Judge halts implementation of Trump's immigration order

[Jainarayan]

Did you read the statute?

You mean the executive order? It's not a statute it's an executive order granted by Article II of the Constitution. Or do you mean this 8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens? Yes, of course I read it.

Read why it's not unconstitutional.
Yes, The Trump Executive Order On Immigration Is Legal
Is Trump’s Muslim ban actually unconstitutional? Oddly enough… probably not - Hot Air

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

No.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No it's not. It's putting the brakes on a process that is an absolute mess. They aren't bannered for perpetuity. Get a grip.

Their home is in the US. Where are they supposed to go if or until the ban is lifted? It's ludicrous.

 

[Nous]

The whole paper is his personal analysis.

So you do not find any of Professor Cole's "personal analysis" on the issue of the Constitutional rights of aliens to be contrary to the Court's holdings, do you?

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

No one here has denied that the US government lacks the "sovereign power to deport aliens" generally, have they? In what way does "the sovereign power to deport aliens" supposed to relate to Trump's EO?

Are you trying to argue that Trump's EO is constitutional in denying entry to Darweesh, Alshawi and similar immigrants? If so, on what premise do you make that argument?

 

[Nous]

You mean the executive order? It's not a statute it's an executive order granted by Article II of the Constitution. Or do you mean this 8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens? Yes, of course I read it.

Then why didn't you answer my question: Nothing in [8 U.S. Code § 1182] 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?

Read why it's not unconstitutional.
Yes, The Trump Executive Order On Immigration Is Legal
Is Trump’s Muslim ban actually unconstitutional? Oddly enough… probably not - Hot Air

Do either of these blog posts that are the basis of your armchair opinion address the issue of the Due Process and Equal Protection rights guaranteed to immigrants such as Darweesh and Alshawi (et al.)?

No.

Judge Donnelly is of the opinion that "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". Give your argument to the contrary.

 

[habiru]

Their home is in the US. Where are they supposed to go if or until the ban is lifted? It's ludicrous.

Obama has brought them here without a home as well.

 

[Watchmen]

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

The borders are already secure? What a joke!

 

[habiru]

So then we

The borders are already secure? What a joke!

And so, we should not have a drug trafficking problem anymore. Now I can go outside and skip to my Lou.

 

[Watchmen]

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.

It's a temporary hold on high risk countries. Did you cry when Obama implemented a ban against Iraqis?

 

[Jainarayan]

Then why didn't you answer my question: Nothing in [8 U.S. Code § 1182] 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?

Not correct.

Do either of these blog posts that are the basis of your armchair opinion address the issue of the Due Process and Equal Protection rights guaranteed to immigrants such as Darweesh and Alshawi (et al.)?

See the sources quoted.

Judge Donnelly is of the opinion that "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". Give your argument to the contrary.

My argument to the contrary is that judges' rulings can be, and are often overturned.

Instead of everyone getting their jimmies rustled, either take positive action or let it play out. You can't do anything about it by arguing on the internet. I said what I had to say about the US Code and Constitution, and that's all I have to say. I'm not going to be drawn into what I think about it, nor am I going to repeat myself.

 

[Nous]

Not correct.

Prove it. Substantiate your claim that the statute allows a President's EO to deny the Constitutional rights of lawful immigrants

My argument to the contrary is that judges' rulings can be, and are often overturned.

The fact that "judges' rulings can be and are often overturned" does not lead to the conclusion that Trump's EO is constitutional.

Obviously you have no such argument that Trump's EO is constitutional.

 

[Mister_T]

It's a temporary hold on high risk countries. Did you cry when Obama implemented a ban against Iraqis?

Not at all the same. For one, Obama's "ban" did not affect green card holders.

Sorry, Mr. President: The Obama Administration Did Nothing Similar to Your Immigration Ban

Have any more false equivalencies you'd like to share with the class?

 

[Jainarayan]

Prove it. Substantiate your claim that the statute allows a President's EO to deny the Constitutional rights of lawful immigrants

The fact that "judges' rulings can be and are often overturned" does not lead to the conclusion that Trump's EO is constitutional.

Obviously you have no such argument that Trump's EO is constitutional.

Read the link and read your history. Is Trump’s Muslim ban actually unconstitutional? Oddly enough… probably not - Hot Air Can you deny Carter's ban happened?

It’s not the first time a U.S. president has moved to block specific migrant groups from entering the country, and there are loopholes in current federal law that could make Trump’s ban possible.

In fact, the last six presidents have shut U.S. borders for certain groups of people. Most famously, Jimmy Carter banned Iranians during the Iran hostage crisis.

Carter did this using his executive authority under the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, which gives the president the power to deny entry to immigrants that are deemed “unlawful, immoral, diseased in any way, politically radical etc.”

 

[Nous]

Read the link and read your history. Is Trump’s Muslim ban actually unconstitutional? Oddly enough… probably not - Hot Air Can you deny Carter's ban happened?

It’s not the first time a U.S. president has moved to block specific migrant groups from entering the country, and there are loopholes in current federal law that could make Trump’s ban possible.

In fact, the last six presidents have shut U.S. borders for certain groups of people. Most famously, Jimmy Carter banned Iranians during the Iran hostage crisis.

Carter did this using his executive authority under the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, which gives the president the power to deny entry to immigrants that are deemed “unlawful, immoral, diseased in any way, politically radical etc.”

How is any of that supposed to make Trump's EO constitutional?

Do you know how to make an argument? If so, make one.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

Do you think that your borders aren't secured right now?

 

[Jainarayan]

How is any of that supposed to make Trump's EO constitutional?

One word: precedent.

Do you know how to make an argument? If so, make one.

I do, and I have. But it's not what you want to hear.

 

[Nous]

One word: precedent.

Cite the precedent.

I do, and I have. But it's not what you want to hear.

I definitely do want to see you state an argument by which to conclude that Trump's order denying entry to immigrants such as Darweesh and Alshawi (et al.) is constitutional:

P1: [. . .]
P2: [. . .]
C: Therefore, Trump's EO violating the Due Process and Equal Protection rights of Darweesh and Alshawi et al. is constitutional.

 

[metis]

The issue of the ban also may well include "intent" in court. The fact that Trump campaigned on having a blanket Muslim ban (he altered that later though), along with Giuliani's admission that Trump asked how he could pull off such a blanket ban legally, could be used against him.

 

[Jainarayan]

Cite the precedent.

I'm repeating myself, and I do not like doing that. So this will be the last time.

In fact, the last six presidents have shut U.S. borders for certain groups of people. Most famously, Jimmy Carter banned Iranians during the Iran hostage crisis.

Carter did this using his executive authority under the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, which gives the president the power to deny entry to immigrants that are deemed “unlawful, immoral, diseased in any way, politically radical etc.”

I definitely do want to see you state an argument by which to conclude that Trump's order denying entry to immigrants such as Darweesh and Alshawi (et al.) is constitutional:

I've done that. Now, you tell me why it's unconstitutional. And no First Amendment or Fourteenth Amendment because they are not being violated.

 

[Nous]

Cite the precedent.

I'm repeating myself, and I do not like doing that. So this will be the last time.

In fact, the last six presidents have shut U.S. borders for certain groups of people. Most famously, Jimmy Carter banned Iranians during the Iran hostage crisis.

Carter did this using his executive authority under the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, which gives the president the power to deny entry to immigrants that are deemed “unlawful, immoral, diseased in any way, politically radical etc.”

You need to look up the word "precedent". You haven't cited any precedent.

I definitely do want to see you state an argument by which to conclude that Trump's order denying entry to immigrants such as Darweesh and Alshawi (et al.) is constitutional:

P1: [. . .]
P2: [. . .]
C: Therefore, Trump's EO violating the Due Process and Equal Protection rights of Darweesh and Alshawi et al. is constitutional.

I've done that.

False. All you have to do is fill in the blanks:

P1: [. . .]
P2: [. . .]
C: Therefore, Trump's EO violating the Due Process and Equal Protection rights of Darweesh and Alshawi et al. is constitutional.

 

[Nous]

Now, you tell me why it's unconstitutional.

Done did. It violates the Due Process and Equal Protection rights of immigrants such as Darweesh and Alshawi.

And no First Amendment or Fourteenth Amendment because they are not being violated.

Prove it. Cite the precedent, state the argument.