Trump's 2nd Immigration Ban Blocked

[Paulosio]

Yes and I think the judge cited a CNN interview from a year ago as evidence in his judgement. Alrighty then.

Maybe you are thinking about this. A fox news interview with Stephen Miller in which he talked about the new travel ban proposals.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...ravel-ban.html

Refugee advocates are looking to get a federal judge to block Trump’s second travel ban before it starts—and they’re citing a top administration official to make the case.

On Wednesday, March 15—the day before implementation of the new executive order blocking people from six Muslim-majority countries from entering the U.S.—lawyers for a group of civil rights and refugee advocacy groups will square off against attorneys for the Justice Department in oral arguments at a federal court in Maryland.

The result could determine whether or not Trump’s new travel ban actually goes into effect—despite a number of changes made since the first botched roll-out.

But one of Trump’s top advisers, Stephen Miller, downplayed those changes during an interview on Fox News last month and that decision may have given activists the opening they need.

“Fundamentally, you’re still going to have the same basic policy outcome for the country,” he said in an interview with host Martha MacCallum on Feb. 21. “But you’re going to be responsive to a lot of very technical issues that were brought up by the court.”

Miller added that there would be “only minor technical differences” between the first executive order and its replacement.

The new travel ban, introduced on March 6, doesn’t impact people who currently have visas or green cards. It also removed Iraq from the list of banned countries.

But, like the previous order, it dramatically slashed the number of refugees allowed into the U.S. this year, and it only impacted countries with majority-Muslim populations.

Cecillia Wang, the ACLU’s deputy legal director, noted Miller’s comments on a Tuesday conference call with reporters as an indicator the new travel ban could have the same legal troubles as the old one. And Melissa Keaney, an attorney for the National Immigration Law Center, told reporters that she thinks the new ban’s changes won’t satisfy judges.

“This intent remains the same,” she said.

“Allowing more lead time to discriminate doesn’t make the discrimination any less harmful or unlawful,” she added.

But Miller isn’t the only Trump ally to make life harder for Justice Department attorneys. Rudy Giuliani, a top campaign surrogate, famously told Fox News host Judge Jeanine Pirro that he helped Trump put the first order together as a way of legally banning Muslims. And Trump himself told CBN News’s David Brody that his administration would give Christian refugees preferential treatment over Muslims. Opponents of the executive order cited both clips frequently.

[SirBeef]

Probably a higher chance of another white American going full nut job on a church, movie theater or night club in the name of what-the-fuck-ever than a jihadist flying over commercially to pipe bomb a mini-mall.

Just saying.

This whole travel ban nonsense is stupid, makes America look stupid, and there's a million and a half other things they could be working on than institutionalized Islamophobia.

Or an infant or toddler accidentally firing off daddy's gun at home. Because that causes more death in America yearly than Islamic terrorism

[Aggrophobic]

I think he actually good at golf. I saw a post where he was shooting in the 70's and low to mid 80's.

I know very little about golf. Is that good?

[SirBeef]

A TRO held on a premise that constitutional rights apply before the person even gets on our soil. Maybe trump will challenge this notion that is WRONG? It just makes you wonder if the block isn't just political because it's nonsense. The story is that our constitution applies to anyone anywhere on earth regardless of citizenship? I don't think that ever the intent of our founding fathers.

They also did not intend for the 2nd to be what it is today, nor did they want women to vote or Blacks to be considered as people. The list goes on and on about what we think their intent was. Part of the reason for the vague language and the amendment process was for it to be flexible with the times.

[zenkai]

When he states that this ban is to stop Muslim immigrants and refugees, then yes, it is based entirely on a religion. Which is against the Establishment clause of the First Amendment.

But you can't say that as other counties with those religions would still be allowed in.

[SirBeef]

Wait what....

Is this just a joke (If so funny) or has he really said that?

It goes back to the Birther crap.

[Crillam]

Well Trump should just move on to his wall instead, and see how that goes.

[zenkai]

Or an infant or toddler accidentally firing off daddy's gun at home. Because that causes more death in America yearly than Islamic terrorism

Are you factoring plots that where prevented?

[Jtbrig7390]

Are you factoring plots that where prevented?

You can factor in plots that is made up in your head. Static's show you have a higher chance of being killed by both of your neighbor's then any Terrorist.

Also all attacks that has happen and ones prevented where caused by people who have been here even before 9/11.

The icying on the cake is all the country's on his list....have never attacked us.

[Xeones]

But you can't say that as other counties with those religions would still be allowed in.

To quote the judge who ruled in this case

The illogic of the Government’s contentions is palpable. The notion that one can demonstrate animus toward any group of people only by targeting all of them at once is fundamentally flawed. The Court declines to relegate its Establishment Clause analysis to a purely mathematical exercise. [...] Equally flawed is the notion that the Executive Order cannot be found to have targeted Islam because it applies to all individuals in the six referenced countries.

[Damajin]

1st Amendment rights and the other rights guaranteed in our Constitution don't apply to non citizens, so GG on this court thinking with their globalist cap firmly on.

[Orbitus]

But you can't say that as other counties with those religions would still be allowed in.

You're right. Trump isn't targeting countries that actually sponsor terrorists that have actually targeted our country. He is targeting the countries that don't. Countries that are our primary sources of immigrants and refugees. So, thank you for calling out Trump's bullshit. It would be the first time I have seen you do that since he accepted the nomination.

[Xeones]

1st Amendment rights and the other rights guaranteed in our Constitution don't apply to non citizens, so GG on this court thinking with their globalist cap firmly on.

I wasn't aware states were non citizens.

[zenkai]

You can factor in plots that is made up in your head. Static's show you have a higher chance of being killed by both of your neighbor's then any Terrorist.

Also all attacks that has happen and ones prevented where caused by people who have been here even before 9/11.

The icying on the cake is all the country's on his list....have never attacked us.

Talk about making shit up, you're good at it

[Jtbrig7390]

1st Amendment rights and the other rights guaranteed in our Constitution don't apply to non citizens, so GG on this court thinking with their globalist cap firmly on.

Mate go back to school because the COnstitution does apply to non-citizen's. There is parts that do and parts that don't.

[zenkai]

To quote the judge who ruled in this case

The illogic of the Government’s contentions is palpable. The notion that one can demonstrate animus toward any group of people only by targeting all of them at once is fundamentally flawed. The Court declines to relegate its Establishment Clause analysis to a purely mathematical exercise. [...] Equally flawed is the notion that the Executive Order cannot be found to have targeted Islam because it applies to all individuals in the six referenced countries.

Except the reasons those counties were chosen was from the Obama's administration because of their danger.

[CostinR]

The decision against the original travel by the Judge in Washington was on the merits of the legality of the order and how badly it was implemented. The 9th District Court of Appeals upheld the decision on those grounds. There's numerous judges in the country that agreed with Trump on the matter even with the first order and many that disagreed. Even the judge who blocked the original order refused to do so for this one.

Cherry picking who's legally right and wrong on this is absurd, unless someone here is an actual expert on the law. To my mind this is all a political show to satisfy to hard line immigration crazies, the kind of people like Ann Coulter that want a full stop to immigration. It's red baiting the base in a terrible way as it creates bad legal precedents, ends in a PR shit show.

[zenkai]

You're right. Trump isn't targeting countries that actually sponsor terrorists that have actually targeted our country. He is targeting the countries that don't. Countries that are our primary sources of immigrants and refugees. So, thank you for calling out Trump's bullshit. It would be the first time I have seen you do that since he accepted the nomination.

He targeted counties that the Obama administration sited as dangerous.

[Orbitus]

1st Amendment rights and the other rights guaranteed in our Constitution don't apply to non citizens, so GG on this court thinking with their globalist cap firmly on.

Sorry, I will go with the Federal judge over some no name poster on a forum that knows nothing of the constitution.

[Damajin]

I wasn't aware states were non citizens.

Refugees and immigrants are, which at the end of the day is the primary factor and concern.