Federal Judge Rules Against Blocking Travel Ban EO

[Kujako]

It is an absurd statement that not allowing refugees in will result in more people becoming terrorists, because this implies that if you allow refugees in you are inevitably letting people in who have a proclivity towards becoming terrorists, which means in the future you will have a population within your country that is likely to engage in terrorism if they are not appeased. The logic behind this is self detonating, because the only rational conclusion from the fact pattern presented is that allowing refugees in will result in your country being held hostage to terrorists.

If only the world were really as binary as you claim it is, where people either are or are not terrorists and how we treat them has no effect.

[Spectral]

Again, I'm not sure what not providing domestic services to foreigners has to do with not allowing entry to a country based solely on nation of origin. You wrote an entire page which meanders further and further from the point. Maybe I wasn't clear on what I was saying, but I've said it multiple times so I'm not sure. I'm talking about selective discrimination based on specific country of origin. The thing that Trump is doing in the travel ban.

The point is selecting based on country of origin -- I.e.: a Somali isn't allowed because he's from Somali, but a Chinese is allowed because we don't discriminate against the Chinese--is absurd, anti-humanistic, and nothing about it seems or is constitutional. You haven't provided anything that supports or constitutionalizes discriminating based on countries of origin, which is the same as discriminating based on sex, religion, race.

I don't know how or why you decided to equate that to us making a distinction between national and foreign when providing services, but they're entirely different. One is a requirement for having a nation, one is the exemplification of bigoted.

Your entire post is about foreign vs. natural. Which is not at all the same thing as the travel ban segregating out specific countries. Which is not at all the same thing as identifying one specific country and blocking them solely because they are from that country.

Hence me saying you're having a completely different conversation. So since we haven't been having the same argument I don't know what else to add.

You keep saying "WE BLOCK FOREIGN PEOPLE ALL THE TIME FROM LOTS OF STUFF!!!" and I keep saying "That's not the same as specifically saying we don't allow Chinese, or Muslims, or Europeans, or Blacks, it's a different kind of discrimination." "BUT WE BLOCK FOREIGN PEOPLE FROM LOTS OF STUFF!!!"

So again, we're not even having the same conversation.

I called out examples of explicit discrimination by nation of origin as well as disparate impact by nation of origin in the context of immigration. You're just plain wrong about this and remain obstinately wrong in the face of ample evidence.

- - - Updated - - -

The Constitution states when it applies to citizens. The deported were not citizens.

It is not even about the rights of people. It is about "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". EOs can not make law. Only Congress can.

The federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act provides additional protections against religious discrimination in excess of the Constitution’s guarantees. It provides that “government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion” except in limited circumstances.

I've already agreed that it's executive overreach.

I think it's very unlikely that a neutral party would find that the RFRA would apply to foreign nationals residing abroad. If you've got an example of it being applied that way, I'll immediately admit that I'm incorrect about the matter.

[Delana]

But it ISN'T within his purview, otherwise it wouldn't have been blocked. It won't make it to the Supreme Court because this is clearly unconstitutional.

How is it unconstitutional? Can he block immigration from, say, Italy? Or does that violate the first amendment because there are catholics there?

Your bias is clouding your opinion on this. The president has authority over immigration. Period.

[Gorgodeus]

I called out examples of explicit discrimination by nation of origin as well as disparate impact by nation of origin in the context of immigration. You're just plain wrong about this and remain obstinately wrong in the face of ample evidence.

- - - Updated - - -


I've already agreed that it's executive overreach.

I think it's very unlikely that a neutral party would find that the RFRA would apply to foreign nationals residing abroad. If you've got an example of it being applied that way, I'll immediately admit that I'm incorrect about the matter.

2008 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Boumediene v. Bush, which held that the basic right of habeas corpus to challenge illegal detentions extends even to non-citizens on foreign territory.

Cases extending back to the 1800s, including ones brought by Chinese immigrants challenging the arbitrary seizure of their property, have established the rights of non-citizens under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments including due process and the right to a jury.

In U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, an 1898 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the term “person” under the Fifth Amendment applied to aliens living in the U.S. In Fong Yue Ting v. U.S.,the court held that Chinese laborers, “like all other aliens residing in the United States,” are entitled to protection of the laws.

The Trump ban also violates both U.S. statutes and international law, specifically the Refugeee Act of 1980, which Congress passed to comply with an international treaty. Discrimination against people based on national origin are in violation of the 1980 Refugee Act.

As you can see, the Supreme Court, as well as other US and International Laws have already made it clear that you can't discriminate against non-citizens, even ones in a foreign country.

- - - Updated - - -

How is it unconstitutional? Can he block immigration from, say, Italy? Or does that violate the first amendment because there are catholics there?

Your bias is clouding your opinion on this. The president has authority over immigration. Period.

See above. And btw, no President can go against the US Constitution, nor can he break the law via Executive Order.

[Brubear]

True enough, it was the sort of executive fiat that's entirely par for the course at this point. This doesn't change my point one jot - any sufficiently motivated justice can easily find an unconstitutional motive in nearly any executive order. If one reads the Constitution is a sufficiently broad fashion and is willing to engage in sufficient navel gazing nonsense that is. A justice simply reading the text of the Constitution would have a pretty hard time coming up with a good reason that this violates anything in there, but luckily, our justices are far more sophisticated than that.

Normally you'd have a point about being able to glean some sort of unconstitutional motive based on past behaviors, but Trump made it explicitly clear what his intentions were with this ban. He campaigned on banning Muslims, his website said he would ban Muslims, he told people he wanted to make an order that banned Muslims but would be legal (confirmed by Rudy Gulianni who was the one he asked to craft the ban), the original draft gave Christians priority over Muslims even if they were from the same country, he claimed the order was to stop terrorists but didn't blacklist any countries that people who have actually committed terrorism in the US have come from, and the revised order simply dropped the priority passage for Christians.

So this isn't some judge gleaning some sort of hypothetical motive, this is a judge reading what he made explicitly clear his intentions were.

[Endus]

How is it unconstitutional?

Because he explicitly said he was trying to ban "Muslims". We have many repeated and clear statements of intent on this. That intent matters.

Can he block immigration from, say, Italy? Or does that violate the first amendment because there are catholics there?

If he'd spent the last year talking about his "Catholic ban", and then tried to ban people from Catholic-majority nations, yes, it would run afoul of the same issues.

Your bias is clouding your opinion on this. The president has authority over immigration. Period.

The bias is yours. The President does not have ultimate authority over immigration. While he does have broad powers, he cannot violate the Constitution in the use of them.

[Jotaux]

Could Christians from the banned countries enter the US?

Comments prior to the ban stated Christians would be given priority when it came to exceptions.

[Mormolyce]

These individual rulings ultimately won't matter, we all know this is headed for the Supreme Court.

But in the meantime it remains blocked.

- - - Updated - - -

Comments prior to the ban stated Christians would be given priority when it came to exceptions.

He stripped those provisions out in this bill, presumably on advice that if you make a ban on a bunch of Muslim majority countries, and then say there's an exception if you're not in the majority religion... then it's not not a Muslim ban.

- - - Updated - - -

Your bias is clouding your opinion on this. The president has authority over immigration. Period.

This is true except for the period part.

Comma, subject to judicial review.

And of course Congress, but that's irrelevant in this case. Probably.

[Hooked]

The President has authority over national security. Obamas Judges don't. Obama went to college with the Hawaiian judge. If his block stand I would ship all of the refugees to Hawaii, that's kindof like a ban anyways since they are 1500 miles away from the mainland.

[Barnabas]

This is turning into a judicial game.

It's been that since the beginning . It's been the strategy since he even said he would during the primaries. Undermine trump at any and every turn possible. It's not rocket science that in law you can get more things done if the judge shares your same opinion.

[Orbitus]

How is it unconstitutional? Can he block immigration from, say, Italy? Or does that violate the first amendment because there are catholics there?

Your bias is clouding your opinion on this. The president has authority over immigration. Period.

No, my OPINION, not bias, doesn't matter. The JUDGE'S opinion is what matters. And no, the president doesn't have authority over immigration. He CANNOT stop immigration for any reason he wants. He has to have a valid reason. You know, like Carter did with stopping immigration with Iran because of the Iran hostage crisis or stopping Japanese immigration during WW2 after they attacked us. He cannot ban them simply because they are Muslim though. That is why it violates the first and 14th amendments.

- - - Updated - - -

The President has authority over national security. Obamas Judges don't. Obama went to college with the Hawaiian judge. If his block stand I would ship all of the refugees to Hawaii, that's kindof like a ban anyways since they are 1500 miles away from the mainland.

You can keep saying this all you want but your opinion means absolute dick. Just because Obama went to college with him, doesn't mean Obama ordered this. It just means you pulled your opinion out of your ass.

[supermage]

No, my OPINION, not bias, doesn't matter. The JUDGE'S opinion is what matters. And no, the president doesn't have authority over immigration. He CANNOT stop immigration for any reason he wants. He has to have a valid reason. You know, like Carter did with stopping immigration with Iran because of the Iran hostage crisis or stopping Japanese immigration during WW2 after they attacked us. He cannot ban them simply because they are Muslim though. That is why it violates the first and 14th amendments.

- - - Updated - - -



You can keep saying this all you want but your opinion means absolute dick. Just because Obama went to college with him, doesn't mean Obama ordered this. It just means you pulled your opinion out of your ass.

Most of you pull your opinions out of your butt. As for valid reasons, he has one. Just because you do not like the reason doesn't invalidate it. This ruling will eventually make it to the supreme court. There are too many judges in this game abusing their roles based on their political ideology.

[Zeek Daniels]

Because he explicitly said he was trying to ban "Muslims". We have many repeated and clear statements of intent on this. That intent matters.



If he'd spent the last year talking about his "Catholic ban", and then tried to ban people from Catholic-majority nations, yes, it would run afoul of the same issues.



The bias is yours. The President does not have ultimate authority over immigration. While he does have broad powers, he cannot violate the Constitution in the use of them.

The interpretation of the constitution is what the problem is. The president DOES have ultimate authority over immigration. He can shut it down if he wants to without reason.

All of this violating the constitution, where is it? Show us where in the constitution it is unconstitutional for a president to ban immigration from countries of potential threats?

You argue intent? The constitution does not say anything about intent. Thats the judge throwing his weight around trying to delay and make a president he and a bunch of others dont like look bad. These blocks are what are unconstitutional. The judiciary has a job to interpret the constitution and make sure laws abide by the constitution. If they want to interpret it differently thats on them, but anyone can read the constitution and know it doesnt matter what the president intended he has full power over protection of the US.

Also the president has stated he wants to temporarily stop immigration from these nations till they can go over and review the vetting process. You guys act like its permanent. If these countries wont co-operate then why should we let their citizens in with fake information?

[Orbitus]

Most of you pull your opinions out of your butt. As for valid reasons, he has one. Just because you do not like the reason doesn't invalidate it. This ruling will eventually make it to the supreme court. There are too many judges in this game abusing their roles based on their political ideology.

If his "reason" is because they are Muslim, that isn't a valid one. That is clearly against the first amendment and the 14th amendment.

- - - Updated - - -

The interpretation of the constitution is what the problem is. The president DOES have ultimate authority over immigration. He can shut it down if he wants to without reason.

All of this violating the constitution, where is it? Show us where in the constitution it is unconstitutional for a president to ban immigration from countries of potential threats?

You argue intent? The constitution does not say anything about intent. Thats the judge throwing his weight around trying to delay and make a president he and a bunch of others dont like look bad. These blocks are what are unconstitutional. The judiciary has a job to interpret the constitution and make sure laws abide by the constitution. If they want to interpret it differently thats on them, but anyone can read the constitution and know it doesnt matter what the president intended he has full power over protection of the US.

Also the president has stated he wants to temporarily stop immigration from these nations till they can go over and review the vetting process. You guys act like its permanent. If these countries wont co-operate then why should we let their citizens in with fake information?

Again, no, he doesn't. You can keep saying it over and over, but he doesn't. He has to have a reason. If his reason is because they are Muslim, then it will fail Judicial Review EVERY. FUCKING. TIME.

[supermage]

If his "reason" is because they are Muslim, that isn't a valid one. That is clearly against the first amendment and the 14th amendment.

- - - Updated - - -



Again, no, he doesn't. You can keep saying it over and over, but he doesn't. He has to have a reason. If his reason is because they are Muslim, then it will fail Judicial Review EVERY. FUCKING. TIME.

i'll repeat myself again. Just because you do not like the reason he has given, does not invalidate it. Once again you are making opinions that come from your butt.

[Hooked]

The reason doesn't matter even its was because they were muslim, it doesn't matter. It is still the president call to make. He has the authority.
At one time only Russian jews were admitted in immigration from Russia. They were considered persecuted minorities, normal Russians weren't admitted.

[Orbitus]

i'll repeat myself again. Just because you do not like the reason he has given, does not invalidate it. Once again you are making opinions that come from your butt.

Again, it isn't my opinion. It is the opinion of a LAW and CONSTITUTION trained judge. And they have the authority to invalidate it, that is their job.

- - - Updated - - -

The reason doesn't matter even its was because they were muslim, it doesn't matter. It is still the president call to make. He has the authority.
At one time only Russian jews were admitted in immigration from Russia. They were considered persecuted minorities, normal Russians weren't admitted.

In today's lingo that would be called refugees. Russians aren't a protected class, Muslims, being a religion, are. I know you hate the constitution when it suits you, but you can't weasel your way into this ban happening.

[Barnabas]

Again, it isn't my opinion. It is the opinion of a LAW and CONSTITUTION trained judge. And they have the authority to invalidate it, that is their job.

- - - Updated - - -



In today's lingo that would be called refugees. Russians aren't a protected class, Muslims, being a religion, are. I know you hate the constitution when it suits you, but you can't weasel your way into this ban happening.

Religion is a protected class but to an extent. Protected classes are quite dangerous. Think about like this. Can religion be aggressive towards another? Is it aggression or are they practicing their belief? It's kind of like that Imman in Canada that wants people to kill Jews. He raises both of these questions. I don't consider the death of or calling of death towards another as being a genuine belief that belongs in the modern world. Maybe the stone age was appropriate for this type of shit? Islam is aggressive towards Christians historically. I could introduce you to a whole bunch of Christians that are the voice of not wanting Islam here for the reason I have stated. Point is there is more to how judges should interpret all of this than just taking a partisan approach to it and leaving out the real reasons this is even happening.

[Spectral]

2008 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Boumediene v. Bush, which held that the basic right of habeas corpus to challenge illegal detentions extends even to non-citizens on foreign territory.

Cases extending back to the 1800s, including ones brought by Chinese immigrants challenging the arbitrary seizure of their property, have established the rights of non-citizens under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments including due process and the right to a jury.

In U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, an 1898 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the term “person” under the Fifth Amendment applied to aliens living in the U.S. In Fong Yue Ting v. U.S.,the court held that Chinese laborers, “like all other aliens residing in the United States,” are entitled to protection of the laws.

The Trump ban also violates both U.S. statutes and international law, specifically the Refugeee Act of 1980, which Congress passed to comply with an international treaty. Discrimination against people based on national origin are in violation of the 1980 Refugee Act.

As you can see, the Supreme Court, as well as other US and International Laws have already made it clear that you can't discriminate against non-citizens, even ones in a foreign country.

Most of these don't really apply to foreign nationals living abroad, but instead are applications of rights to people residing in the United States.

The Boumediene v. Bush case looks like the closest to this, but is a pretty narrow ruling and a hotly contested one at that - it's a much smaller step to say that the United States cannot detain individuals in violation of habeas corpus in other nations than it is to say that the United States cannot discriminate based on nationality in immigration decisions.

I find the argument that the executive branch simply doesn't have the power to do this much more compelling than the argument that the government simply cannot, as a matter of Constitutionality, discriminate between nations in immigration policy. I find it plausible that refugees are an exception to that, but as a general matter, I simply do not see any evidence that Congress cannot legally pass a law to allow or disallow immigration based on more or less any arbitrary criterion they like.

[Barnabas]

Most of these don't really apply to foreign nationals living abroad, but instead are applications of rights to people residing in the United States.

The Boumediene v. Bush case looks like the closest to this, but is a pretty narrow ruling and a hotly contested one at that - it's a much smaller step to say that the United States cannot detain individuals in violation of habeas corpus in other nations than it is to say that the United States cannot discriminate based on nationality in immigration decisions.

I find the argument that the executive branch simply doesn't have the power to do this much more compelling than the argument that the government simply cannot, as a matter of Constitutionality, discriminate between nations in immigration policy. I find it plausible that refugees are an exception to that, but as a general matter, I simply do not see any evidence that Congress cannot legally pass a law to allow or disallow immigration based on more or less any arbitrary criterion they like.

Which is why this has to go to the supreme court.