New Immigration Ban EO incoming, same but w/o green card holders

[FIVR]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trum...r-expected-renew-ban-muslim/story?id=45615961


I don't see how this is any more legal than his last "muslim ban", given that Giuliani is on the record stating that his goal was to ban muslims. I guess it removes the provision that allows him to somehow strip legal status from people holding visas, but that was a ridiculous provision on its face and was going to be struck down anyway. This will still create problems for any citizen of, for example, the state of washington who has a relative in one of these countries and would like them to visit for whatever reason. I look forward to seeing that district judge strike this down on those grounds.

 

[fskimospy]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trum...r-expected-renew-ban-muslim/story?id=45615961

I don't see how this is any more legal than his last "muslim ban", given that Giuliani is on the record stating that his goal was to ban muslims. I guess it removes the provision that allows him to somehow strip legal status from people holding visas, but that was a ridiculous provision on its face and was going to be struck down anyway. This will still create problems for any citizen of, for example, the state of washington who has a relative in one of these countries and would like them to visit for whatever reason. I look forward to seeing that district judge strike this down on those grounds.

He is on the record saying his goal is to ban Muslims and the architect of the order said he did it to ban Muslims. I'm not saying it's impossible to get around the legal problems created by this clear statement of animus towards a religious group but unless it's radically revised it will probably meet the same fate.

Then we REALLY get to see him go ballistic, haha. I can't wait.

 

[feralkid]

Yep, Trump's really gonna spit the dummy over this one.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Don't know how this will work. Statements of intent can and will be taken into consideration but ultimately the actual language matters a great deal.

We'll see

 

[FIVR]

I'm concerned that I've already seen several talking heads on CNN say "Oh, this is much better! He should've done it this way in the first place, this should work fine." How is this "much better"!? It's still targeting a bunch of nations who haven't caused any terrorist attacks here based specifically on their religion and it still does nothing but piss off all of our allies while doing nothing for our safety. It most likely makes us much less safe if anything.

 

[sandorski]

This debacle was all for Show in the first place. Should just abandon it and adjust the actual Visa/Green Card process, if there are issues with it. Given how Trump is generally ignorant and just throws shit at a wall to see what pleases his supporters, I doubt he actually is aware of any issues with the current system.

 

[Jhhnn]

The whole thing is a load of bullshit. They'll spend more time trying to make a ban permanent than the so-called "temporary ban while we figure this out" would have lasted in the first place. They have to do something to satisfy the irrationality they've cultivated in their base, even if it's pointless & wrong.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I'm concerned that I've already seen several talking heads on CNN say "Oh, this is much better! He should've done it this way in the first place, this should work fine." How is this "much better"!? It's still targeting a bunch of nations who haven't caused any terrorist attacks here based specifically on their religion and it still does nothing but piss off all of our allies while doing nothing for our safety. It most likely makes us much less safe if anything.

Being asinine is not illegal. Laws do not have a mandate of being logical or even beneficial. They just need to comply to a set of established rules.

"Sense" and "lawful" do not have to be in any way related. That said, removing permanent residents makes contextual sense.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The whole thing is a load of bullshit. They'll spend more time trying to make a ban permanent than the so-called "temporary ban while we figure this out" would have lasted in the first place. They have to do something to satisfy the irrationality they've cultivated in their base, even if it's pointless & wrong.

Well yeah? I don't like it either but we have to deal with what is presented and take it through the courts. By all means be upset because I'm not exactly pleased either, but how this plays out does matter in the end.

 

[Jhhnn]

Being asinine is not illegal. Laws do not have a mandate of being logical or even beneficial. They just need to comply to a set of established rules.

"Sense" and "lawful" do not have to be in any way related. That said, removing permanent residents makes contextual sense.

Yes, burning witches makes contextual sense if witches are real. They're not.

 

[Indus]

President Dog Turd spewing out Dog Turd everywhere.

If he had any common sense, it would be nationals of people who actually committed terrorist acts.

 

[Thump553]

I'm very, very worried about our national security. The National Security Council is way understaffed-something like half the positions are empty-and no Senate approval is necessary, it's just up to Trump to fill them. He's put ideologues and fanatics on the NSC and Trump could care less about reading his daily briefings.

But still he persists with the nonsense ban, mostly because his ego is bruised, not because it is remotely near being an effective or rational approach.

WHEN (not if) we get attacked while he is President, Trump is going to pass the buck furiously, blaming the courts, the media, anyone besides his absurd policies and deficient leadership.

 

[FIVR]

President Dog Turd spewing out Dog Turd everywhere.

If he had any common sense, it would be nationals of people who actually committed terroristacts.

Yeah, but that would screw up all the property he owns and business he does with those countries. So instead he targets nations which are muslim and for whatever reason can't fight back.

 

[Sea Ray]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trum...r-expected-renew-ban-muslim/story?id=45615961


I don't see how this is any more legal than his last "muslim ban", given that Giuliani is on the record stating that his goal was to ban muslims. I guess it removes the provision that allows him to somehow strip legal status from people holding visas, but that was a ridiculous provision on its face and was going to be struck down anyway. This will still create problems for any citizen of, for example, the state of washington who has a relative in one of these countries and would like them to visit for whatever reason. I look forward to seeing that district judge strike this down on those grounds.

Well, let's look at it when it comes out. I'm curious as to what it says too.

I'm puzzled by your example of an American citizen who has a relative who lives in one of the banned countries. There are no rights for our relatives to visit us in America. I don't know what grounds you think such a situation will make this unconstitutional. There's no right of one's cousin who is from Iraq to come to the USA.

 

[fskimospy]

Being asinine is not illegal. Laws do not have a mandate of being logical or even beneficial. They just need to comply to a set of established rules.

"Sense" and "lawful" do not have to be in any way related. That said, removing permanent residents makes contextual sense.

While laws don't have a requirement of being beneficial they do have at least some requirement to be logical.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_basis_review

 

[Jhhnn]

Well, let's look at it when it comes out. I'm curious as to what it says too.

I'm puzzled by your example of an American citizen who has a relative who lives in one of the banned countries. There are no rights for our relatives to visit us in America. I don't know what grounds you think such a situation will make this unconstitutional. There's no right of one's cousin who is from Iraq to come to the USA.

There is no valid rationale for discriminating against them.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Yes, burning witches makes contextual sense if witches are real. They're not.

I worded it badly. I meant removing resident aliens from the ban, not the nation.

 

[Commodus]

Based on what ABC says, I'm still not sure the ban will fly. The judges who implemented and upheld the stay were concerned both about the anti-Muslim focus (they even used Trump's words against him) and the lack of appreciable benefit. Those don't change with these proposals. It just means that you get fewer instances of families being ripped apart at the airport.

It does stand a better chance, but I would love to see how Trump reacts if a court shuts him down a second time (especially since any initial stay is likely to be upheld on appeal). I wouldn't want to be an object on Trump's desk if that happens... it's going to have a short lifespan.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

While laws don't have a requirement of being beneficial they do have at least some requirement to be logical.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_basis_review

There is some but the article states that standards for reversal are not lack of rationality, but degree. "Most egregious" as determined by the courts, and there's no objective standard for what that means is possible. It would be case by case.

From a legal perspective I should think that removing the problematic green card issue makes it "less egregious". Note this is not an approval or justifiation of the ban as a whole.

 

[Pens1566]

If all it does is clarify the green card/legal resident status, I think it's going to see the same push back.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Based on what ABC says, I'm still not sure the ban will fly. The judges who implemented and upheld the stay were concerned both about the anti-Muslim focus (they even used Trump's words against him) and the lack of appreciable benefit. Those don't change with these proposals. It just means that you get fewer instances of families being ripped apart at the airport.

It does stand a better chance, but I would love to see how Trump reacts if a court shuts him down a second time (especially since any initial stay is likely to be upheld on appeal). I wouldn't want to be an object on Trump's desk if that happens... it's going to have a short lifespan.

Fixing the issue of green cards gives it a better chance, but when it reaches the SCOTUS? That body is extremely reluctant to limit Presidential powers even when the latter is wrong. Constitutional crisis may be a given in that case where we have a President who follows A. Jackson.

“John Marshall has made his decision;. now let him enforce it.”

 

[Jhhnn]

I worded it badly. I meant removing resident aliens from the ban, not the nation.

I understood you perfectly well. Any ban assumes a real terrorist threat from some nations that cannot be shown to be greater than the threat from citizens of states that are not banned. It assumes witches in Iran but not in KSA, for example.

It also discriminates against citizens on the basis of national origin or ancestry. A successful American of Iranian descent can't have their grandparents visit but those of Saudi descent can.

It's still so stupid that it bans Iraqi military personnel from coming to this country for training or liaison purposes.

The whole thing is just red meat fearmongering to a conspiracy theory addicted base.

 

[Sea Ray]

There is no valid rationale for discriminating against them.

That's not for the courts to decide. The courts don't have access to classified intelligence among other things. They are free to disagree with Trump's rationale but that doesn't make it unlawful

 

[Thump553]

That's not for the courts to decide. The courts don't have access to classified intelligence among other things. They are free to disagree with Trump's rationale but that doesn't make it unlawful

As the Appeals Court pointed out in their last decision, Courts routinely handle secret information and there are procedures in place for the government to submit any secret information they want to support their arguments. The government attorneys knew that the last time around and submitted nothing. Draw your own conclusion from that.

 

[Sea Ray]

As the Appeals Court pointed out in their last decision, Courts routinely handle secret information and there are procedures in place for the government to submit any secret information they want to support their arguments. The government attorneys knew that the last time around and submitted nothing. Draw your own conclusion from that.

Well, we'll soon see. You may be right that the liberal 9th Circuit may rule against him but my guess is if they do, it'll get overturned by the SC.

No federal judge, including Robart, has the authority to substitute his judgment for that of the president when it comes to making a decision on what is detrimental to the national security and foreign policy interests of the nation.

http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/h...executive-order-both-legal-and-constitutional