Vermont Senate to Consider Bill Defying Trump’s Immigration Order

[OriZ 3,157]

I just spoke to an old British friend of mine the other day whom I haven't talked to in 3 years...noticed on her linkedin she was an insurance salesperson now, I'm like "so...what makes a marxist like you go into insurance?"...she's like "HA! sales is sales no matter the product, it pays the bills"....and then she said "don't even get me started on that Trump thing" lol

[Dashinka 23,196]

1 hour ago, OriZ said:

Yeah, and if something happens in the next 90 days he gets to blame the judge

 

He gets to tell people he at least tried to keep his promise but they stopped him, it's a win-win for him.

I agree with you here.  My only issue is that we have now four (unelected) federal judges that are supposed to rule on the constitutionality of the EO, but instead ignored that question and just sided with a plaintiff that vaguely said it had detrimental impacts on their residents.  Every government action impacts someone negatively, so can a person claim these rulings as precedent for trying to block the IRS from auditing a tax return, or for putting in a TRO when congress enacts a tax increase, or for blocking a waging of war after Congress makes a formal declaration?  The EO affects are not the issue/question they should have been deciding, it should have been does POTUS have the right to do it based on the duly passed laws of the people's representatives (congress). 

[CaliCat 3,957]

2 hours ago, Neonred said:

First of all, I don't see how the Vermont police would have much to do with enforcing an immigration ban from seven countries.  Isn't that the job of the State Dept and CBP?

 

Although I am mostly a Trump supporter, I think this ban was poorly written and was largely grand standing on Trump's part.  The role out was a disaster and it seems CBP didn't know the details, making up the rules themselves and looking like idiots.  Current visa and green card holders should have been exempt.  Wouldn't it have been much easier to direct the embassies of these countries to put a temporary hold on issuing new visas?  Essentially all visa applicants get an automatic AP for 90 or 120 days.  Seems like a lot of MENA applicants get this anyway for unknown reasons. Don't think this would have required an executive order. 

 

I think you are going down the right path. The entire matter was handled poorly by Trump, and the message that the courts are sending is that he doesn't rule the country alone, and most certainly not without doing things in a constitutional matter. The government lost its case when it stated the EO was unreviewable. That position works is a corporate environment, but not in government. I support the idea that we need better scrutiny when it comes to immigration, but not at the expense of our principles. MENA applicants are almost always put under administrative review, and their cases normally take much longer than others already.

 

 

[CaliCat 3,957]

17 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

I agree with you here.  My only issue is that we have now four (unelected) federal judges that are supposed to rule on the constitutionality of the EO, but instead ignored that question and just sided with a plaintiff that vaguely said it had detrimental impacts on their residents.  Every government action impacts someone negatively, so can a person claim these rulings as precedent for trying to block the IRS from auditing a tax return, or for putting in a TRO when congress enacts a tax increase, or for blocking a waging of war after Congress makes a formal declaration?  The EO affects are not the issue/question they should have been deciding, it should have been does POTUS have the right to do it based on the duly passed laws of the people's representatives (congress). 

 

Each of these unelected judges is constitutionally empowered, and as such, their positions are as legitimate as the president's. Their allegiance is to the American people, not to the president. They are not subordinate to him; they are his equal, and they will still be here long after the president is gone.   

Edited February 10, 2017 by CaliCat

[Dashinka 23,196]

1 minute ago, CaliCat said:

 

Each of these unelected judges is constitutionally empowered, and as such, their positions are as legitimate as the president's. Their allegiance is to the American people, not to the president. They are not subordinate to him; they are his equals, and they will still be here long after the president is gone.   

Did I say they were not constitutionally empowered?  That being said, it seems that you would be in favor of immediate judicial review of any action by congress or POTUS which along with these judges are also constitutionally empowered.  And you failed to answer the question about the EO, is it constitutional and does POTUS have a right to do it under existing laws duly passed by congress?  If these judges don't want this to happen, they should be reviewing the 1952 Immigration Law.  Judges and the federal courts are not supposed to be part of the political arm of the government, but this clearly shows that they (at least these four) seem to be acting in that manner.

[smilesammich 10,727]

1 minute ago, Bill & Katya said:

Did I say they were not constitutionally empowered?  That being said, it seems that you would be in favor of immediate judicial review of any action by congress or POTUS which along with these judges are also constitutionally empowered.  And you failed to answer the question about the EO, is it constitutional and does POTUS have a right to do it under existing laws duly passed by congress?  If these judges don't want this to happen, they should be reviewing the 1952 Immigration Law.  Judges and the federal courts are not supposed to be part of the political arm of the government, but this clearly shows that they (at least these four) seem to be acting in that manner.

i think you should read the whole ruling, from your responses it seems like you haven't. i'm sure you'll correct me if i'm wrong.

[yuna628 9,527]

4 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

Was it defeated?  I didn't read the ruling, but from what I have heard, the 9th Circuit (overturned 80% of the time) did not rule on the constitutionality of the EO.

 

As to Vermont, isn't this sort of the polar opposite of what Arizona tried to do to enforce immigration laws?

It is correct that the 9th Circuit did not rule on the Constitutional question. That wasn't their job to do here. What they did do, however was determine if the government A) had any merit in their argument that staying the ban caused the country/government harm (no), B) is letting the stay expire causing the people affected/states harm (yes) C) a few other things that they elected to delve into (and actually the things they did get into were pretty fascinating in fact!) I'll explain in a minute.. and D) they did raise a few Constitutional questions which they agreed the states/people could have merits on

3 hours ago, Neonred said:

First of all, I don't see how the Vermont police would have much to do with enforcing an immigration ban from seven countries.  Isn't that the job of the State Dept and CBP?

 

Although I am mostly a Trump supporter, I think this ban was poorly written and was largely grand standing on Trump's part.  The role out was a disaster and it seems CBP didn't know the details, making up the rules themselves and looking like idiots.  Current visa and green card holders should have been exempt.  Wouldn't it have been much easier to direct the embassies of these countries to put a temporary hold on issuing new visas?  Essentially all visa applicants get an automatic AP for 90 or 120 days.  Seems like a lot of MENA applicants get this anyway for unknown reasons. Don't think this would have required an executive order. 

Things that the EO affected wasn't just current visa and green card holders though. If interpreted in the manner they were about to: it would have also affected anyone adjusting status in the US, applying for EADs, and green cards - and if one of the sections had been interpreted as literally as some suspected it would have eventually applied to literally anyone entering the country (not just from those 7 nations). If they had simply changed the language of the order to correct all of this very bad verbage, and applied the rest of the order in a way that wasn't beyond the scope of his reach, people would have been a lot more accepting. In fact, Trump has the option to correct all of it right now at this very moment. One of the biggest errors the 9th pointed out is the fact he could make most of all the problems for him go away if he simple rewrote the dang thing!

2 hours ago, Neonred said:

Kind of stupid fighting this all the way to the SC.  Take the next 90-120 days to figure out the extreme vetting and move on.  He may lose out on the 120 day ban, but the end result will be the same.

The problem is what does 'extreme vetting' mean? What I mean by that is, most of us on this forum know the type of vetting we all went through to get here. And by all accounts refugees have gone through much of that same vetting for an even longer period of time than the majority of us on this forum. Sources within the DHS seemingly haven't even figured out what 'extreme vetting' means and that 90-120 days may actually turn out into indefinite amounts of time. There is no plan. If we are to take Gen. Kelly's admission before a committee this week - one idea being floated around is collecting not just data from those people coming from those countries but from everyone entering the US from everywhere. The type of big data gathering would be forcing travelers to give up any and all passwords of any websites they may use - including social media, email, and bank accounts, a list of any websites they may visit including any news media or religious websites, and any and all phone numbers of contacts they have. Now.... you know yourself this is problematic thing to ask. Even on the ESTA a list of social media accounts is an optional item. This type of 'vetting' is nothing but a mere smokescreen, akin to all sorts of stupid questions that get asked on the forms people lie about all the time. ''Are you a criminal?'' ''are you a Nazi?" etc etc.. Not only will people feel the demanding of a government to intrude in all of their private data a serious breach of protocol, and begs serious questions about how this information may be abused or kept safe, but how does this exactly catch anyone? Do we seriously think that 'bad guys' are dumb enough to tell the government every single website they go on? That they would list phone numbers that lead to ''big bad daddy jihad commander''? During the point when the EO was in place, already some of the CBP made very serious over-reaches in the types of questions they asked and behavior they did towards people electronic private data. That's what a good deal of many of the private lawsuits are about. The EFF is putting out a call to collect data on these experiences and several organizations have recounted their clients (both US citizens, LPRs, and visa holders) were asked a variety of questions that bordered on crossing a line and the ways in which their private data was breached.

 

So can anyone on this forum please tell me how we should be extreme vetting, what that actually is? And how we should do it?

2 hours ago, OriZ said:

As bcking and I discussed the other day, I believe if there's a tie then the 9th's ruling stands, and that is it. Bur not 100% sure.

This is correct. If SCOTUS is a 4-4 split it goes back to the 9th, and their ruling (and anything Robarts rules on later) will stand. But I actually feel that it wouldn't be a 4-4 split, and that SCOTUS may very likely rule the EO unconstitutional either in full or part. Trump has backed himself into corner, and for what reason I can't think of, other than that he is continually testing the limits of the executive branch - and that isn't a good thing. What I do know is that, I don't feel like the lawyers arguing this case in court don't even seem to be trying very hard to defend it. Which is a big red flag to me. Seriously. It just doesn't smell right. Is it so he can whine and complain to his base that 'he tried', but 'those meanies in the court' wouldn't let him, and that he can continue to downplay the checks and balances on the Presidency with that base? It's ridiculous.

1 hour ago, Bill & Katya said:

I agree with you here.  My only issue is that we have now four (unelected) federal judges that are supposed to rule on the constitutionality of the EO, but instead ignored that question and just sided with a plaintiff that vaguely said it had detrimental impacts on their residents.  Every government action impacts someone negatively, so can a person claim these rulings as precedent for trying to block the IRS from auditing a tax return, or for putting in a TRO when congress enacts a tax increase, or for blocking a waging of war after Congress makes a formal declaration?  The EO affects are not the issue/question they should have been deciding, it should have been does POTUS have the right to do it based on the duly passed laws of the people's representatives (congress). 

This is the quandary we get ourselves into with EOs. Which is why, if Congress wanted to, they could correct that. It's going to keep happening. And whether you like the ruling or not the judicial branch has an important part to play in protecting the people from unchecked power.

Edited February 10, 2017 by yuna628

[Dashinka 23,196]

35 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

i think you should read the whole ruling, from your responses it seems like you haven't. i'm sure you'll correct me if i'm wrong.

Yeah, it was a good read.  I enjoyed the part when the University of Washington was crying about their visa investments.  I guess they don't read the stories here on VJ.  It also seems to be an opinion that isn't ruling on the constitutionality of the EO, but rather on the potential of either party proving its case in the future (i.e. a preliminary review).  I don't know, a court that is right only 20% of the time is not my idea of a slam dunk slap down of the EO.  But I guess time will tell.

 

[Dashinka 23,196]

4 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

This is the quandary we get ourselves into with EOs. Which is why, if Congress wanted to, they could correct that. It's going to keep happening. And whether you like the ruling or not the judicial branch has an important part to play in protecting the people from unchecked power.

First of all, thanks for the analysis.

 

I'll admit, I am not a big fan of EOs (even this one), but what can Congress do to limit the Executive Branch doing the business (through EOs) they need to do to protect the constitution and enforce the laws that the Congress passes?   And courts are necessary, but what review do we have for the courts?  I think it is a bit naïve to believe a legal scholar checks their biases in their chambers, so when judges do over-reach (i.e. write laws of their own), what is the process for punishing them?  Sure they can be impeached, but impeachment is a political process, so if we start impeaching judges due to perceived political rulings, the other side will do the same thing when they return to power (I wonder if the Democrats are regretting their use of the nuclear option in the Senate).

[smilesammich 10,727]

17 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Yeah, it was a good read.  I enjoyed the part when the University of Washington was crying about their visa investments.  I guess they don't read the stories here on VJ.  It also seems to be an opinion that isn't ruling on the constitutionality of the EO, but rather on the potential of either party proving its case in the future (i.e. a preliminary review).  I don't know, a court that is right only 20% of the time is not my idea of a slam dunk slap down of the EO.  But I guess time will tell.

 

yeah i enjoyed the part where government said 'we have top secret scary info you don't have, be very afraid but know we're doing the right thing to protect you' and the court said 'ain't skeered and you're more than welcome to share that that top secret scary info if you choose' 

[CaliCat 3,957]

On 2/10/2017 at 11:02 AM, Bill & Katya said:

Did I say they were not constitutionally empowered?  That being said, it seems that you would be in favor of immediate judicial review of any action by congress or POTUS which along with these judges are also constitutionally empowered.  And you failed to answer the question about the EO, is it constitutional and does POTUS have a right to do it under existing laws duly passed by congress?  If these judges don't want this to happen, they should be reviewing the 1952 Immigration Law.  Judges and the federal courts are not supposed to be part of the political arm of the government, but this clearly shows that they (at least these four) seem to be acting in that manner.

 

That is where you are misinformed. These judges are constitutionally empowered and they are part of one of the three pillars of American government. They are well within their power to review any EO, as is their duty to do so. 

[yuna628 9,527]

I wanted to also point out that an en blanc has been filed on the 9th case. That is to say one of the numerous judges wants the entire crew to come together and take a vote on if they agree with the original ruling or not, or at the very least review it. I don't anticipate the outcome being much different, but you never know. This is most likely to check all the bases. Perhaps our more lawyerly poster could tell us what it should mean.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

On 2/10/2017 at 7:21 AM, Bill & Katya said:

Was it defeated?  I didn't read the ruling, but from what I have heard, the 9th Circuit (overturned 80% of the time) did not rule on the constitutionality of the EO.

 

As to Vermont, isn't this sort of the polar opposite of what Arizona tried to do to enforce immigration laws?

The 9th is a joke. Most overturned bunch of left wing bed wetting commies in the history of the world. They think they are there to legislate  laws and turn the US of by god A, into a socialist slum empire that stretch's from sea to shinning sea. 

[OriZ 3,157]

And the latest in VT news...

 

http://www.wcax.com/story/34471716/should-vermonts-minimum-wage-be-15-an-hour

 

Ugh. Dumb.

[Dashinka 23,196]

10 hours ago, OriZ said:

And the latest in VT news...

 

http://www.wcax.com/story/34471716/should-vermonts-minimum-wage-be-15-an-hour

 

Ugh. Dumb.

Why do lawmakers think that they can set one part of the economy and think there will be no impact to other areas?

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/07/07/we-are-seeing-the-effects-of-the-minimum-wage-rise-in-san-francisco/#2a45dff164a4