ACLU Wins - Federal Judge Just Issued A Stay Against Trump's Muslim Ban

[Jimmy Higgins]

Haven't we already broken the law here?

...while creating an exception to allow Muslims in those 7 countries to enter the U.S. The exception is discretionary.

And the exception is cute. Look, we aren't banning blacks from eating at the counter, we do offer exceptions to the ban.

It is ass backwards. The policy was to allow Muslim refugees to come to the US, with the exception of people we felt would have the intention of harming the US. Now the policy is to not allow Muslims from non-profitable nations to come into the US, with the exception of Muslims that are deemed not a threat... well... kind of. Granted, we won't even let them get on the plane to arrive at a US airport, which pretty much means they can't come despite all the red tape they may have already gone through.

What's your point?

It's about "the exception". We can pretend that the exception is somehow designed to prevent a flat out ban, but in reality, the exception applies to such a very small number of people, and if those abroad can not have access to the exception, this means it is a flat out ban with an asterisk placed in there to create the illusion of this not being a simple ban on Muslims.

 

[James Madison]

Haven't we already broken the law here?

...while creating an exception to allow Muslims in those 7 countries to enter the U.S. The exception is discretionary.

And the exception is cute. Look, we aren't banning blacks from eating at the counter, we do offer exceptions to the ban.

It is ass backwards. The policy was to allow Muslim refugees to come to the US, with the exception of people we felt would have the intention of harming the US. Now the policy is to not allow Muslims from non-profitable nations to come into the US, with the exception of Muslims that are deemed not a threat... well... kind of. Granted, we won't even let them get on the plane to arrive at a US airport, which pretty much means they can't come despite all the red tape they may have already gone through.

What's your point?

It's about "the exception". We can pretend that the exception is somehow designed to prevent a flat out ban, but in reality, the exception applies to such a very small number of people, and if those abroad can not have access to the exception, this means it is a flat out ban with an asterisk placed in there to create the illusion of this not being a simple ban on Muslims.

Okay. I have actually had the opportunity to read the entire EO. The EO does the following: 1.) Complete ban of all people in 7 countries from entering the U.S., for a specified amount of time, with an exception. 2.) Suspends, for 120 days, the U.S. Refugee Admission Program and 3.) Suspends, without an expiring time limit, people in Syria from entering the U.S. as a refugee.

1. Absolute and complete ban on all people in 7 countries. Those 7 countries are Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. Section 3(c) reads, "I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order"

This is hardly a "ban of Muslims" or a "Muslim ban."

The exception is in Section 3(g), which reads,"(g) Notwithstanding a suspension pursuant to subsection (c) of this section or pursuant to a Presidential proclamation described in subsection (e) of this section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may, on a case-by-case basis, and when in the national interest, issue visas or other immigration benefits to nationals of countries for which visas and benefits are otherwise blocked.

2. Section 5 says:
A.) Suspend for 120 days the United States Refugee Admissions Program. "The Secretary of State shall suspend the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) for 120 days." See Section 5(a).

This affects Muslim and non-Muslim alike.

The exception is in Section 5(e) which reads, "Notwithstanding the temporary suspension imposed pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may jointly determine to admit individuals to the United States as refugees on a case-by-case basis, in their discretion, but only so long as they determine that the admission of such individuals as refugees is in the national interest -- including when the person is a religious minority in his country of nationality facing religious persecution, when admitting the person would enable the United States to conform its conduct to a preexisting international agreement, or when the person is already in transit and denying admission would cause undue hardship -- and it would not pose a risk to the security or welfare of the United States."

B.) Suspends admission of people from Syria into the U.S. under refugee status. Section 5 (c) says, "Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry of nationals of Syria as refugees is detrimental to the interests of the United States and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I have determined that sufficient changes have been made to the USRAP to ensure that admission of Syrian refugees is consistent with the national interest."

Okay, so, this EO is not a "Muslim ban" or a "ban on Muslims."

 

[dismal]

Since I just linked this in another thread here is the relevant law (section 212(f)):

(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Haven't we already broken the law here?

...while creating an exception to allow Muslims in those 7 countries to enter the U.S. The exception is discretionary.

And the exception is cute. Look, we aren't banning blacks from eating at the counter, we do offer exceptions to the ban.

It is ass backwards. The policy was to allow Muslim refugees to come to the US, with the exception of people we felt would have the intention of harming the US. Now the policy is to not allow Muslims from non-profitable nations to come into the US, with the exception of Muslims that are deemed not a threat... well... kind of. Granted, we won't even let them get on the plane to arrive at a US airport, which pretty much means they can't come despite all the red tape they may have already gone through.

What's your point?

It's about "the exception". We can pretend that the exception is somehow designed to prevent a flat out ban, but in reality, the exception applies to such a very small number of people, and if those abroad can not have access to the exception, this means it is a flat out ban with an asterisk placed in there to create the illusion of this not being a simple ban on Muslims.

Okay. I have actually had the opportunity to read the entire EO. The EO does the following: 1.) Complete ban of all people in 7 countries from entering the U.S., for a specified amount of time, with an exception. 2.) Suspends, for 120 days, the U.S. Refugee Admission Program and 3.) Suspends, without an expiring time limit, people in Syria from entering the U.S. as a refugee.

1. Absolute and complete ban on all people in 7 countries. Those 7 countries are Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. Section 3(c) reads, "I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order"

This is hardly a "ban of Muslims" or a "Muslim ban."

The exception is in Section 3(g), which reads,"(g) Notwithstanding a suspension pursuant to subsection (c) of this section or pursuant to a Presidential proclamation described in subsection (e) of this section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may, on a case-by-case basis, and when in the national interest, issue visas or other immigration benefits to nationals of countries for which visas and benefits are otherwise blocked.

2. Section 5 says:
A.) Suspend for 120 days the United States Refugee Admissions Program. "The Secretary of State shall suspend the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) for 120 days." See Section 5(a).

This affects Muslim and non-Muslim alike.

The exception is in Section 5(e) which reads, "Notwithstanding the temporary suspension imposed pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may jointly determine to admit individuals to the United States as refugees on a case-by-case basis, in their discretion, but only so long as they determine that the admission of such individuals as refugees is in the national interest -- including when the person is a religious minority in his country of nationality facing religious persecution, when admitting the person would enable the United States to conform its conduct to a preexisting international agreement, or when the person is already in transit and denying admission would cause undue hardship -- and it would not pose a risk to the security or welfare of the United States."

B.) Suspends admission of people from Syria into the U.S. under refugee status. Section 5 (c) says, "Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry of nationals of Syria as refugees is detrimental to the interests of the United States and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I have determined that sufficient changes have been made to the USRAP to ensure that admission of Syrian refugees is consistent with the national interest."

Okay, so, this EO is not a "Muslim ban" or a "ban on Muslims."

Yeah... that exception is wonderful for Muslims in Muslim majority nations.

 

[dismal]

Yeah... that exception is wonderful for Muslims in Muslim majority nations.

I count 54 muslim majority nations. I thought this affected 7?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_by_country

 

[James Madison]

Haven't we already broken the law here?

...while creating an exception to allow Muslims in those 7 countries to enter the U.S. The exception is discretionary.

And the exception is cute. Look, we aren't banning blacks from eating at the counter, we do offer exceptions to the ban.

It is ass backwards. The policy was to allow Muslim refugees to come to the US, with the exception of people we felt would have the intention of harming the US. Now the policy is to not allow Muslims from non-profitable nations to come into the US, with the exception of Muslims that are deemed not a threat... well... kind of. Granted, we won't even let them get on the plane to arrive at a US airport, which pretty much means they can't come despite all the red tape they may have already gone through.

What's your point?

It's about "the exception". We can pretend that the exception is somehow designed to prevent a flat out ban, but in reality, the exception applies to such a very small number of people, and if those abroad can not have access to the exception, this means it is a flat out ban with an asterisk placed in there to create the illusion of this not being a simple ban on Muslims.

Okay. I have actually had the opportunity to read the entire EO. The EO does the following: 1.) Complete ban of all people in 7 countries from entering the U.S., for a specified amount of time, with an exception. 2.) Suspends, for 120 days, the U.S. Refugee Admission Program and 3.) Suspends, without an expiring time limit, people in Syria from entering the U.S. as a refugee.

1. Absolute and complete ban on all people in 7 countries. Those 7 countries are Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. Section 3(c) reads, "I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order"

This is hardly a "ban of Muslims" or a "Muslim ban."

The exception is in Section 3(g), which reads,"(g) Notwithstanding a suspension pursuant to subsection (c) of this section or pursuant to a Presidential proclamation described in subsection (e) of this section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may, on a case-by-case basis, and when in the national interest, issue visas or other immigration benefits to nationals of countries for which visas and benefits are otherwise blocked.

2. Section 5 says:
A.) Suspend for 120 days the United States Refugee Admissions Program. "The Secretary of State shall suspend the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) for 120 days." See Section 5(a).

This affects Muslim and non-Muslim alike.

The exception is in Section 5(e) which reads, "Notwithstanding the temporary suspension imposed pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may jointly determine to admit individuals to the United States as refugees on a case-by-case basis, in their discretion, but only so long as they determine that the admission of such individuals as refugees is in the national interest -- including when the person is a religious minority in his country of nationality facing religious persecution, when admitting the person would enable the United States to conform its conduct to a preexisting international agreement, or when the person is already in transit and denying admission would cause undue hardship -- and it would not pose a risk to the security or welfare of the United States."

B.) Suspends admission of people from Syria into the U.S. under refugee status. Section 5 (c) says, "Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry of nationals of Syria as refugees is detrimental to the interests of the United States and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I have determined that sufficient changes have been made to the USRAP to ensure that admission of Syrian refugees is consistent with the national interest."

Okay, so, this EO is not a "Muslim ban" or a "ban on Muslims."

Yeah... that exception is wonderful for Muslims in Muslim majority nations.

It's wonderful in those countries where Muslims are a minority and not so wonderfully for Christians where they are the majority. Based on your reasoning, Trump's EO is a Christian ban as well since the EO doesn't work "wonderfully" for them where they are a majority.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Shadowy Man]

Yeah... that exception is wonderful for Muslims in Muslim majority nations.

It depends on whether it can cover Sunni v. Shia persecution.

- - - Updated - - -

It's wonderful in those countries where Muslims are a minority and not so wonderfully for Christians where they are the majority. Based on your reasoning, Trump's EO is a Christian ban as well since the EO doesn't work "wonderfully" for them where they are a majority.

And which country on Trump's banned list has Christians in the majority?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

1. Absolute and complete ban on all people in 7 countries. Those 7 countries are Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. Section 3(c) reads, "I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order"

This is hardly a "ban of Muslims" or a "Muslim ban."

Nothing in there says "all Muslims." It's proper English. If instead the country was Vatican City, it would also be correct to say it's a ban of Catholic priests and nuns even if there are many Catholic priests and nuns among other countries.

As for the specific countries let's look at Muslim* demographic:
Iraq -- >= 99%
Syria -- 87%
Iran -- 99.4%
Libya -- 96.6%
Somalia -- ~100%
Sudan -- Sunni Muslim, small Christian minority
Yemen -- 99.1%

*CIA world factbook

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It's wonderful in those countries where Muslims are a minority and not so wonderfully for Christians where they are the majority. Based on your reasoning, Trump's EO is a Christian ban as well since the EO doesn't work "wonderfully" for them where they are a majority.

To repeat the question above, which of the seven nations in the Travel Ban is Muslim minority? The Executive Order explicitly includes religious minorities as exceptional. Going to be hard finding minority Muslims in the seven nation Travel ban.

- - - Updated - - -

It depends on whether it can cover Sunni v. Shia persecution.

Naw, Islam is a brotherhood. They'd never do that to each other.

 

[Jayjay]

Haven't we already broken the law here?

...while creating an exception to allow Muslims in those 7 countries to enter the U.S. The exception is discretionary.

And the exception is cute. Look, we aren't banning blacks from eating at the counter, we do offer exceptions to the ban.

It is ass backwards. The policy was to allow Muslim refugees to come to the US, with the exception of people we felt would have the intention of harming the US. Now the policy is to not allow Muslims from non-profitable nations to come into the US, with the exception of Muslims that are deemed not a threat... well... kind of. Granted, we won't even let them get on the plane to arrive at a US airport, which pretty much means they can't come despite all the red tape they may have already gone through.

What's your point?

It's about "the exception". We can pretend that the exception is somehow designed to prevent a flat out ban, but in reality, the exception applies to such a very small number of people, and if those abroad can not have access to the exception, this means it is a flat out ban with an asterisk placed in there to create the illusion of this not being a simple ban on Muslims.

Okay. I have actually had the opportunity to read the entire EO. The EO does the following: 1.) Complete ban of all people in 7 countries from entering the U.S., for a specified amount of time, with an exception. 2.) Suspends, for 120 days, the U.S. Refugee Admission Program and 3.) Suspends, without an expiring time limit, people in Syria from entering the U.S. as a refugee.

1. Absolute and complete ban on all people in 7 countries. Those 7 countries are Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. Section 3(c) reads, "I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order"

This is hardly a "ban of Muslims" or a "Muslim ban."

The exception is in Section 3(g), which reads,"(g) Notwithstanding a suspension pursuant to subsection (c) of this section or pursuant to a Presidential proclamation described in subsection (e) of this section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may, on a case-by-case basis, and when in the national interest, issue visas or other immigration benefits to nationals of countries for which visas and benefits are otherwise blocked.

2. Section 5 says:
A.) Suspend for 120 days the United States Refugee Admissions Program. "The Secretary of State shall suspend the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) for 120 days." See Section 5(a).

This affects Muslim and non-Muslim alike.

The exception is in Section 5(e) which reads, "Notwithstanding the temporary suspension imposed pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may jointly determine to admit individuals to the United States as refugees on a case-by-case basis, in their discretion, but only so long as they determine that the admission of such individuals as refugees is in the national interest -- including when the person is a religious minority in his country of nationality facing religious persecution, when admitting the person would enable the United States to conform its conduct to a preexisting international agreement, or when the person is already in transit and denying admission would cause undue hardship -- and it would not pose a risk to the security or welfare of the United States."

B.) Suspends admission of people from Syria into the U.S. under refugee status. Section 5 (c) says, "Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry of nationals of Syria as refugees is detrimental to the interests of the United States and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I have determined that sufficient changes have been made to the USRAP to ensure that admission of Syrian refugees is consistent with the national interest."

Okay, so, this EO is not a "Muslim ban" or a "ban on Muslims."

Yeah... that exception is wonderful for Muslims in Muslim majority nations.

A muslim can be part of a religious minority in a muslim country. For example Shia muslims in predominantly Sunni countries or vice versa. But more importantly it is not an automatic pass for non-muslims, they'd have to prove that they are facing religious persecution apart from being a minority.

 

[James Madison]

It depends on whether it can cover Sunni v. Shia persecution.

- - - Updated - - -

It's wonderful in those countries where Muslims are a minority and not so wonderfully for Christians where they are the majority. Based on your reasoning, Trump's EO is a Christian ban as well since the EO doesn't work "wonderfully" for them where they are a majority.

And which country on Trump's banned list has Christians in the majority?

The answer to your question is easy. The EO doesn't have a religious minority/persecution exception for those 7 countries. The religious minority/persecution exception is in regards to another component of the EO.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[James Madison]

To repeat the question above, which of the seven nations in the Travel Ban is Muslim minority? The Executive Order explicitly includes religious minorities as exceptional. Going to be hard finding minority Muslims in the seven nation Travel ban.

- - - Updated - - -

It depends on whether it can cover Sunni v. Shia persecution.

Naw, Islam is a brotherhood. They'd never do that to each other.

My goodness Higgins. Please READ! The religious minority/persecution exception IS NOT applicable to those 7 countries where a travel ban is applied.

Got it? The religious minority/persecution exception isn't applicable to the 7 countries in the EO.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SimpleDon]

The media's spin that this is some grand victory against Trump is a bit silly. Every person on US soil, whether a citizen or illegal, gets due process rights. That's why we have deportation proceedings. The limited reach of this injunction is for people who were on US soil when the executive order came into effect. Hence, do these people get a deportation proceeding? That's it. Trump's executive order prohibiting travelers from certain countries is entirely constitutional. The courts have no say whatsoever on foreign policy or how the US conducts business in foreign lands.

It is unconstitutional if it is based on the religion of the banned travelers. Which it is, of course. Not only do we have endless examples of Trump promising to ban Muslims from entering the US, the executive order provided for exceptions for members of minority religions from the majority Muslim countries. It is clearly a poor attempt to disguise banning Muslims from these countries from entering the US based on their religion, when it is solely based on their religion.

But you are correct that the courts only have jurisdiction over the people who are in the country, not over the people who want to come here. Green card holders don't have a citizen's right to re-enter the country. In effect, the Green card can be withdrawn by the US at any time. It isn't a very good idea to do it. It speaks poorly about the US's integrity broadly canceling permanent resident status based on the religion of the holder, but it isn't unconstitutional. It is just a terrible idea.

 

[dismal]

The media's spin that this is some grand victory against Trump is a bit silly. Every person on US soil, whether a citizen or illegal, gets due process rights. That's why we have deportation proceedings. The limited reach of this injunction is for people who were on US soil when the executive order came into effect. Hence, do these people get a deportation proceeding? That's it. Trump's executive order prohibiting travelers from certain countries is entirely constitutional. The courts have no say whatsoever on foreign policy or how the US conducts business in foreign lands.

It is unconstitutional if it is based on the religion of the banned travelers. Which it is, of course. Not only do we have endless examples of Trump promising to ban Muslims from entering the US, the executive order provided for exceptions for members of minority religions from the majority Muslim countries. It is clearly a poor attempt to disguise banning Muslims from these countries from entering the US based on their religion, when it is solely based on their religion.

But you are correct that the courts only have jurisdiction over the people who are in the country, not over the people who want to come here. Green card holders don't have a citizen's right to re-enter the country. In effect, the Green card can be withdrawn by the US at any time. It isn't a very good idea to do it. It speaks poorly about the US's integrity broadly canceling permanent resident status based on the religion of the holder, but it isn't unconstitutional. It is just a terrible idea.

Given there are 50+ majority muslim countries and this affects 7 countries it's hard to style this as a ban on muslims. Trump has decreed that immigrants from these 7 countries are not in the best interest of our country, which he appears to have clear statutory authority to do. The Constitution is not implicated as many previous courts have affirmed that immigration policy is a plenary power.

 

[whichphilosophy]

It is unconstitutional if it is based on the religion of the banned travelers. Which it is, of course. Not only do we have endless examples of Trump promising to ban Muslims from entering the US, the executive order provided for exceptions for members of minority religions from the majority Muslim countries. It is clearly a poor attempt to disguise banning Muslims from these countries from entering the US based on their religion, when it is solely based on their religion.

But you are correct that the courts only have jurisdiction over the people who are in the country, not over the people who want to come here. Green card holders don't have a citizen's right to re-enter the country. In effect, the Green card can be withdrawn by the US at any time. It isn't a very good idea to do it. It speaks poorly about the US's integrity broadly canceling permanent resident status based on the religion of the holder, but it isn't unconstitutional. It is just a terrible idea.

Given there are 50+ majority muslim countries and this affects 7 countries it's hard to style this as a ban on muslims. Trump has decreed that immigrants from these 7 countries are not in the best interest of our country, which he appears to have clear statutory authority to do. The Constitution is not implicated as many previous courts have affirmed that immigration policy is a plenary power.

I think any country has a right to choose whoever it lets in. The issue is complex because some people were given visas and the issues of Green Cards indicates that they fulfilled certain requirements to enter the USA. I think there are issues in dispute which a judge or a panel of judges would have to evaluate.

Few Arab countries accept Arab refugees. Jordan and Lebanon are two exceptions.

 

[repoman]

So, when there was the Chinese Exclusion Act but it was not overruled, that was also unconstitutional, right?

And also Plessy v Ferguson?

I guess the supreme court just was in the zeitgeist of those times and liked the situation as it was.

 

[whichphilosophy]

So, when there was the Chinese Exclusion Act but it was not overruled, that was also unconstitutional, right?

And also Plessy v Ferguson?

I guess the supreme court just was in the zeitgeist of those times and liked the situation as it was.

These relate to segregation within the USA not immigration to the USA

 

[fast]

The media's spin that this is some grand victory against Trump is a bit silly. Every person on US soil, whether a citizen or illegal, gets due process rights. That's why we have deportation proceedings. The limited reach of this injunction is for people who were on US soil when the executive order came into effect. Hence, do these people get a deportation proceeding? That's it. Trump's executive order prohibiting travelers from certain countries is entirely constitutional. The courts have no say whatsoever on foreign policy or how the US conducts business in foreign lands.

It is unconstitutional if it is based on the religion of the banned travelers. Which it is, of course. Not only do we have endless examples of Trump promising to ban Muslims from entering the US, the executive order provided for exceptions for members of minority religions from the majority Muslim countries. It is clearly a poor attempt to disguise banning Muslims from these countries from entering the US based on their religion, when it is solely based on their religion.

But you are correct that the courts only have jurisdiction over the people who are in the country, not over the people who want to come here. Green card holders don't have a citizen's right to re-enter the country. In effect, the Green card can be withdrawn by the US at any time. It isn't a very good idea to do it. It speaks poorly about the US's integrity broadly canceling permanent resident status based on the religion of the holder, but it isn't unconstitutional. It is just a terrible idea.

Even for non-citizens?

 

[Warpoet]

Given there are 50+ majority muslim countries and this affects 7 countries it's hard to style this as a ban on muslims. Trump has decreed that immigrants from these 7 countries are not in the best interest of our country, which he appears to have clear statutory authority to do.

Well gee golly, I guess if someone campaigns on a promise to stop blacks and latinos from voting, walks it back later and then in their first week in office signs an EO curtailing voting rights, or ability to vote, in 15% of black and latino voting areas, citing some bullshit statute about "voter fraud" that was never meant to apply in that context, you can't possibly accuse the order of having a racial motivation, right?

What a fucking joke.

The Constitution is not implicated as many previous courts have affirmed that immigration policy is a plenary power.

Incorrect. "Plenary power" does not mean that the president can do whatever he wants no matter how far afoul of the Constitution. I guess according to you, he could just start banning all Muslims, including U.S. citizens, and the courts have no say in the matter, right?

Stop getting your information from the alt right or from bullshit advocacy think tanks like CIS.

 

[dismal]

Well gee golly, I guess if someone campaigns on a promise to stop blacks and latinos from voting, walks it back later and then in their first week in office signs an EO curtailing voting rights, or ability to vote, in 15% of black and latino voting areas, citing some bullshit statute about "voter fraud" that was never meant to apply in that context, you can't possibly accuse the order of having a racial motivation, right?

What a fucking joke.

The Constitution is not implicated as many previous courts have affirmed that immigration policy is a plenary power.

Incorrect. "Plenary power" does not mean that the president can do whatever he wants no matter how far afoul of the Constitution. I guess according to you, he could just start banning all Muslims, including U.S. citizens, and the courts have no say in the matter, right?

Stop getting your information from the alt right or from bullshit advocacy think tanks like CIS.

Sad pathetic arguments. The fact it is a well established plenary power means it is left to whether President Trump has statutory authority. It is not slightly a Constitutional question. Also I have already posted the statute that gives him authority.