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

[J842P]

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 In effect, the Green card can be withdrawn by the US at any time.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?

Whether or not it is a violation of the First Amendment does not depend on the citizenship of the person. Civil liberties apply to anyone, as far as I know.

 

[Trausti]

Even for non-citizens?

Whether or not it is a violation of the First Amendment does not depend on the citizenship of the person. Civil liberties apply to anyone, as far as I know.

So long as those people are in the US or its territories.

 

[fast]

Whether or not it is a violation of the First Amendment does not depend on the citizenship of the person. Civil liberties apply to anyone, as far as I know.

So long as those people are in the US or its territories.

Then if they make it here, they are afforded the same civil liberties and due process of law. If they want to come here but we say they can't come here because of their religion, they are not afforded the same civil liberties as others here, regardless of how they got here.

 

[Warpoet]

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.

With respect, James, I think you are getting too fixated on the literal meaning of the text and missing the obvious intent behind the words. For one, the fact that seven Muslim-majority countries were chosen with no logical foundation for doing so, given the president's stated intent to ban all Muslims from entering, and later efforts to find a "more legal" way of doing so, is pretty damned strong evidence that this is indeed a ban targeting Muslims, even if there are non-Muslims in the affected countries.

And Trump specifically referenced Syrian Christians when speaking of giving Christians priority. Which suggests the shutdown of Syrian refugees will not be absolute. The language given is with respect to persecuted minorities, but the obvious thinking from the White House is Christians. And if Christians are given preference of any kind, and especially from Syria, but similar consideration is not given to Muslim minorities suffering at the hands of other Muslims, it is plainly religious discrimination.

But really, what would it take for you to be convinced that this is order is targeting Muslims, if the president's own stated goal as such isn't enough? Does the world "Muslim" need to be explicitly used? The selection of the countries in this arbitrary manner, the language sprinkled throughout about honor killings, impossible demands that entrants not hold "violent ideologies" above the Constitution, exceptions that obviously are meant for Christians, allowances for the NSC to draft up future requirements to ensure that those entering pass some vague standard of Americanness - it's an indirect, but obvious attempt at doing what Trump said he'd do during the campaign. And it must be stopped now before he's allowed to succeed.

 

[Warpoet]

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.

You are incorrect. The president does not have free reign to do whatever he wants re: immigration with no judicial oversight whatsoever, even if he claims statutory authority.

Stop commenting on matters of this complexity if you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

 

[dismal]

O, if only there was some Supreme Court case that had specifically considered whether the governments long established plenary power to restrict immigration affected what might be considered first amendment rights if the immigrant were a US citizen.

Like, say, this one:

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/408/753.html

 

[James Madison]

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.

With respect, James, I think you are getting too fixated on the literal meaning of the text and missing the obvious intent behind the words. For one, the fact that seven Muslim-majority countries were chosen with no logical foundation for doing so, given the president's stated intent to ban all Muslims from entering, and later efforts to find a "more legal" way of doing so, is pretty damned strong evidence that this is indeed a ban targeting Muslims, even if there are non-Muslims in the affected countries.

And Trump specifically referenced Syrian Christians when speaking of giving Christians priority. Which suggests the shutdown of Syrian refugees will not be absolute. The language given is with respect to persecuted minorities, but the obvious thinking from the White House is Christians. And if Christians are given preference of any kind, and especially from Syria, but similar consideration is not given to Muslim minorities suffering at the hands of other Muslims, it is plainly religious discrimination.

But really, what would it take for you to be convinced that this is order is targeting Muslims, if the president's own stated goal as such isn't enough? Does the world "Muslim" need to be explicitly used? The selection of the countries in this arbitrary manner, the language sprinkled throughout about honor killings, impossible demands that entrants not hold "violent ideologies" above the Constitution, exceptions that obviously are meant for Christians, allowances for the NSC to draft up future requirements to ensure that those entering pass some vague standard of Americanness - it's an indirect, but obvious attempt at doing what Trump said he'd do during the campaign. And it must be stopped now before he's allowed to succeed.

"Too fixated on the literal meaning of the text"? Yes, I am and it makes sense to do so. The text, after all, is the directive.

You can focus on his "intent" but the reality is the EO isn't commensurate with his intent.

The EO banning everyone from those 7 countries cannot logically or rationally be characterized as a "ban targeting Muslims."
It doesn't make any sense to characterize a ban applying to all people as a "ban targeting" only a small and specific group of people among the entirety of problem banned.

But really, what would it take for you to be convinced that this is order is targeting Muslims, if the president's own stated goal as such isn't enough?

Language from the EO itself, since after all the EO is the controlling directive and Trump's statements are not the controlling directive. The fact is, at this moment, the EO doesn't meet "Trump's states goals."

The text of the EO is controlling and determinative of what the EO says and accomplishes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Warpoet]

O, if only there was some Supreme Court case that had specifically considered whether the governments long established plenary power to restrict immigration affected what might be considered first amendment rights if the immigrant were a US citizen.

Like, say, this one:

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/408/753.html

O, if only alt right trolls who think they're oh-so-clever did the actual research into these issues, instead of just repeating the shit they hear from their ideological echo chamber:

http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2015/12/constitution-check-would-a-ban-on-all-muslims-entering-the-u-s-be-valid/

Near the center of the current debate about a ban on Muslims is a 1972 decision, in the case of Kleindienst v. Mandel, upholding the Executive Branch’s refusal to allow a Belgian scholar who was an adherent of Marxist political philosophy to enter the U.S. to give a series of lectures.

The decision split the court 6 to 3. It is obvious that the majority opinion is filled with expressions of judicial reluctance to second-guess an Executive Branch decision in this field. That part of the ruling has led some scholars to the confident conclusion that a flat ban on Muslims would now be upheld, without judicial interference.

Scholars of the opposite view, however, have drawn encouragement from the fact that the court did not accept in that case an argument by the Executive Branch that such decisions were not open to review in the courts. And such scholars also note that the court majority accepted the decision to exclude Mandel on the explicit premise that the government’s reasons for doing so were “facially legitimate and bona fide.”

That phrase does create a constitutional test for judging a sweeping ban on entry based upon a broad classification. Given that not all Muslims who entered the country would undoubtedly pose a discernible threat, a total ban might not satisfy judicial demands that the policy have some proper foundation in fact and experience and was not a mere cover for hysteria or xenophobia. In the modern era of sensitivity to human rights, such broad-based classifications are quite suspect.

The President does have broad powers over immigration, but they are not free from judicial oversight. Which is what I said. So, "the ban is legal because the president has broad authority over immigration, especially WRT national security," is a debatable claim. But "The Constitution is not implicated as many previous courts have affirmed that immigration policy is a plenary power" is a stupid one.

Again, if you want to speak authoritatively on issues like this, do your homework first.

 

[fast]

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.

With respect, James, I think you are getting too fixated on the literal meaning of the text and missing the obvious intent behind the words. For one, the fact that seven Muslim-majority countries were chosen with no logical foundation for doing so, given the president's stated intent to ban all Muslims from entering, and later efforts to find a "more legal" way of doing so, is pretty damned strong evidence that this is indeed a ban targeting Muslims, even if there are non-Muslims in the affected countries.

And Trump specifically referenced Syrian Christians when speaking of giving Christians priority. Which suggests the shutdown of Syrian refugees will not be absolute. The language given is with respect to persecuted minorities, but the obvious thinking from the White House is Christians. And if Christians are given preference of any kind, and especially from Syria, but similar consideration is not given to Muslim minorities suffering at the hands of other Muslims, it is plainly religious discrimination.

But really, what would it take for you to be convinced that this is order is targeting Muslims, if the president's own stated goal as such isn't enough? Does the world "Muslim" need to be explicitly used? The selection of the countries in this arbitrary manner, the language sprinkled throughout about honor killings, impossible demands that entrants not hold "violent ideologies" above the Constitution, exceptions that obviously are meant for Christians, allowances for the NSC to draft up future requirements to ensure that those entering pass some vague standard of Americanness - it's an indirect, but obvious attempt at doing what Trump said he'd do during the campaign. And it must be stopped now before he's allowed to succeed.

If I want to ban all blacks in my town from entering my restaurant but find that doing so is a violation of the law but notice that all blacks in my town make under 30k a year and choose to ban all people in my town from entering my restaurant making less than 30k a year, then if that's legally allowable, then even though I have as one might say, "effectively banned" all blacks in my town from entering my restaurant, it's still a technical and literal difference between an ACTUAL ban (which in this case would be keeping all people in my town making under 30k a year from entering my restaurant) and what I've effectively (and legally) accomplished.

He both does and does not want to ban Muslims. He does but for 'means to end' reasoning (not prejudicial). He doesn't have that as an end goal, which would be evidenced if the perceived threat were not apart of that group. If we're going to hold him as morally challenged by not caring how he protects us, that's a different issue than claiming legal misconduct. Laws are already being used for alternative purposes, and even if you're right in that his intent to ban certain Muslims belonging to the group of all Muslims (which might very well be what he wants (yet for non-prejudicial reasons)), the wording (not the intent) matters more, just like the actual ban is what the actual ban is, regardless of reprocussions, intended or otherwise.

 

[Trausti]

O, if only there was some Supreme Court case that had specifically considered whether the governments long established plenary power to restrict immigration affected what might be considered first amendment rights if the immigrant were a US citizen.

Like, say, this one:

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/408/753.html

O, if only alt right trolls who think they're oh-so-clever did the actual research into these issues, instead of just repeating the shit they hear from their ideological echo chamber:

http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2015/12/constitution-check-would-a-ban-on-all-muslims-entering-the-u-s-be-valid/

Near the center of the current debate about a ban on Muslims is a 1972 decision, in the case of Kleindienst v. Mandel, upholding the Executive Branch’s refusal to allow a Belgian scholar who was an adherent of Marxist political philosophy to enter the U.S. to give a series of lectures.

The decision split the court 6 to 3. It is obvious that the majority opinion is filled with expressions of judicial reluctance to second-guess an Executive Branch decision in this field. That part of the ruling has led some scholars to the confident conclusion that a flat ban on Muslims would now be upheld, without judicial interference.

Scholars of the opposite view, however, have drawn encouragement from the fact that the court did not accept in that case an argument by the Executive Branch that such decisions were not open to review in the courts. And such scholars also note that the court majority accepted the decision to exclude Mandel on the explicit premise that the government’s reasons for doing so were “facially legitimate and bona fide.”

That phrase does create a constitutional test for judging a sweeping ban on entry based upon a broad classification. Given that not all Muslims who entered the country would undoubtedly pose a discernible threat, a total ban might not satisfy judicial demands that the policy have some proper foundation in fact and experience and was not a mere cover for hysteria or xenophobia. In the modern era of sensitivity to human rights, such broad-based classifications are quite suspect.

The President does have broad powers over immigration, but they are not free from judicial oversight. Which is what I said. So, "the ban is legal because the president has broad authority over immigration, especially WRT national security," is a debatable claim. But "The Constitution is not implicated as many previous courts have affirmed that immigration policy is a plenary power" is a stupid one.

Again, if you want to speak authoritatively on issues like this, do your homework first.

¡Ay, caramba!

Having introduced the prevailing understandings of the Suspension Clause and of the political branches' plenary power over immigration, we now consider the relationship between these two areas of legal doctrine and how they apply to Petitioners' claim that the jurisdiction-stripping provisions of § 1252 violate the Suspension Clause.

Petitioners argue that under the Supreme Court's Suspension Clause jurisprudence -- especially St. Cyr and the finality-era cases -- courts must, at a minimum, be able to review the legal conclusions underlying the Executive's negative credible fear determinations, including the Executive's interpretation and application of a statute to undisputed facts.[24] And because § 1252(e)(2) does not provide for at least this level of review, Petitioners claim that it constitutes an inadequate substitute for habeas, in violation of the Suspension Clause.

The government, on the other hand, claims that the plenary power doctrine operates to foreclose Petitioners' Suspension Clause challenge. In the government's view, Petitioners should be treated no differently from aliens " on the threshold of initial entry" who clearly lack constitutional due process protections concerning their application for admission. Mezei, 345 U.S. at 212. And because Petitioners " have no underlying procedural due process rights to vindicate in habeas," Respondents' Br. 49, the government argues that " the scope of habeas review is [ ] irrelevant." Id.

Petitioners raise three principal arguments in response to the government's contentions above. First, they claim that to deny them due process rights despite their having indisputably entered the country prior to being apprehended would run contrary to numerous Supreme Court precedents recognizing the constitutional rights of all " persons" within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. See, e.g., Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67, 77, 96 S.Ct. 1883, 48 L.Ed.2d 478 (1976) (explaining that the Fifth Amendment applies to all aliens " within the jurisdiction of the United States," including those " whose presence in this country is unlawful, involuntary, or transitory" ). Second, they argue that even if the Constitution does not impose any independent procedural minimums that the Executive must satisfy before removing Petitioners, the Executive must at least fairly administer those procedures that Congress has actually prescribed in the expedited removal statute. Cf. Dia v. Ashcroft, 353 F.3d 228, 238-39 (3d Cir. 2003) (en banc) (holding that Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process in deportation proceedings, and explaining that these rights " ste[m] from those statutory rights granted by Congress and the principle that '[m]inimum due process rights attach to statutory rights.'" (quoting Marincas v. Lewis, 92 F.3d 195, 203 (3d Cir. 1996))). Third, Petitioners claim that, regardless of the extent of their constitutional or statutory due process rights, habeas corpus stands as a constitutional check against illegal detention by the Executive that is separate and apart from the protections afforded by the Due Process Clause.

We agree with the government that Petitioners' Suspension Clause challenge to § 1252 must fail, though we do so for reasons that are somewhat different than those urged by the government. As explained in Part III.B.1 above, Boumediene contemplates a two-step inquiry whereby courts must first determine whether a given habeas petitioner is prohibited from invoking the Suspension Clause due to some attribute of the petitioner or to the circumstances surrounding his arrest or detention. Cf. Boumediene, 553 U.S. at 739. Only after confirming that the petitioner is not so prohibited may courts then turn to the question whether the substitute for habeas is adequate and effective to test the legality of the petitioner's detention (or removal). As we explain below, we conclude that Petitioners cannot clear Boumediene 's first hurdle -- that of proving their entitlement vel non to the protections of the Suspension Clause.[25]

The reason Petitioners' Suspension Clause claim falls at step one is because the Supreme Court has unequivocally concluded that " an alien seeking initial admission to the United States requests a privilege and has no constitutional rights regarding his application." Landon, 459 U.S. at 32. Petitioners were each apprehended within hours of surreptitiously entering the United States, so we think it appropriate to treat them as " alien seeking initial admission to the United States." Id. And since the issues that Petitioners seek to challenge all stem from the Executive's decision to remove them from the country, they cannot invoke the Constitution, including the Suspension Clause, in an effort to force judicial review beyond what Congress has already granted them. As such, we need not reach the second question under the Boumediene framework, i.e., whether the limited scope of review of expedited removal orders under § 1252 is an adequate substitute for traditional habeas review.

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.

 

[Warpoet]

"Too fixated on the literal meaning of the text"? Yes, I am and it makes sense to do so. The text, after all, is the directive.

You can focus on his "intent" but the reality is the EO isn't commensurate with his intent.

Because he realizes that if he signed an EO with his actual intent, it would be met with even greater resistance. But that doesn't mean he's not targeting Muslims now, or that he won't be doing so later, as this appears to be the first in what's likely going to be a very long process of excessive, unnecessary and un-American restrictions on immigration.

The EO banning everyone from those 7 countries cannot logically or rationally be characterized as a "ban targeting Muslims."
It doesn't make any sense to characterize a ban applying to all people as a "ban targeting" only a small and specific group of people among the entirety of problem banned.

I have no idea where you are getting the notion that Muslims are a "small and specific" group of people among the entirety of those banned. Muslims are overwhelmingly those affected. In fact, of the banned countries, only Syria has a significant non-Muslim population. And there's little in the way of sound justification tying them together, unless being Muslim-majority counts.

Language from the EO itself, since after all the EO is the controlling directive and Trump's statements are not the controlling directive. The fact is, at this moment, the EO doesn't meet "Trump's states goals."

The text of the EO is controlling and determinative of what the EO says and accomplishes.

What I would say to you is that this EO, which I do consider to be plainly religious discrimination -- and this will be borne out as we see how these "exceptions" are applied (read: to Christians, and not Muslim religious minorities) -- is an opening salvo in what is going to be a protracted campaign by this administration to chip away at Constitutional protections against executive overreach. And if it isn't stopped now it's going to be far more difficult to stop down the road.

 

[laughing dog]

The EO banning everyone from those 7 countries cannot logically or rationally be characterized as a "ban targeting Muslims."

If the reason for limiting this ban to those countries was that the population is predominantly Muslim, it can be rationally characterized as a "ban targeting Muslims".

 

[Warpoet]

¡Ay, caramba!

Look, another clueless troll copying and pasting shit from alt right blogs even though he doesn't understand what the fuck any of it means! Ay, caramba, indeed!

Your case has nothing to do with the issue at hand; it deals with a decision to expel immigrants who were detained in America and petitioned to stay on grounds of "credible fear" of persecution in their home country. It's about due process rights for illegal aliens who have been detained on American soil, not people seeking to enter from abroad. And it doesn't concern whether or not the president has the legal authority to outright ban an entire religious group from legally entering the country.

Same thing I said to dismal goes for you: do your research before commenting, or shut the fuck up. I'm not going to spend the whole day having to read through every fucking red herring you guys pull out of the comments section on Breitbart.

 

[Trausti]

¡Ay, caramba!

Look, another clueless troll copying and pasting shit from alt right blogs even though he doesn't understand what the fuck any of it means! Ay, caramba, indeed!

Your case has nothing to do with the issue at hand; it deals with a decision to expel immigrants who were detained in America and petitioned to stay on grounds of "credible fear" of persecution in their home country. It's about due process rights for illegal aliens who have been detained on American soil, not people seeking to enter from abroad. And it doesn't concern whether or not the president has the legal authority to outright ban an entire religious group from legally entering the country.

Same thing I said to dismal goes for you: do your research before commenting, or shut the fuck up. I'm not going to spend the whole day having to read through every fucking red herring you guys pull out of the comments section on Breitbart.

Heh. I'm an attorney; grabbed the most recent case that came up on my search. The facts of the 2016 case may be different, by in that case the petitioners specifically sought to use the Courts to second-guess the executive. To quote again:

Petitioners argue that under the Supreme Court's Suspension Clause jurisprudence -- especially St. Cyr and the finality-era cases -- courts must, at a minimum, be able to review the legal conclusions underlying the Executive's negative credible fear determinations, including the Executive's interpretation and application of a statute to undisputed facts.

The 3rd Circuit said it couldn't even entertain that because of the executive and Congress's plenary power. I understand that you don't like this result, but that's just the way it is.

We are sympathetic to the plight of Petitioners and other aliens who have come to this country seeking protection and repose from dangers that they sincerely believe their own governments are unable or unwilling to address. Nevertheless, Congress has unambiguously limited the scope of judicial review, and in so doing has foreclosed review of Petitioners' claims. And in light of the undisputed facts surrounding Petitioners' surreptitious entry into this country, and considering Congress' and the Executive's plenary power over decisions regarding the admission or exclusion of aliens, we cannot say that this limited scope of review is unconstitutional under the Suspension Clause, at least as to Petitioners and other aliens similarly situated. We will therefore affirm the District Court's order dismissing Petitioners' habeas petitions for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

 

[Warpoet]

Heh. I'm an attorney;

When did Breitbart start handing out law degrees?

grabbed the most recent case that came up on my search. The facts of the 2016 case may be different, by in that case the petitioners specifically sought to use the Courts to second-guess the executive. To quote again:

The 3rd Circuit said it couldn't even entertain that because of the executive and Congress's plenary power. I understand that you don't like this result, but that's just the way it is.

It doesn't matter if I like the result or not - it's not fucking relevant to the discussion at hand. This case concerns a different issue; it cites past SCOTUS decisions but isn't making any for itself that would be relevant to a legal challenge against Trump's idiotic ban. As the article I linked to earlier stated, judicial review over immigration policy is limited but not non-existent. SCOTUS rejected the idea that executive decisions on immigration are not open to judicial review.

If you're an attorney and can't figure this out for yourself, you should ask for your tuition money back.

 

[Trausti]

When did Breitbart start handing out law degrees?

grabbed the most recent case that came up on my search. The facts of the 2016 case may be different, by in that case the petitioners specifically sought to use the Courts to second-guess the executive. To quote again:

The 3rd Circuit said it couldn't even entertain that because of the executive and Congress's plenary power. I understand that you don't like this result, but that's just the way it is.

It doesn't matter if I like the result or not - it's not fucking relevant to the discussion at hand. This case concerns a different issue; it cites past SCOTUS decisions but isn't making any for itself that would be relevant to a legal challenge against Trump's idiotic ban. As the article I linked to earlier stated, judicial review over immigration policy is limited but not non-existent. SCOTUS rejected the idea that executive decisions on immigration are not open to judicial review.

If you're an attorney and can't figure this out for yourself, you should ask for your tuition money back.

And you've offered no case, not one, where any US Court, be it the Supreme Court, Circuit Court of Appeals, or District Court, determined that it had the constitutional authority to reverse the decision of the executive to preclude entry of an alien from a foreign land. That's because the courts have no such authority. But continue on.

 

[Warpoet]

And you've offered no case, not one, where any US Court, be it the Supreme Court, Circuit Court of Appeals, or District Court, determined that it had the constitutional authority to reverse the decision of the executive to preclude entry of an alien from a foreign land. That's because the courts has no such authority. But continue on.

For fuck's sake - dismal was the one who referenced a past case of an alien being refused entry, and I had to go dig up analysis from a constitutional scholar explaining that the court explicitly rejected the argument, in that very case, that these decisions are not subject to judicial review. And which further states that a Muslim ban could be challenged for that very reason.

Is it possible that it could be upheld, or that the court would find that they have no authority to interfere? Sure, but that's hardly some closed and shut issue like you want to make it to be, since you agree with this preposterous ban for reasons of your own personal bigotry. If this is actually your area of professional expertise, the least you could do is fucking read the relevant material.

 

[James Madison]

Because he realizes that if he signed an EO with his actual intent, it would be met with even greater resistance. But that doesn't mean he's not targeting Muslims now, or that he won't be doing so later, as this appears to be the first in what's likely going to be a very long process of excessive, unnecessary and un-American restrictions on immigration.

The EO banning everyone from those 7 countries cannot logically or rationally be characterized as a "ban targeting Muslims."
It doesn't make any sense to characterize a ban applying to all people as a "ban targeting" only a small and specific group of people among the entirety of problem banned.

I have no idea where you are getting the notion that Muslims are a "small and specific" group of people among the entirety of those banned. Muslims are overwhelmingly those affected. In fact, of the banned countries, only Syria has a significant non-Muslim population. And there's little in the way of sound justification tying them together, unless being Muslim-majority counts.

Language from the EO itself, since after all the EO is the controlling directive and Trump's statements are not the controlling directive. The fact is, at this moment, the EO doesn't meet "Trump's states goals."

The text of the EO is controlling and determinative of what the EO says and accomplishes.

What I would say to you is that this EO, which I do consider to be plainly religious discrimination -- and this will be borne out as we see how these "exceptions" are applied (read: to Christians, and not Muslim religious minorities) -- is an opening salvo in what is going to be a protracted campaign by this administration to chip away at Constitutional protections against executive overreach. And if it isn't stopped now it's going to be far more difficult to stop down the road.

A few points.

First, I concur with your dislike for the EO.

Second, I do share your sentiment the EO is constitutionally dubious (although present Court decisions strongly suggest this EO is lawful in regard to its treatment of religion).

But the text of the EO simply doesn't support the notion the EO is a Muslim ban (Muslim ban understood here to imply only Muslims were banned.)

As I said previously, it is not logical to assert he's targeting Muslims in those 7 nations when so many other people are likewise caught in the net. A ban of all people in those 7 nations, applicable to Muslims and non-Muslims, renders it rather illogical to assert he's targeting Muslims.

You raise, however, a very good point. You are very astute to mention that while the EO may say X, how it's applied may be problematic. I do not disagree with you. The application of the EO, how the EO is implemented and applied, may be problematic while the text of the EO is not an issue. Very good point chap!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[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.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The EO banning everyone from those 7 countries cannot logically or rationally be characterized as a "ban targeting Muslims."

If the reason for limiting this ban to those countries was that the population is predominantly Muslim, it can be rationally characterized as a "ban targeting Muslims".

This is one of those, "What the bare text says" v "What the text is set to accomplish" sorts of things. The Order targets predominantly Muslim nations, and under exceptions notes that minority religions have an out to squeeze into the US.

I know lawyers (and contractors) love to play word games, but the Order is pretty clear in its scope.