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

[WaywardWind]

2 hours ago, Linzz said:

Thanks for this.

But does 1152 contradict 212 ? I'm not a Constitutional lawyer ( but don't rub it in!). If the President doesn't have  the right "to suspend entry of all or any class of aliens...as he may deem appropriate" because of a later amendment "no person.....be discriminated against....because of ....place of birth or place of residence" then it has to be clear that his executive order is invalid. If the latter cancels the former statute then he is not getting very good advice especially if the former cannot override the latter amendment. How does this work? Any bigger brains than mine  here?

The INA (including 212(f)) became law in the early 1950s and was amended in 1965, including section 1152.

 

One of the first things that you learn in law school (or at least one did when I went to law school 40 years ago) is that in the event of a conflict, the later provision rules; if that is not clear, then the legislative history is examined.  In this case, it seems pretty clear that 1152 acts as a check on the powers enumerated in 212(f).  Beyond that, the Constitutional prohibition on discrimination based on religion has been argued in the courts examining the travel ban, and found to be controlling,.

 

Trump does not have a leg to stand on; it is easy to make all kinds of wild promises in a campaign, but they inevitably fail when tested against the law and the Constitution, as he is painfully learning now. 

 

One cannot bluff or bully a federal court judge, although Trump and his advisers seem to think they can.

[WaywardWind]

2 hours ago, redwinecheese said:

Americans themselves are illegal immigrants in the land of native Indian.

Indeed:

Edited March 17, 2017 by WaywardWind

[Squeegee]

On 3/16/2017 at 8:17 AM, AlexRich said:

Good that there's enough sensible people left not to fall for it.

 

That'll be why he's president then.

[Dagnabbit]

Number of immigrants from the banned countries taken in by Hawaii - 0

Judge in the same class as Obama at Harvard.

Judge appointed by Obama.

Libs gotta lib...



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AlexRich]

17 minutes ago, Squeegee said:

 

That'll be why he's president then.

Due to the electoral college system ... not because he won the majority of votes ... he missed that by 3 million approx!

[Scott]

4 hours ago, Grubster said:

Until the baby is born a US citizen.

Then only the baby is a US citizen and that does not necessarily allow the parents to stay.   They may have to chose to take their child with them or to leave the child.

 

About a month ago a woman in AZ was deported, leaving 2 minor children (US citizens) in the States.  

[Blindedbythelight]

On 16/3/2560 at 8:02 AM, 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.  

The quote about kids needing hospital treatment happened. And to make it worse. This little boy had 2-3 operations already in the states. His mother and Father had to go out of the country( USA) with the boy, for a few weeks. They left the other daughter in the states with a friend. Now they were barred from returning. What a joke this President.

[Blindedbythelight]

21 minutes ago, Scott said:

Then only the baby is a US citizen and that does not necessarily allow the parents to stay.   They may have to chose to take their child with them or to leave the child.

 

About a month ago a woman in AZ was deported, leaving 2 minor children (US citizens) in the States.  

I don't agree with girls coming to the USA, 4-5 months pregnant only to give birth and their baby is American. This is taking advantage of the system.

[Scott]

48 minutes ago, Blindedbythelight said:

I don't agree with girls coming to the USA, 4-5 months pregnant only to give birth and their baby is American. This is taking advantage of the system.

I am not sure how that is taking advantage of the system.   They get no special treatment for the parents.    For many, many people it's simply an insurance policy.   They have a child who is eligible for a US passport.   It is not uncommon amongst the more affluent Chinese.

 

The child may have the right to reside in the US, but the parents do not.   The people who do this are generally not poor, because if they were, they would not be admitted to the US to begin with.  

 

There are a lot of things that people don't agree with but the Constitution is pretty clear that if you are born in the US, you are a citizen.  

 

I suppose Trump could add something to his Executive Order baring women of child bearing age.   I don't think that would fly either.  

[Scott]

Some off-topic posts and replies have been removed.   The election and electoral college really isn't relevant to this thread.  

 

[ilostmypassword]

2 hours ago, Dagnabbit said:

Number of immigrants from the banned countries taken in by Hawaii - 0

Judge in the same class as Obama at Harvard.

Judge appointed by Obama.

Libs gotta lib...



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

States don't get to reject immigrants from the banned countries. Or any refugees admitted by the USA.  They can say they reject them, but the rejection has no legal force.  And, in fact, Hawaii is one of those states that has affirmed it will accept refugees and has accepted Syrian refugees..

http://www.newsweek.com/where-every-state-stands-accepting-or-refusing-syrian-refugees-395050

Now that this has been revealed, you can be sure that right wingers will now be complaining about Syrian refugees being sent to a tropical paradise while hundreds of millions of Americans have to endure harsh weather.

[Linzz]

5 hours ago, WaywardWind said:

Beyond that, the Constitutional prohibition on discrimination based on religion has been argued in the courts examining the travel ban, and found to be controlling,.

Good. But it's the law as you laid out that has to be followed and applied within the 4 corners of the executive order, anything outside of this that Trump or others have said on the campaign trail should be inadmissible I would have thought.The amendment in itself should be enough to carry the day  and thus the determination is purely an application of law.

[joecoolfrog]

9 hours ago, Grubster said:

I am well clear, and I think you are correct that Washington or NY will get nuked if the radical element ever gets the chance. However I live here in Thailand which would be a one day project for China to take, and that may be a lot more likely than we think.  Back to the issue, I am here in a country that does not allow immigration, spending my money here, so I do practice what I preach, you on the other hand should not be giving your money to a country that goes against what you believe. Perhaps you could move to Oslo Norway, live the good life and get on the welcoming committee for incoming immigrants there. Good luck with all.

I dont even know what most of your post means so hard to respond. I do find it hilarious though that you do not realise that you yourself are an immigrant in Thailand , perhaps you should look up the definition of that word.

[WaywardWind]

6 hours ago, Linzz said:

Good. But it's the law as you laid out that has to be followed and applied within the 4 corners of the executive order, anything outside of this that Trump or others have said on the campaign trail should be inadmissible I would have thought.The amendment in itself should be enough to carry the day  and thus the determination is purely an application of law.

The protections of the Constitution will always control when examining any law, regulation, executive order, etc.

 

You thought wrong. One cannot traverse the country for a year and a half, constantly promising to impose a ban on Muslims, then sign an order which bans immigration from seven (now six) countries with 99% Muslim populations, and say it is not a ban on Muslims. Words matter, and are most definitely to be considered when deciding intent.

[Andaman Al]

8 hours ago, Linzz said:

Good. But it's the law as you laid out that has to be followed and applied within the 4 corners of the executive order, anything outside of this that Trump or others have said on the campaign trail should be inadmissible I would have thought.The amendment in itself should be enough to carry the day  and thus the determination is purely an application of law.

How can what Trump said on the campaign trail be inadmissible? Are you serious with that statement? If you put lipstick on a pig, it is still a pig! Trump wanted a Muslim ban and however he dresses that up now is irrelevant, this is still the instrument of his Muslim ban. I am far from liberal and am definitely right of centre, but that does not prevent me from seeing an oxygen thief when I know one, and for the life of me I cannot understand how any of you lot can defend Trump for a moment.

[Grubster]

19 hours ago, Andaman Al said:

Well the Father of the fallen hero was not pleased at all concerning anything the President did or said surrounding the matter. Clearly US and British military have a different ethos as when I was a Military Commander I always took responsibility for what occurred with my men, as Blanchard wrote, when your people do something wrong, the first person you have to look at is yourself - did you brief them correctly, did you resource them correctly, did you plan correctly etc etc and if the answer has any doubt then you make improvements and you as the Commander accept responsibility. Everyone in my chain of command both up and down respected any person that stood up and took rightful responsibility. Funny I met a few really good US Military Commanders that I worked with closely and they were of the same military ethos. Your answer and thought processes are a grave disappointment to the great work they did.

Well sure they take overall responsibility for their unit, but they also call out those who screwed up and punish them. So if one in your unit shoots another in your unit are you saying that you tell everyone its your fault. Again the Buck stops here is a political statement, and a pat yourself on the back statement. It may rally the dumb ones but most know better. When Jimmy Carter sent the failed mission to Iran, he said he takes full responsibility. Now how in the hell was he supposed to know that the Commanders involved didn't understand about the sand effecting the birds. 

[ilostmypassword]

5 minutes ago, Grubster said:

Well sure they take overall responsibility for their unit, but they also call out those who screwed up and punish them. So if one in your unit shoots another in your unit are you saying that you tell everyone its your fault. Again the Buck stops here is a political statement, and a pat yourself on the back statement. It may rally the dumb ones but most know better. When Jimmy Carter sent the failed mission to Iran, he said he takes full responsibility. Now how in the hell was he supposed to know that the Commanders involved didn't understand about the sand effecting the birds. 

So let's say the next mission is a huge success.  Can we expect Trump to say something like, "I deserve none of the credit for this success. It all belongs to the people who planned and carried out the mission."

In fact what we have in Trump is someone who blames others when things go wrong and hogs the credit when they go right.  I don't think that kind of behavior inspires loyalty.

[Grubster]

13 hours ago, joecoolfrog said:

I dont even know what most of your post means so hard to respond. I do find it hilarious though that you do not realise that you yourself are an immigrant in Thailand , perhaps you should look up the definition of that word.

Yes I am, but I can not become a citizen here, I can only work here if they need me to, they can kick me out whenever they please, I cannot use any of their government programs [ health care etc.]  Thailand takes who they want, not who the world tells them to. The US currently does not need immigrants and should not take any unless they do. You wouldn't last in business long if you hired people you don't need just because you wanted to be a nice guy, same goes for a country I think.

[Grubster]

8 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

So let's say the next mission is a huge success.  Can we expect Trump to say something like, "I deserve none of the credit for this success. It all belongs to the people who planned and carried out the mission."

In fact what we have in Trump is someone who blames others when things go wrong and hogs the credit when they go right.  I don't think that kind of behavior inspires loyalty.

You mean like Obama and Hillary showing themselves all over the world when the military killed Bin Ladin, or GW Bush thumping his chest on a ship saying mission accomplished? Or do you mean like GW Bush not allowing the press to show coffins returning from the war? Yeah the buck stops here alright.

[ilostmypassword]

4 minutes ago, Grubster said:

You mean like Obama and Hillary showing themselves all over the world when the military killed Bin Ladin, or GW Bush thumping his chest on a ship saying mission accomplished? Or do you mean like GW Bush not allowing the press to show coffins returning from the war? Yeah the buck stops here alright.

You can do all those things if you also accept responsibility when they go wrong.

[Grubster]

13 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

You can do all those things if you also accept responsibility when they go wrong.

Like the ambassador being killed in Africa?   It was ok to not show the coffins of the fallen troops of war? 

 

 Trump is very outspoken, speaking off the cuff, and very arrogant.  This was his campaign and he won,  do you not understand that the people voted for him.

[Grubster]

17 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

States don't get to reject immigrants from the banned countries. Or any refugees admitted by the USA.  They can say they reject them, but the rejection has no legal force.  And, in fact, Hawaii is one of those states that has affirmed it will accept refugees and has accepted Syrian refugees..

http://www.newsweek.com/where-every-state-stands-accepting-or-refusing-syrian-refugees-395050

Now that this has been revealed, you can be sure that right wingers will now be complaining about Syrian refugees being sent to a tropical paradise while hundreds of millions of Americans have to endure harsh weather.

They will either take jobs away from US citizens that need them, or they will live on the dole taking tax dollars that are desperately needed elsewhere. Probably both.

[ilostmypassword]

13 minutes ago, Grubster said:

Like the ambassador being killed in Africa?   It was ok to not show the coffins of the fallen troops of war? 

 

 Trump is very outspoken, speaking off the cuff, and very arrogant.  This was his campaign and he won,  do you not understand that the people voted for him.

Who said Clinton didn't take responsiblity for it?  She just denied the lies that were being pushed by the right wing press.

"The people" voted for Trump? What exactly does that mean?

[Grubster]

1 minute ago, ilostmypassword said:

Who said Clinton didn't take responsiblity for it?  She just denied the lies that were being pushed by the right wing press.

"The people" voted for Trump? What exactly does that mean?

That means the people wanted what they saw and that is exactly what they are getting.

[ilostmypassword]

11 minutes ago, Grubster said:

That means the people wanted what they saw and that is exactly what they are getting.

Which people are "the people"?

[Grubster]

3 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Which people are "the people"?

The citizens of The United States of America.

[Andaman Al]

2 hours ago, Grubster said:

They will either take jobs away from US citizens that need them, or they will live on the dole taking tax dollars that are desperately needed elsewhere. Probably both.

You are not a US citizen are you? Why all the protesting? Do you not see Trump as the rest of the world does, or is baiting just a pastime that gives you some sort of amusement?

[Grubster]

12 minutes ago, Andaman Al said:

You are not a US citizen are you? Why all the protesting? Do you not see Trump as the rest of the world does, or is baiting just a pastime that gives you some sort of amusement?

Yes I am American and throwing insults at any countries president would be considered baiting.

[ilostmypassword]

4 hours ago, Grubster said:

The citizens of The United States of America.

You mean the plurality who voted for Hillary Clinton?  Are you aware that more people voted for Clinton than for Trump?  So it is not the case that "The citizens of The United States of America" voted for him. Some of the citizens of the USA voted for him. And fewer than those who voted for Clinton. Unless you think that only members of the electoral college are citizens of the USA.

 

 

 

Edited March 18, 2017 by ilostmypassword

[darksidedog]

1 hour ago, Grubster said:

Yes I am American and throwing insults at any countries president would be considered baiting.

Normally that would be true. This however, is not a normal situation.

I admit to being a non Trump Believer, though while in voicing that, often with some sarcasm, I feel that I, like many others, are not doing it simply for fun, or because we are crazed left wing loons.

It is more a case of very genuine and sincere concern about who is at the helm, and the potential for disaster that we see as possible, given the fiasco that has been developing lately.

The posts I have been reading, and writing focus on the man and his string of questionable decisions and his advisers, not the country.

If someone is about to drive the car over the edge of a cliff, someone should be able to tell the driver he needs to change course.

And Thanks to free speech, that is what is happening. It's not offensive. It's democracy at work.