Is Thailand Value for money

[webfact]

In court, Trump administration argues for travel ban

By Dan Levine and Emily Stephenson

REUTERS

 

Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly says the U.S. is not considering adding other countries to President Donald Trump's travel ban and says a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border will be "well under way" within the next two years. Rough Cut (no reporter narration).

 

SAN FRANCISCO/WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Donald Trump's administration asked a U.S. appeals court on Tuesday to rule a federal judge was wrong to suspend a travel ban the president imposed on people from seven Muslim-majority countries and all refugees.

 

"Congress has expressly authorized the president to suspend entry of categories of aliens," attorney August Flentje, special counsel for the U.S. Justice Department, said under intense questioning from a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

 

"That’s what the president did here," Flentje said at the start of an hour-long oral argument conducted by telephone and broadcast live online. He said the president's order was valid under the U.S. Constitution.

 

Trump's Jan. 27 executive order barred travellers from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen from entering for 90 days and all refugees for 120 days, except refugees from Syria, whom he would ban indefinitely.

 

Trump has defended the measure as necessary for national security. But individuals, states and civil rights groups challenging the ban said his administration had offered no evidence it answered a threat.

 

Opponents also assailed the ban as discriminatory against Muslims. It has been the most divisive act of his young presidency.

Beforehand, the court said it would likely rule this week but not on Tuesday.

 

Trump frequently promised during his 2016 election campaign to curb illegal immigration, especially from Mexico, and to crack down on Islamist violence. His travel ban sparked protests and chaos at U.S. and overseas airports.

 

National security veterans, major U.S. technology companies and law enforcement officials from more than a dozen states backed a legal effort against the ban.

 

"I actually can't believe that we're having to fight to protect the security, in a court system, to protect the security of our nation," Trump said at an event with sheriffs at the White House on Tuesday.

 

Although the legal fight over Trump's ban is ultimately about how much power a president has to decide who cannot enter the United States, the appeals court is only looking at the narrower question of whether the Seattle court had the grounds to halt Trump's order.

 

"To be clear, all that's at issue tonight in the hearing is an interim decision on whether the president's order is enforced or not, until the case is heard on the actual merits of the order," White House spokesman Sean Spicer said.

 

Trump faces an uphill battle in the liberal-leaning appellate court, although the outcome of a ruling on the order's ultimate legality is less certain.

 

Two members of three-judge panel were appointed by former Democratic Presidents Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama, and one was appointed by former President George W. Bush.

 

The case against the Trump administration, brought by the states of Minnesota and Washington, is ultimately likely to go to the U.S. Supreme Court.

 

(Additional reporting by Timothy Gardner, David Shepardson and Julia Edwards Ainsley in Washington and Peter Henderson in San Francisco; Writing by Howard Goller; Editing by Peter Cooney)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-02-08

[Srikcir]

4 hours ago, webfact said:

Trump has defended the measure as necessary for national security.

(my understanding listening to the call and various following news media analyses)

 

But DOJ during the hearing already offered a compromise on the ban (so some part is not necessary for national security) to get the Circuit Appeals Court to lift the TRO. Anyone from the seven countries having a visa to enter the US will not be included in the ban. And that includes people (ie., students, US employed) making repeated trips out of the US with intent to return under the same visa.

 

But the Defendants countered that it is not for the Court nor the Defendants to determine how a Presidential Order should be written to make it legal. That is the responsibility of the Executive Branch. If the government's appeal is denied, then ordinarily the case is remanded back to the Lower Court where the TRO was issued for full litigation based on merit (ie., FACTS). To otherwise get the case fast-tracked instead directly to the US Supreme Court theto the USSC government must prove urgency, ie., immediate Clear and Present Danger to American lives/property created by any delay for USSC review.

 

Also remember that because the Republican-controlled Senate denied Obama an USSC appointment, a possible 4-4 tie in the USSC will allow a potential Lower Court ruling against the President to automatically stand uncontested. If the current appeal case is fast-tracked to the USCC to reinstate the ban in the PO, again a possible 4-4 tie will send the case back to the Lower Court for litigation. But at least if the outcome is a court ruling (ie., permanent injunction) against the PO, there might be more time to get Trump's USSC nominee appointed to the USSC as a potential tie-breaker.

 

[user82374298374]

Both the law and the US Constitution on this topic are clear - the President has the power to issue such a ban.  There is no ambiguity on this topic whatsoever.  No other consideration can (heh) trump this absolute authority.

 

The judge who issued the stay should be impeached.  It is not the place of the Judicial branch of the US government to attempt to make determinations with regards to the evaluation of threats to national security.  Reading the opinion of the judge who issued the stay, it is obvious that this judge is not just legislating from the bench, but is illegally and unconstitutionally usurping the power of the Executive branch.

 

In an era where judicial overreach has become the norm, this is by far the most brazen example to date.  It is a travesty.

 

[smotherb]

29 minutes ago, disambiguated said:

Both the law and the US Constitution on this topic are clear - the President has the power to issue such a ban.  There is no ambiguity on this topic whatsoever.  No other consideration can (heh) trump this absolute authority.

 

The judge who issued the stay should be impeached.  It is not the place of the Judicial branch of the US government to attempt to make determinations with regards to the evaluation of threats to national security.  Reading the opinion of the judge who issued the stay, it is obvious that this judge is not just legislating from the bench, but is illegally and unconstitutionally usurping the power of the Executive branch.

 

In an era where judicial overreach has become the norm, this is by far the most brazen example to date.  It is a travesty.

 

Gee, did you ever hear of the US system of checks and balances? 

[smotherb]

1 hour ago, Srikcir said:

(my understanding listening to the call and various following news media analyses)

 

But DOJ during the hearing already offered a compromise on the ban (so some part is not necessary for national security) to get the Circuit Appeals Court to lift the TRO. Anyone from the seven countries having a visa to enter the US will not be included in the ban. And that includes people (ie., students, US employed) making repeated trips out of the US with intent to return under the same visa.

 

But the Defendants countered that it is not for the Court nor the Defendants to determine how a Presidential Order should be written to make it legal. That is the responsibility of the Executive Branch. If the government's appeal is denied, then ordinarily the case is remanded back to the Lower Court where the TRO was issued for full litigation based on merit (ie., FACTS). To otherwise get the case fast-tracked instead directly to the US Supreme Court theto the USSC government must prove urgency, ie., immediate Clear and Present Danger to American lives/property created by any delay for USSC review.

 

Also remember that because the Republican-controlled Senate denied Obama an USSC appointment, a possible 4-4 tie in the USSC will allow a potential Lower Court ruling against the President to automatically stand uncontested. If the current appeal case is fast-tracked to the USCC to reinstate the ban in the PO, again a possible 4-4 tie will send the case back to the Lower Court for litigation. But at least if the outcome is a court ruling (ie., permanent injunction) against the PO, there might be more time to get Trump's USSC nominee appointed to the USSC as a potential tie-breaker.

 

Yeah, but the real pitiful part about it is it appears we have no unbiased government officials; even the supreme court can be expected to vote along party lines.

[John1012]

4 hours ago, smotherb said:

Gee, did you ever hear of the US system of checks and balances? 

If a law has been passed by congress, is it a law or not? According to you, it can be challenged. One would have thought only congress can change it.

 

1952 Immigration and Nationality Act,

 

Section 212(f), states: "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."

 

I do not believe that this law has been repealed or changed, so on what grounds are the challengers of the EO contesting?

[Tawan Dok Krating Daeng]

7 hours ago, disambiguated said:

Both the law and the US Constitution on this topic are clear - the President has the power to issue such a ban.  There is no ambiguity on this topic whatsoever.  No other consideration can (heh) trump this absolute authority.

 

The judge who issued the stay should be impeached.  It is not the place of the Judicial branch of the US government to attempt to make determinations with regards to the evaluation of threats to national security.  Reading the opinion of the judge who issued the stay, it is obvious that this judge is not just legislating from the bench, but is illegally and unconstitutionally usurping the power of the Executive branch.

 

In an era where judicial overreach has become the norm, this is by far the most brazen example to date.  It is a travesty.

 

 

I wonder. If we look back through the posts on threads dealing with the Electoral College, will there be one by you lauding the 'brilliance' of the founding fathers in creating a system to protect rural states? Maybe not, but your faux outrage at the actions of a legitimate and core branch of the US Government in performing its duties characterizes you more as a Drama Queen than a credible commentator. The temporary Stay is not a travesty. A travesty would be the adoption of the Torture memos by G. W. Bush. A travesty would be the implementation of identification procedures to suppress the vote by minorities. A travesty would be to burden medical clinics with arbitrary and burdensome regulations so that they are not able to provide abortion services to women.

 

Your entire argument falls down on the fact that 45 when announcing the ban said that it is intended to stop radical Islamic terrorists. If the had said radical terrorists, then no problem. But he didn't. To prove how tough he thinks he is, he had to say Islamic. That, according to the Constitution is a no no.

 

It would seem wise for the judicial branch to consider penalties for intemperate comments that are clearly in contempt of court. Perhaps one day you will become a martyr to your big mouth.

[Andaman Al]

2 hours ago, Tawan Dok Krating Daeng said:

 

I wonder. If we look back through the posts on threads dealing with the Electoral College, will there be one by you lauding the 'brilliance' of the founding fathers in creating a system to protect rural states? Maybe not, but your faux outrage at the actions of a legitimate and core branch of the US Government in performing its duties characterizes you more as a Drama Queen than a credible commentator. The temporary Stay is not a travesty. A travesty would be the adoption of the Torture memos by G. W. Bush. A travesty would be the implementation of identification procedures to suppress the vote by minorities. A travesty would be to burden medical clinics with arbitrary and burdensome regulations so that they are not able to provide abortion services to women.

 

Your entire argument falls down on the fact that 45 when announcing the ban said that it is intended to stop radical Islamic terrorists. If the had said radical terrorists, then no problem. But he didn't. To prove how tough he thinks he is, he had to say Islamic. That, according to the Constitution is a no no.

 

It would seem wise for the judicial branch to consider penalties for intemperate comments that are clearly in contempt of court. Perhaps one day you will become a martyr to your big mouth.

Precisely. Regardless of what laws and powers people are quoting the Donald and his staff have said on many many different forms of media things that clearly bring in race and religion to the discussion, ergo this ban and it's intentions is unconstitutional. If 45 could refrain from tweets and  inflating his own ego he might stand a chance of moving things through. Thank goodness Obama did not make a reality show of the 1100 executive orders he signed.

[smotherb]

7 hours ago, John1012 said:

If a law has been passed by congress, is it a law or not? According to you, it can be challenged. One would have thought only congress can change it.

 

1952 Immigration and Nationality Act,

 

Section 212(f), states: "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."

 

I do not believe that this law has been repealed or changed, so on what grounds are the challengers of the EO contesting?

Gee, then you ought to show that to the Trump administration; they wouldn't have to listen to the court then

[Ulysses G.]

8 hours ago, John1012 said:

If a law has been passed by congress, is it a law or not? According to you, it can be challenged. One would have thought only congress can change it.

 

1952 Immigration and Nationality Act,

 

Section 212(f), states: "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."

 

I do not believe that this law has been repealed or changed, so on what grounds are the challengers of the EO contesting?

 Grounds that are groundless. However, these days that means little. As someone said, likely this will be decided on partisan terms.

[onthesoi]

Trump had a bad day in the appeal court, he is unravelling in this video, rambling about his perfect writing, the fact he a good school student, and aliens...

 

 

Edited February 8, 2017 by onthesoi

[Richard W]

11 hours ago, John1012 said:

If a law has been passed by congress, is it a law or not? According to you, it can be challenged. One would have thought only congress can change it.

 

1952 Immigration and Nationality Act,

 

Section 212(f), states: "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."

 

I do not believe that this law has been repealed or changed, so on what grounds are the challengers of the EO contesting?

The Hart-Celler Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 apparently outlawed discrimination in immigration on the basis of national origin etc.

[Ulysses G.]

1 hour ago, Richard W said:

The Hart-Celler Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 apparently outlawed discrimination in immigration on the basis of national origin etc.

 

No cigar. Trump is relying on his constitutional authority, and the class restriction he has directed is based on national-security, not racial or ethnic considerations. The Hart-Celler Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 does not apply to this particular situation.

 

Federal immigration law Section 1182(f) states:

 

“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 non-immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate”.

 

Section 1182(f) plainly authorizes the president to issue temporary bans on the entry of classes of aliens for national-security purposes.
 

Edited February 8, 2017 by Ulysses G.

[ilostmypassword]

2 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

No cigar. Trump is relying on his constitutional authority, and the class restriction he has directed is based on national-security, not racial or ethnic considerations. The Hart-Celler Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 does not apply to this particular situation.

 

Federal immigration law Section 1182(f) states:

 

“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 non-immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate”.

 

Section 1182(f) plainly authorizes the president to issue temporary bans on the entry of classes of aliens for national-security purposes.
 

His constitutional authority?  What section of the Constitution is that?

[Andaman Al]

6 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

No cigar. Trump is relying on his constitutional authority, and the class restriction he has directed is based on national-security, not racial or ethnic considerations. The Hart-Celler Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 does not apply to this particular situation.

 

Federal immigration law Section 1182(f) states:

 

“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 non-immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate”.

 

Section 1182(f) plainly authorizes the president to issue temporary bans on the entry of classes of aliens for national-security purposes.
 

All 100% irrelevant when there is overwhelming evidence to show that the INTENT of the President is unconstitutional (by the way the President has NO constitutional authority as you say,  you are making that up, the constitution is the basis for law and HE has to follow and abide by that law). Firstly he is saying that the 7 countries pose a threat to the USA when in fact none of the countries have been responsible for having any citizens involved in an attack against the US, and he has not banned any of the countries that are a proven threat (Saudi, Egypt, UAE),  so is he really concerned about security? It doesn't seem so. Lastly amongst many similar examples, remarks in speeches and tweets, there is this little beauty: Watch from 3.30 to 5.50 (amazingly Giuliano says they looked at all the countries that were a threat, yet at 5.40 says after comments by that dreadful woman - Pakistan troubles me I need to know more about it !!)

 

 

 

 

Giuliano cooks Trump's goose here! This was a Muslim ban, that is what the President asked for.