Trump's 2nd Immigration Ban Blocked

[Deleted]

If you truly believe a 4-4 split SCOTUS is going to even hear this, let alone rule in favor of Trump in such a controversial setting, I want some of what you're smoking.

Gorsuch will be there by the time this reaches the SCOTUS. Even so, if it were 4-4 then Ginsburg, Sotomayor (the wise Latina), and Kagan are the only ones that would rule against it. In most likelihood, however, they won't because they will actually apply the rule of law unlike Watson and Robart, who applied the rule of "feelings".

- - - Updated - - -

Correct. So how do you arrive at giving standing to say, a Syrian refugee that has never had contact with the US government? How does this hypothetical person have the rights of a citizen? If you give our rights to him, do you not also extend the 2nd amendment to all humans? Why only the first amendment? What about the 21st amendment?

TJ - these people seem to think that the US Constitution is somehow the supreme law of the entire world and that it applies to everyone. Pointless to argue with their myopic view.

- - - Updated - - -

See, this is the trouble you get into when you don't read the legally-binding decision that is now precedent, but was 24-plus pages so you didn't read it.

Did you read the dissent of the 5 judges on the 9th circuit that said Watson and Robart are full of shit and did not base their decisions in law?

[Breccia]

Correct. So how do you arrive at giving standing to say, a Syrian refugee that has never had contact with the US government? How does this hypothetical person have the rights of a citizen? If you give our rights to him, do you not also extend the 2nd amendment to all humans? Why only the first amendment? What about the 21st amendment?

Is this sarcasm? Because it reads like you're intentionally being ridiculous.

The Constitution states, in many places, what limits the government has. If some random-ass Syrian staying in Syria has no contact with the US, the Constitution does not apply. However, the second they come to the US, we can't discriminate against him based purely on his religion. Nor can we violate his due process. As was cited in the 9th Circuit Court decision, specifically in this context.

And just to follow your ludicrious claims, I'm moderately sure the US government hasn't restricted other people in other countries from owning guns, unless we were invading during a war (which is kind of a different situation). So, it kind of still stands.

And...the 21st? Repealing the 18th? Even for a ridiculous sarcastic point, that didn't make sense. The 21st doesn't apply to ANYONE. It just removed the 18th.

Did you switch to decaf or something? I remember you being a better debater than this.

- - - Updated - - -

Did you read the dissent of the 5 judges on the 9th circuit that said Watson and Robart are full of shit and did not base their decisions in law?

Yep. Shame that had no legal binding effect, huh?

[araine]

Correct. So how do you arrive at giving standing to say, a Syrian refugee that has never had contact with the US government? How does this hypothetical person have the rights of a citizen? If you give our rights to him, do you not also extend the 2nd amendment to all humans? Why only the first amendment? What about the 21st amendment?

US can not create law for other countries. but at the same time USA can not discriminate when it creates laws. that is clearcut in the constitution nowhere does it say that it applies to citizens only.

[Endus]

Correct. So how do you arrive at giving standing to say, a Syrian refugee that has never had contact with the US government?

The moment he applies to immigrate or for asylum/refugee status, he's had such contact. And US jurisdiction over that application exists.

How does this hypothetical person have the rights of a citizen?

He doesn't. He has the rights of a person, which extend to most of the Constitution. There are a few exceptions, like voting rights, but unless a section specifically states it applies only to US citizens, it applies to everyone under US jurisdiction.

If you give our rights to him, do you not also extend the 2nd amendment to all humans?

Not just me, the courts unequivocally do, as long as he's within US jurisdiction at the time. See USA v. Meza-Rodriguez, and related SCOTUS rulings that back it (quoted in this ruling). USA v. Meza-Rodriguez was about an illegal immigrant, and confirms that they have 2nd Amendment rights in the USA despite A> being non-citizens, and B> being unauthorized.

Why only the first amendment? What about the 21st amendment?

The 21st? The repeal of Prohibition? Not sure why you'd think that non-citizens are barred from transporting liquor in the USA. Did you cite the wrong Amendment?

Regardless, this is easy. Unless it states that it applies to "citizens", it applies to everyone.

[araine]

Is this sarcasm? Because it reads like you're intentionally being ridiculous.

The Constitution states, in many places, what limits the government has. If some random-ass Syrian staying in Syria has no contact with the US, the Constitution does not apply. However, the second they come to the US, we can't discriminate against him based purely on his religion. Nor can we violate his due process. As was cited in the 9th Circuit Court decision, specifically in this context.

And just to follow your ludicrious claims, I'm moderately sure the US government hasn't restricted other people in other countries from owning guns, unless we were invading during a war (which is kind of a different situation). So, it kind of still stands.

And...the 21st? Repealing the 18th? Even for a ridiculous sarcastic point, that didn't make sense. The 21st doesn't apply to ANYONE. It just removed the 18th.

Did you switch to decaf or something? I remember you being a better debater than this.

- - - Updated - - -



Yep. Shame that had no legal binding effect, huh?

Exactly, the second that syrian refugee shows up the constitutional protection of no discrimination applies and if you create laws and mandates that looks to stop a certain action like syrian refugees coming here it is also illegal, and i would think right wingers would always object to illegal actions by the government

[Deleted]

Yep. Shame that had no legal binding effect, huh?

Not yet. Those same judges may very be on the 11-judge panel that hears the appeal.

[Endus]

Exactly, the second that syrian refugee shows up the constitutional protection of no discrimination applies and if you create laws and mandates that looks to stop a certain action like syrian refugees coming here it is also illegal, and i would think right wingers would always object to illegal actions by the government

The issue might be that "under US jurisdiction" point.

Nobody is arguing that the Constitution applies to, say, Syria. But the moment a Syrian applies to emigrate to the USA, or applies for asylum there, or applies for a visa, or whatnot, those applications are under US jurisdiction, and Constitutional protections apply to those decisions for that Syrian.

[Breccia]

Not yet. Those same judges may very be on the 11-judge panel that hears the appeal.

I assume you're talking about the second EO, not the first. If so, yes, we're likely going to see that all the way up to the SCOTUS.

Which is kind of stupid. The whole thing was supposed to be temporary, like 60/90/120 days I honestly don't remember (sorry), while a new vetting system was put into place. Aren't we at sixty now? Where is the new system? Can't they finish that, slap it in place, then say "fuck the temporary ban, just pass this new vetting test"? Waiting until the ban is in place, then making a vetting system afterwards, is just...stupid. Has anyone seen anything about such a new vetting system? Like, Trump asking for people to write one for him, or something? Anyone?

It's not like Gorsuch is going to be on the bench in the next 30 days. It's time to think long-term, not short.

[Jastall]

Gorsuch will be there by the time this reaches the SCOTUS. Even so, if it were 4-4 then Ginsburg, Sotomayor (the wise Latina), and Kagan are the only ones that would rule against it. In most likelihood, however, they won't because they will actually apply the rule of law unlike Watson and Robart, who applied the rule of "feelings".

Doubtful that Gorsuch will be there anytime soon unless the GOP pushes him hard, which I don't foresee happening.

And let's just say I do not share your confidence that the other judges will let this pass with a blank check. Any even mildly controversial ruling isn't punching through an even split, and this one is more than mildly controversial.

[Deleted]

... and this one is more than mildly controversial.

It is only mildly controversial amongst progressives/liberals as well as the folks with a vested interest in destroying the USA (all of the "immigration rights" advocacy groups.)

Amongst those that understand that the POTUS has the power to ban any one he wants - and for any reason - it is not controversial at all. It was welcome.

As I said earlier, once this is put to bed - and the SCOTUS rules in favor of the POTUS - the gloves will be off. Hopefully, Trump does ban all Muslims from entering the US. And if he does, there won't be a fucking thing that all the bleeding heart liberals will be able to do about it.

[Garnier Fructis]

Legal residents - aka, green card holders - are for all intents and purposes considered US citizens when it comes to rights.

Excepting that they can't vote, of course.

And using the right terminology is not pedantry, given that the details here are not minor.

- - - Updated - - -

Get back to me after the SCOTUS decision (if it even comes to that) and we will see who is "flat-out wrong". Pretty sure that will be you, as usual.

Get back to you after the SCOTUS potentially rules on a different question?

[Breccia]

Amongst those that understand that the POTUS has the power to ban any one he wants - and for any reason - it is not controversial at all.

The 9th Circuit decision specifically refutes your argument. They were very clear on the subject. They disagree with you, and that is now legal precedent, because the WH appeal was denied before it was retracted.

[Deleted]

The 9th Circuit decision specifically refutes your argument. They were very clear on the subject. They disagree with you, and that is now legal precedent, because the WH appeal was denied before it was retracted.

The first EO is done. It was superseded by the 2nd one. The first EO is now a moot point. All litigation has been dropped in that matter. There was no appeal process - of either the first EO or the second one. There has been no precedent set - and there won't be until the 2nd EO is appealed and the entire 11-judge panel rules.

The only thing the Trump admin has done so far, with regards to the 2nd EO, is to ask the judge to narrow his ban. He refused.

BTW - there is also a shit ton of precedent that say the 9th circuit court's ruling is bullshit.

[Breccia]

The first EO is done. It was superseded by the 2nd one. The first EO is now a moot point. All litigation has been dropped in that matter. There was no WH appeal - of either the first EO or the second one. There has been no precedent set

This is still factually false.

The first EO was taken to court. It was ruled upon. The ruling does cite precedent, and because it is now the final ruling on the subject, now is precedent. The WH withdrawing an appeal after they were turned down anyway does not magically cause the first court case to go away, nor the ruling, nor the precedent. That's not how law works, and that's never been how law works.

It is true the second EO will have its own trial under its own merits, but some of those merits have already been ruled upon. Some, not all. The first court case can be cited in such a situation, just like any court case that was terminally ruled upon can be.

- - - Updated - - -

BTW - there is also a shit ton of precedent that say the 9th circuit court's ruling is bullshit.

That sounds like a good reason to press forward with the original EO, then, and not abandon ship and make a new one. But, that didn't happen, did it?

[Orbitus]

The 1st and 14th amendment - in, fact, the entire US Constitution - do NOT APPLY TO NON-US CITIZENS.

hence, you "argument" is completely and totally moot.

And you are wrong here to. Because we have had judgments in the past that says that the US Constitution DOES apply to non-citizens. So my argument is not "moot" as I am the only one that will have evidence of this. https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielf.../#2d5265044f1d

- - - Updated - - -

Get back to me after the SCOTUS decision (if it even comes to that) and we will see who is "flat-out wrong". Pretty sure that will be you, as usual.

It won't make it to the SCOTUS because the 9th isn't going to vote the way you think they will. Then the Court of Appeals will uphold the same ruling, just like they did for the first one.

- - - Updated - - -

Not yet. Those same judges may very be on the 11-judge panel that hears the appeal.

It still means they are in the minority.