It doesn't make any sense

[EternalFantasy]

And it's why it felt like fishing for a Supreme court decision.

The judges upholding the TRO on the EO, stated that it doesn't give visa holders 'due process'!

People living in foreign countries do not have a right to due process in the US. That is not only absurd, but also against the law.

And people hate trump so much that they are willing to accept any decision against him.

No common sense whatsoever.

 

[Conager]

Why do you think the matter was forum-shopped to a court located in the ninth circuit?

It makes perfect sense.

 

[islandman]

I think you meant "people living in foreign countries who also have the right - through a valid visa - to live in the U.S. and are therefore afforded equal protection?

I'm no lawyer, but, then again, nor is the OP.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Why do you think the matter was forum-shopped to a court located in the ninth circuit?

It makes perfect sense.

All of the state of Washington's court cases are appealed in 9th Circuit, by dint of geography. No "forum shopping" at all, you ignorant shit-gibbon.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

I think you meant "people living in foreign countries who also have the right - through a valid visa - to live in the U.S. and are therefore afforded equal protection?

I'm no lawyer, but, then again, nor is the OP.

I haven't read the opinion yet, but it is not at all surprising that valid visa holders, who have been granted limited rights under the law, would be found to have due process rights with respect to those very same laws.

What will be interesting to me is to see how much farther the opinion goes than that, if at all.

 

[islandman]

Why do you think the matter was forum-shopped to a court located in the ninth circuit?

It makes perfect sense.

One of the judges is a Republican, so how does that square with your analysis?

 

[islandman]

I haven't read the opinion yet, but it is not at all surprising that valid visa holders, who have been granted limited rights under the law, would be found to have due process rights with respect to those very same laws.

What will be interesting to me is to see how much farther the opinion goes than that, if at all.

Once again, I'm no lawyer, but the OP says that's absurd and against the law.

I, for one, would like to know the basis for his statement.

 

[sr71plt]

And it's why it felt like fishing for a Supreme court decision.

The judges upholding the TRO on the EO, stated that it doesn't give visa holders 'due process'!

People living in foreign countries do not have a right to due process in the US. That is not only absurd, but also against the law.

And people hate trump so much that they are willing to accept any decision against him.

No common sense whatsoever.

How many times do you have to be told that the whole point of granting someone a visa is providing them with entry and protections going along with that entry? You . . . just . . . refuse . . . to . . . understand. Dense much?

Where the issue is is what has to happen to grant them a visa or green card. But . . . you . . . just . . . refuse . . . to . . . understand.

 

[EternalFantasy]

Once again, I'm no lawyer, but the OP says that's absurd and against the law.

I, for one, would like to know the basis for his statement.

Having a U.S. visa allows you to travel to a port of entry, airport or land border crossing, and request permission of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Customs and Border Protection (CBP) inspector to enter the United States. While having a visa does not guarantee entry to the United States, it does indicate a consular officer at a U.S. Embassy or Consulate abroad has determined you are eligible to seek entry for that specific purpose. DHS/CBP inspectors, guardians of the nation’s borders, are responsible for admission of travelers to the United States, for a specified status and period of time. DHS also has responsibility for immigration matters while you are present in the United States.

https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/general/frequently-asked-questions/what-is-a-u-s-visa.html

Visa holders, foreign nationals and refugees who are not on US soil have no due process rights nor constitutional ones.

Where you may have a point is the H1B visa holder trying to enter, or returning. However, the executive branch and the department of homeland security has the discretion to stop that entry too.

Which makes this nonsensical..

 

[Hard_Rom]

Basic human rights against discrimination trump individual country's constitutions. There are some things which transcend politics.

And yet again none of the countries on the list have supplied terrorists that have conducted major attacks on the US. The absence of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states belies the prejudice and bias, not to mention plain ignorance, of the ban.

Put Saudi Arabia on the list and you might have a shot at proving legitimacy.

 

[Adre]

Con is like a real Dershowitz and Perry Mason all rolled into one so I can't wait for his final opinion on this. He was so smart to blow off law school cos it's a waste of time...

 

[Conager]

One of the judges is a Republican, so how does that square with your analysis?

Ninth circuit is the most liberal circuit.

Of course there are Republican apointees in a liberal circuit and there are plenty of Democrat appointees in, say, the 5th Circuit. A West Coast Republican when and if you can find one is going to be a bit to the left of a Texas Democrat all other things being equal.

No one was going to seek this relief in Texas.

 

[sr71plt]

having a visa does not guarantee entry to the United States,

Which means the visa could be withdrawn. It doesn't mean the holder doesn't have protections while holding the visa.

 

[Hard_Rom]

It is every citizen's duty to fight unjust laws.

 

[Conager]

Which means the visa could be withdrawn. It doesn't mean the holder doesn't have protections while holding the visa.

I could see a Visa holder possibly successfully arguing that they have been harmed by an arbitrary and capricious action. They might even be granted standing as a non-citizen in a court somewhere to assert that. The State of Washington has no standing to assert that on their behalf.

 

[sr71plt]

Washington State's jurisdiction beats me. I'll leave that to the federal judges to decide. I haven't worked in a state government. I have responded to what a visa means. I have worked in embassies. I have worked with alien documentation.

 

[islandman]

Ninth circuit is the most liberal circuit.

Of course there are Republican apointees in a liberal circuit and there are plenty of Democrat appointees in, say, the 5th Circuit. A West Coast Republican when and if you can find one is going to be a bit to the left of a Texas Democrat all other things being equal.

No one was going to seek this relief in Texas.

Ah, so you're reading the tea leaves. Got it.

 

[islandman]

Having a U.S. visa allows you to travel to a port of entry, airport or land border crossing, and request permission of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Customs and Border Protection (CBP) inspector to enter the United States. While having a visa does not guarantee entry to the United States, it does indicate a consular officer at a U.S. Embassy or Consulate abroad has determined you are eligible to seek entry for that specific purpose. DHS/CBP inspectors, guardians of the nation’s borders, are responsible for admission of travelers to the United States, for a specified status and period of time. DHS also has responsibility for immigration matters while you are present in the United States.

https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/general/frequently-asked-questions/what-is-a-u-s-visa.html

Visa holders, foreign nationals and refugees who are not on US soil have no due process rights nor constitutional ones.

Where you may have a point is the H1B visa holder trying to enter, or returning. However, the executive branch and the department of homeland security has the discretion to stop that entry too.

Which makes this nonsensical..

Clearly not nonsensical, your C&P analysis aside.

 

[Conager]

Washington State's jurisdiction beats me. I'll leave that to the federal judges to decide. I haven't worked in a state government. I have responded to what a visa means. I have worked in embassies. I have worked with alien documentation.

The equivalent would have been the State of Texas asserting that they were harmed economically by Obama's exicutive order to exercise "prosecutorial discretion" ie, refuse any and all prosecutions for illegal entry into the US for an entire class of individuals in a Texas Court and having the 5th circuit uphold a stay of that EO.

If Obama's action was improper, the lawful remedy is impeachment by Congress, or introducing, passing, and veto-proofing legislations clarifying the law, or removing the decision-making on that issue from the executive branch...not simply tying him up in the courts.

No one would be saying a Texas court can set immigration policy.

 

[Conager]

Ah, so you're reading the tea leaves. Got it.

You think the lawyers that put this together are unaware of all this?

Tea leaves is an apt description, because one never knows what a judge much less a panel of Judges will do But there are definitely favorite places to drop particular cases.

The NRA would not have brought the Heller case in San Francisco, with the same set of facts. I doubt they were too excited about bringing that case in Washington DC either but in this case they felt they had the facts right for a scotus decision so they didn't care which Circuit Court it was going to end up in because the ultimate goal was a scotus decision. If they had brought Heller in Austin Texas they would have won at the circuit court level and would not have gotten to SCOTUS. All hypothetically silly of course because no such set of conditions whatever exists in Texas.

 

[sr71plt]

Actually I don't really care what your take is on it--and I've said I have no special knowledge on jurisdiction. The federal judges will trump anything that someone writes to a porn discussion board. I can wait to see how it works out.

I'm not against tightening up immigration--across the board, though, as terrorists can come in as any nationality. A big bunch of them are already here claiming to be and documented as Americans. And a lot of them--including those who already have engaged in terrorism--claim to be Christians, not Muslims. I also don't doubt that it's plausible and highly likely that terrorists increasingly will be salted in with immigrants--especially since the Obama policies on terrorism have been a little lame and Trump's policies on terrorism promise to be downright terrorist friendly and great terrorist recruitment aids.

I do agree with the new Homeland Security secretary that the Trump gang royally botched up their first cut at this. And I don't mind if the federal judiciary tells them to go back and find out how to do it a lot better--and, in the process, schools Trump that he's not an emperor.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

But it's not an absolute discretion, which is why it's being "reviewed" by the courts.

The Trump lawyer tried to argue that it was not "reviewable." The court disagreed and concluded that "discretion" did not hold up. Among other things, the Drumpf Administration provided no cause that people from these nations posed the kind of "security" risk Drumpf was claiming.

The judges in this case considered, as was their right to do so, candidate Trump's calls for a "Muslim ban" as part of the public record.

I don't know if they did give it any weight, but it was entirely in their legal power to ask well is this a justified move or is it an attempt to "fulfill" that campaign rhetoric?

They are allowed to look into his motives. The Executive cannot just assert unquestioned "discretion.":

Rejecting arguments that the government would be “irreparably harmed” if the judicial system reviewed President Donald Trump’s immigration ban, which he premised on his authority over national security matters, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit determined unanimously that the judiciary has a proper role in safeguarding people’s rights.

“To the contrary, while counseling deference to the national security determinations of the political branches,” the court said, “the Supreme Court has made clear that the Government’s authority and expertise in [such] matters do not automatically trump the Court’s own obligation to secure the protection that the Constitution grants to individuals, even in times of war.”

Where you may have a point is the H1B visa holder trying to enter, or returning. However, the executive branch and the department of homeland security has the discretion to stop that entry too.

Which makes this nonsensical..

 

[sr71plt]

The Appeals Court, in a unanimous vote, has ruled against reinstating the travel ban. Now you know what the court can/will do at this level (Trump has already tweeted that he will continue taking this through the court system. Which is fine--it shows he realizes he doesn't trump the Judiciary. Maybe in the interim he and his gang will take the time and effort to do it right. Might require him to stop attacking Nordstroms and the senators whose votes he needs or Conway to stop doing commercials for Ivanka's business, though).

http://www.abc15.com/news/national/...d-to-rule-on-president-trumps-travel-ban-soon

 

[EternalFantasy]

Once again, I'm no lawyer, but the OP says that's absurd and against the law.

I, for one, would like to know the basis for his statement.

Clearly not nonsensical, your C&P analysis aside.

You were provided one basis for my statement, you provided the term "clearly".

Basic human rights against discrimination trump individual country's constitutions. There are some things which transcend politics.

And yet again none of the countries on the list have supplied terrorists that have conducted major attacks on the US. The absence of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states belies the prejudice and bias, not to mention plain ignorance, of the ban.

Put Saudi Arabia on the list and you might have a shot at proving legitimacy.

It's irrelevant. That's the quality of the work of the executive which has nothing to do with the judicial.

It is every citizen's duty to fight unjust laws.

Even more irrelevant. What citizens? This is about Visa holders and refugees.

But it's not an absolute discretion, which is why it's being "reviewed" by the courts.

The Trump lawyer tried to argue that it was not "reviewable." The court disagreed and concluded that "discretion" did not hold up. Among other things, the Drumpf Administration provided no cause that people from these nations posed the kind of "security" risk Drumpf was claiming.

The judges in this case considered, as was their right to do so, candidate Trump's calls for a "Muslim ban" as part of the public record.

I don't know if they did give it any weight, but it was entirely in their legal power to ask well is this a justified move or is it an attempt to "fulfill" that campaign rhetoric?

They are allowed to look into his motives. The Executive cannot just assert unquestioned "discretion.":

It simply is not their right to do so. This is the executive's responsibility not the judges. He does not report to them. They are acting and were asking questions during deliberations as if they were evaluating the quality of his work. Not their place to do so.



All comments against Trump are based on dislike and disapproval of him, and all you are allowing unconventional and inappropriate action to go through simply due to that. Not because it is the correct legal procedure.

There's one president, and his limitations are what Congress ratifies or not. But here, there's a lot of courts, many judges. This kind of thinking = chaos.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

They'll rewrite the EO.

The Left will sue again.

Congress will look to punish the courts.

As per Yogi, it ain't over 'till it's over. Now the libs have to be lucky with every person who comes from these seven countries, Islam only has to get lucky once...