Federal Judge Rules Against Blocking Travel Ban EO

[Endus]

The Constitution applies to US Citizens and those subject to its jurisdiction. It doesnt apply to people living in France.

The moment that person in France applies for a visa to enter the USA, that's under US jurisdiction, and the Constitution applies. So it's sort of a pointless distinction to make. You just acknowledged that it applies to anyone under US jurisdiction, and that includes immigration proceedings.

[petej0]

The moment that person in France applies for a visa to enter the USA, that's under US jurisdiction, and the Constitution applies. So it's sort of a pointless distinction to make. You just acknowledged that it applies to anyone under US jurisdiction, and that includes immigration proceedings.

Yes, but they are not subject to the Jurisdiction of the US. They are still under the Jurisdiction of France.

[Endus]

Yes, but they are not subject to the Jurisdiction of the US. They are still under the Jurisdiction of France.

You're using words incorrectly. Any situation where US law has force, the USA has jurisdiction. So, with immigration proceedings, since American law has force, the USA has jurisdiction over those. So the Constitution applies.

That's what the word means. The individual may be in France, but that doesn't mean French law controls US immigration, which is the only way your defense makes sense. Unless you're trying to redefine "jurisdiction" for some reason.

[Cthulhu 2020]

The Constitution says it does, and the Supreme Court agrees. Who are you to claim otherwise?

That's what many of these armchair lawyers think of their opinions, even when their opinion directly contradicts the courts.

[petej0]

You're using words incorrectly. Any situation where US law has force, the USA has jurisdiction. So, with immigration proceedings, since American law has force, the USA has jurisdiction over those. So the Constitution applies.

That's what the word means. The individual may be in France, but that doesn't mean French law controls US immigration, which is the only way your defense makes sense. Unless you're trying to redefine "jurisdiction" for some reason.

As a citizen of France in France, that person falls under the Jurisdiction of France and French laws. It is not until after Immigration proceedings have concluded and the person is not subject to any foreign power that they fall under US Jurisdiction.

[Endus]

As a citizen of France in France, that person falls under the Jurisdiction of France and French laws. It is not until after Immigration proceedings have concluded and the person is not subject to any foreign power that they fall under US Jurisdiction.

This just isn't true. Those immigration proceedings are US jurisdiction. As the courts have firmly supported, time and again.

You're flat-out wrong about this.

[petej0]

This just isn't true. Those immigration proceedings are US jurisdiction. As the courts have firmly supported, time and again.

You're flat-out wrong about this.

I know they are US Jurisdiction I am talking about the person and their status.

Secondly:

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.

I mean by your own definition this law is unconstitutional since it allows for the President to discriminate. So why is it there?

[Endus]

I mean by your own definition this law is unconstitutional since it allows for the President to discriminate. So why is it there?

Because there are plenty of constitutional ways for that law to be used. It doesn't have to specifically label exceptions like religion, because those exceptions are already recorded. In the Constitution. Laws don't have to list the Constitutional protections that restrict their application.

[petej0]

Because there are plenty of constitutional ways for that law to be used. It doesn't have to specifically label exceptions like religion, because those exceptions are already recorded. In the Constitution. Laws don't have to list the Constitutional protections that restrict their application.

That is a good point. I still think it is legal for the President to deny for any reason as per the Statute. Age, Sex, Religion, Health Status, Political Party, Country of Origin, it was a power granted by Congress to the President.

The first Amendment forbids the government from Promoting one religion over others and restricting religious practices.

The 14th Amendment forbids States from infringing on rights of the Citizens.

Article VI, Section 3: No Religious Tests only holds for those who seek Public Office.


In that same vein, it would be unconstitutional for the President to ban immigration to people who criticize the US, per their First Amendment right.

[Glorious Leader]

That is a good point. I still think it is legal for the President to deny for any reason as per the Statute. Age, Sex, Religion, Health Status, Political Party, Country of Origin, it was a power granted by Congress to the President.

The first Amendment forbids the government from Promoting one religion over others and restricting religious practices.

The 14th Amendment forbids States from infringing on rights of the Citizens.

Article VI, Section 3: No Religious Tests only holds for those who seek Public Office.


In that same vein, it would be unconstitutional for the President to ban immigration to people who criticize the US, per their First Amendment right.

This might be a stupid question but wouldnt it also mean they couldnt ban some immigrant who owned a shit tonne of fire arms on the grounds he owned a shit tonne of firearms because of second ammendment?

[Endus]

That is a good point. I still think it is legal for the President to deny for any reason as per the Statute. Age, Sex, Religion, Health Status, Political Party, Country of Origin, it was a power granted by Congress to the President.

The first Amendment forbids the government from Promoting one religion over others and restricting religious practices.

And barring immigrants who belong to a particular religion is, say it with me, promoting some religions over others.

[Deleted]

A federal judge in Virginia ruled Friday against blocking President Trump’s executive order that called for temporarily stopping the entry of immigrants from six majority-Muslim nations and refugee admittance overall.

The decision against the injunction comes after federal judges in Maryland and Hawaii blocked the implementation of Trump’s executive order nationwide. The ruling in Maryland is set to be heard before an appeals court in May. These two past decisions keep the order at bay.
Judge Anthony Trenga of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia found that Trump was within his legal rights to impose the travel ban and that it was not discriminatory toward Muslims. The injunction had been brought forward by Palestinian activist Linda Sarsour, who was represented by an attorney from the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

Trenga, a George W. Bush appointee, wrote in his opinion that “the President has unqualified authority to bar physical entry to the United States at the border.” He said that the executive order makes no mention of religion and has a “state secular purpose” of protecting U.S. citizens from terrorist attacks.
The Hawaiian federal judge who knocked down the executive order cited past statements from Trump on the campaign trail talking about a “Muslim ban.” Judge Trenga, however, wrote, “In that regard, the Supreme Court has held that ‘past actions [do not] forever taint any effort on [the government’s] part to deal with the subject matter.'”

A Department of Justice spokeswoman said in a statement, “The Department of Justice is pleased with the ruling. As the Court correctly explains, the President’s Executive Order falls well within his authority to safeguard the nation’s security.”

http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/24/ju...ck-travel-ban/

Sad news I am sorry that US goverment does not respect the voters.