Surprised no reaction from BYD owners on this forum

[webfact]

Trump immigration order restricted by more U.S. judges

By Nate Raymond and Mica Rosenberg

REUTERS

 

U.S. President Donald Trump reacts after signing an executive order to impose tighter vetting of travelers entering the United States, at the Pentagon in Washington, U.S., January 27, 2017. REUTERS/Carlos Barria

 

(Reuters) - Federal judges in three states followed one in New York in barring authorities from deporting travelers affected by U.S. President Donald Trump's executive order imposing restrictions on immigration from seven Muslim-majority nations.

 

The judges in Massachusetts, Virginia and Washington state issued their rulings late on Saturday or early on Sunday.

 

Earlier on Saturday, U.S. District Judge Ann Donnelly in New York City's Brooklyn borough ordered authorities to refrain from deporting previously approved refugees from those countries. She ruled on a lawsuit by two men from Iraq being held at Kennedy Airport.

 

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security said in a statement on Sunday that it would comply with court rulings while at the same time implementing Trump's order "to ensure that those entering the United States do not pose a threat to our country or the American people."

 

Across the United States, lawyers worked overnight to help travelers caught up in confusion at airports after the new Republican president on Friday halted immigration from the seven countries and temporarily stopped the entry of refugees.

 

Attorneys and advocates said they have filed more than 100 cases for individual travelers around the country.

 

In Boston, U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs on Sunday issued a temporary restraining order blocking the removal of two Iranians who taught at the University of Massachusetts who had been detained at Logan International Airport.

 

The order, set to last seven days, appeared to go further than Donnelly's by barring officials from detaining, in addition to removing, approved refugees, visa holders and permanent U.S. residents from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Sudan, Somalia and Yemen. Donnelly's order only forbade removing those affected by Trump's order.

 

The legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, Matthew Segal, in a statement called Burroughs' order "a huge victory for justice."

 

"We told President Trump we would see him in court if he ordered this unconstitutional ban on Muslims," Segal said. "He tried, and federal courts in Boston and throughout the nation stopped it in its tracks."

 

In Alexandria, Virginia, U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema on Saturday night barred the Department of Homeland Security from removing 50 to 60 people detained at Dulles International Airport who are legal permanent residents. Dulles is one of the main airports serving Washington, D.C.

 

Brinkema's temporary restraining order also requires the agency to allow those individuals to speak with lawyers, according to the Legal Aid and Justice Center in Virginia, which provides representation to low-income individuals.

 

On the West Coast, U.S. District Judge Thomas Zilly in Seattle on Saturday barred the federal government from removing two unnamed individuals. He scheduled a further hearing on the issue for Feb. 3.

 

Despite the legal challenges, supporters of Trump's order said the government was within its rights to act swiftly to enforce the president's order.

 

"It is better be safe than sorry," said Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies at the conservative group the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington.

 

(Reporting by Nate Raymond in New York; Editing by Jonathan Oatis)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-01-30

[khwaibah]

All four states went for Hillary. New York,  Massachusetts, Virginia and Washington State. That says it all.

[jerojero]

All four states went for Hillary. New York,  Massachusetts, Virginia and Washington State. That says it all.

No it doesn't quite say it all. You really think Federal judges are blatantly directed by politicians?

[Ulysses G.]

"We told President Trump we would see him in court if he ordered this unconstitutional ban on Muslims," Segal said.

 

It is not a ban on Muslims. There are something like 45 Muslim countries that are not considered “countries of concern” under the Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 and 2016 that was initiated by the Obama administration. That is where the countries with temporary restrictions on immigration were taken from. Amazing that no one seems much bothered with 16 Muslim countries where Israelis are banned completely.

[piersbeckett]

18 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

"We told President Trump we would see him in court if he ordered this unconstitutional ban on Muslims," Segal said.

 

It is not a ban on Muslims. There are something like 45 Muslim countries that are not considered “countries of concern” under the Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 and 2016 that was initiated by the Obama administration. That is where the countries with temporary restrictions on immigration were taken from. Amazing that no one seems much bothered with 16 Muslim countries where Israelis are banned completely.

I agree; it's no good 'leading by example' when dealing with Muslims; they absolutely have their own agenda and it is not just religious, it is also political - the Japanese have their number.

[ilostmypassword]

36 minutes ago, piersbeckett said:

I agree; it's no good 'leading by example' when dealing with Muslims; they absolutely have their own agenda and it is not just religious, it is also political - the Japanese have their number.

"the Japanese have their number."  Huh? Can someone explain this reference to the Japanese?

Edited January 30, 2017 by ilostmypassword

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Strangely the ban affect none of the country where Trump has investments.

[Ulysses G.]

2 minutes ago, BeamMeUpScotty said:

Strangely the ban affect none of the country where Trump has investments.

They were not "countries of concern” under the Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 and 2016 that was initiated by the Obama administration. That is why.

 

[WaywardWind]

1 hour ago, Ulysses G. said:

"We told President Trump we would see him in court if he ordered this unconstitutional ban on Muslims," Segal said.

 

It is not a ban on Muslims. There are something like 45 Muslim countries that are not considered “countries of concern” under the Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 and 2016 that was initiated by the Obama administration. That is where the countries with temporary restrictions on immigration were taken from. Amazing that no one seems much bothered with 16 Muslim countries where Israelis are banned completely.

The TTPA instituted a single requirement: that individuals countries included in the Visa Waiver Program (38 countries on the list) who had traveled to one of the seven countries had to obtain a visa to enter the US rather than simply enter under the VWP.

 

No banning - simply obtain a visa at an embassy or consulate like nationals of every other non-VWP country.

 

A far cry from stopping refugees and those with visas upon arrival, putting them on planes, and sending them out of the US. Far cry from detaining an Iranian couple in their 80s in their wheelchairs for 11 hours,  a 5 year old Iranian boy for 4 hours, and an Iraqi man  and his family, after he had spent years working with the US military and risking his life every day since.

[rabas]

1 hour ago, jerojero said:

1 hour ago, khwaibah said:

All four states went for Hillary. New York,  Massachusetts, Virginia and Washington State. That says it all.

No it doesn't quite say it all. You really think Federal judges are blatantly directed by politicians?

 

Yes, Federal judges are blatantly appointed by the President.

 

The president is head of his (heh heh) political party and the appointments are often politically based. From reference.com:

 

Generally, Presidents appoint judges who agree with their political views, or align with their political party values, but there are many other qualifications to be considered when selecting appointments.

Edited January 30, 2017 by rabas

[zaphod reborn]

This is a primary example of Trump's lack of understanding about the constitutional limits of the presidential power.  Congress has plenary power over immigration quotas.  Congress passed the Immigration and Nationalities Act of 1965 (Hart-Celler Act) which established new immigration quotas based on nationalities, but also added additional criterion such as job skills and family relationships with existing US citizens.  The President lacks authority to change an act of Congress through use of an executive order.  So far, the executive order has been enjoined to the extent that it has immediate effects on immigrants (so, no deportations and no denying entry to immigrants with visas that were already granted). Trump's executive order on immigration will eventually be completely voided on constitutional grounds.  

Edited January 30, 2017 by zaphod reborn

[dexterm]

1 hour ago, Ulysses G. said:

They were not "countries of concern” under the Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 and 2016 that was initiated by the Obama administration. That is why.

 

Interesting that 4 countries whose citizens at 9/11 led the largest terrorist attack on USA since Pearl Harbor – Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the Emirates and Lebanon – do not appear on his list.

 

[No harm in a spot of Muslim bashing to appeal to my racist redneck supporter base. But hey...lets not confuse that with my business interests.]

Edited January 30, 2017 by dexterm

[chilli42]

1 hour ago, zaphod reborn said:

This is a primary example of Trump's lack of understanding about the constitutional limits of the presidential power.  Congress has plenary power over immigration quotas.  Congress passed the Immigration and Nationalities Act of 1965 (Hart-Celler Act) which established new immigration quotas based on nationalities, but also added additional criterion such as job skills and family relationships with existing US citizens.  The President lacks authority to change an act of Congress through use of an executive order.  So far, the executive order has been enjoined to the extent that it has immediate effects on immigrants (so, no deportations and no denying entry to immigrants with visas that were already granted). Trump's executive order on immigration will eventually be completely voided on constitutional grounds.  

You may be right on all counts.  Though it's something I have seen in corporate life many times.  The CEO declares and enacts for something he said he would do then let's the underlings sort out how it's going to work in the real world.  It's a tactic that avoids the CEO putting in any effort to gain alignment from all parties, it gets things moving fast as people are caught off guard and in a reactive mode (imagine the demonstrations and debates had this gone through due process) and even if it does not work the CEO can take credit for keeping his word and place blame for failure on his enemies in the organization.  Sure it's high handed but it's a shrewd exercise of power that only the top dog can pull off.

[ilostmypassword]

1 minute ago, chilli42 said:

You may be right on all counts.  Though it's something I have seen in corporate life many times.  The CEO declares and enacts for something he said he would do then let's the underlings sort out how it's going to work in the real world.  It's a tactic that avoids the CEO putting in any effort to gain alignment from all parties, it gets things moving fast as people are caught off guard and in a reactive mode (imagine the demonstrations and debates had this gone through due process) and even if it does not work the CEO can take credit for keeping his word and place blame for failure on his enemies in the organization.  Sure it's high handed but it's a shrewd exercise of power that only the top dog can pull off.

Even if what you were saying is valid, in this case Trump very publicly took responsibility for this action.  How is he going to disavow it?

[John1012]

5 hours ago, jerojero said:

No it doesn't quite say it all. You really think Federal judges are blatantly directed by politicians?

Yes

 

[ilostmypassword]

3 minutes ago, John1012 said:

Yes

 

WHich is why federal justices never overruled the Obama administration?  I'd like to ask you exactly how ignorant you are, but it's clear you would have no way of knowing.

[ilostmypassword]

3 hours ago, rabas said:

 

Yes, Federal judges are blatantly appointed by the President.

 

The president is head of his (heh heh) political party and the appointments are often politically based. From reference.com:

 

Generally, Presidents appoint judges who agree with their political views, or align with their political party values, but there are many other qualifications to be considered when selecting appointments.

"Blatantly appointed.?" Most people would say "openly" You would prefer it be done in secret.. And anyway, in the case of Federal justices you and whoever you are quoting are wrong. Presidents don't appoint. They nominate.

[elgordo38]

7 hours ago, webfact said:

Across the United States, lawyers worked overnight to help travelers

Give me the envelope please and the winners are???

[elgordo38]

5 hours ago, jerojero said:

No it doesn't quite say it all. You really think Federal judges are blatantly directed by politicians?

Now ask yourself where will the loyalties lie with the next appointee to the Supreme Court. 

[elgordo38]

Come back come back Cyndi Lauper where ever you are. We need you to sing that song again and remind us of what is happening with the Donald in Washington. Hint colors. 

[WaywardWind]

4 hours ago, rabas said:

 

Yes, Federal judges are blatantly appointed by the President.

 

The president is head of his (heh heh) political party and the appointments are often politically based. From reference.com:

 

Generally, Presidents appoint judges who agree with their political views, or align with their political party values, but there are many other qualifications to be considered when selecting appointments.

Federal judges are appointed for life, and no one can direct their decisions. They may well have their own ideas and philosophy, but that comes with being human.

[rabas]

5 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

3 hours ago, rabas said:

 

Yes, Federal judges are blatantly appointed by the President.

 

The president is head of his (heh heh) political party and the appointments are often politically based. From reference.com:

 

Generally, Presidents appoint judges who agree with their political views, or align with their political party values, but there are many other qualifications to be considered when selecting appointments.

"Blatantly appointed.?" Most people would say "openly" You would prefer it be done in secret.. And anyway, in the case of Federal justices you and whoever you are quoting are wrong. Presidents don't appoint. They nominate.

Blatant was a word used by the previous poster, which I carefully copied and you blatantly ignored.

I am also blessed that the only error you found in my comment was semantical, on your part.

 

From the Unites States Government itself: 

http://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/nomination-process

 

Article III judges, including Justices of the Supreme Court, are appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Constitution doesn't have what might be considered a job description for Article III judges. The nomination process and the confirmation process bring to light information about nominees.

[ilostmypassword]

1 minute ago, rabas said:

Blatant was a word used by the previous poster, which I carefully copied and you blatantly ignored.

I am also blessed that the only error you found in my comment was semantical, on your part.

 

From the Unites States Government itself: 

http://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/nomination-process

 

Article III judges, including Justices of the Supreme Court, are appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Constitution doesn't have what might be considered a job description for Article III judges. The nomination process and the confirmation process bring to light information about nominees.

That reflects an archaic use of the "appoint" but I'll concede that. But what wasn't noted was the advice and consent of the Senate. The Senate has to vote on the appointment. In fact, Obama appointed the justice who ruled against him on the question of raising the minimum pay for a salaried employee not to be eligible for overtime pay. 

[Baerboxer]

6 hours ago, jerojero said:

No it doesn't quite say it all. You really think Federal judges are blatantly directed by politicians?

 

Aren't they appointed by politicians? When judges in the US stand for election are they doing so as independents or do they declare a political allegiance. (So do sheriffs I believe?).

 

As an outsider, it does seem that the US judiciary and law enforcement is more politicized than other Western nations. Or is that just Hollywood?

[ilostmypassword]

2 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Aren't they appointed by politicians? When judges in the US stand for election are they doing so as independents or do they declare a political allegiance. (So do sheriffs I believe?).

 

As an outsider, it does seem that the US judiciary and law enforcement is more politicized than other Western nations. Or is that just Hollywood?

Federal justices don't stand for election. That only happens in some states.

Since, by definition, elected officials are politicians, yes, federal justices are appointed by politicians.

[Thaidream]

I said I would give Trump a chance to succeed and as of now- he has failed miserably. He has violated the US Constitution; caused chaos in international travel; angered the Mexican Nation and its leadership; pissed off the Chinese; caused a rift in policies related to the EU and generally has made an ass of himself and the US, Sorry, Donald- no more chances- You're fired!

[Redline]

A demagogue /ˈdɛməɡɒɡ/ (from Greek δημαγωγός, a popular leader, a leader of a mob, from δῆμος, people, populace, the commons + ἀγωγός leading, leader)^[1] or rabble-rouser is a leader in a democracy who gains popularity by exploiting prejudice and ignorance among the common people, whipping up the passions of the crowd and shutting down reasoned deliberation.^[1][2][3][4] Demagogues have usually advocated immediate, violent action to address a national crisis while accusing moderate and thoughtful opponents of weakness or disloyalty. Demagogues overturn established customs of political conduct, or promise or threaten to do so. Most who were elected to high office changed their democracy into some form of managed democracy.^{[citation needed]}

Demagogues have appeared in democracies since ancient Athens. They exploit a fundamental weakness in democracy: because ultimate power is held by the people, nothing stops the people from giving that power to someone who appeals to the lowest common denominator of a large segment of the population.

[Redline]

8 hours ago, khwaibah said:

All four states went for Hillary. New York,  Massachusetts, Virginia and Washington State. That says it all.

You forgot the most powerful and populated state in the union against Trump~California.  Not to mention New York that will be challenging him the whole way as well.

[Redline]

2 hours ago, rabas said:

Blatant was a word used by the previous poster, which I carefully copied and you blatantly ignored.

I am also blessed that the only error you found in my comment was semantical, on your part.

 

From the Unites States Government itself: 

http://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/nomination-process

 

Article III judges, including Justices of the Supreme Court, are appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Constitution doesn't have what might be considered a job description for Article III judges. The nomination process and the confirmation process bring to light information about nominees.

I guess one good thing is that people are learning more about the US government and their rights as citizens.  It's time every American read the US Constitution again.  It is a great document.

[dunroaming]

7 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

"We told President Trump we would see him in court if he ordered this unconstitutional ban on Muslims," Segal said.

 

It is not a ban on Muslims. There are something like 45 Muslim countries that are not considered “countries of concern” under the Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 and 2016 that was initiated by the Obama administration. That is where the countries with temporary restrictions on immigration were taken from. Amazing that no one seems much bothered with 16 Muslim countries where Israelis are banned completely.

Just remind us of the campaign speech again.  You know the one that had all the mob cheering over and over again.  Something along the lines of "Donald J Trump is calling for a ban on all Muslims entering the United States".  Now as part of his climb down he is saying it is not about Muslims.  The man is way beyond a moronic liar.