White house vows emergency stay of judicial order thwarting Presidents immigration order

[EverCurious]

Eurasia and the Baltics

This Priority 2 designation applies to Jews, Evangelical Christians, and Ukrainian Catholic and Orthodox religious adherents identified in the Lautenberg Amendment, Public Law No. 101-167, § 599D, 103 Stat. 1261 (1989) (codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1157) as amended (“Lautenberg Amendment”), with close family in the United States. With annual renewal of the Lautenberg Amendment, these individuals are considered under a reduced evidentiary standard for establishing a well-founded fear of persecution.

---

On our books since 2013 read it.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

(The Pew Research Center meanwhile says about 5 percent of Syrians are Christians.)

Only 1.5 % of Syrian Christians are on the UNs refugee assistance list.

EverCurious, post: 16531956

On our books since 2013 read it.

Why not bring current events and data into it. Let's stick with Syria for sake of educating you.

Read this:

"The UNHCR reports that 1.5 percent of the nearly 5 million Syrian refugees it has registered are Christian. Agency spokespeople have warned against speculation but suggested this may be because Syrian Christians have the means to move without seeking assistance from the United Nations."

Fact-Checking President Donald Trump on False Christian Refugee Stats

The linked report explains why only 199 Syrian Christians immigrated as a refugee to the US.

Read this:

"One possible explanation for the few number of Christian Syrians admitted, the Washington Post’s Fact-Checker reported, is an initial religious disparity at the United Nations’ refugee programs. (The long vetting process for refugees seeking entry to the United States begins with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugee.)

The UNHCR reports that 1.5 percent of the nearly 5 million Syrian refugees it has registered are Christian. Agency spokespeople have warned against speculation but suggested this may be because Syrian Christians have the means to move without seeking assistance from the United Nations."

And read this;

"Christians in Syria "have been less systematically victimized than they were in Iraq," he said. "Most of the Syrian Christians have moved to Lebanon. And in Lebanon, the first thing that happened to me when I met with the Lebanese president ... when I asked him to start a resettlement program from Lebanon, (he said), don’t resettle Christians because they are vital for us."


So absorb all that and tell me that prioritizing refugee immigration of Christians is not a Muslim ban.

 

[EverCurious]

I have posted /actual/ documents from our government that show we give priority to specific religious groups from specific regions and have done so for years. Giving such priority to minority religions in the ME is nothing new, and in fact, if the President wished to specify Christians it would be founded in our own previous agreements - as are the Jews, Evangelical Christians, and Ukrainian Catholic and Orthodox religious adherents in the Baltics and Eurasia.



As for your rather unrelated to the subject blathering about Christians not being persecuted in the middle east that is such utter bullshit any search of the internet will prove it a lie. They just had a huge meeting with religious leaders from around the world discussing it, thousands of videos on it here - christian genocide in the middle east - Bing video Hell even fucking Hillary Clinton admitted it was going on Hillary Clinton Condemns ISIS for 'Genocide' Against Religious Minorities

 

[Boss]

Boss, post: 16529121

The Constitution does NOT forbid allowing persons in based on religion.

How sure are you?

Again, I am a constitutional libertarian conservative. I have been a student of the constitution since I was 12... I'm now 57. I have read the Federalist Papers, most of them multiple times. I've been arguing the constitution on the internet since there was an internet. I'm like an evangelist and the constitution is my bible. This is just who I am.

I didn't vote for Trump, I'm not a big fan of some of his policy ideas. So I am no Trump pom-pom waver and if he is subverting or violating the constitution, I am going to be the first one here to speak out. I promise you, that will happen during the next 4 years because he has promised things that are not constitutional and I expect he will keep his promise.

BUT.... THIS is not unconstitutional. He is well within his authority under the constitution to do what he has done. In fact, he could've gone much further. In fact, other presidents have gone much further. FDR, your progressive HERO, actually interned Japanese-Americans in camps and stole their property! They were actual citizens! Lincoln suspended habeas corpus! AND both of these examples were ruled "constitutional" by SCOTUS! When it comes to our national security, the president has tremendous latitude in what actions he can take.

Now your specific question here is about the Constitution and who we can and can't allow to migrate to America. That is exclusively determined by Congress. It is one of their enumerated powers. There simply is no restriction on this in the Constitution. There IS a statutory law passed by Congress which prohibits discrimination in issuing visas based on religion. It's not because the Constitution demands that be the case, it's because that is the criteria Congress decided on. However, the EO has nothing to do with the issuance of visas. It is a temporary hold on travel for those who already have visas.

 

[dannyboys]

EverCurious, post: 16530918

temp ban is logical. Our vetting system is a disaster, also been talked about for years and years by all sides.

Trump says everything is a disaster. He is the true needless disaster.

You have to take Trump's word that the in place vetting does not work. Trump is a liar, though.

His lawyers could not disclose to four judges as of yet that the government has a rational reason for the ban,

He calls for a Muslim ban weighs heavy on the court. He has shown to seek to US the Executive Branvh

You poor poor baby.
What are you going to do when the SC votes 8-0 in favor of President Trump's EO?
Stick your 'man-bun' in a blender?

 

[danielpalos]

He's not the only one in our government that have serious concerns about our vetting system son. Your media just doesn't tell you about it. Most of it's been discussed many times in Congress and Judicial and various Subcommittees since before Trump was even the nominee, much less the President.

As to the other, it's not unconstitutional, in fact, I've provided CLEAR evidence that religions have been prioritized by faith in our Refugee acceptance since 2012, it has been requested through various bills by Democrats and Republican's alike in the House and Senate (which I also posted.) It's not my fault you refuse to read the evidence.

the "problem with our system" is the right wing wanting to wage war for every thing. when are they going to institute war time tax rates for their wartime economy?

 

[danielpalos]

I have posted /actual/ documents from our government that show we give priority to specific religious groups from specific regions and have done so for years. Giving such priority to minority religions in the ME is nothing new, and in fact, if the President wished to specify Christians it would be founded in our own previous agreements - as are the Jews, Evangelical Christians, and Ukrainian Catholic and Orthodox religious adherents in the Baltics and Eurasia.



As for your rather unrelated to the subject blathering about Christians not being persecuted in the middle east that is such utter bullshit any search of the internet will prove it a lie. They just had a huge meeting with religious leaders from around the world discussing it, thousands of videos on it here - christian genocide in the middle east - Bing video Hell even fucking Hillary Clinton admitted it was going on Hillary Clinton Condemns ISIS for 'Genocide' Against Religious Minorities

the point is the ban, not the help.

 

[danielpalos]

Boss, post: 16529121

The Constitution does NOT forbid allowing persons in based on religion.

How sure are you?

Again, I am a constitutional libertarian conservative. I have been a student of the constitution since I was 12... I'm now 57. I have read the Federalist Papers, most of them multiple times. I've been arguing the constitution on the internet since there was an internet. I'm like an evangelist and the constitution is my bible. This is just who I am.

I didn't vote for Trump, I'm not a big fan of some of his policy ideas. So I am no Trump pom-pom waver and if he is subverting or violating the constitution, I am going to be the first one here to speak out. I promise you, that will happen during the next 4 years because he has promised things that are not constitutional and I expect he will keep his promise.

BUT.... THIS is not unconstitutional. He is well within his authority under the constitution to do what he has done. In fact, he could've gone much further. In fact, other presidents have gone much further. FDR, your progressive HERO, actually interned Japanese-Americans in camps and stole their property! They were actual citizens! Lincoln suspended habeas corpus! AND both of these examples were ruled "constitutional" by SCOTUS! When it comes to our national security, the president has tremendous latitude in what actions he can take.

Now your specific question here is about the Constitution and who we can and can't allow to migrate to America. That is exclusively determined by Congress. It is one of their enumerated powers. There simply is no restriction on this in the Constitution. There IS a statutory law passed by Congress which prohibits discrimination in issuing visas based on religion. It's not because the Constitution demands that be the case, it's because that is the criteria Congress decided on. However, the EO has nothing to do with the issuance of visas. It is a temporary hold on travel for those who already have visas.

just propaganda from the right wing?

The US government had to apologize for interning our own citizens. Too much, national socialist influence.

 

[danielpalos]

Religious leaders across the planet and many faiths have been speaking to every nation regarding refugees fleeing religious persecution and begging for help. Christian's have been facing genocide in the ME since the rise of ISIS. MANY nations have expressed that they need priority refugee status. Canada did it in 2014 & 2015, Australia and France in 2015.

The UN (aka those who do most of the refugee prioritizing) prioritizes gay people fleeing the ME - because it only makes sense that they are in peril. THAT policy is not considered to be /discrimination/ against straight people.

Why should we consider that prioritizing folks who are being wiped out based on their religious beliefs as discrimination against other religions?

Same human rights argument, same "degree of peril" argument - aka extreme threat to their life. I don't really see any difference.

How much that, "suffering" are we causing with our public policies? The national socialist right wing, actually invaded the Middle East; we still have a "vetting problem".

 

[danielpalos]

i thought Only socialists don't like to compete?

What does that have to do with their Darwinian ticking clock?

why worry; true Socialists may merit, a Commune of Heaven.

I don't worry. They deserve their Darwinian fate.

tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick..

Why be so, insecure without any competition?

Exactly. Socialists aren't any competition.

just flip-flopping like usual; psych, major?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

EverCurious, post: 16531956

On our books since 2013 read it.

No you read reality. Trump is a dickhead.


3 to 0....................

Trump lost again. Liberty holds. Another setback for anti-Liberty trigger. Idiot Trump Down in flames.


This is a failure of Presidential leadership.


Boss, post: 16524692

8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens
The statute give him authority on any basis he deems necessary. He can define his own criteria, there are no restrictions. You're trying to claim some Constitutional right on behalf of the foreign person wanting to come here. They have no Constitutional protection.

Some constitutional libertarian you are. You favor tyranny and that is sad. Time to get on the side of Liberty. It's bigger than one authoritarian kleptocrat named.

The courts are a co-equal branch with the executive branch.

EverCurious, post: 16531489.

As to the other, it's not unconstitutional,

Vegas odds are that it is. Trump needs to go back to the drawing board.

 

[Cecilie1200]

...Judge Napolitano said it appears that Judge Robart is second-guessing the wisdom and the justice of the executive order.

He explained that the lawsuit, which was brought by the state of Washington and later joined by the state of Minnesota, says that people have suffered irreparable harm because of the travel ban and an injunction should be applied.

Judge Napolitano said a major factor in this case is that the plaintiffs aren't people trying to enter the U.S., but states who are suing on behalf of those people.

"The Constitution requires the plaintiffs be people who are actually harmed or in immediate likelihood of harm ... to bring a lawsuit, particularly against the president of the United States," Judge Napolitano explained....

Judge Nap Explains How Trump's Travel Ban Could Be Reinstated

Did he also happen to mention how the states of Washington and Minnesota, or any of the people in them with rights under the Constitution, are being irreparably harmed by a temporary hold on immigration?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Sorry, but being partisan jackwads like you doesn't prove you or they are correct. It just proves that you're all partisan jackwads, and we already knew that.


Don't get too comfy throwing around the word "Unconstitutional" unless you're prepared the cite the specific provision of the Constitution that's being violated.

Don't get too comfy throwing around the word "Unconstitutional" unless you're prepared the cite the specific provision of the Constitution that's being violated.

Here you go....

Clear Violation
5.5k
1.5k
191
All the many ways Trump’s Muslim ban goes against the Constitution.

1. Equal Protection. This order raises discrimination concerns surrounding the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, singling out individuals for their religion and nationality by focusing on seven predominantly Muslim countries. Additionally, our immigration laws already forbid such discrimination in issuing visas.

2. First Amendment. The order raises religious freedom concerns, including issues surrounding the ban on government establishment of religion. The law suspends admission of all refugees but asks the secretary of homeland security to “prioritize refugee claims” by members of a “minority religion” in a given country. This effectively means explicitly deprioritizing Muslim refugees in majority-Muslim countries. As Mark Joseph Stern has explained, the apparent preference for Christians of the order itself as well as Trump’s long history of comments supporting a “Muslim ban” will not help the law’s success in the courts.

3. Due Process. The procedures used to enforce the order, if they can be called procedures, are arbitrary. Past Supreme Court cases have permitted individuals to be excluded at the border but only after some modicum of individualized review and administrative process, authorized by laws and regulations. A lack of due process under the Fifth and 14th amendments for those affected should not be hard to show, considering the hasty, sweeping changes enacted without administrative process or legislation, confusion on the ground, and reports of outright refusal to follow court orders. Moreover, green card holders have enhanced rights compared to non-green card holders against arbitrary treatment.*

4. Habeas Corpus. Lawyers at airports have been filing habeas corpus petitions around the clock for people being detained. In recent years, the Supreme Court strengthened the protections of habeas corpus for noncitizens repeatedly in rulings in cases brought by Guantánamo detainees. Zadvydas v. Davis. The national security or “plenary” power over immigration did not faze the justices in such rulings.

They aren't citizens moron..........none of those things apply.....and the President has vast powers over immigration policy....as obama showed when he banned Iraqis for 6 months.....and created the list of 7 countries with terrorism problems....

They aren't citizens moron..........none of those things apply.....

Actually stupid ass I'm not surprised that you continue to make an ass of yourself...
Here, cocksuck these facts:

Non-Citizens and the Constitution
As immigration attorneys, we are careful to explain to our clients their rights and obligations under U.S. immigration law. We tell our non-citizen clients all the time that only U.S citizens are guaranteed entry into the U.S. However, we also stress that even non-citizens have rights under the Constitution. The Executive Order, whether on purpose or not, severely limits, in our opinion, Constitutional protections for non-citizens.

Briefly, even non-citizens have the following guarantees under the U.S Constitution:

1. Equal protection of the laws
2. Political freedoms of speech and association,
3. Due process requirements of fair procedure where their lives, liberty, or property are at stake.

Unless the Constitution expressly sets apart its protections to U.S. citizens, it protects non-citizens too.

To be sure, there are important distinctions. For example, green card holders cannot vote like citizens despite being able to live and work freely in the U.S.

Nevertheless, when the Constitution says “all persons” or “all people,” the Supreme Court has held that it means what it says. As far back as in 1886, in the Supreme Court held that “the guarantees of protection contained in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution extend to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, without regard to differences of race, of color, or of nationality.” (Yick Wo v. Hopkins) Not just members of a certain religion, not just members of a certain race, and not just individuals born in the U.S. All persons. All people.

Oh, WELL, if a bunch of lawyers who make their living getting people into the country say that Trump is wrong, that settles it. Surely, THEY couldn't have any sort of bias.

I see you have no facts to rebut those Lawyers...how surprising...
Btw, they cites a little thing called the U.S. Constitution, maybe trump and you ought to check it out before the both of you continue to make fools of yourself...

Actually, I have one irrefutable fact to rebut them, which I have already mentioned: they are irretrievably biased and bullshitting in service of that bias.

Did the eyeroll not sufficiently convey that I was being sarcastic when I said they couldn't have any sort of bias?

 

[2aguy]

EverCurious, post: 16531956

On our books since 2013 read it.

No you read reality. Trump is a dickhead.


3 to 0....................

Trump lost again. Liberty holds. Another setback for anti-Liberty trigger. Idiot Trump Down in flames.


This is a failure of Presidential leadership.


Boss, post: 16524692

8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens
The statute give him authority on any basis he deems necessary. He can define his own criteria, there are no restrictions. You're trying to claim some Constitutional right on behalf of the foreign person wanting to come here. They have no Constitutional protection.

Some constitutional libertarian you are. You favor tyranny and that is sad. Time to get on the side of Liberty. It's bigger than one authoritarian kleptocrat named.

The courts are a co-equal branch with the executive branch.

EverCurious, post: 16531489.

As to the other, it's not unconstitutional,

Vegas odds are that it is. Trump needs to go back to the drawing board.

No asswipe...they didn't follow the law, or the Constitution...they just made it up because they are left wing assholes.....Trump has the law and the Constitution behind his action.....

The Republicans should definitely break up the 9th and reduce it's size..........and the scope of it's jurisdiction.....the check on judicial power belongs to the President and Congress and it is long past due that they exercised it...

 

[Boss]

Some constitutional libertarian you are. You favor tyranny and that is sad. Time to get on the side of Liberty. It's bigger than one authoritarian kleptocrat named.

The courts are a co-equal branch with the executive branch.

But you are trying to argue they are a supreme branch, not co-equal.

Tyranny would be Trump making his own laws, like Obama enjoyed doing with his pen and phone. Here, Trump is following an existing law... I've already posted it numerous times. The law was passed by Congress... so there's two of three branches. You favor Judicial Tyranny in this case.

Now, all you libtards can celebrate this little 9th circus "victory" today, but this will not stand. We already knew that this would happen. That's why the left judge-shopped to find a liberal judge in the 9th district. When it gets to SCOTUS, it's going to be reversed. Even without Gorsuch on the bench. The three activists might support this nonsense but no one else will. AND... EVEN IF... for some bizarre reason, the SCOTUS upholds the ruling, the president can simply rewrite a new EO.. and let me explain something to you about that... with Jeff Sessions now in charge as AG... you better bet your ass it will be ironclad.

In other words, this is going to be done. Kicking and screaming, crying and moaning... it's still going to be done. Hate it, loathe it, stick your fucking head in an oven... it's still going to be done!

 

[NotfooledbyW]

But you are trying to argue they are a supreme branch, not co-equal

No I am not. The Supreme Court does have the final say. But that is normally nine justices that know more about constitutional law that one man one president.

What has been at stake so far is that once the president invokes a sham of a claim about national security the lower courts have no standing to intervene.

That is fear driven fascism. Trump makes himself above the law when he claims national security is at stake. That can be easily abused.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Boss, post: 1653815

yranny would be Trump making his own laws,

No, tyrrany would be Trump writing an executive order that is not reviewable by the courts.

Every order Obama wrote was subject to over site by the courts.

Trump is dangerous. I want him balanced and checked. That is my right as an American.

 

[Boss]

But you are trying to argue they are a supreme branch, not co-equal

No I am not. The Supreme Court does have the final say. But that is normally nine justices that know more about constitutional law that one man one president.

What has been at stake so far is that once the president invokes a sham of a claim about national security the lower courts have no standing to intervene.

That is fear driven fascism. Trump makes himself above the law when he claims national security is at stake. That can be easily abused.

No, it really can't be because courts are not privy to classified intelligence. To turn your national security over to the court is like turning your police department over to a school. It's just insanity.

You say "sham of a claim" as if you're the Director of Homeland Security... how much security clearance do you have? How much of our classified intelligence have you looked at? NONE... that's how much! You're a fucking idiot on a message board, shooting off your smart ass mouth about something you don't know a damn thing about, and you're putting our nation at risk.

The president is clearly given the authority he has exercised under statutory law passed by Congress... You don't like it? Fucking change the law! It's that simple... you don't even have to change the Constitution!

 

[Boss]

Boss, post: 1653815

yranny would be Trump making his own laws,

No, tyrrany would be Trump writing an executive order that is not reviewable by the courts.

Every order Obama wrote was subject to over site by the courts.

Trump is dangerous. I want him balanced and checked. That is my right as an American.

Not everything is reviewable by the courts you ignorant fuck. Again, you seem to think we are a Judicial Oligarchy!

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Boss, post: 16538682,

Not everything is reviewable by the courts you ignorant fuck. Again, you seem to think we are a Judicial Oligarchy!

Unless US citizens or business are harmed. All harm is reviewable. No exceptions you more than ignorant anti Liberty fuck.