Hawaii judge halts Trump's new travel ban before it can go into effect

[webfact]

Hawaii judge halts Trump's new travel ban before it can go into effect

By Dan Levine and Mica Rosenberg

REUTERS

 

Hawaii Attorney General Douglas Chin answers questions from the media at the U.S. District Court Ninth Circuit after presenting his arguments after filing an amended lawsuit against President Donald Trump's new travel ban in Honolulu, Hawaii, March 15, 2017. REUTERS/Hugh Gentry

 

HONOLULU/NEW YORK (Reuters) - A U.S. federal judge in Hawaii dealt another legal blow to President Donald Trump on Wednesday, issuing an emergency halt to his revised travel ban just hours before it was set to go into effect early on Thursday.

 

U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson put out an emergency stop on Trump's executive order, which aimed to temporarily bar entry to the United States of most refugees as well as travellers from six Muslim-majority countries.

 

Watson said the state of Hawaii showed a strong likelihood of success in its claims that the order violates the establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution, which prevents religious discrimination. Critics of the ban argued it was discriminatory against Muslims.

 

The Republican president has said the policy is critical for national security.

 

The case was one of several that were moving through U.S. courts on Wednesday brought by states' attorneys general and immigrant advocacy groups.

 

Trump's first travel order signed on Jan. 27, which was more sweeping than the second revised order signed on March 6, was also halted by a federal judge.

 

White House spokesman Sean Spicer, asked about the judge's order, did not comment.

 

(Reporting by Dan Levine in Honolulu and Ian Simpson in Greenbelt, Md. Additional reporting by Mica Rosenberg and Jonathan Allen in New York; Writing by Mica Rosenberg; Editing by Peter Cooney and Jonathan Oatis)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-03-16

[whatawonderfulday]

Que Trump sycophants on TV to crawl out from under their stones again.

[Scott]

If the goal of the President is to widen the divide among Americans, then he is a success.   If his goal is to protect the US from terrorism, then he is sadly lacking.  

 

It is well within the purview of the President, with the help of his State Department to severely limit the number of people entering from certain countries, but an outright ban is going to raise eyebrows.    Somewhere in those countries is some little old lady whose son is in the US and now has sufficient funds and a good enough job to bring his aged mother to the US for a visit (or to live).   So let her come.   His brother's and nephews might require a much more lengthy and careful review.

 

Somewhere in one of those countries is a child who has suffered a catastrophic injury or disease that can best be treated in the US.   So let him come for treatment.   

 

Somewhere in one of those countries someone has a spouse awaiting the visa.   After a thorough check, let her in.  

 

There are too many variables and exceptions in the human condition and situation to try the outright full-fledged ban.  

[AlexRich]

7 minutes ago, Scott said:

If the goal of the President is to widen the divide among Americans, then he is a success.   If his goal is to protect the US from terrorism, then he is sadly lacking.  

 

It is well within the purview of the President, with the help of his State Department to severely limit the number of people entering from certain countries, but an outright ban is going to raise eyebrows.    Somewhere in those countries is some little old lady whose son is the US and now has sufficient funds and a good enough job to bring his aged mother to the US for a visit (or to live).   So let her come.   His brother's and nephews might require a much more lengthy and careful review.

 

Somewhere in one of those countries is a child who has suffered a catastrophic injury or disease that can best be treated in the US.   So let him come for treatment.   

 

Somewhere in one of those countries someone has a spouse awaiting the visa.   After a thorough check, let her in.  

 

There are too many variables and exceptions in the human condition and situation to try the outright full-fledged ban.  

Yes, correct.

 

But in the eyes of many "highly educated" Trump supporters there's thousands of rag-headed "Moose Lambs" from those countries ready to come to the US with bombs strapped around their waists, eager to reap havoc in every town across the country.

 

More people in the US will die at the hands of children this year than at the hands of terrorists ... the vetting in place already is very tight. 

 

Trump is just trying to create a big scary monster in the imaginations of the populace ... one that only he can save you from. Good that there's enough sensible people left not to fall for it.

 

 

[Peterw42]

Its a shame that these pesky little things like laws and constitutions keep getting in the way of what could be a great dictatorship

Do you really think terrorists are going to que up and apply to come through the front door. They are probably all moving to saudi, and will pop over on holidays next year.

[fabphil]

Go Trumpy...

 

[redwinecheese]

Bigotry strengthens stupidity
 

[Ahab]

14 minutes ago, Peterw42 said:

Its a shame that these pesky little things like laws and constitutions keep getting in the way of what could be a great dictatorship

Do you really think terrorists are going to que up and apply to come through the front door. They are probably all moving to saudi, and will pop over on holidays next year.

Except for the fact that by law this is a specified duty of the executive branch. Using your logic, decisions to use military force by the President and congress could be stopped by the court action in a single state because one of its citizens would be inconvenienced or have difficulty getting a Visa for a family member. That is not how the separation of powers between branches of the US government is supposed to work. This will be overturned on appeal.

[daveAustin]

16 minutes ago, AlexRich said:

More people in the US will die at the hands of children this year than at the hands of terrorists ... the vetting in place already is very tight. 

Immaterial drumming up 'normal' statistics. 911 killed, what, only around 3000 compared with 10x that dying on US roads? I guess it's more to do with the fear of the unknown from crazy religious folk. One thing's for sure, if there's an attack from a Somali immigrant in the near future, Twitter will go into override! Btw, cue Trump to call to cede Hawaii back to the islanders. 

[Peterw42]

3 minutes ago, daveAustin said:

Immaterial drumming up 'normal' statistics. 911 killed, what, only around 3000 compared with 10x that dying on US roads? I guess it's more to do with the fear of the unknown from crazy religious folk. One thing's for sure, if there's an attack from a Somali immigrant in the near future, Twitter will go into override! Btw, cue Trump to call to cede Hawaii back to the islanders. 

You are making the assumption that the Somali immigrant will apply through Somalia to come in the front door. More than likely he will enter as a Canadian tourist going to the Superbowl. 

[sujoop]

[Kiwisailor]

59 minutes ago, daveAustin said:

Btw, cue Trump to call to cede Hawaii back to the islanders. 

I'm NZ would be happy to welcome them as the "Tropical Northern islands of New Zealand"

[Peterw42]

35 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Except for the fact that by law this is a specified duty of the executive branch. Using your logic, decisions to use military force by the President and congress could be stopped by the court action in a single state because one of its citizens would be inconvenienced or have difficulty getting a Visa for a family member. That is not how the separation of powers between branches of the US government is supposed to work. This will be overturned on appeal.

Once power is given that the federal government can make any and all laws, overriding the states. Thats no longer the United "States" of America, thats the "Federal Republic of America". In a union of states, the states empower a federal government to govern on their behalf, but in doing so, reserve the right via separation of powers etc, to remain autonomous. If not, the state borders may as well be taken away tomorrow. Its "for the people by the people" not "for the people by the executive powers of the federal government". 

Yes, the states give executive power in matters of national security, but if the federal Government starts making up or exaggerating a national security threat, anything can be included, immigration, border taxes, civil liberties etc. 

They could shut down the hospitals tomorrow, its a matter of national security, a future terrorist may be born in one of them. 

[Kabula]

After reviewing all the content in this post I can understand why the world is in crisis and why they always take us into a World War when economies and currencies are in trouble!

 

The misinformed's manipipulated, perspective fuels accelerated worldwide protesting, Marshall Law, then into World War.

 

History always repeats itself.

 

For those of you that are not for freedom, but rather a free handout, I invite you to view all the homeless and the rubble of Germany immediately after World War II on UTube.  That is the end game.

 

Be thankful you are here and in time you will see why!

 

The ignorance, misinformation, and anger worldwide is remarkable.

 

Please no comments as you just create more hatred.

 

I've stated fact based on prior history and my current and past observations on the battlefield.

 

A Veteran

[Srikcir]

Wonder if Trump now regrets having been so adamant that Obama wasn't born in Hawaii and his Hawaiian birth certificate issued by the State of Hawaii was a fake? Seems like karma that the State is now stopping Trump's travel ban.

[darksidedog]

Oh No! Not another "so called judge putting a spanner in the works?" I wish the comedy on the TV was as funny as Donalds antics.

Edited March 16, 2017 by darksidedog

[Linzz]

3 hours ago, Scott said:

If the goal of the President is to widen the divide among Americans, then he is a success.   If his goal is to protect the US from terrorism, then he is sadly lacking.  

 

It is well within the purview of the President, with the help of his State Department to severely limit the number of people entering from certain countries, but an outright ban is going to raise eyebrows.    Somewhere in those countries is some little old lady whose son is in the US and now has sufficient funds and a good enough job to bring his aged mother to the US for a visit (or to live).   So let her come.   His brother's and nephews might require a much more lengthy and careful review.

 

Somewhere in one of those countries is a child who has suffered a catastrophic injury or disease that can best be treated in the US.   So let him come for treatment.   

 

Somewhere in one of those countries someone has a spouse awaiting the visa.   After a thorough check, let her in.  

 

There are too many variables and exceptions in the human condition and situation to try the outright full-fledged ban.  

Extreme vetting should be enough and avoids all these legal wrangles. 

[Grubster]

I think Trump should begin to build some very large housing projects in Hawaii, then send all these immigrants there, problem solved.

[Grubster]

3 hours ago, Scott said:

If the goal of the President is to widen the divide among Americans, then he is a success.   If his goal is to protect the US from terrorism, then he is sadly lacking.  

 

It is well within the purview of the President, with the help of his State Department to severely limit the number of people entering from certain countries, but an outright ban is going to raise eyebrows.    Somewhere in those countries is some little old lady whose son is in the US and now has sufficient funds and a good enough job to bring his aged mother to the US for a visit (or to live).   So let her come.   His brother's and nephews might require a much more lengthy and careful review.

 

Somewhere in one of those countries is a child who has suffered a catastrophic injury or disease that can best be treated in the US.   So let him come for treatment.   

 

Somewhere in one of those countries someone has a spouse awaiting the visa.   After a thorough check, let her in.  

 

There are too many variables and exceptions in the human condition and situation to try the outright full-fledged ban.  

There are millions of US citizens living below the poverty level, if we can't take care of them then why should we bring others to the mix?

[Linzz]

5 minutes ago, Grubster said:

I think Trump should begin to build some very large housing projects in Hawaii, then send all these immigrants there, problem solved.

Indeed it is a bit like all the Hollywood celebrities behind their mansion walls and gated communities. Plenty of outrage but will they open their doors?

[Grubster]

9 minutes ago, Linzz said:

Indeed it is a bit like all the Hollywood celebrities behind their mansion walls and gated communities. Plenty of outrage but will they open their doors?

No but they will open yours.

[atyclb]

Tourism to hawaii from islamic countries is probably tiny and insignificant. based on living there over a decade. strange how they cite tourism. huge tourism is from mainland usa, japan, but not islamic countries.

[Scott]

Some off-topic posts and replies removed.   Please stay on topic.  

 

The number of immigrants and refugees is limited.   The number allowed to enter the US is set by congress each year.   The President can move the numbers in the refugee category around, but the number is set.  

 

Refugees are spread out among the states and they are not 'sent' to any one place.   States, through a variety of agencies and NGO's, provide services, jobs and housing for the refugees.   Immigrants usually settle with family members, with the exception of those filling jobs in the US.  

 

When the President limits the people from one country, the numbers admitted are filled by people awaiting visas from other countries and categories.  

[jesimps]

POTUS is becoming redundant. May as well hand all the decision making to the lefty judges. Of course unlike the president, they won't bear any of the responsibility when things go wrong.

The lunatics seem to be running the asylum in the US. Dunno why they bothered with the vote. Bit like what GM and the Lords are doing in the UK.

[Ahab]

3 hours ago, Peterw42 said:

Once power is given that the federal government can make any and all laws, overriding the states. Thats no longer the United "States" of America, thats the "Federal Republic of America". In a union of states, the states empower a federal government to govern on their behalf, but in doing so, reserve the right via separation of powers etc, to remain autonomous. If not, the state borders may as well be taken away tomorrow. Its "for the people by the people" not "for the people by the executive powers of the federal government". 

Yes, the states give executive power in matters of national security, but if the federal Government starts making up or exaggerating a national security threat, anything can be included, immigration, border taxes, civil liberties etc. 

They could shut down the hospitals tomorrow, its a matter of national security, a future terrorist may be born in one of them. 

Your straw man argument that once the Federal government can make any and all laws is not the point I was (or anyone else was) trying to make. The president of the United States (Executive Branch) is specifically given control over who and how many emigrate to the USA. Look up the statute, it is pretty cut and dried (easy enough for a liberal arts major to understand).

[Peterw42]

14 minutes ago, jesimps said:

POTUS is becoming redundant. May as well hand all the decision making to the lefty judges. Of course unlike the president, they won't bear any of the responsibility when things go wrong.

The lunatics seem to be running the asylum in the US. Dunno why they bothered with the vote. Bit like what GM and the Lords are doing in the UK.

Just a thought, but maybe the POTUS could stop trying to govern using executive orders and put some bills/legislation through congress.

[Andaman Al]

3 hours ago, Linzz said:

Extreme vetting should be enough and avoids all these legal wrangles. 

You mean like the extreme vetting that is already in place? 2 years to process a person! Have you looked at the procedure? It is extreme vetting already, why change a system that was not broken, it may have needed some improvements that is all.

[Andaman Al]

1 hour ago, jesimps said:

POTUS is becoming redundant. May as well hand all the decision making to the lefty judges. Of course unlike the president, they won't bear any of the responsibility when things go wrong.

.

You mean like Trump did in the Yemen? When he ordered an operation as Commander in Chief and when it went wrong and someone was killed he said it was the Generals fault! Trump has never taken responsibility for his actions in his entire life.

[Ahab]

4 minutes ago, Andaman Al said:

You mean like Trump did in the Yemen? When he ordered an operation as Commander in Chief and when it went wrong and someone was killed he said it was the Generals fault! Trump has never taken responsibility for his actions in his entire life.

Using your logic any military operation with casualties is a failure? WWII using your logic was a complete failure and we should have let Germany take over Europe and left Asia to the Japanese so we would not take any casualties. People die during war (news flash) hopefully more of the other guys than our own. US Navy Seals are professional warriors, every one of them is a volunteer, and they know the risks of going into combat. 

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, Peterw42 said:

Just a thought, but maybe the POTUS could stop trying to govern using executive orders and put some bills/legislation through congress.

Perhaps, but existing law and precedents on this particular question are already well established. The executive branch has authority over immigration.