Hawaii judge puts Trump's revised travel ban on hold

Boo hoo. Non US citizens do not have a right to enter the US, and the judicial branch does not have the Constitutional authority to make it happen.

 

You are ignoring the point.

I asked you whether you truly believe that this ban does not impact any US citizens. I then presented you specific examples of US Citizens that could and would be harmed by this ban. You respond by saying, "Boo hoo?"

Do you truly believe that this ban does not impact any US Citizens?

 

Oh. You want to drag me into the "My Feelings" imaginary amendment.

Yes, it will impact US Citizens. It will put more of them in US colleges and working at US corporations instead of those that don't have a right to enter the US.

 

When ruling by arbitrary judicial fiat you ignore the language in a statue or order and rule as you see fit. You can re-write statutes, fabricate intent, interject your own personal beliefs, whatever you like. It hardly comes as a surprise that the two judges who halted the president's order are Obama nominees.

Since you interjected yourself into this conversation, you can step up to the challenge I posed to Shiva_TD. Quote the language in the order that explicitly "bans Muslims" and explain why most Muslim-majority countries weren't included in the ban.

Good luck.

First of all, the law grants the president the power that Trump exercised, so it's constitutional.

Secondly, the travel ban targets countries not Muslims and to reinforce that point Muslims from other countries aren't subject to the travel ban. The order is constitutional in that it does not discriminate against people on account of their religion.

Take a look at Shiva's signature and see what I did there.

 

Listen, I understand your point of view. But in this situation, it is incomplete. You review a law for discriminatory intent and discriminatory effect. In the vast majority of situations, the discriminatory intent is not readily apparent in the slightest. And so you have to look at the discriminatory effect to see whether the law gets upheld. Gerrymandering is a classic example. When the legislature draws the district lines, it is often very difficult (if not impossible) to glean any sort of discriminatory intent. However, the judge can review the lines and realize that the effect of the lines would be unfairly minimize the voting impact of a certain minority group and thereby might strike down the lines because of the discriminatory impact of the law.

Here, we have almost the exact opposite. We have numerous, irrefutable instances where the drafters of the legislation - be it Donald Trump or Rudy Giuliani or Stephen Miller - who made it abundantly clear that the point of the travel ban was to "legally" enact a Muslim ban. The discriminatory intent of the law is very clear.

I don't need to quote where the order "bans Muslims." It doesn't say those words and yet, the the law is still unconstitutional.

 

Repeating an incorrect argument repeatedly doesn't make it correct.

The congress, and the president by extension of the congress, has the undisputed authority to ban people from whatever country, for whatever reason, they so choose.

Your Monty Python "help help I'm being repressed" calls to emotion notwithstanding.

 

You do need to quote where the order "bans Muslims" otherwise your argument has no merit. The order clearly targets countries, not Muslims, and most Muslim-majority nations aren't subject to the ban which further undermines the "Muslim ban" canard.

The president acted within the powers he is granted under the law,. If anyone violated the law and Constitution it was the two Obama nominees who had to fabricate a discriminatory intent and impact that does not exist within the order itself. Arbitrary judicial fiat is not only unconstitutional, it is inconsistent with the rule of written law.

 

The President does not have the authority, nor does Congress, to violate the US Constitution when decided or implementing immigration decisions.

 

You should take your argument to the multiple judges that have ruled against the Government when its attorneys tried to make the same argument, only more intelligently.

I am sure the judges were just confused by all that legalize and would listen to you.

 

True. Thankfully it doesn't apply to non-US citizens, except for those limited BoR issues I already mentioned.

You seem to have a hard time grasping that. Here, I'll post it again:

Non-US citizens do not have a right to immigrate to the US.

 

your post don't make sense since almost all American are immigrate or descendants of those immigrate. today, high skill worker is in demand hence why tech company need H1B. I have no problem to eliminating H1B, since I work in those industry, meaning I can charge those company to the waazoo if we get rid of H1B. But the overall tech competitive for America will fall, and be prepare to shelf out extra $$$ for tech products, from TV to other stuff. This nation was build on immigrate, from Einstein to Steve Job most are immigrate or descendants of immigrates.

 

This is incorrect. The authority of all State Supreme Courts are based upon the State Constitution which, in almost all instances mirrors the US Constitution in all important respects but it's still the State Constitution and not the US Constitution.

An example was Prop 8 in California that limited marriage to opposite sex couples. Prior to Prop 8 was Prop 22 that limited statutory law all marriages to opposite sex couples but the California State Supreme Court ruled that Prop 8 violated the equal protection clause under the California State Constitution. Prop 8 was an amendment to the State Constitution to do exactly was Prop 22 did, limit marriage to opposite sex couples, but the California State Supreme Court could not over-ride Prop 8 based upon the US Constitution. That could only be done in a federal court because federal courts, regardless of which district they're in, enforce the US Constitution.

Federal Courts only deal in federal issues that arise under the US Constitution and have little or nothing to do with the actual states that fall under each court's jurisdiction. Rarely do any cases by-pass the federal court or the district court of appeals over the federal courts and go directly to the US Supreme Court. It requires an urgency of extreme measure before any case can by-pass the normal hierarchy of the federal court system to take a matter before the Supreme Court.

That urgency obviously doesn't exist here because the government has yet to establish that any threat exists at all related to those born in the six (previously seven) countries although it's had numerous opportunities to do so. Had the DOJ presented any evidence of a terrorist threat based upon nationality then the temporary stays would not have been issued. The problem for the DOJ is that the Department of Homeland Security, that is the supreme federal agency in determining if a threat exists, has already established that "nationality" is insufficient evidence of a terrorist threat.

 

No, what doesn't make sense is that you keep trying to make calls to emotion and changing the subject.

People on President Trumps travel ban EO have no right to immigrate to the US, have no right to even visit. The judicial branch has no authority to make it so.

You're ignoring all the rulings that SCOTUS has put down, and so are these federal courts.

If our executive branch decides that it's too dangerous to allow people from Iran, Syria, Somalia, etc into our country then he can do so legally.

Bend and twist with it, but that's the bottom line.

 

I'd be wasting my breath.

As SC Justice Scalia correctly pointed out “words no longer have meaning". Some judges are simply going to ignore the language in the laws they are reviewing as well as the language in the Constitution and do whatever they want. This is what has become of the "rule of law" in this country and I harbor no illusions about it.

 

Thankfully, I suspect that's about to change.

 

Nor does our government have the authority to prevent someone from visiting the United States without just cause. Claiming that "nationality" establishes a terrorist threat is not supported by any analysis of terrorism.

US citizens do not have any special "rights" under the US Constitution. US citizens do have certain privileges and immunities (ref 14th Amendment) but "rights" apply to everyone.

We can also note that were not addressing enumerated "Rights" when discussion the First Amendment's protection of Religious Freedom or the 14th Amendment's requirement for "equal protection" but instead these are conditions imposed on our government. Our government cannot prohibit the exercising of religious belief and our government cannot deny equal protection under the law. These are mandates for the government that apply to our government regardless of who the victim might be.

The government must always comply with Constitutional mandates which includes the mandated prohibitions.

 

I certainly hope so. The status quo is completely unacceptable.

 

Uh, yeah, they do. In fact, we've been doing it for a long time. This isn't the first time this has come up.

Congress has full authority to stop all immigration if it wanted to do so. By extension of congressional law, so does the president.

Semantics with the "rights" thing. Point is non-US citizens do not enjoy much in the way of Constitutional protection. This has been hashed out before too.

Non US citizens are not subject to US law, other than when we allow them to visit or immigrate inside our borders.

SCOTUS will be reminding everyone again of these facts real soon.

 

Someone probably lived in your house before you bought it.

Do they still have a key?

Not bringing in foreign workers means more jobs for Americans, and higher wages. It may mean products are more expensive too, but the alternative is to let the middle class continue circling the drain.

We need to hang up a giant "No Vacancy" sign.

 

In this case the judges are paying specific attention to the explicit wording of the law. The law explicitly states:

"Whenever the President finds.."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182​

In the courtroom a "finding" is a statement of fact based upon overwhelming and compelling evidence. A finding is not something just "beyond a reasonable doubt" that would be necessary for a conviction in a criminal case. A finding must meet the criteria of "beyond any doubt" whatsoever because it's a statement of indisputable FACT.

Perhaps this explains it better.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/findings

In the case of the (Muslim) travel bans (both one and two) the plaintiffs are not accepting President Trump's claim that the nationality of those from these six countries represents a terrorist threat. Basically Trump is claiming a "finding" and that claim has been challenged by the plaintiffs. It's time for Trump to "put up or shut up" but it's going the become obvious quickly that this claim is probably based upon the same "evidence" he had for claiming that Obama was tapping his phones at Trump Tower. He was watching television and "someone said" that "Muslims" represent a terrorist threat so he's doing whatever he can to ban Muslims even if it violates the law and the Constitution.

If Trump can prove that the "nationality" of people from the six countries overwhelmingly establishes that they're a terrorist threat then he's backed up his "finding" and if not then he was expressing an opinion but the ban cannot be imposed based upon his opinion under the law.

 

Not true.

Immigration is administrative law, not criminal law.

 

The law requires the president must have clear and compelling evidence (a finding) of the threat to national security before he can suspend or impose restrictions. So far the DOJ hasn't prevented any evidence of an actual threat but we're only in the beginning stages. The case has not gone to trial and the only reason the temporary restraining order was issued is because the DOJ didn't present any evidence of a threat.

The Trump White House, through the DOJ, will have plenty of opportunity to present evidence that a national security threat exists based upon "nationality" alone but it's going to be arguing against recognized experts in terrorism from prior administration and it's going to arguing against it's own Department of Homeland Security that states "nationality" alone is insufficient evidence of a terrorist threat.

If Trump can prove the threat then he acted within the powers granted under the law and if he can't prove the threat then he acted outside of the powers granted by law.

 

A "finding" is a "finding" in all courts regardless of what it's addressing.

 

Can you take a moment out of your day and find me the enumeration in the Constitution that grants authority to Congress to regulate immigration. I've been looking for years, I've read the Constitution from one end to the other, and I've yet to even find the word "immigration" anywhere in the US Constitution.

http://constitution.findlaw.com/

I'm sure you must know where it is in the Constitution because of the claim you're making. Please share that information with the rest of us.

 

Then you'd know in administrative law it won't really apply in the way you suggest.

Congress, and by extension the POTUS, have authority over immigration, not the judicial branch. This has been ruled on before.

There is not really much of a standard required to tell someone they cannot enter our country, or that they need to leave.