Trump travel ban: US judge blocks new executive order

[CaliCat 3,957]

8 hours ago, cyberfx1024 said:

 

So the last 8 years having someone in office who was against the constitution was a good thing? Obama wanted open borders and everybody to come in this country no problem. All the while forgetting about regular working class Americans who put him there. He would rather pander to people from outside this country than uphold the values of this country.

 

How is Trumps ban unAmerican, it has been done in the past. Not one official argument against the ban pays out a argument that it's unamerican, instead it lays out false truths saying it's a Muslim ban or that it's racist. Sorry but a news outlet I read from Saudi Arabia called Alarabiya also said it wasn't a Muslim ban because it leaves the vast majority of Muslim countries aren't affected by it.

 

Stop listening to the open border talking points and start listening to the facts.

 

This is not about what Obama wanted to do, nor is it even about what Trump wants to do. It's about what the president can actually do, and the reasons behind it.

 

His reasons for this ban are purely political - he said so himself in a veiled manner.

 

He is not interested about protecting our country, because we are as protected as you can expect from an open society. He is pandering the the lowest denominator in his voter base, with nationalist sentiments, and his divisive rhetoric.

[Teddy B 17,252]

24 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

I thought the basis was the identification of these countries by the Obama Administration?

Too bad that the country where most of the terrorists who committed the 9/11 attacks were from wasn't on this list. I can't Imagine why Saudi Arabia wasn't on Obama's list or that Trump didn't add it. And now Iraq is off the list as well. Wonder why that is?

Edited March 16, 2017 by Teddy B

[smilesammich 10,727]

17 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

I thought the basis was the identification of these countries by the Obama Administration?

and that basis is not sufficient, but trump supporters of course immediately discredit judges instead of putting on their thinking caps and mulling why that basis is not sufficient..

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

16 minutes ago, Teddy B said:

Too bad that the country where most of the terrorists who committed the 9/11 attacks were from wasn't on this list. I can't Imagine why Saudi Arabia wasn't on Obama's list or that Trump didn't add it. And now Iraq is off the list as well. Wonder why that is?

If you look at the list of banned countries a couple thing stick out to me. The majority of those countries Somalia/Libya/Syria/Yemen have no kind of unified government at all at this time. So how can you not verify and check on someone without proper documentation, also there is no US Embassy or Consulate in those countries right now either. Saudi Arabia and Iraq both have functioning central governments that are actively rooting out terrorism and working with the US Govt in that regard. 

[smilesammich 10,727]

2 minutes ago, cyberfx1024 said:

If you look at the list of banned countries a couple thing stick out to me. The majority of those countries Somalia/Libya/Syria/Yemen have no kind of unified government at all at this time. So how can you not verify and check on someone without proper documentation, also there is no US Embassy or Consulate in those countries right now either. Saudi Arabia and Iraq both have functioning central governments that are actively rooting out terrorism and working with the US Govt in that regard. 

i was under the impression this is why it takes so long to process visas from these countries, not that vetting does happen at all.

[Teddy B 17,252]

2 minutes ago, cyberfx1024 said:

If you look at the list of banned countries a couple thing stick out to me. The majority of those countries Somalia/Libya/Syria/Yemen have no kind of unified government at all at this time. So how can you not verify and check on someone without proper documentation, also there is no US Embassy or Consulate in those countries right now either. Saudi Arabia and Iraq both have functioning central governments that are actively rooting out terrorism and working with the US Govt in that regard. 

There are already checks in place for these people when applying for visas and most if not all are also put through the extra administrative processing that can take up to a year (some longer) to complete. How many people from these countries have committed terrorists attacks on US soil? I believe it's only one person since 9/11, there were two others but they had already gotten their US citizenship. That tells me our system is already working and pretty darn good

 

The reasons why Saudi Arabia and Iraq are not on that list is because the US has heavy financial interests in both countries. The US does not have heavy financial interest in Somalia, Libya and Yemen. The common thread is money, the same as always.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

12 hours ago, cyberfx1024 said:

I agree what this judge did will not stand at all. What Trump wants to do is making the constitution and all of us safer as a country. He is my leader.

Believe everything the press says. Agree with all the sheeple here. Stop being a follower 

[smilesammich 10,727]

13 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

Believe everything the press says. Agree with all the sheeple here. Stop being a follower 

parrot trump! yous guys got it easy, one step solution!

[Dashinka 25,881]

Thought this was interesting relative to this thread.

 

In one of the most ruthless opinions issued of fellow panel judges, five judges from across the political spectrum in the Ninth Circuit went out of their way to issue an opinion about a dismissed appeal, to remind everybody just how embarrassingly bad the prior Ninth Circuit stay panel decision was on Trump’s travel ban. The five judges included the famed, and most respected intellectual amongst the Ninth Circuit, Alex Kozinski. The others included Jay Bybee, Consuelo Callahan, Carlos Bea and Sandra Ikuta.  Nobody other than the original panel came to the defense of the original panel decision, a less than promising start for future approvals of district court interference in Presidential immigration policy.

The language of the opinion was almost Scalian: the five Ninth Circuit judges noted their “obligation to correct” the “manifest” errors so bad that the “fundamental” errors “confound Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent.” The district court questioned any judge issuing a “nationwide TRO” “without making findings of fact or conclusions of law” on the merits of the matter and conducting published opinions on seminal matters of national security based on “oral argument by phone involving four time zones.”

Aside from the procedural defects of the process, the five panel jurists then noted the deep legal problems with the panel’s order: its a-historicity, it’s abdication of precedent, and its usurpation of Constitutionally delegated Presidential rights. Mirroring much of the Boston judge’s decision, the five judges then detail and outline what other critics, skeptics and commentators have noted of the prior panel decision, including critical commentary from liberal law professors and scribes Jonathan Turley, Alan Dershowitz, and Jeffrey Toobin. The original 3-judge panel “neglected or overlooked critical cases by the Supreme Court and by our making clear that when we are reviewing decisions about who may be admitted into the United States, we must defer to the judgment of the political branches.” Of particular note, the five panel judges note how the 3-judge panel decision in “compounding its omission” of Supreme Court decisions and relevant sister Circuit precedents, also “missed all of our own cases” on the subject. The 5 judges conclude the panel engaged in a “clear misstatement of law” so bad it compelled “vacating” an opinion usually mooted by a dismissed case.

 

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/five-9th-circuit-judges-dish-out-ruthless-take-down-to-anti-trump-travel-ban-decision/

[TBoneTX 47,519]

Well, well...

[smilesammich 10,727]

not sure how dude got from point a to point b in this paragraph...

 

Quote

 The judges concur with the Boston judge’s understanding of “rational basis” review, and condemn the Seattle judge’s and the 3-judge panel’s misapplication and elemental misunderstanding of what “rational basis” is. As the 5 judges note, “so long as there is one facially legitimate and bona fide reason for the President’s actions, our inquiry is at an end.” The issue is whether a reason is given, not whether a judge likes or agree with that reason. That means the executive order sufficed, and no further consideration of the reasons for Trump’s order were allowed.

 

[yuna628 9,873]

A little bit of analysis about the Maryland ruling. https://www.lawfareblog.com/revised-refugee-eo-courts-ii-flawed-maryland-district-court-decision

 

From a personal standpoint, this ban will continue to be challenged in court, and I think that's a good thing. It needs to reach SCOTUS for a final determination once and for all. I was highly critical of the standing of the first ban and felt it unlikely to ever succeed once tested in court. The re-written EO has better standing with it's language, so long as officials hold to it - but I still see no reason why it cannot be challenged. That's how the process works. By all accounts there are still instances of procedure towards visa holders and LPRs not being followed, and questionable actions towards US citizens. But imho, this ban is a big lot of nothing - that is, it will achieve nothing of merit - and will only serve to affect those who are following the rules rather than those seeking to do harm.

[Dashinka 25,881]

2 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

But imho, this ban is a big lot of nothing - that is, it will achieve nothing of merit - and will only serve to affect those who are following the rules rather than those seeking to do harm.

Couldn't you pretty much say that about any law passed or order written?  Gun laws, speed limits, environmental directives, etc., etc., etc.

[yuna628 9,873]

Just now, Bill & Katya said:

Couldn't you pretty much say that about any law passed or order written?  Gun laws, speed limits, environmental directives, etc., etc., etc.

Perhaps. Challenge them in court and we'll see. Imagine if you will that the President signed an order saying that no one would be able to purchase or use a firearm for 90 days, or that no one would be able to drive for 90 days. I imagine there would be a lot of angry people running to the first court house they saw. I'd say everyone here on VJ knows the areas of the immigration system that needs fixing, they know how vetted and background checked they are, those from MENA countries know how long they may be made to wait (for years with no answers)... 90 days may make a lot of ignorant persons who have no clue about immigration and how the system works feel better about themselves, but it sure as heck won't fix a thing. We're no more safer - and numerous leaked department documents virtually provide the WH with that information. They are still going ahead because that was what they said they would do for brownie points - not because it's smart or makes any viable sense. If you want to look at it in gun terms, if a President ran on a 90 day vetting or ban process for gun use or ownership - it would make some people feel great and give brownie points, and a lot of other people really upset. We are no more safer with or without the ban, it's merely playing into a psychological irrationality of fear. Fear is a great motivator - for good guys and bad guys... and also people seeking to exploit it..

[smilesammich 10,727]

i thought the preface of the most recent block still went back to trump (and miller's) repeated stance that this eo was a muslim ban and the reason we need a muslim ban is because the president said so. of course i'm thinking about all this as a simpleton but that's pretty much what i've gotten out of it. the op and the judges who disagree are showing other cases where presidents have made decisions regarding immigration, but imo, that doesn't matter if the intention of the ban is to bar muslims from certain countries..because that alone is unconstitutional.