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

[fast]

Cult doublespeak.

Related note: It's really no surprise that the current right wing authoritarian government would be so enthusiastically embraced by scientology cultists.

More bleating. Trump is the least worst of the candidates, but acted rashly in this case by forbidding people who had already received visas and green cards.
The US is within its rights to stop issuing more visas and green cards or to seal its borders. The ban was actually a temporary stay for a period of time.

There are over 30 Muslim countries which are not affected by the ban

Those Visas and green cards were issued under the obama administration, so although there may be the appearance of rash behavior, the new, better, and hugely improved administration needed some time to vet those they did not.

 

[Angry Floof]

blah blah blah blah blah

Whatever you say, wp!

 

[faded_Glory]

More bleating. Trump is the least worst of the candidates, but acted rashly in this case by forbidding people who had already received visas and green cards.
The US is within its rights to stop issuing more visas and green cards or to seal its borders. The ban was actually a temporary stay for a period of time.

There are over 30 Muslim countries which are not affected by the ban

Those 30 include the 5 countries from which came the terrorists that killed 3010 of the 3025 victims of foreign terror in the US: Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt, Lebanon and Kuwait.

Incompetence doesn't even come close to describe this.

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/01/trump-immigration-ban-terrorism/514361/

 

[whichphilosophy]

blah blah blah blah blah

Whatever you say, wp!

But nonetheless correct

 

[James Madison]

In my view, they are entitled to the visas/green cards, as the EO violates due process by summarily denying them to this group of people, unless a very important reason exists the government can cite.

I would assume it would be on individuals rather than the entire class that such reasons need to apply.

Trump's DOJ will argue 1.) The reasons for the EO are irrelevant because this is a plenary power and judicial review isn't appropriate and 2.) The government cannot, presently, properly tell friend from foe in these 7 countries and so, all must be prohibited from traveling to the U.S.

Consider the Chinese Exclusion Acts, which initially forbade Chinese laborers from entering the U.S., and later amended to include many ethnic Chinese regardless of their nationality. The law was challenged and the U.S. Supreme Court, in upholding the law, said, "The power of the government to exclude foreigners from the country whenever, in its judgment, the public interests require such exclusion, has been asserted in repeated instances, and never denied by the executive or legislative departments....
The power of exclusion of foreigners being an incident of sovereignty belonging to the government of the United States as a part of those sovereign powers delegated by the constitution, the right to its exercise at any time when, in the judgment of the government, the interests of the country require it, cannot be granted away or restrained on behalf of any one..."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RavenSky]

This, btw, is bullshit. Your claim has been thoroughly debunk, and your "alt-facts" are pathetic

Sent from my SM-G920T1 using Tapatalk

This is from the Guardian. This was not a ban but a pause.

2011https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/30/barack-obama-travel-ban-statement-protests-trump

The US has a right to restrict who it wants but as expected the courts ruled it unconstitutional to turn back people with Visas and Green Cards. In common sense terms it's breaking a promise once given, unless there is a valid cause to reject the recipient.

This is one source. I haven't yet been able to see the legislation

http://ktla.com/2017/01/29/7-countr...ntries-of-concern-under-obama-administration/
In December 2015, President Barack Obama signed into law a measure placing limited restrictions on certain travelers who had visited Iran, Iraq, Sudan, or Syria on or after March 1, 2011. Two months later, the Obama administration added Libya, Somalia, and Yemen to the list, in an effort, the administration said, to address “the growing threat from foreign terrorist fighters.”
The restrictions specifically limited what is known as visa-waiver travel by those who had visited one of the seven countries within the specified time period. People who previously could have entered the United States without a visa were instead required to apply for one if they had traveled to one of the seven countries.
Under the law, dual citizens of visa-waiver countries and Iran, Iraq, Sudan, or Syria could no longer travel to the U.S. without a visa. Dual citizens of Libya, Somalia, and Yemen could, however, still use the visa-waiver program if they hadn’t traveled to any of the seven countries after March 2011.
Trump’s order is much broader. It bans all citizens from those seven countries from entering the U.S. and leaves green card holders subject to being rescreened after visiting those countries.


I doubt if Trump's appeal would be a success regarding those already with visas and green cards.

James Maddison can comment on this post if he sees it as he is legally qualified in this area.

Thank you for proving my point. President Obama did not institute any sort of ban (which is what YOU claimed), nor did he do anything similar to what #45 has done.

 

[RavenSky]

The why is Trump tweeting that it is a ban?

That's the politics of it. While nothing is certain with Obama this was a pause because afterwards the entries continued. A current 90 day ban could be politically defined as a pause if it is lifted afterwards.

However, whileUS should be able to vet who it wants the forbidding those with green cards and visas seems un-American, or not good cricket as Coln Blimp would say. I believe a court eventually would (and did) reject. In this issue I think Trump's appeal if he wants to keep these in have a strong possibility of failing.

And for the record, President Obama didn't do any sort of "pause" either.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I would assume it would be on individuals rather than the entire class that such reasons need to apply.

Trump's DOJ will argue 1.) The reasons for the EO are irrelevant because this is a plenary power and judicial review isn't appropriate and 2.) The government cannot, presently, properly tell friend from foe in these 7 countries and so, all must be prohibited from traveling to the U.S.

Consider the Chinese Exclusion Acts, which initially forbade Chinese laborers from entering the U.S., and later amended to include many ethnic Chinese regardless of their nationality. The law was challenged and the U.S. Supreme Court, in upholding the law, said, "The power of the government to exclude foreigners from the country whenever, in its judgment, the public interests require such exclusion, has been asserted in repeated instances, and never denied by the executive or legislative departments....
The power of exclusion of foreigners being an incident of sovereignty belonging to the government of the United States as a part of those sovereign powers delegated by the constitution, the right to its exercise at any time when, in the judgment of the government, the interests of the country require it, cannot be granted away or restrained on behalf of any one..."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But other acts prohibit the exclusion? how are they going to square that circle?

 

[whichphilosophy]

This is from the Guardian. This was not a ban but a pause.

2011https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/30/barack-obama-travel-ban-statement-protests-trump

The US has a right to restrict who it wants but as expected the courts ruled it unconstitutional to turn back people with Visas and Green Cards. In common sense terms it's breaking a promise once given, unless there is a valid cause to reject the recipient.

This is one source. I haven't yet been able to see the legislation

http://ktla.com/2017/01/29/7-countr...ntries-of-concern-under-obama-administration/
In December 2015, President Barack Obama signed into law a measure placing limited restrictions on certain travelers who had visited Iran, Iraq, Sudan, or Syria on or after March 1, 2011. Two months later, the Obama administration added Libya, Somalia, and Yemen to the list, in an effort, the administration said, to address “the growing threat from foreign terrorist fighters.”
The restrictions specifically limited what is known as visa-waiver travel by those who had visited one of the seven countries within the specified time period. People who previously could have entered the United States without a visa were instead required to apply for one if they had traveled to one of the seven countries.
Under the law, dual citizens of visa-waiver countries and Iran, Iraq, Sudan, or Syria could no longer travel to the U.S. without a visa. Dual citizens of Libya, Somalia, and Yemen could, however, still use the visa-waiver program if they hadn’t traveled to any of the seven countries after March 2011.
Trump’s order is much broader. It bans all citizens from those seven countries from entering the U.S. and leaves green card holders subject to being rescreened after visiting those countries.


I doubt if Trump's appeal would be a success regarding those already with visas and green cards.

James Maddison can comment on this post if he sees it as he is legally qualified in this area.

Thank you for proving my point. President Obama did not institute any sort of ban (which is what YOU claimed), nor did he do anything similar to what #45 has done.

I didn't say they were the same but he did start the process and for good reason at the time..

 

[RavenSky]

Thank you for proving my point. President Obama did not institute any sort of ban (which is what YOU claimed), nor did he do anything similar to what #45 has done.

I didn't say they were the same but he did start the process and for good reason at the time..

You claimed:

Why don't you take it up with the Obama administration as well though Trump added more countries and expanded the ban. I have earlier mentioned what seems to have been wrong with the ban regarding stopping people who have already been assured entry by way of a visa.

President Obama did NOT "ban" any country, so #45 did NOT "expand the ban".

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I would assume it would be on individuals rather than the entire class that such reasons need to apply.

Trump's DOJ will argue 1.) The reasons for the EO are irrelevant because this is a plenary power and judicial review isn't appropriate and 2.) The government cannot, presently, properly tell friend from foe in these 7 countries and so, all must be prohibited from traveling to the U.S.

Consider the Chinese Exclusion Acts, which initially forbade Chinese laborers from entering the U.S., and later amended to include many ethnic Chinese regardless of their nationality. The law was challenged and the U.S. Supreme Court, in upholding the law, said, "The power of the government to exclude foreigners from the country whenever, in its judgment, the public interests require such exclusion, has been asserted in repeated instances, and never denied by the executive or legislative departments....
The power of exclusion of foreigners being an incident of sovereignty belonging to the government of the United States as a part of those sovereign powers delegated by the constitution, the right to its exercise at any time when, in the judgment of the government, the interests of the country require it, cannot be granted away or restrained on behalf of any one..."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's just it: the Chinese Exclusion Acts were signed into law by the legislature and ratified by the President. An executive order is NOT a law and doesn't have the power of one. Strictly speaking, an executive order is given by the president to determine HOW an existing law is to be enforced given whatever latitude he is granted by congress. He can, in fact, issue an executive order directing his employees not to enforce certain provisions of a law, but he can't just MAKE UP new provisions as he sees fit, not without a really good reason for doing so.

The Visas and green cards already issued are therefore valid under the law, and Trump doesn't actually have legal standing to revoke them just because he doesn't like their home countries. There's no part of the U.S. immigration law that actually gives him power to do that, which is why the law was successfully challenged. He may argue, on the other hand, that he has actionable intelligence of a threat of espionage or terrorism from the seven countries listed and that his executive order is indeed a neccesary temporary measure to ensure security, but then he has to explain why the restriction came in the form of an executive order and not, for example, as part of the regular operations of the DHS whose job it is to act on that kind of intelligence.

Basically it's like Lester Maddox putting up a sign on his window that says

"This restaurant is for whites segregationists only. Niggers Integrationists will not be served."

Thank you for proving my point. President Obama did not institute any sort of ban (which is what YOU claimed), nor did he do anything similar to what #45 has done.

I didn't say they were the same but he did start the process and for good reason at the time..

He started a completely different "process" for a completely different reason. In Obama's case it was actually a bureaucratic delay as new vetting guidelines were put in place to deal with a specific shortcoming, after which normal operations resumed.

 

[repoman]

good post.

The Chinese Exclusion Acts while they surely would be ruled unconstitutional if made now were real laws.

I think that most of us not being lawyers are having a hard time parsing the legal arguments.

If this Trump policy had come from a law passed by congress instead, would it be overturned?

 

[James Madison]

Trump's DOJ will argue 1.) The reasons for the EO are irrelevant because this is a plenary power and judicial review isn't appropriate and 2.) The government cannot, presently, properly tell friend from foe in these 7 countries and so, all must be prohibited from traveling to the U.S.

Consider the Chinese Exclusion Acts, which initially forbade Chinese laborers from entering the U.S., and later amended to include many ethnic Chinese regardless of their nationality. The law was challenged and the U.S. Supreme Court, in upholding the law, said, "The power of the government to exclude foreigners from the country whenever, in its judgment, the public interests require such exclusion, has been asserted in repeated instances, and never denied by the executive or legislative departments....
The power of exclusion of foreigners being an incident of sovereignty belonging to the government of the United States as a part of those sovereign powers delegated by the constitution, the right to its exercise at any time when, in the judgment of the government, the interests of the country require it, cannot be granted away or restrained on behalf of any one..."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's just it: the Chinese Exclusion Acts were signed into law by the legislature and ratified by the President. An executive order is NOT a law and doesn't have the power of one. Strictly speaking, an executive order is given by the president to determine HOW an existing law is to be enforced given whatever latitude he is granted by congress. He can, in fact, issue an executive order directing his employees not to enforce certain provisions of a law, but he can't just MAKE UP new provisions as he sees fit, not without a really good reason for doing so.

The Visas and green cards already issued are therefore valid under the law, and Trump doesn't actually have legal standing to revoke them just because he doesn't like their home countries. There's no part of the U.S. immigration law that actually gives him power to do that, which is why the law was successfully challenged. He may argue, on the other hand, that he has actionable intelligence of a threat of espionage or terrorism from the seven countries listed and that his executive order is indeed a neccesary temporary measure to ensure security, but then he has to explain why the restriction came in the form of an executive order and not, for example, as part of the regular operations of the DHS whose job it is to act on that kind of intelligence.

I concur with your remarks regarding those already in possession of visas and green cards, although my position was based on due process. I said previously due process was likely violated in relation to those holding visas and green cards.

But the EO affects more than visas and green cards and those cases I cited were not referenced as a defense of the EO in relation to those with visas and green cards. I cited those cases because they reinforce the plenary power doctrine in the areas of immigration not only in relation to Congress but also the Executive.

In the broader context, the analysis is the relationship of the provisions in the EO, unrelated to those already possessing visas/green cards, and the 1st Amendment, the plenary doctrine in the area of immigration, and the Naturalization and Immigration Act.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[James Madison]

Trump's DOJ will argue 1.) The reasons for the EO are irrelevant because this is a plenary power and judicial review isn't appropriate and 2.) The government cannot, presently, properly tell friend from foe in these 7 countries and so, all must be prohibited from traveling to the U.S.

Consider the Chinese Exclusion Acts, which initially forbade Chinese laborers from entering the U.S., and later amended to include many ethnic Chinese regardless of their nationality. The law was challenged and the U.S. Supreme Court, in upholding the law, said, "The power of the government to exclude foreigners from the country whenever, in its judgment, the public interests require such exclusion, has been asserted in repeated instances, and never denied by the executive or legislative departments....
The power of exclusion of foreigners being an incident of sovereignty belonging to the government of the United States as a part of those sovereign powers delegated by the constitution, the right to its exercise at any time when, in the judgment of the government, the interests of the country require it, cannot be granted away or restrained on behalf of any one..."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But other acts prohibit the exclusion? how are they going to square that circle?

Are you referencing the 1965 amendment to the Naturalization and Immigration Act?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[whichphilosophy]

Trump's DOJ will argue 1.) The reasons for the EO are irrelevant because this is a plenary power and judicial review isn't appropriate and 2.) The government cannot, presently, properly tell friend from foe in these 7 countries and so, all must be prohibited from traveling to the U.S.

Consider the Chinese Exclusion Acts, which initially forbade Chinese laborers from entering the U.S., and later amended to include many ethnic Chinese regardless of their nationality. The law was challenged and the U.S. Supreme Court, in upholding the law, said, "The power of the government to exclude foreigners from the country whenever, in its judgment, the public interests require such exclusion, has been asserted in repeated instances, and never denied by the executive or legislative departments....
The power of exclusion of foreigners being an incident of sovereignty belonging to the government of the United States as a part of those sovereign powers delegated by the constitution, the right to its exercise at any time when, in the judgment of the government, the interests of the country require it, cannot be granted away or restrained on behalf of any one..."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's just it: the Chinese Exclusion Acts were signed into law by the legislature and ratified by the President. An executive order is NOT a law and doesn't have the power of one. Strictly speaking, an executive order is given by the president to determine HOW an existing law is to be enforced given whatever latitude he is granted by congress. He can, in fact, issue an executive order directing his employees not to enforce certain provisions of a law, but he can't just MAKE UP new provisions as he sees fit, not without a really good reason for doing so.

The Visas and green cards already issued are therefore valid under the law, and Trump doesn't actually have legal standing to revoke them just because he doesn't like their home countries. There's no part of the U.S. immigration law that actually gives him power to do that, which is why the law was successfully challenged. He may argue, on the other hand, that he has actionable intelligence of a threat of espionage or terrorism from the seven countries listed and that his executive order is indeed a neccesary temporary measure to ensure security, but then he has to explain why the restriction came in the form of an executive order and not, for example, as part of the regular operations of the DHS whose job it is to act on that kind of intelligence.

Basically it's like Lester Maddox putting up a sign on his window that says

"This restaurant is for whites segregationists only. Niggers Integrationists will not be served."

Thank you for proving my point. President Obama did not institute any sort of ban (which is what YOU claimed), nor did he do anything similar to what #45 has done.

I didn't say they were the same but he did start the process and for good reason at the time..

He started a completely different "process" for a completely different reason. In Obama's case it was actually a bureaucratic delay as new vetting guidelines were put in place to deal with a specific shortcoming, after which normal operations resumed.

There were differences but both were exclusions. Trump expanded on these but failing to do this correctly, with respect to Green Card Holders and those with visas. The only persons with Visas/Green Cards who could be rejected would be where there were some security concerns/crimes etc. There were security delays at the time of Obama. I would hope the 90 day delay is also for preparing for a new vetting procedure.

 

[RavenSky]

There were differences but both were exclusions.

wrong

Trump expanded on these

wrong

There were security delays at the time of Obama.

There were bureaucratic delays as new vetting procedures were put into place, but the visas were not stopped for any period of time.

I would hope the 90 day delay is also for preparing for a new vetting procedure.

It isn't, no matter hope much you *hope* otherwise.

 

[whichphilosophy]

That's the politics of it. While nothing is certain with Obama this was a pause because afterwards the entries continued. A current 90 day ban could be politically defined as a pause if it is lifted afterwards.

However, while US should be able to vet who it wants the forbidding those with green cards and visas seems un-American, or not good cricket as Coln Blimp would say. I believe a court eventually would (and did) reject. In this issue I think Trump's appeal if he wants to keep these in have a strong possibility of failing.

And for the record, President Obama didn't do any sort of "pause" either.

This pause or what you wish to call it was necessary while the vetting procedure was evaluated. There's no harm in asking James Maddison for his legal opinion on these.

List all of these out. There may be different legal opinions of course but what he said concurred with the points I said (but not with reference to the details you mentioned)

 

[Crazy Eddie]

That's just it: the Chinese Exclusion Acts were signed into law by the legislature and ratified by the President. An executive order is NOT a law and doesn't have the power of one. Strictly speaking, an executive order is given by the president to determine HOW an existing law is to be enforced given whatever latitude he is granted by congress. He can, in fact, issue an executive order directing his employees not to enforce certain provisions of a law, but he can't just MAKE UP new provisions as he sees fit, not without a really good reason for doing so.

The Visas and green cards already issued are therefore valid under the law, and Trump doesn't actually have legal standing to revoke them just because he doesn't like their home countries. There's no part of the U.S. immigration law that actually gives him power to do that, which is why the law was successfully challenged. He may argue, on the other hand, that he has actionable intelligence of a threat of espionage or terrorism from the seven countries listed and that his executive order is indeed a neccesary temporary measure to ensure security, but then he has to explain why the restriction came in the form of an executive order and not, for example, as part of the regular operations of the DHS whose job it is to act on that kind of intelligence.

I concur with your remarks regarding those already in possession of visas and green cards, although my position was based on due process. I said previously due process was likely violated in relation to those holding visas and green cards.

But the EO affects more than visas and green cards and those cases I cited were not referenced as a defense of the EO in relation to those with visas and green cards. I cited those cases because they reinforce the plenary power doctrine in the areas of immigration not only in relation to Congress but also the Executive.

Which, while true, is NOT the problem with the executive order. The President has plenary power to do all kinds of things, but SUSPEND DUE PROCESS isn't one of them. It would be the same as an executive order requiring the police to hold criminal suspects in protective custody for at least 30 days until the investigation into the crime is completed. That would similarly violate due process, since it amounts to people being imprisoned for lengthy periods of time without actually being convicted of anything. Congress can define what does and doesn't constitute due process, and the courts can determine whether Congress' definition is Constitutional or not. The President can do neither.

In the broader context, the analysis is the relationship of the provisions in the EO, unrelated to those already possessing visas/green cards, and the 1st Amendment, the plenary doctrine in the area of immigration, and the Naturalization and Immigration Act.

But see, it's the impact of the people who have visas and green cards that made the order invalid. The order doesn't only affect asylum seekers and refugees, it also affects U.S. legal residents who have already been processed and have been granted permission to enter the country. The President cannot unilaterally override that permission. He can issue an order to stop GRANTING permission under specific circumstances and issue new guidelines that are impossible to satisfy (a dick move that would be challenged on other grounds, I'm sure) but he can no more revoke their entry privileges than he can convict someone of a felony.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

That's just it: the Chinese Exclusion Acts were signed into law by the legislature and ratified by the President. An executive order is NOT a law and doesn't have the power of one. Strictly speaking, an executive order is given by the president to determine HOW an existing law is to be enforced given whatever latitude he is granted by congress. He can, in fact, issue an executive order directing his employees not to enforce certain provisions of a law, but he can't just MAKE UP new provisions as he sees fit, not without a really good reason for doing so.

The Visas and green cards already issued are therefore valid under the law, and Trump doesn't actually have legal standing to revoke them just because he doesn't like their home countries. There's no part of the U.S. immigration law that actually gives him power to do that, which is why the law was successfully challenged. He may argue, on the other hand, that he has actionable intelligence of a threat of espionage or terrorism from the seven countries listed and that his executive order is indeed a neccesary temporary measure to ensure security, but then he has to explain why the restriction came in the form of an executive order and not, for example, as part of the regular operations of the DHS whose job it is to act on that kind of intelligence.

Basically it's like Lester Maddox putting up a sign on his window that says

"This restaurant is for whites segregationists only. Niggers Integrationists will not be served."

Thank you for proving my point. President Obama did not institute any sort of ban (which is what YOU claimed), nor did he do anything similar to what #45 has done.

I didn't say they were the same but he did start the process and for good reason at the time..

He started a completely different "process" for a completely different reason. In Obama's case it was actually a bureaucratic delay as new vetting guidelines were put in place to deal with a specific shortcoming, after which normal operations resumed.

There were differences but both were exclusions.

No they weren't. Obama's action in 2011 was a processing delay for the actual visas, not an entry delay. The law does not guarantee a specific timeframe for the processing of those requests any more than it guarantees those requests will be granted. This is, admittedly, a grey area and a weakness in the definition of "due process" where trials can be delayed or postponed on seemingly flimsy excuses, but the standard is satisfied by the fact that the process has at least BEGUN, and the rights of those involved in the process are not being infringed.

Trump's travel ban actually DOES infringe on the rights of visa and green card holders, since they have already been processed through and granted access. It would be like ordering the courts to wait 90 days before releasing any suspects from prison. You can't do that; a man gets acquitted or has the charges dropped, then you have no legal authority to keep him incarcerated, he's earned the right to walk free and so he will.

Trump expanded on these

No he didn't. Obama's procedural modifications only applied to a single county and then only to people who were BEING processed for entry. Trump's travel ban isn't a procedural modification -- no new guidelines are even being considered -- and targets ALL nationals traveling from seven different countries, regardless of their legal, criminal or immigration status.

The only persons with Visas/Green Cards who could be rejected would be where there were some security concerns/crimes etc.

Exactly. "Being Iranian" is not a valid security concern, and "being a Muslim" is not a crime. Trump cannot make them so with an executive order, only Congress can do that.

There were security delays at the time of Obama.

For APPLICATIONS, yes. Not for those who had already been processed or did not need reprocessing.

I would hope the 90 day delay is also for preparing for a new vetting procedure.

It's not. Trump spent the first week of his presidency firing anyone who knew what the existing vetting procedures even looked like.

 

[James Madison]

I concur with your remarks regarding those already in possession of visas and green cards, although my position was based on due process. I said previously due process was likely violated in relation to those holding visas and green cards.

But the EO affects more than visas and green cards and those cases I cited were not referenced as a defense of the EO in relation to those with visas and green cards. I cited those cases because they reinforce the plenary power doctrine in the areas of immigration not only in relation to Congress but also the Executive.

Which, while true, is NOT the problem with the executive order. The President has plenary power to do all kinds of things, but SUSPEND DUE PROCESS isn't one of them. It would be the same as an executive order requiring the police to hold criminal suspects in protective custody for at least 30 days until the investigation into the crime is completed. That would similarly violate due process, since it amounts to people being imprisoned for lengthy periods of time without actually being convicted of anything. Congress can define what does and doesn't constitute due process, and the courts can determine whether Congress' definition is Constitutional or not. The President can do neither.

In the broader context, the analysis is the relationship of the provisions in the EO, unrelated to those already possessing visas/green cards, and the 1st Amendment, the plenary doctrine in the area of immigration, and the Naturalization and Immigration Act.

But see, it's the impact of the people who have visas and green cards that made the order invalid. The order doesn't only affect asylum seekers and refugees, it also affects U.S. legal residents who have already been processed and have been granted permission to enter the country. The President cannot unilaterally override that permission. He can issue an order to stop GRANTING permission under specific circumstances and issue new guidelines that are impossible to satisfy (a dick move that would be challenged on other grounds, I'm sure) but he can no more revoke their entry privileges than he can convict someone of a felony.

You are preaching to the choir man. I've already stated the EO violates due process in regards to those with green cards, visas, that would include U.S. legal residents.

The EO is invalid as applied to them, in my opinion. It may be valid as applied to others.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk