver bullet case of which I am aware.

No we won't. I'll continue to hammer away at the links saying this is not illegal, but my opinion on this and Trump is my own affair. I have not expressed my opinion, nor will I.

 

[buddhist]

I didn't see where Professor Cole stated any “personal opinion” in that article. If you believe that he stated any opinion that is contrary to the Court's holdings, then quote it and show it. He cited Harisiades v. Shaughnessy in the most relevant context to the discussion here, together with Dennis v. United States in footnote 69:

Perhaps the most common argument for reduced constitutional protection for noncitizens invokes what the Supreme Court has called the political branches' "plenary power" over immigration.[66] The doctrine, founded on notions of the sovereign's inherent power to control its borders, counsels considerable judicial deference in reviewing the substantive terms Congress sets for admission. But the plenary power doctrine is frequently overstated and has been narrowed by Supreme Court decisions. In 2001, for example, the Court summarily rejected the government's assertion of plenary power in a case involving indefinite detention of criminal non-nationals, insisting that the plenary power "is subject to important constitutional limitations."[67]

In particular, the plenary immigration power does not justify differential treatment of foreign nationals' First Amendment speech and associational rights or Fifth Amendment due process rights. Indeed, the Supreme Court has insisted that the First and Fifth Amendments acknowledge no distinctions between citizens and noncitizens residing here.[68] When the United States government argued in the Cold War that Congress had plenary power to deport foreign nationals for their speech and associations, the Court declined to adopt that contention, but instead upheld the challenged immigration law under the then-prevailing First Amendment standard for citizens.[69] Similarly, with one exception, the Court has generally applied the same due process analysis to preventive detention of foreigners in immigration proceedings and of citizens in criminal and civil commitment settings, treating the cases interchangeably.[70]​

http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1302&context=facpub

Do you find any erroneous opinion there?

The whole paper is his personal analysis.

I am speaking of the sovereign power to deport aliens - not detention of foreigners.