8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens- POTUS may suspend entry of all aliens of any class

[FA_Q2]

Trump is within his rights. What can be done to those dingbat judges that ruled he was wrong?

Within his rights to stop immigration from the countries in question. That really was never the question as far as I know and the ban is still in place on those countries. The question is what about those already in transit or have otherwise obtained authorization to do so. In those cases, he does not have the power to simply reject them as they now fall under US jurisdiction and are afforded the protections in the constitution.

Why are the immigrants who were in the path of coming to the US without restrictions? They are not here and are not subject to our constitutional rights.

If they have been granted a visa, yes they are under our jurisdiction and that grants them certain rights. For instance, the president cannot reject that visa based on race or national origin. They also have a right to redress their grievances in a court of law.

There is little difference between that and a citizen that is in Iraq when the ban was signed. just because they are not physically in the states does not mean that they lose all rights associated with being a citizen. Just because you are not physically in the states does not mean you lose all the rights associated with having been issued a visa either. Both are still subject to US jurisdiction in one form or another and both retain certain rights that are protected under that jurisdiction.

Those that have not been issued a visa and/or authorized to be in the US are up a creek without a paddle - the executive branch does not have to issue them anything.

 

[Picaro]

Trump is within his rights. What can be done to those dingbat judges that ruled he was wrong?

Within his rights to stop immigration from the countries in question. That really was never the question as far as I know and the ban is still in place on those countries. The question is what about those already in transit or have otherwise obtained authorization to do so. In those cases, he does not have the power to simply reject them as they now fall under US jurisdiction and are afforded the protections in the constitution.

Why are the immigrants who were in the path of coming to the US without restrictions? They are not here and are not subject to our constitutional rights.

If they have been granted a visa, yes they are under our jurisdiction and that grants them certain rights. For instance, the president cannot reject that visa based on race or national origin. They also have a right to redress their grievances in a court of law.

There is little difference between that and a citizen that is in Iraq when the ban was signed. just because they are not physically in the states does not mean that they lose all rights associated with being a citizen. Just because you are not physically in the states does not mean you lose all the rights associated with having been issued a visa either. Both are still subject to US jurisdiction in one form or another and both retain certain rights that are protected under that jurisdiction.

Those that have not been issued a visa and/or authorized to be in the US are up a creek without a paddle - the executive branch does not have to issue them anything.

But, as we've seen over and over, especially in Europe and in a few cases here, many of those who do travel overseas to the ME and come back are the ones who need the closest scrutiny.

 

[jillian]

Read the actual statute and make up your own mind if what Trump did was illegal.

8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens

(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President


Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.

the president can exclude some classes... but not based on religious preference.

and not AFTER they have visas.... based on those discriminatory religious preferences.

the statute may be constitutional but applied in an unconstitutional manner.

i hope that helps.

 

[danielpalos]

Trump is within his rights. What can be done to those dingbat judges that ruled he was wrong?

Within his rights to stop immigration from the countries in question. That really was never the question as far as I know and the ban is still in place on those countries. The question is what about those already in transit or have otherwise obtained authorization to do so. In those cases, he does not have the power to simply reject them as they now fall under US jurisdiction and are afforded the protections in the constitution.

Why are the immigrants who were in the path of coming to the US without restrictions? They are not here and are not subject to our constitutional rights.

If they have been granted a visa, yes they are under our jurisdiction and that grants them certain rights. For instance, the president cannot reject that visa based on race or national origin. They also have a right to redress their grievances in a court of law.

There is little difference between that and a citizen that is in Iraq when the ban was signed. just because they are not physically in the states does not mean that they lose all rights associated with being a citizen. Just because you are not physically in the states does not mean you lose all the rights associated with having been issued a visa either. Both are still subject to US jurisdiction in one form or another and both retain certain rights that are protected under that jurisdiction.

Those that have not been issued a visa and/or authorized to be in the US are up a creek without a paddle - the executive branch does not have to issue them anything.

But, as we've seen over and over, especially in Europe and in a few cases here, many of those who do travel overseas to the ME and come back are the ones who need the closest scrutiny.

Did we waste our tax monies, actually Invading the Middle East?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Read the actual statute and make up your own mind if what Trump did was illegal.

8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens

(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President


Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.

8 U.S. Code § 1152 - Numerical limitations on individual foreign states

(a)Per country level
(1)Nondiscrimination
(A) Except as specifically provided in paragraph (2) and in sections 1101(a)(27), 1151(b)(2)(A)(i), and 1153 of this title, no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.



Just showing the other side of the coin. Congress has placed limits on the actions a President can do and the law says he can't exclude an entire country.


>>>>

 

[kyzr]

The "ban" is based on vetting accuracy based on available records, not "the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence." Trump can vet based on criminal and/or terrorist activities.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Read the actual statute and make up your own mind if what Trump did was illegal.

8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens

(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President


Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.

8 U.S. Code § 1152 - Numerical limitations on individual foreign states

(a)Per country level
(1)Nondiscrimination
(A) Except as specifically provided in paragraph (2) and in sections 1101(a)(27), 1151(b)(2)(A)(i), and 1153 of this title, no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.



Just showing the other side of the coin. Congress has placed limits on the actions a President can do and the law says he can't exclude an entire country.


>>>>

I feel you, but wouldn't the executive ban supersede individual visa rules?

The statute you cited is about giving priority or putting to the back of the line persons from a specific country, not an executive ban from specific countries overall.

Do you know if any of the suing attorneys cited the statute you posted? It would be interesting to see if they did. I could see it being effective with a sympathetic judge.

 

[WaitingFor2020]

Read the actual statute and make up your own mind if what Trump did was illegal.

8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens

(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President


Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.

This is what is wrong. He's fulfilling one of his promises to you fucking idiots, he just changed the language a little hoping it would slip through. Immigrants can't be denied because of religion.



EVEN A FIFTH GRADER CAN FIGURE THIS ONE OUT.

Funny that you all think he's playing the media when he's got his fingers up your neck socket and making your heads wobble.

 

[WaitingFor2020]

Oh wait, I get it. You idiots FORGOT that he ever SAID publicly that he would ban Muslims. Are you all suffering from some sort of a collective Alzheimer's? Ha!

 

[ColonelAngus]

87%, that's 1.4 billion Muslims worldwide, are not affected by the EO.

That's not a ban.

Christians from those countries are also part of the ban as is every other religion.

That's not a religious ban.

Would a MUSLIM from CANADA be banned? NOPE
Would a CHRISTIAN from SYRIA be banned? YEP

That doesn't sound like a MUSLIM ban to me.

 

[FA_Q2]

Read the actual statute and make up your own mind if what Trump did was illegal.

8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens

(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President


Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.

8 U.S. Code § 1152 - Numerical limitations on individual foreign states

(a)Per country level
(1)Nondiscrimination
(A) Except as specifically provided in paragraph (2) and in sections 1101(a)(27), 1151(b)(2)(A)(i), and 1153 of this title, no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.



Just showing the other side of the coin. Congress has placed limits on the actions a President can do and the law says he can't exclude an entire country.


>>>>

If I am not mistaken, this is for actually issuing visas based on ethnic or other protected classes by quota. It does not apply to blanket denial of an entire country. Such bans on an entire nation have not only been done in the past but they are done regularly and existed even in Obama's term.

 

[FA_Q2]

Trump is within his rights. What can be done to those dingbat judges that ruled he was wrong?

Within his rights to stop immigration from the countries in question. That really was never the question as far as I know and the ban is still in place on those countries. The question is what about those already in transit or have otherwise obtained authorization to do so. In those cases, he does not have the power to simply reject them as they now fall under US jurisdiction and are afforded the protections in the constitution.

Why are the immigrants who were in the path of coming to the US without restrictions? They are not here and are not subject to our constitutional rights.

If they have been granted a visa, yes they are under our jurisdiction and that grants them certain rights. For instance, the president cannot reject that visa based on race or national origin. They also have a right to redress their grievances in a court of law.

There is little difference between that and a citizen that is in Iraq when the ban was signed. just because they are not physically in the states does not mean that they lose all rights associated with being a citizen. Just because you are not physically in the states does not mean you lose all the rights associated with having been issued a visa either. Both are still subject to US jurisdiction in one form or another and both retain certain rights that are protected under that jurisdiction.

Those that have not been issued a visa and/or authorized to be in the US are up a creek without a paddle - the executive branch does not have to issue them anything.

But, as we've seen over and over, especially in Europe and in a few cases here, many of those who do travel overseas to the ME and come back are the ones who need the closest scrutiny.

That may be true. It does not have baring on weather or not removing those visas are constitutional. Our rights do not evaporate when the government suddenly thinks they are in the way.

 

[danielpalos]

The "ban" is based on vetting accuracy based on available records, not "the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence." Trump can vet based on criminal and/or terrorist activities.

with peacetime tax rates? what emergency is there.

 

[danielpalos]

87%, that's 1.4 billion Muslims worldwide, are not affected by the EO.

That's not a ban.

Christians from those countries are also part of the ban as is every other religion.

That's not a religious ban.

Would a MUSLIM from CANADA be banned? NOPE
Would a CHRISTIAN from SYRIA be banned? YEP

That doesn't sound like a MUSLIM ban to me.

sounds more like a national origin ban.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Do you know if any of the suing attorneys cited the statute you posted? It would be interesting to see if they did. I could see it being effective with a sympathetic judge.

"80. The Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(1)(A), prohibits discrimination in the issuance of immigrant visas on the basis of race, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence."

Page 14 of the complaint.

http://stmedia.startribune.com/documents/1lori020217.pdf

>>>>