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

[Warpoet]

Based on his prior posting in the thread, I'm thinking fast is just having a laugh.

 

[fast]

What do you mean, "full stop"? Religious discrimination is not at the heart of his intent. He recognizes the threat as in fact being apart of that group and wants to keep us safe from terrorism. Any discrimination is not manifested by bigotedness. I'm not saying this as a defense of Trumps actions; I'm just curious what you mean by "full stop."

Full stop, period. As in "DJT wants to ban all muslims from entering the country, end of sentence." That is what "Full stop" means.

And just so we're clear, he did say that he is going to ban all Muslims from entering the country. Those are his words.

End of sentence, I'm okay with, but it came across as end of story.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Based on his prior posting in the thread, I'm thinking fast is just having a laugh.

I can't tell anymore.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The media's spin that this is some grand victory against Trump is a bit silly.

The grand victory hasn't happened yet, but seems inevitable because the Executive Branch doesn't have the authority to ban people based on religion based on a 1960's law passed by Congress, which was explicitly passed to prevent as such. Another thing, the order shows just how amateur this Administration is, putting into effect an illegal ban with limitations that were not specified, which temporarily blocked legal citizens from getting back into the US. The order was not reviewed by anyone else and it shows just how incompetent this Administration is.

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.

Actually the law does not indicate that as such.

 

[fast]

Based on his prior posting in the thread, I'm thinking fast is just having a laugh.

I can't tell anymore.

Well if you bastards would make it easier to find the drinking thread, maybe I'd make a concerted effort to exercise my creative talents of conveying clarity.

 

[James Madison]

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.

No, it isn't, and yes, they do. The order is blatant religious discrimination, poorly disguised as part of some kind of "vetting" process. And the courts absolutely have the ability to strike it down for that reason, which they should.

But you already know exactly what the order is about, and that's why I'm sure you support it. After all, this fascistic orange shitbag said he was going to ban all Muslims, full stop, and you voted for him anyway, didn't you, Trausti?

Presently, SCOTUS decisions have been very deferential to Congress and the President in the area foreign relations. Including decisions allow the President and Congress to engage in discrimination that otherwise would not be palatable or lawful as domestic law for the U.S.

The Supreme Court has held consistently, for more than a century, that constitutional protections that normally benefit Americans and people on American territory do not apply when Congress decides who to admit and who to exclude as immigrants or other entrants. This is called the plenary power doctrine...The Court has repeatedly turned away challenges to immigration statutes and executive actions on grounds that they discriminate on the basis of race, national origin, and political belief, and that they deprive foreign nationals of due process protections...I would add that, in Kleindienst v. Mandel (1972), the Supreme Court applied the “plenary power doctrine” to the exclusion of people based on their political beliefs, despite the Free Speech Clause. The cases that Posner is referring to, together with Kleindienst, suggest that the exclusion of people based on their religious beliefs is likewise constitutional.​

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/12/08/banning-muslims-from-entering-the-u-s-is-a-very-bad-idea-but-it-may-be-constitutionally-permissible/?utm_term=.c32498856842 At the bottom of the prose, the author cites to other lawyers, law professors, and/or legal scholars sharing his own view and taking a contrary perspective.

My personal belief is more parallel to your own, which is to say generally, the federal government must adhere to the dictates of the religion clauses in the 1st Amendment, including the area of immigration, absent some compelling and/or exigent circumstance.

 

[James Madison]

No, it isn't, and yes, they do. The order is blatant religious discrimination, poorly disguised as part of some kind of "vetting" process. And the courts absolutely have the ability to strike it down for that reason, which they should.

But you already know exactly what the order is about, and that's why I'm sure you support it. After all, this fascistic orange shitbag said he was going to ban all Muslims, full stop, and you voted for him anyway, didn't you, Trausti?

What do you mean, "full stop"? Religious discrimination is not at the heart of his intent. He recognizes the threat as in fact being apart of that group and wants to keep us safe from terrorism. Any discrimination is not manifested by bigotedness. I'm not saying this as a defense of Trumps actions; I'm just curious what you mean by "full stop."

Assuming, arguendo, religious discrimination is not Trump's intent, this does not change what the text of the EO says and how it operates. The text of the EO, and its operation, does exclude Muslims in 7 countries from entering the U.S. as a refugee.

However, the EO is not an absolute ban for those Muslims in 7 countries as the EO does permit Muslims in those 7 countries to enter the U.S. in a discretionary manner.

- - - Updated - - -

 

[James Madison]

What do you mean, "full stop"? Religious discrimination is not at the heart of his intent. He recognizes the threat as in fact being apart of that group and wants to keep us safe from terrorism. Any discrimination is not manifested by bigotedness. I'm not saying this as a defense of Trumps actions; I'm just curious what you mean by "full stop."

Full stop, period. As in "DJT wants to ban all muslims from entering the country, end of sentence." That is what "Full stop" means.

And just so we're clear, he did say that he is going to ban all Muslims from entering the country. Those are his words.

But you do understand the relevant EO does not "ban all Muslims from entering the country?"

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Full stop, period. As in "DJT wants to ban all muslims from entering the country, end of sentence." That is what "Full stop" means.

And just so we're clear, he did say that he is going to ban all Muslims from entering the country. Those are his words.

But you do understand the relevant EO does not "ban all Muslims from entering the country?"

Do you have any observations regarding motive from the Courts when this goes there? One logistical issue is that we haven't had any problems with terrorists coming from these nations, in general. To say this is to protect the US seems a bit far fetched, especially when other nations like Egypt and Saudi Arabia aren't on the list and those terrorists killed a lot of Americans. Granted, I doubt the court will want to wade too deeply into reasoning of the Executive Order, but it would seem to be an area of concern, unless the courts think the President is free to block anyone from entering the US without cause.

 

[LordKiran]

Full stop, period. As in "DJT wants to ban all muslims from entering the country, end of sentence." That is what "Full stop" means.

And just so we're clear, he did say that he is going to ban all Muslims from entering the country. Those are his words.

But you do understand the relevant EO does not "ban all Muslims from entering the country?"

Irrelevant to my point.

 

[James Madison]

But you do understand the relevant EO does not "ban all Muslims from entering the country?"

Irrelevant to my point.

The issue is the EO and not what he said as a candidate.

Your "point" is rather irrelevant to discussing the EO.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SimpleDon]

The ACLU filed the emergency motion this morning on behalf of two people with valid VISAs and green cards being held in the airport.



http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/01/muslim-ban-federal-court

There have been massive protests at JFK and other airports all day against the fuckwad's self-serving "executive order".

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...countries-linked-businesses-article-1.2957956

...none of the perpetrators of the major US terrorist attacks carried out in the name of Islam in the past 15 years have come from the nations on that list. In fact, the country home to the biggest number of terrorists who have carried out successful attacks inside the US is the US itself.

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...n-immigration-visas-terrorism-executive-order

The list of nations that the executive order applies to is based on the nations named in a previous law passed by Congress and signed by Bush II. It is being used by the crazy would be despot as a thin thread of legitimacy for his otherwise despicable and unconstitutional actions.

By next week I predict that no one here will admit that they voted for him.

I support him. He's gonna make America great again.

I don't agree with his definition of a Great America. It seems to be a timid, afraid to take a chance America. This is not what made America Great. It is what lead to the most shameful side of America. Things like the preservation of slavery, Jim Crow, the KKK, Lindberg's America First isolationism, the Japanese intermittent camps, etc.

 

[SimpleDon]

A blanket ban like this affects many who have been working productively and travelling back and forth from the USA. The US does have a problem of home grown terrorists caused by a number of factors. This figure is small but just one or two persons is enough.

The ban I understand is for 90 days but in any event the US should exclude people with green cards and who have visas already. Saudi Arabia is omitted from the list.

I also tend to disagree that Iran itself has any kind of terrorist program against the USA.

It looks like the people with green cards are being allowed back in.

As for Saudi Arabia--what's excluded from the list are those countries that Trump has businesses in, the places there could be retaliation. A side effect of this is the countries from which the 9/11 attackers were from aren't on the list.

The order was strangely timid. He claimed that they didn't announce the ban beforehand because the bad guys would rush to enter the US before the ban went into effect*. And yet he deferred action for the countries that have proven in the past to have people who are willing to commit terroristic attacks against the US. Countries from which the bad guys can now rush into the US before the ban is applied to them.

I know, it isn't possible to make sense of the insensible.

* Coupled with the observation that "there are a lot of bad "dudes" out there."

 

[Underseer]

Full stop, period. As in "DJT wants to ban all muslims from entering the country, end of sentence." That is what "Full stop" means.

And just so we're clear, he did say that he is going to ban all Muslims from entering the country. Those are his words.

But you do understand the relevant EO does not "ban all Muslims from entering the country?"

I'm sorry, but that doesn't fly. Giuliani admitted on FOX News that Trump consulted him to find a "legal" way to ban Muslims, and Giuliani boasted that this is what he came up with.

Unless you think Giuliani or FOX News is deliberately lying for some reason, your argument is just a weak excuse.

And if this is supposedly about "protecting" us from terrorism, why does the ban apply to countries that didn't produce terrorists that attacked us, but doesn't apply to Muslim countries (e.g. Saudi Arabia) that have produced terrorists that attacked us?

 

[James Madison]

But you do understand the relevant EO does not "ban all Muslims from entering the country?"

I'm sorry, but that doesn't fly. Giuliani admitted on FOX News that Trump consulted him to find a "legal" way to ban Muslims, and Giuliani boasted that this is what he came up with.

Unless you think Giuliani or FOX News is deliberately lying for some reason, your argument is just a weak excuse.

And if this is supposedly about "protecting" us from terrorism, why does the ban apply to countries that didn't produce terrorists that attacked us, but doesn't apply to Muslim countries (e.g. Saudi Arabia) that have produced terrorists that attacked us?

The EO doesn't ban "all Muslims," a point Trump made during his campaign. The EO bans Muslims in 7 countries from entering the U.S., while creating an exception to allow Muslims in those 7 countries to enter the U.S. The exception is discretionary.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[rousseau]

What does 'banning muslims' even mean, and why is it tied to these countries? If a muslim lives in Iraq and spontaneously converts to atheism is he still denied entry?

If so, this ban is about racial hatred, and not religion.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'm sorry, but that doesn't fly. Giuliani admitted on FOX News that Trump consulted him to find a "legal" way to ban Muslims, and Giuliani boasted that this is what he came up with.

Unless you think Giuliani or FOX News is deliberately lying for some reason, your argument is just a weak excuse.

And if this is supposedly about "protecting" us from terrorism, why does the ban apply to countries that didn't produce terrorists that attacked us, but doesn't apply to Muslim countries (e.g. Saudi Arabia) that have produced terrorists that attacked us?

The EO doesn't ban "all Muslims," a point Trump made during his campaign. The EO bans Muslims....

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.

 

[James Madison]

What does 'banning muslims' even mean, and why is it tied to these countries? If a muslim lives in Iraq and spontaneously converts to atheism is he still denied entry?

If so, this ban is about racial hatred, and not religion.

The EO provisions, and how they function, in consideration with other facts, results in no Muslim in 7 countries coming to the U.S. by visa/refugee status for a specified amount of time, with an exception for those Muslims in 7 countries to be admitted on a "case by case basis" and is entirely discretionary.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[James Madison]

The EO doesn't ban "all Muslims," a point Trump made during his campaign. The EO bans Muslims....

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?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Rhea]

Yes I'd seen the question, "can't they just pretend to be Christians, like republicans do?"