Trump sacks defiant acting attorney general

[Revoltingest]

A responsible government makes sure that its policies are legal before implementing them.

Perhaps we'll get one of those some day.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

You didn't answer my question. I can find stuff to read on my own. If you don't want to discuss it, that's fine.

Whatever.

 

[Revoltingest]

The Cato Institute weigsh in against Trump's ban.....
Analyzing Trump’s Immigrant & Refugee Ban

 

[Jainarayan]

Its called doing her job as the president is not above the law, though try as they may. Attorneys are obliged to go with the constitution above the will of a potential tyrant.

It has not been decided by the US Supreme Court, which interprets the Constitution, whether the EO is constitutional or not. Ann Donnelly's ruling is not final. Moreover, she only ordered a temporary stay. She did not invalidate the order. Unless and until the SCOTUS rules on it, if it ever gets there, it's legal and constitutional. Given that, she was insubordinate in telling her subordinates to disregard their superior's order.

 

[Mindmaster]

@4consideration - the ACLU has posted a blog post outlining why they believe the immigration ban violates the Establishment Clause:

We’ll See You in Court: Why Trump’s Executive Order on Refugees Violates the Establishment Clause

The ACLU has been in libtard la-la land for awhile, I actually don't even respect them. They are now a nutjob activist group, not a civil rights organization. Case in point, Trump didn't ban Muslims, he banned countries. They know that, I know that, their article is thus deceptive from the very first statement. Few Arab countries are religiously homogeneous, and many contain several different versions of Islam as well as Christianity, Yezidis, etc... The ban certainly will affect anyone...

By the US Constitution, foreigners have absolutely no rights in our country other than those that we afford them by treaties or issuing them green cards and visas. So before anyone gets outraged, realize that there is nothing to be worked up over.

1) They have no rights here.

2) We can block them for absolutely zero reason other than we don't like them. We can even block them due to them being Muslim. Our constitution only protects our citizens, not any random Joe on the planet. You are safe and protected from religious discrimination if you are a citizen or a green card holder, not anything else. Green card holders are basically afforded all rights of a citizen if they are in good standing, so that is the only exception.

3) Blocking them is preferable to military or police action, if you want to take the moral high road.

Anyone failing to understand these concepts is either a leftists propaganda agent, simply trying to be deceptive, or just plain lacking in intellectual prowess. Maybe, just maybe, all of the above.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Unless and until the SCOTUS rules on it, if it ever gets there, it's legal and constitutional.

Well, no. If it's unconstitutional, it's unconstitutional even before the court rules on it.

 

[Jainarayan]

Well, no. If it's unconstitutional, it's unconstitutional even before the court rules on it.

It can't be unconstitutional until the body that judges the Constitution says it's unconstitutional. That's as nonsensical as saying a constitutional amendment is unconstitutional. It's unconstitutional to you, but that doesn't make it unconstitutional legally.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

By the US Constitution, foreigners have absolutely no rights in our country other than those that we afford them by treaties or issuing them green cards and visas. So before anyone gets outraged, realize that there is nothing to be worked up over.

1) They have no rights here.

Not true. For instance, people on visas still have the right to habeas corpus, as well as other rights. This is the main reason why the Gitmo detainees ended up at Gitmo instead of on US soil.

2) We can block them for absolutely zero reason other than we don't like them. We can even block them due to them being Muslim. Our constitution only protects our citizens, not any random Joe on the planet. You are safe and protected from religious discrimination if you are a citizen or a green card holder, not anything else. Anything else, you can gtfo, generally.

Again: not true. All of the restrictions on government still apply to government actions toward visa-holders and immigrants. No individual non-citizen is entitled to enter the US, but the US is also prohibited from setting immigration policy on the basis of religion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It can't be unconstitutional until the body that judges the Constitution says it's unconstitutional. That's as nonsensical as saying a constitutional amendment is unconstitutional. It's unconstitutional to you, but that doesn't make it unconstitutional legally.

When the supreme court rules that some act was unconstitutional, that means it was illegal right from the moment the act occurred.

Edit: do you also think that a murder was legal until the moment the judge says "guilty"?

 

[Scuba Pete]

Sally Yates is my newest hero. She has scruples and integrity. I love this Youtube involving her and the Komrade Trumpsky nominee for the same position:

 

[Jeremiahcp]

@Jeremiahcp - this bit from one of the stories is especially problematic:



Many of the rights in the Constitution are phrased as restrictions on government, not as rights of the people, so in many cases, it's irrelevant whether an immigrant or visa-holder is part of "the people" or not.

That's a good point. Really I just wanted to make sure I also posted the counter argument as well. My main criticisms of his EO is the thoughtless and reckless nature in which it was passed, and the firing of Yates for doing what is exactly her job. And now, the firing of Yates has just turned into a lighting rod for the Democrats to block Sessions.

However,regardless of the legality of the EO I still find it ethically objectionable, and it certainly does not endorse the spirit of the US Constitution. Personally, my principles do not end at US borders. I am an American citizen whether I am here in Montana, or over in the Middle East. Maybe the same cannot be said of Donald Trump, perhaps he is only a US citizen when it is convenient for him.

 

[Jainarayan]

When the supreme court rules that some act was unconstitutional, that means it was illegal right from the moment the act occurred.

They have not ruled on it yet.If and when they rule on it, then it will be legal or illegal. But as of today they have not ruled on it. So based on Article II and USC 1182, at this moment, it's legal.

Edit: do you also think that a murder was legal until the moment the judge says "guilty"?

It's already on the books.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's already on the books.

And the Constitution isn't?

 

[Mindmaster]

Not true. For instance, people on visas still have the right to habeas corpus, as well as other rights. This is the main reason why the Gitmo detainees ended up at Gitmo instead of on US soil.


Again: not true. All of the restrictions on government still apply to government actions toward visa-holders and immigrants. Non individual non-citizen is entitled to enter the US, but the US is also prohibited from setting immigration policy on the basis of religion.

Habeas corpus has been suspended several times, and can be done on executive order if national security warrants it. Since it can be suspended, they certainly do not have a right to it. I suggest you do some reading on Roosevelt, Grant, and Lincoln -- all of whom suspended it in certain cases. G. W. Bush also suspended it for Gitmo detainees, which means they never had it. The supreme court ruled against GW over Gitmo because of the human rights violations, lack of trials, and the indefinite nature of the imprisonment. Certainly, none of those things apply in this case. The other ruling wouldn't even set a qualified precedent here... Which would be the sticker, if there were any...

The rights in the bill of rights are guidelines for our treatment of others (in the light of being fair), but they are not a mandate as they are with the citizens proper. Essentially, our courts are being nice to treat you fairly, but you are not afforded the exact same privilege as a US citizen in any case. Our laws also don't extend over citizens of other countries, their countries have their own laws. This is the problem that the ACLU cannot fundamentally grok... A Yemeni citizen has the rights of what being as such gives them, and what we extend to them as guests. We can pull up the rug at any time, if it is as simple as we don't like you or your crazy version of Islam it's valid.

 

[4consideration]

Basically, the convention requires that if a refugee arrives at a port of entry to a country that signed the convention, that country is obliged to accept the refugee with only very narrow exceptions.

See Article 32 - Expulsion:

Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees


I've read news reports about them. I haven't read transcripts of briefings or anything like that.


Depends what you mean. The US can set its own immigration and visa policy (within the limits of the law), but it's obliged to uphold all treaty obligations, including during any change in its processes.

I haven't yet taken the time to read everything you posted yet before responding here, but before I log off for a while, I just wanted to point out that I think some of these issues may be addressed in the press briefing from today, that I posted in #76.

Just to make it easier to find, here's a part of it I think is relevant to what we're discussing here.

(I can't tell what they guy is saying his last name is. He's Kevin M. of US Homeland Security Secretary Kelly Says Knew | Video | C-SPAN.org and Border Protection.) Approx. 6:16 - 6:52.

"The Executive Order calls for refugees that were ready to travel, where it would cause undue hardship, that they should be considered for waivers. We've done that, in concert with our Dept. of State colleagues.

872 refugees will be arriving this week, and we'll be processing them for waivers through the end of the week, and that's fully coordinated.

As Secretary Kelly noted, we are responding immediately to any court orders, uh, we did so quickly on Friday night with the Eastern District of New York order, and those parties that were affected by that order were processed for waivers and admitted into the United States."

 

[ADigitalArtist]

The Cato Institute weigsh in against Trump's ban.....
Analyzing Trump’s Immigrant & Refugee Ban

So we now live in a world where Michael Moore, Dick Cheney, Lindsay Lohan and the CATO Institute all agree on something.
You know you've messed up when...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I haven't yet taken the time to read everything you posted yet before responding here, but before I log off for a while, I just wanted to point out that I think some of these issues may be addressed in the press briefing from today, that I posting in my post #76.

Just to make it easier to find, here's a part of it I think is relative to what we're discussing here.

(I can't tell what they guy is saying his last name is. He's Kevin M. of US Homeland Security Secretary Kelly Says Knew | Video | C-SPAN.org and Border Protection.) Approx. 6:16 - 6:52.

"The Executive Order calls for refugees that were ready to travel, where it would cause undue hardship, that they should be considered for waivers. We've done that, in concert with our Dept. of State colleagues.

872 refugees will be arriving this week, and we'll be processing them for waivers through the end of the week, and that's fully coordinated.

As Secretary Kelly noted, we are responding immediately to any court orders, uh, we did so quickly on Friday night with the Eastern District of New York order, and those parties that were affected by that order were processed for waivers and admitted into the United States."

That only addresses part of the issue. Governments can take measures to stop refugees landing on their soil, but if the refugees make it, they're protected against being expelled. As I understand it, the Executive Order would have required, say, that a Cuban refugee who lands on the shore of Key West be sent back to Cuba. That's one way in which the Executive Order would be illegal.

 

[Jainarayan]

And the Constitution isn't?

I can't... I just can't... I... I... I give up.

 

[Mindmaster]

"The Executive Order calls for refugees that were ready to travel, where it would cause undue hardship, that they should be considered for waivers. We've done that, in concert with our Dept. of State colleagues.

872 refugees will be arriving this week, and we'll be processing them for waivers through the end of the week, and that's fully coordinated.

As Secretary Kelly noted, we are responding immediately to any court orders, uh, we did so quickly on Friday night with the Eastern District of New York order, and those parties that were affected by that order were processed for waivers and admitted into the United States."

QFT, tbh.

No one who was "in transit" was stuck, only if there were some overriding reasons to do as such. Anyone that was promised a ride to the land of dreams is getting one, and done.

 

[metis]

I'm pretty sure she well knew what she was getting into and was willing to pay the price, so I give her tons of credit for standing up to the religious bigotry that she was not willing to defend.

"To cooperate with evil is evil"-- Gandhi