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

[repoman]

What is wrong with white only immigration?

(and some honorary Aryans = such as descendants of the Imperial Japanese force in Nanjing)

 

[whichphilosophy]

I understand what he said. What he is ignoring is that Trump can still accomplish what he wanted to by rewriting the EO in a manner suggested by the 9th Circuit. There is language in the decision suggesting what Jimmy calls a "Muslim ban" may be lawfully palatable if a specific and narrow group of people were treated differently.

This is not some obscure deduction to be made from the decision, especially since the court is making this point rather unequivocally in its decision. Hence, my remark Jimmy isn't properly understanding the 9th's decision.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What you are ignoring is that Trump is not the type of person who will ever admit he was wrong by re-writing anything, and Bannon is not going to re-write anything because any reasonable immigration policy that would pass constitutional muster is not what Bannon wants.

All of us here understand perfectly well that a semi-normal, semi-rational, semi-sane administration would simply do as you suggest - withdraw the EO and issue a revised one that conforms to the non-subtle hints from the 9th. Jimmy (and I) do not believe Trump or Bannon gives a shit about the American public and/or semi-normal, semi-rational, semi-sane immigration policy. Maybe Ivanka and Jared will make Trump see the light, but I doubt it.

Any party that attracts the extremes has a problem. Both parties have extremes hanging onto the edges.
Trump should use Lawyers not politicians to advise on the legalities of Executive Orders which ban things in retrospect. It's hard to prove everyone with a visa or a Green Card is a Security threat.

Extremists only see things in 'black and white' so one Muslim bomber means all Muslims are bombers.

In modern times countries need to restrict the amount of people entering where in the UK for instance we no longer have the infrastructure to accommodate the unprecedented numbers that are entering.

To try to prevent unfair competition from cut price labour, Hong Kong passed legislation which forced employers to pay any migrant workers (with a work permit) the same or more than local rates. This reduced, though didn't eliminate this practice. Even domestic workers have a minimum wage prescribed by law.

I don't see Trump succeeding in the Supreme court. He may get 1 or 2 votes from the Republican Judges.

- - - Updated - - -

What you are ignoring is that Trump is not the type of person who will ever admit he was wrong by re-writing anything, and Bannon is not going to re-write anything because any reasonable immigration policy that would pass constitutional muster is not what Bannon wants.

All of us here understand perfectly well that a semi-normal, semi-rational, semi-sane administration would simply do as you suggest - withdraw the EO and issue a revised one that conforms to the non-subtle hints from the 9th. Jimmy (and I) do not believe Trump or Bannon gives a shit about the American public and/or semi-normal, semi-rational, semi-sane immigration policy. Maybe Ivanka and Jared will make Trump see the light, but I doubt it.

Perhaps, but now you are arguing a different point than the one Jimmy made. I have no desire to express an opinion to your point above, other than to express my personal view is Trump is an adult prone to childish obstinacy and petulant behavior.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That definitely made Ravensky's day

 

[whichphilosophy]

The US or anyone elseis not obliged to take in anyone and it also needs to start looking at attending to its own citizens, especially the poor including war veterans. How this is administrated is another matter.

We have the space and it is one of the cornerstones of our republic. We can also take care of our veterans, if the Republicans would let us.

Even the UK has space for another 10 million people but we don't have the infrastructure.
Neither government has fully addressed issues for veterans and the poor.

The US always needs a certain amount of people coming in but I would also suggest strict laws that are enforced to ensure that immigrant workers are given the same pay or higher as citizens of the US. They must have a visa based on a work permit. This will reduce but not eliminate exploitation of immigrants.

Getting into one or two less wars can fund healthcare and assist the veterans.

 

[bilby]

We have the space and it is one of the cornerstones of our republic. We can also take care of our veterans, if the Republicans would let us.

Even the UK has space for another 10 million people but we don't have the infrastructure.
Neither government has fully addressed issues for veterans and the poor.

The US always needs a certain amount of people coming in but I would also suggest strict laws that are enforced to ensure that immigrant workers are given the same pay or higher as citizens of the US. They must have a visa based on a work permit. This will reduce but not eliminate exploitation of immigrants.

Getting into one or two less wars can fund healthcare and assist the veterans.

The infrastructure of the UK in 1900 could barely sustain 38 million people.

By your argument, the population shouldn't have ever been allowed to exceed 40 million, because the infrastructure couldn't cope.

More people lead to more taxes and more infrastructure. Infrastructure is not a fixed size that can't cope with population growth; and it doesn't care whether the population growth comes as babies or as immigrants - except that immigrants bring skills with them that babies don't. So they put less stress on the education system than native born citizens.

Infrastructure grows to suit whatever population it needs to serve.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Even the UK has space for another 10 million people but we don't have the infrastructure.
Neither government has fully addressed issues for veterans and the poor.

The US always needs a certain amount of people coming in but I would also suggest strict laws that are enforced to ensure that immigrant workers are given the same pay or higher as citizens of the US. They must have a visa based on a work permit. This will reduce but not eliminate exploitation of immigrants.

Getting into one or two less wars can fund healthcare and assist the veterans.

The infrastructure of the UK in 1900 could barely sustain 38 million people.

By your argument, the population shouldn't have ever been allowed to exceed 40 million, because the infrastructure couldn't cope.

More people lead to more taxes and more infrastructure. Infrastructure is not a fixed size that can't cope with population growth; and it doesn't care whether the population growth comes as babies or as immigrants - except that immigrants bring skills with them that babies don't. So they put less stress on the education system than native born citizens.

Infrastructure grows to suit whatever population it needs to serve.

Then India should be booming. It has a large economy but vast amounts of people live in squalor.

The infrastructure is growing albeit just enough to sustain estimates. Now that we are approaching 700,000 per year it means the equivalent of a couple of towns.

More people also leads to benefits like government child allowance. What skills do they bring to a market that has high unemployment. The true figure are disguised by people only having part time jobs or on zero-contracts.

Immigrants bring skills, while in excess they drain their own countries of talent.

Infrastructure doesn't grow but itself. It requires vast construction programs at vast expense. What is happening in the UK is houses are turned into dormitories or shared accommodation so as to pack more into less space.


It seems they are leaving non developing countries to go to the UK and expect the UK to develop its infrastructures at trillions of pounds to accommodate teh short falls.

Migrants can come to the UK if married to a British Citizen. Likewise Eu citizens can also bring a non Eu wife to the UK to work. However a Briton cannot bring a foreign wife into the country unless he earns a minimum of US£18,500.00 or so per year, plus added amounts for each child.

This does not apply to EU citizens not migrants seeking asylum.

The UK should seal its borders except for Asylum seekers tourists and people with work co entering the proper way.
Also people who have already been given residency in European countries should not be accepted in the UK.

 

[faded_Glory]

The UK should seal its borders except for Asylum seekers tourists and people with work co entering the proper way.

What you are ignoring is that the UK needs immigration to sustain its economy. EU immigrants without a job can be deported after 3 months according to EU law. That this never happens is a massive failure from the UK Government, not helped by the ridiculous situation that the UK doesn't even register where its residents live. With the right processes and procedures EU immigration could be reduced to the level that the market needs, without much in the way of business-costly red tape. Immigration would all by itself settle on the right level.

In the future, businesses will still need the workers, they are simply not there in the country so they will have to come from outside. There will be regulations and procedures forced on businesses to satisfy the public that British workers won't be disadvantaged - but since these British workers aren't there to begin with, all this extra overhead will do is make British businesses less competitive. Many will go to the wall - fruit and vegetable producers for instance, who will simply cease to exist without a readily available immigrant workforce.

Your so-called solution won't work - in practice, immigration will hardly go down, and where it does, businesses and therefore the British economy will suffer.

 

[whichphilosophy]

The UK should seal its borders except for Asylum seekers tourists and people with work co entering the proper way.

What you are ignoring is that the UK needs immigration to sustain its economy. EU immigrants without a job can be deported after 3 months according to EU law. That this never happens is a massive failure from the UK Government, not helped by the ridiculous situation that the UK doesn't even register where its residents live. With the right processes and procedures EU immigration could be reduced to the level that the market needs, without much in the way of business-costly red tape. Immigration would all by itself settle on the right level.

In the future, businesses will still need the workers, they are simply not there in the country so they will have to come from outside. There will be regulations and procedures forced on businesses to satisfy the public that British workers won't be disadvantaged - but since these British workers aren't there to begin with, all this extra overhead will do is make British businesses less competitive. Many will go to the wall - fruit and vegetable producers for instance, who will simply cease to exist without a readily available immigrant workforce.

Your so-called solution won't work - in practice, immigration will hardly go down, and where it does, businesses and therefore the British economy will suffer.

It needs some and they come on a visa. 686,000 in last year and recognised by all the main parties is a problem when far less leave the country.
If you are suggesting that Britain opens more sweatshops to bring down prices this doesn't work.
Hong Kong laws prescribe that any immigrant entering the country legally (work permit, or refuge) will work for the standard type of rate in the country.

Hong Kong still does quite well because the money earned then goes back into the economy through increased spending.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I mildly object to the phrase "Trump can fix it." First, the design of the EO was wrong and therefore it was wrong by design and the design was intentional. Second, it's a thing that was implemented against many people already. One can neither go back in time to undo the damage to the people it harmed nor can one call the EO the same "it" when a new EO is made that is drastically different in scope.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Back to the United States. This is the rationale I was looking for about who can be let in under this "pause":

Stephen Yale-Loehr, an immigration-law professor at Cornell University, said the administration needs to make clear that the only people barred from entry are those who don’t have prior connections to the country.

“If they don’t have any ties to the United States, the government would have a good argument that they don’t have any constitutional rights,” he said.

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/...cutive-order-s-legal-problems-is-no-easy-task


It also appears Trump's rhetoric may come back to haunt him:

Trump said in December 2015 that he wanted "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States." He modified his position later, telling reporters he would seek to restrict people from unspecified "terrorist countries" from entering the U.S.

That campaign statement could hurt Trump in court, as might remarks by former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who said on Fox News last month that Trump was looking for a way to legally enact a Muslim ban.

“Those campaign statements and the Giuliani interview will be damaging," McLaughlin said. "It’s almost like the administration had been hamstrung before it was drafted because of what had already been said.”

It's almost as if words have meanings and can be used in court.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I mildly object to the phrase "Trump can fix it." First, the design of the EO was wrong and therefore it was wrong by design and the design was intentional. Second, it's a thing that was implemented against many people already. One can neither go back in time to undo the damage to the people it harmed nor can one call the EO the same "it" when a new EO is made that is drastically different in scope.

Trump seems more interested in defending the ban than developing these allegedly important changes to immigration policy. Just sayin'...

 

[James Madison]

I mildly object to the phrase "Trump can fix it." First, the design of the EO was wrong and therefore it was wrong by design and the design was intentional. Second, it's a thing that was implemented against many people already. One can neither go back in time to undo the damage to the people it harmed nor can one call the EO the same "it" when a new EO is made that is drastically different in scope.

A rewritten EO does not have to be "drastically rewritten" to adhere to the specific remarks in the decision by the 9th Circuit. Although, a rewritten EO may be susceptible to other legal challenges.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Well, Jimmy will have to let us know if I am making a different point than he did, because this is what I understood him to be saying.

For clarity's sake:

James Madison: "The 9th Court ruled the executive order is unconstitutional, but they explained some of the ways Trump could fix it."
Jimmy Higgins: "But Trump is a petulant child and Bannon is an asshole. So they won't fix it."
James Madison: "That's not the point. He COULD fix it if he wanted to."
Jimmy Higgins: "He could, but he won't, because he's a petulant child."
James Madison: "Of course he is, but that's not the point."
RavenSky: "That's Jimmy's point."
James Madison: "It's not mine."

Wow! At least a few people seem to get what I was saying. Thanks for the effort of the representation.

And looks like no SCOTUS, Trump Admin doesn't think they can defend the actual Order. They sound like they may rewrite after all. Should be interesting. Bannon will be disappointed. Preibus must have more say at the moment. What a fucking mess!

 

[James Madison]

Back to the United States. This is the rationale I was looking for about who can be let in under this "pause":


https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/...cutive-order-s-legal-problems-is-no-easy-task


It also appears Trump's rhetoric may come back to haunt him:

Trump said in December 2015 that he wanted "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States." He modified his position later, telling reporters he would seek to restrict people from unspecified "terrorist countries" from entering the U.S.

That campaign statement could hurt Trump in court, as might remarks by former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who said on Fox News last month that Trump was looking for a way to legally enact a Muslim ban.

“Those campaign statements and the Giuliani interview will be damaging," McLaughlin said. "It’s almost like the administration had been hamstrung before it was drafted because of what had already been said.”

It's almost as if words have meanings and can be used in court.

The phrase "any ties" may be too broad and ambiguous. The Supreme Court decisions certainly do not rely upon such a broad and ambiguous principle. The prior SCOTUS decisions rely upon a more definite and concrete factual assessment. Indeed, the relevant language from the 9th decision does not rely upon an "any ties" standard.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Nice Squirrel]

It looks like V Bulletin is not grabbing the relevant quote. For those playing at home James is responding to this:

Stephen Yale-Loehr, an immigration-law professor at Cornell University, said the administration needs to make clear that the only people barred from entry are those who don’t have prior connections to the country.

“If they don’t have any ties to the United States, the government would have a good argument that they don’t have any constitutional rights,” he said.

The phrase "any ties" may be too broad and ambiguous. The Supreme Court decisions certainly do not rely upon such a broad and ambiguous principle. The prior SCOTUS decisions rely upon a more definite and concrete factual assessment. Indeed, the relevant language from the 9th decision does not rely upon an "any ties" standard.

I agree. "Any ties" could mean you have an uncle who owns a Nebraska coffee house. That alone does not give you a right to ever the country.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

It looks like V Bulletin is not grabbing the relevant quote. For those playing at home James is responding to this:

Stephen Yale-Loehr, an immigration-law professor at Cornell University, said the administration needs to make clear that the only people barred from entry are those who don’t have prior connections to the country.

“If they don’t have any ties to the United States, the government would have a good argument that they don’t have any constitutional rights,” he said.

The phrase "any ties" may be too broad and ambiguous. The Supreme Court decisions certainly do not rely upon such a broad and ambiguous principle. The prior SCOTUS decisions rely upon a more definite and concrete factual assessment. Indeed, the relevant language from the 9th decision does not rely upon an "any ties" standard.

I agree. "Any ties" could mean you have an uncle who owns a Nebraska coffee house. That alone does not give you a right to ever the country.

It would appear James is taking "any ties" out of context. We all know what is meant. Nor was "any ties" meant even to be part of a court order. That would be immensely silly. See post#317.

- - - Updated - - -

I mildly object to the phrase "Trump can fix it." First, the design of the EO was wrong and therefore it was wrong by design and the design was intentional. Second, it's a thing that was implemented against many people already. One can neither go back in time to undo the damage to the people it harmed nor can one call the EO the same "it" when a new EO is made that is drastically different in scope.

A rewritten EO does not have to be "drastically rewritten" to adhere to the specific remarks in the decision by the 9th Circuit. Although, a rewritten EO may be susceptible to other legal challenges.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I wrote "drastically different in scope," not "drastically rewritten." ETA: I also wrote the EO is wrong by design. So, he's not really fixing "it" if it can even be written which I am not so sure it can be. He might very well have to write a NEW executive order with a different design, i.e., one with a design to be consitutional.

 

[whichphilosophy]

The UK should seal its borders except for Asylum seekers tourists and people with work co entering the proper way.

What you are ignoring is that the UK needs immigration to sustain its economy. EU immigrants without a job can be deported after 3 months according to EU law. That this never happens is a massive failure from the UK Government, not helped by the ridiculous situation that the UK doesn't even register where its residents live. With the right processes and procedures EU immigration could be reduced to the level that the market needs, without much in the way of business-costly red tape. Immigration would all by itself settle on the right level.

In the future, businesses will still need the workers, they are simply not there in the country so they will have to come from outside. There will be regulations and procedures forced on businesses to satisfy the public that British workers won't be disadvantaged - but since these British workers aren't there to begin with, all this extra overhead will do is make British businesses less competitive. Many will go to the wall - fruit and vegetable producers for instance, who will simply cease to exist without a readily available immigrant workforce.

Your so-called solution won't work - in practice, immigration will hardly go down, and where it does, businesses and therefore the British economy will suffer.

The UK is running into debt, with record waiting times in hospitals and now the government has made further cuts in council spending while councils are now going to raise the council tax even higher.

Perhaps I didn't make it clear. People with work, means people with a work contract. Added to this I would say guaranteed a minimum wage per the type of job. So the UK could exercise its right to take in what it needs.

The economy is going downhill, where young people of today will be worse off than their parents in real terms. Also 80% young people have ruled out the idea of ever buying a house due to a lack of construction.

Eu Migrants will come into the UK and have 3 months to find a job. Then they will get a job seeker's allowance for up to 91 days.
However, I couldn't find any home office records of any being deported. There is very little in the way of deportations except a few Roma beggars now and again who get the fare back home and then come back again.

Migrantwatch an all party Watchdog claims that overall Immigration cost the tax payer

https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/347

. Between 1995 and 2011 the fiscal cost of migrants in the UK was at least £115 billion and possibly as much as £160 billion according to a report from the Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration headed by Professor Christian Dustmann at University College, London. The report found that migrants in the UK were a fiscal cost in every year examined.[1]

Long Term immigrants tend to be concerned about new immigration (Published 2014).
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...mmigration-as-UK-born-people-study-shows.html

There are benefits from migration but there are disadvantages.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Decided August 29, 2016. The 3rd Circuit makes clear on several occasions that a person seeking initial entry into the US has no Constitutional rights.

I have added emphasis to the word INITIAL.

Most of the complaints, anecdotes and stories about specific persons are about people who lived in the US (not their initial entry), who might even have family, a lease on an apt, or theoretically another domicile, who have jobs, and are RETURNING to the US.

In one such story, a guy has a job working for the government where he has to go outside the country and then come back.

There are many such people right now IN THE US who can't leave and return now because of this decree.

That means they don't have the same rights as others and are part of a collective punishment after having been cleared in the first place.

Those persons were entitled to due process and equal protection previously and ought to still be entitled to due process, equal protection, and other rights of individuals who have been cleared to live here and ARE living here.

By the way, I just wanted to point out this reply by me on Feb 1st to certain people who have been so stubborn to come around to support the Constitution or at least admit its relevance.

 

[faded_Glory]

The UK is running into debt, with record waiting times in hospitals and now the government has made further cuts in council spending while councils are now going to raise the council tax even higher.

Perhaps I didn't make it clear. People with work, means people with a work contract. Added to this I would say guaranteed a minimum wage per the type of job. So the UK could exercise its right to take in what it needs.

The economy is going downhill, where young people of today will be worse off than their parents in real terms. Also 80% young people have ruled out the idea of ever buying a house due to a lack of construction.

None of that has much to do with immigration, but everything with the political choices made by successive governments. The UK is (until recently) the 5th largest economy in the world, yet it is unable to maintain a decent heath care service, it can't provide decent and affordable public transport, the roads are in a deplorable state.... and so on and on. You have to ask yourself, where is all that wealth actually going? Not to the public, that is for sure. Does Panama Papers ring a bell?

And for every quote you provide that immigration is a net economic cost, I can provide one that shows it is a net economic benefit.

Finally, you haven't actually responded to anything in my post.

 

[James Madison]

It looks like V Bulletin is not grabbing the relevant quote. For those playing at home James is responding to this:

Stephen Yale-Loehr, an immigration-law professor at Cornell University, said the administration needs to make clear that the only people barred from entry are those who don’t have prior connections to the country.

“If they don’t have any ties to the United States, the government would have a good argument that they don’t have any constitutional rights,” he said.



I agree. "Any ties" could mean you have an uncle who owns a Nebraska coffee house. That alone does not give you a right to ever the country.

It would appear James is taking "any ties" out of context. We all know what is meant. Nor was "any ties" meant even to be part of a court order. That would be immensely silly. See post#317.

- - - Updated - - -

I mildly object to the phrase "Trump can fix it." First, the design of the EO was wrong and therefore it was wrong by design and the design was intentional. Second, it's a thing that was implemented against many people already. One can neither go back in time to undo the damage to the people it harmed nor can one call the EO the same "it" when a new EO is made that is drastically different in scope.

A rewritten EO does not have to be "drastically rewritten" to adhere to the specific remarks in the decision by the 9th Circuit. Although, a rewritten EO may be susceptible to other legal challenges.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I wrote "drastically different in scope," not "drastically rewritten." ETA: I also wrote the EO is wrong by design. So, he's not really fixing "it" if it can even be written which I am not so sure it can be. He might very well have to write a NEW executive order with a different design, i.e., one with a design to be consitutional.

It would appear James is taking "any ties" out of context. We all know what is meant.

Appearances can be and are deceiving. I didn't take the phrase "any ties" out of context.

I wrote "drastically different in scope," not "drastically rewritten."

Regardless, the EO can be rewritten in such a manner as to not constitute as "drastically" different in scope while adhering to the 9th's decision.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[laughing dog]

Regardless, the EO can be rewritten in such a manner as to not constitute as "drastically" different in scope.

Yes it can. But that cannot hide the stated intent.