Travel Ban Blocked by WA state Judge

[EternalFantasy]

I am tho unable to find any details of the decision and the foundation of temporary restraining order.

 

[EternalFantasy]

So it seems, the judge decided there's merits to a hearing, and until then, the suspend the executive order.

The merits seem to be the establishment clause, the right to due process, and other constitutional stuff.

Any real lawyers on here that can explain how the constitution is being applied to non citizens of the US? And how suddenly the executive branch has no control over who comes into the country?

 

[EternalFantasy]

Earlier on Friday, a federal judge in Boston declined to extend a temporary restraining order that allowed some immigrants into the United States from countries affected by Trump's three-month ban.

 

[EternalFantasy]

POLITICS | Fri Feb 3, 2017 | 9:51pm EST

Seattle judge blocks Trump immigration order

Opponents of U.S. President Donald Trump's executive order travel ban greet international travelers at Logan Airport in Boston, Massachusetts, U.S. February 3, 2017. REUTERS/Brian Snyder

By Dan Levine and Scott Malone | SEATTLE/BOSTON
A federal judge in Seattle on Friday put a nationwide block on U.S. President Donald Trump's week-old executive order temporarily barring refugees and nationals from seven countries from entering the United States.

The judge's temporary restraining order represents a major challenge to Trump's action, although his administration could still appeal the ruling and have the policy upheld.

Judge James Robart, a George W. Bush appointee, made his ruling effective immediately on Friday, suggesting that travel restrictions could be lifted straight away. He is expected to issue a full written ruling over the weekend.

Washington Governor Jay Inslee celebrated the decision as a victory for the state, adding: "no person - not even the president - is above the law."

The state's attorney general, Bob Ferguson, said: "This decision shuts down the executive order right now." He said he expected the federal government to honor the ruling.

The Justice Department made no immediate decision on an appeal. “The Department looks forward to reviewing the court’s written order and will determine next steps,” it said in a statement.

The new Republican president's order signed on Jan. 27 triggered chaos at U.S. airports last weekend. Some travelers abroad were turned back from flights into the United States, crowds of hundreds of people packed into arrival areas to protest and legal objections were filed across the country.

The challenge in Seattle court was brought by the state of Washington and later joined by the state of Minnesota. The judge ruled that the states have legal standing to sue, which could help Democratic attorneys general take on Trump in court on issues beyond immigration.

Washington's case was based on claims that the state had suffered harm from the ban, for example students and faculty at state-funded universities being stranded overseas.

Judge Robart probed a Justice Department lawyer on the "litany of harms” suffered by Washington state’s universities, and also questioned the administration's use of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the United States as a justification for the ban.

Robart said no attacks had been carried out on U.S. soil by individuals from the seven countries affected by the travel ban since that assault. For Trump’s order to be constitutional, Robart said, it had to be “based in fact, as opposed to fiction.”

The judge's decision was welcomed by groups protesting the ban.

“This order demonstrates that federal judges throughout the country are seeing the serious constitutional problems with this order,” said Nicholas Espiritu, a staff attorney at the National Immigration Law Center.

Eric Ferrero, Amnesty International USA spokesman, lauded the short-term relief provided by the order but added: "Congress must step in and block this unlawful ban for good."

FOUR STATES IN COURT

The decision came on a day that attorneys from four states were in courts challenging Trump's executive order. The Trump administration justified the action on national security grounds, but opponents labeled it an unconstitutional order targeting people based on religious beliefs.

Earlier on Friday, a federal judge in Boston declined to extend a temporary restraining order that allowed some immigrants into the United States from countries affected by Trump's three-month ban.

RELATED COVERAGE

U.S. Customs give airlines green light to board all visa-holders after Seattle ruling
State Department informed of court ruling on Trump's immigration order: spokesperson
U.S. District Judge Nathan Gorton expressed skepticism during oral arguments about a civil rights group's claim that Trump's order represented religious discrimination.

The State Department said on Friday that fewer than 60,000 visas previously issued to citizens of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen had been invalidated as a result of the order. That disclosure followed media reports that government lawyers were citing a figure of 100,000.

U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema in Alexandria, Virginia ordered the federal government to give the state a list by Thursday of "all persons who have been denied entry to or removed from the United States."

The state of Hawaii on Friday also filed a lawsuit alleging that the order is unconstitutional and asking the court to block the order across the country.

Trump's directive also temporarily stopped the entry of all refugees into the country and indefinitely halted the settlement of Syrian refugees.

On Friday the Department of Homeland Security issued additional clarification of the order, stating that there were no plans to extend it beyond the seven countries. The DHS also reiterated that the ban did not apply to permanent residents, or green card holders, and some others, such as those who have helped the U.S. military.

(Additional reporting by Mica Rosenberg in New York, Brian Snyder in Boston and Lawrence Hurley, Lesley Wroughton and Susan Heavey in Washington; Writing by Jonathan Weber and Kristina Cooke; Editing by Jonathan Oatis and Bill Rigby)

 

[EternalFantasy]

I doubt this will stick. If this attorney wins the case, the precedent it sets. And for who, for foreign nationals to have US constitutional rights.

Am I thinking straight?

 

[phrodeau]

I doubt this will stick. If this attorney wins the case, the precedent it sets. And for who, for foreign nationals to have US constitutional rights.

Am I thinking straight?

If they have visas or green cards, then they have rights.

 

[sr71plt]

If they have visas or green cards, then they have rights.

Bingo.

None of this is about any traveler who didn't/doesn't have the documentation to travel to the United States--which is what green cards and visas are. Refugees already were subject to scrutiny and vetting before given travel status to come into the States. Anyone trying to come in with having been given travel documentation to enter the States would have been detained under existing laws/procedures. Apparently Trump's people and his great unwashed followers (including some posters to this forum) don't understand that--or are conveniently ignoring it.

If Trump's people had bothered asking anyone with knowledge of how immigration works what was really going on with travel into the United States before issuing the Executive Order--which they didn't do--they would have known how it works. The reality of the issue, though, is that they just need bones to throw to your ignorant supporters and are comfortable with being numbnuts liars--they've found that it works a charm with their base (including some who post to this forum).

 

[EternalFantasy]

If they have visas or green cards, then they have rights.

Green card holders or permanent residents have the same right except vote yes. and they were never included and that was clarified few days ago. The ban was on Visa holders and refugees. i.e. non citizens, non residents.

Visa holders do not have a 'right' to enter the US. The final call to allow a visa holder to enter is at the discretion of the immigration officer at the port of entry. He/she can still turn away a visa holder for any reason.

It seems odd that the lawsuit is even allowed to move forward. I have doubts it will be won.

 

[EternalFantasy]

It's interesting btw that this was done on a Friday night.

The DOJ is filing to halt that order "at the earliest possible time".

 

[sr71plt]

Visa holders do not have a 'right' to enter the US. The final call to allow a visa holder to enter is at the discretion of the immigration officer at the port of entry. He/she can still turn away a visa holder for any reason.

You're being stupid. That's exactly what a U.S. visa is--permission to enter the United States. It's granted before they enter the United States. And it's granted and rescinded on an individual basis, not a discriminatory mass basis, which I imagine is the basis for a federal judge to negate it. You're making it up as you go along, aren't you? You have no knowledge of this issue, do you?

I don't mind getting ducks in order to be more stringent across the board on background checks. But Trump hasn't gotten ducks in order--he didn't even consult with those who deal with immigration in the United States. Why don't you address that and stop avoiding topics you don't find convenient? Why are you an apologist for this vile con man?

That doesn't mean that the background checks aren't already pretty stringent, because they are. What this would do, though, is pull up a whole additional set of folks to those Trump is targeting--and apparently emphasizing those he wants to do family business with.

How many times do you have to be told that the existing evidence of terrorism coming from abroad (actually most of it is coming from within--probably because the existing scrutiny programs is better than you think it is) shows that different countries are involved than those this EO targets? The Boston Marathon bombers were from a former Soviet state, for Christ's sake. The 9/11 attack sits squarely in Saudi Arabia's lap.

 

[EternalFantasy]

You're being stupid. That's exactly what a U.S. visa is--permission to enter the United States. It's granted before they enter the United States.

I'm afraid the stupid one here is you. I have spent most of my life in a plane. I have many times helped passengers flying into the US fill their 'Embarkation Cards' coz they either weak in English or simply can't write; or a hot foreign chick. It is written on there. "A visa does not guarantee you entry". 'The final decision is at the discretion of the officer who stamps the passport once you arrive' (paraphrased).

Look it up.

And it's granted and rescinded on an individual basis, not a discriminatory mass basis, which I imagine is the basis for a federal judge to negate it.

You imagine only - indeed. It's a TRO. Meaning if there's cause for a decision by trial. which is normal. No one 'negated'... hehe..

This list of countries were deemed a high risk. Somalia, Yemen, Iraq, Syria... The Obama admin had a refugee come in and do a shooting, so they halted the Iraq refugees for 6 months. I believe they also made the same country list and its where Trump admin got it.

For the new potus to say: give us 3 months for those who come from Yemen to review the vetting process and make it better isn't crazy nor ignorant.

You're making it up as you go along, aren't you? You have no knowledge of this issue, do you?

Actually... that's you.

 

[Bookishleigh]

This list of countries were deemed a high risk. Somalia, Yemen, Iraq, Syria... The Obama admin had a refugee come in and do a shooting, so they halted the Iraq refugees for 6 months. I believe they also made the same country list and its where Trump admin got it.

For the new potus to say: give us 3 months for those who come from Yemen to review the vetting process and make it better isn't crazy nor ignorant.



Actually... that's you.

What was the name of this refugee who came and "do a shooting"? I'm just clarifying you don't mean Waad Ramadan Alwan and Mohanad Shareef Hammadi who were charged after they were found to be sending money and weapons back to Iraq (aka the Bowling Green massacre shooters). I mean you're not just pulling some random Iraqi refugee shooting out of your ass are you? Surely you can find a name or article link.

 

[EternalFantasy]

What was the name of this refugee who came and "do a shooting"? I'm just clarifying you don't mean Waad Ramadan Alwan and Mohanad Shareef Hammadi who were charged after they were found to be sending money and weapons back to Iraq (aka the Bowling Green massacre shooters). I mean you're not just pulling some random Iraqi refugee shooting out of your ass are you? Surely you can find a name or article link.

I could. But I got a couple of scotches in me now, and the rest in a glass in my right hand. the left is doing this here by itself.


But ok, I'll oblige you; I'll post a link and an article to what's relevant here:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/29/politics/how-the-trump-administration-chose-the-7-countries/

(CNN)The seven Muslim-majority countries targeted in President Trump's executive order on immigration were initially identified as "countries of concern" under the Obama administration.

...

Restrictions from Obama years broadened to a ban
In December 2015, President Obama signed into law a measure placing limited restrictions on certain travelers who had visited Iran, Iraq, Sudan, or Syria on or after March 1, 2011. Two months later, the Obama administration added Libya, Somalia, and Yemen to the list, in what it called an effort to address "the growing threat from foreign terrorist fighters."
The restrictions specifically limited what is known as visa-waiver travel by those who had visited one of the seven countries within the specified time period. People who previously could have entered the United States without a visa were instead required to apply for one if they had traveled to one of the seven countries.


Which means Trump's an ass. Obama actually did better, or worse, but restricting ANYONE from any nationality for visiting these countries. That's better if you ask me.


You promised me your tits' picture when I first joined this forum. Now deliver so I can go to bed happy.

 

[EternalFantasy]

Iranian baby girl caught in Trump travel ban headed to US, governor says

http://i2.cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/170203024856-trump-travel-ban-on-iranian-baby-heart-surgery-image-1-large-tease.jpg


I'm certainly happy for this cutie pie. May her surgery be a success

 

[Bookishleigh]

I could. But I got a couple of scotches in me now, and the rest in a glass in my right hand. the left is doing this here by itself.


But ok, I'll oblige you; I'll post a link and an article to what's relevant here:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/29/politics/how-the-trump-administration-chose-the-7-countries/

(CNN)The seven Muslim-majority countries targeted in President Trump's executive order on immigration were initially identified as "countries of concern" under the Obama administration.

...

Restrictions from Obama years broadened to a ban
In December 2015, President Obama signed into law a measure placing limited restrictions on certain travelers who had visited Iran, Iraq, Sudan, or Syria on or after March 1, 2011. Two months later, the Obama administration added Libya, Somalia, and Yemen to the list, in what it called an effort to address "the growing threat from foreign terrorist fighters."
The restrictions specifically limited what is known as visa-waiver travel by those who had visited one of the seven countries within the specified time period. People who previously could have entered the United States without a visa were instead required to apply for one if they had traveled to one of the seven countries.


Which means Trump's an ass. Obama actually did better, or worse, but restricting ANYONE from any nationality for visiting these countries. That's better if you ask me.


You promised me your tits' picture when I first joined this forum. Now deliver so I can go to bed happy.

No, I never promised you tit pics. You flirted with a dude you thought was a girl in hopes of getting tit pics. You hedged your bets and lost.

And I asked for the name of the shooter, not some random article citing the San Bernardino attack in which NEITHER person would have been affected by Trump's ban (which is stated in your article).

Even if I were feeling magnanimous enough to give out a tit pic, your sloppy ass cut and paste job of a story of minimal relevance in which you couldn't bother to find the Iraqi refugee shooter you previously named doesn't warrant even a collarbone shot.

Drink more scotch. Maybe it will come back to you. And stay away from dudes pretending to be chicks.

 

[EternalFantasy]

No, I never promised you tit pics. You flirted with a dude you thought was a girl in hopes of getting tit pics. You hedged your bets and lost.

Excweeze me?

I have a code Catty darling. not one c hick on here will tell you I asked anything of her. I don't engage unless i get proof; that simple.

The "flirting" was mere smart talk. I'm sorry to break it to you but the user Ms Ann is scores smarter than you; than many on here to be fair to you. I give smart replies to people with such brains - no matter who.

You saw it as flirting, coz of your own reasons.

I know you didn't promise, you accused me of looking for one, which I was not; so I made it a joke about you. I feel so stupid having to spoon feed you for the second time.


The story link i posted isn't small at all. It's where those countries came from.


Twisting facts and snaking around, makes your tits no longer interesting.


But yea, gonna finish my scotch happy still

Cheerios

 

[Bookishleigh]

Excweeze me?

I have a code Catty darling. not one c hick on here will tell you I asked anything of her. I don't engage unless i get proof; that simple.

The "flirting" was mere smart talk. I'm sorry to break it to you but the user Ms Ann is scores smarter than you; than many on here to be fair to you. I give smart replies to people with such brains - no matter who.

You saw it as flirting, coz of your own reasons.

I know you didn't promise, you accused me of looking for one, which I was not; so I made it a joke about you. I feel so stupid having to spoon feed you for the second time.


The story link i posted isn't small at all. It's where those countries came from.


Twisting facts and snaking around, makes your tits no longer interesting.


But yea, gonna finish my scotch happy still

Cheerios

Awww, now I'm supposed to be all hurt? I'm not. You think you're the first man to get butthurt when I don't fall over myself because you pay me a little attention? And you think I haven't been around long enough to know that boys like you lash out by insulting women's looks and/or intelligence when you don't get your way? Grow up, man child. I don't give a rat's ass what you do or whom you do it with. I razzed you about flirting with a dude because I knew it would piss you off - and it did.

I suggest if you're going to spout something like an Iraqi refugee shooter caused Obama to halt immigration for six months you better be able to back it up with the name of the shooter, a link to an article, at least something more than just your clout - because you don't have any here, EternalLame.

 

[Wrong Element]

No, I never promised you tit pics. You flirted with a dude you thought was a girl in hopes of getting tit pics. You hedged your bets and lost.

The "flirting" was mere smart talk. I'm sorry to break it to you but the user Ms Ann is scores smarter than you; than many on here to be fair to you. I give smart replies to people with such brains - no matter who.

Bwahahahahaha!



OK, political content: I think your original question was answered in the lengthy and not necessarily Lit-legal Reuters story you posted later on. But this is a growing list of federal judges who are seeing problems with this, and the federal bench usually gives a president a very wide berth when it comes to anything having to do with national security.

If one is a Trump fan, which I am obviously not, the good news is that there's plenty of time for them to straighten things out. But I think Trump's essential laziness, ignorance, refusal to delegate outside of his own family, and gullibility when it comes to charlatans like Bannon will lead him (and us) into genuine trouble before long.

 

[sr71plt]

I'm afraid the stupid one here is you. I have spent most of my life in a plane. I have many times helped passengers flying into the US fill their 'Embarkation Cards' coz they either weak in English or simply can't write; or a hot foreign chick.

Oh, wow, you know about travel documentation because you've flown on a plane a lot I can understand now where you got the "eternal fantasy" account name from.

The rest of it--deflection much?

 

[Bookishleigh]

Oh, wow, you know about travel documentation because you've flown on a plane a lot I can understand now where you got the "eternal fantasy" account name from.

The rest of it--deflection much?

And helping hot chicks....it was an important quantifier.

 

[EternalFantasy]

Oh, wow, you know about travel documentation because you've flown on a plane a lot I can understand now where you got the "eternal fantasy" account name from.

The rest of it--deflection much?

It's because I know how to read. You should try it sometimes.

 

[EternalFantasy]

Bwahahahahaha!



OK, political content: I think your original question was answered in the lengthy and not necessarily Lit-legal Reuters story you posted later on. But this is a growing list of federal judges who are seeing problems with this, and the federal bench usually gives a president a very wide berth when it comes to anything having to do with national security.

If one is a Trump fan, which I am obviously not, the good news is that there's plenty of time for them to straighten things out. But I think Trump's essential laziness, ignorance, refusal to delegate outside of his own family, and gullibility when it comes to charlatans like Bannon will lead him (and us) into genuine trouble before long.

These things shouldn't matter in a court of law. But I sense they also won't.

Remember this is nothing but a TRO. A judge will be too stupid to set the kind of precedent you are mentioning here: overturning a president in matters of national security. And the other part, giving foreign nationals US constitutional rights.

The whole thing is ridiculous. I think it was made on a Friday, to let certain emergencies in during the weekend, and to diffuse the uneducated/emotional based protests. And when the judge decides in favor of Trump, people will have to accept it and stay home.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

It's not "sudden."

It's called the American government of checks and balances.

We have an Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Branch. It's true! Look it up on Wikipedia.

And how suddenly the executive branch has no control over who comes into the country?

 

[EternalFantasy]

Oh, wow, you know about travel documentation because you've flown on a plane a lot I can understand now where you got the "eternal fantasy" account name from.

The rest of it--deflection much?

Do your homework, or do not reply to my posts. Post ignorant idiotic replies just to attack, you'll go on ignore. And you'll certainly be a good riddance.

How Can I Use a Visa to Enter the United States?
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

 

[CeasarBoobage]

---- never mind, wrong thread