Federal judge temporarily halts Trump travel ban nationwide

[jg121783 3,921]

Carter banned all Iranians from entering the country. Obama banned all Iraqis from entering the country. Just a couple examples of the same actions being taken by other presidents. 

[Suss&Camm 2,213]

2 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

Carter banned all Iranians from entering the country. Obama banned all Iraqis from entering the country. Just a couple examples of the same actions being taken by other presidents. 

I'm sorry but that statement is just so general and broad that I'm just gonna have you find out for yourself why that is not correct.

 

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/article/2015/dec/17/why-trumps-muslim-ban-idea-isnt-really-same-jimmy-/

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/30/sorry-mr-president-the-obama-administration-did-nothing-similar-to-your-immigration-ban/

[Lemonslice 5,064]

2 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

Carter banned all Iranians from entering the country. Obama banned all Iraqis from entering the country. Just a couple examples of the same actions being taken by other presidents. 

Only there was no ban on Iraqis... [and it was certainly not in a "similar manner" - banning LPRs from re-entry and whatnot]

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01/29/trumps-facile-claim-that-his-refugee-policy-is-similar-to-obama-in-2011/?utm_term=.788d6f628e20&wpisrc=nl_headlines&wpmm=1

 

http://www.factcheck.org/2017/01/trumps-faulty-refugee-policy-comparison/

 

 

 

[Suss&Camm 2,213]

1 minute ago, Lemonslice said:

Only there was no ban on Iraqis... [and it was certainly not in a "similar manner" - banning LPRs from re-entry and whatnot]

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01/29/trumps-facile-claim-that-his-refugee-policy-is-similar-to-obama-in-2011/?utm_term=.788d6f628e20&wpisrc=nl_headlines&wpmm=1

 

http://www.factcheck.org/2017/01/trumps-faulty-refugee-policy-comparison/

 

 

 

#factsmatter

[Lemonslice 5,064]

Just now, Suss&Camm said:

#factsmatter

#alternativefactsaremorefun - don't be a downer!

[Suss&Camm 2,213]

Just now, Lemonslice said:

#alternativefactsaremorefun - don't be a downer!

[Dakine10 5,452]

8 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

Carter banned all Iranians from entering the country. Obama banned all Iraqis from entering the country. Just a couple examples of the same actions being taken by other presidents. 

  No, Obama slowed the processing and issuance of one type of visa, the special immigrant visa (SIV) for 1 week. There was no ban of any kind. If you're going to complain about fake news, please be more diligent about choosing your sources. The misinformation you keep posting is not doing your credibility any favors.

[JayJayH 546]

2 hours ago, jg121783 said:

I wish judges would stop legislating from the bench. The travel bans are compliant with the law. The president is allowed to block the entry of any group of immigrants if they are deemed a threat to national security. 

I'm not sure.

 

The President is allowed to block the entry of any immigrant group if deemed a threat to national security. The INA also specifically states that no one can be denied immigration benefits bases strictly on nationality and origin - Which this EO does. I'm not a lawyer, nor does any supreme court ruling exist on this, so my legal input would be speculation, just like anyone else's really.

I would like to see SCOTUS rule on this one actually.

 

1 hour ago, Suss&Camm said:

"a similar manner" is one way to put it... but not an accurate way... Had other presidents used them to potentially violate the constitution, that too would/could have been challenged. The fact that it wasn't is really all the proof you need that it wasn't in fact "a similar manner".

I'm not sure what part of the constitution this violates. The closest legislation it violates is the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.

The constitution isn't an abstract document of what we subjectively feel is right or wrong. It's a written document, and to the best of my knowledge, it does not prevent the POTUS from enabling a temporary moratorium on immigration from specific countries. Please correct me if I'm wrong. 

 

52 minutes ago, Suss&Camm said:

I'm sorry but that statement is just so general and broad that I'm just gonna have you find out for yourself why that is not correct.

 

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/article/2015/dec/17/why-trumps-muslim-ban-idea-isnt-really-same-jimmy-/

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/30/sorry-mr-president-the-obama-administration-did-nothing-similar-to-your-immigration-ban/

The Politifact article is a year and a half old and refers specifically to Trump's then call for a "Muslim ban." The EO itself does not mention "Muslim" anywhere, and 94% of the world's Muslims are exempt.

I'm weary of anyone calling it a "Muslim ban." That might be Bannon's intent, but legally and according to the EO itself, there is nothing "Muslim ban" about it.

Edited February 4, 2017 by JayJayH

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

Hint: 5th Amendment (i.e., the arc of the moral universe stuff). 

Edited February 4, 2017 by elmcitymaven
I should be writing an essay, not ripostes on VJ, and fixing a typo is my penance.

[Suss&Camm 2,213]

11 hours ago, JayJayH said:

I'm not sure.

 

The President is allowed to block the entry of any immigrant group if deemed a threat to national security. The INA also specifically states that no one can be denied immigration benefits bases strictly on nationality and origin - Which this EO does. I'm not a lawyer, nor does any supreme court ruling exist on this, so my legal input would be speculation, just like anyone else's really.

I would like to see SCOTUS rule on this one actually.

Haven't we've been around this carousel? This is exactly the conclusion that I came to in the other thread, I'm glad you finally agree that the courts need to settle it.

 

11 hours ago, JayJayH said:

 

I'm not sure what part of the constitution this violates. The closest legislation it violates is the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.

The constitution isn't an abstract document of what we subjectively feel is right or wrong. It's a written document, and to the best of my knowledge, it does not prevent the POTUS from enabling a temporary moratorium on immigration from specific countries. Please correct me if I'm wrong. 

Why do you assume that I'm talking about some "abstract document"? You really feel the need to inform that "it's a written document"? Well thank you! I wasn't aware. It's all so clear now.

 
Judges interpret the constitution in rulings where it is called upon. This is what the judges have done when they have said the challenge of the EO is "likely to stand". It's not something I'm doing subjectively. Here are some takes on how it would violate the constitution that will be tried in the courts. It's not hard to look up this information if you really wanted to read about why all these legal experts are arguing about it.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/01/here_are_all_the_parts_of_the_constitution_trump_s_muslim_ban_violates.html

 

 

11 hours ago, JayJayH said:

 

The Politifact article is a year and a half old and refers specifically to Trump's then call for a "Muslim ban." The EO itself does not mention "Muslim" anywhere, and 94% of the world's Muslims are exempt.

I'm weary of anyone calling it a "Muslim ban." That might be Bannon's intent, but legally and according to the EO itself, there is nothing "Muslim ban" about it.

 

I also said that I'll let the person find out for themselves why they are not the same things, cause the fact is that this EO is UNPRECEDENTED. If someone spends 30 seconds on making a point with broad general statements, I'm not about to spend more than 20 seconds on proving the opposite. Google is a thing.
The fact is that it's still being legally tried how the EO is violating these ppl's religious freedom. That's the point the article makes in how they are different. That's not me having an opinion about anything Carter did. That's pointing to differences. 

Again... just because ALL muslims are not banned doesn't mean that the subset that are referred to in the EO are not being discriminated against due to their religion. The EO gives "special rights" to minority religions within these muslim-majority countries. Your statement that "according to the EO itself, there is nothing "Muslim ban" about it." is yet again just your OPINION. Don't state it as fact.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

1 hour ago, Suss&Camm said:

Haven't we've been around this carousel? This is exactly the conclusion that I came to in the other thread, I'm glad you finally agree that the courts need to settle it.

 

Why do you assume that I'm talking about some "abstract document"? You really feel the need to inform that "it's a written document"? Well thank you! I wasn't aware. It's all so clear now.

 
Judges interpret the constitution in rulings where it is called upon. This is what the judges have done when they have said the challenge of the EO is "likely to stand". It's not something I'm doing subjectively. Here are some takes on how it would violate the constitution that will be tried in the courts. It's not hard to look up this information if you really wanted to read about why all these legal experts are arguing about it.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/01/here_are_all_the_parts_of_the_constitution_trump_s_muslim_ban_violates.html

 

 

 

I also said that I'll let the person find out for themselves why they are not the same things, cause the fact is that this EO is UNPRECEDENTED. If someone spends 30 seconds on making a point with broad general statements, I'm not about to spend more than 20 seconds on proving the opposite. Google is a thing.
The fact is that it's still being legally tried how the EO is violating these ppl's religious freedom. That's the point the article makes in how they are different. That's not me having an opinion about anything Carter did. That's pointing to differences. 

Again... just because ALL muslims are not banned doesn't mean that the subset that are referred to in the EO are not being discriminated against due to their religion. The EO gives "special rights" to minority religions within these muslim-majority countries. Your statement that "according to the EO itself, there is nothing "Muslim ban" about it." is yet again just your OPINION. Don't state it as fact.

EO is unprecedented LOL. Cept Obama bypassing congress and allowing millions of Illegals to remain in the USA

 

If they are being discriminated against because of religion, then why can't my Filipino family come visit without a very hard to acquire Visa ? Is it because they are Catholic or perhaps because there is a trend of data with people from that country?  

[Suss&Camm 2,213]

Just now, Nature Boy Flair said:

EO is unprecedented LOL. Cept Obama bypassing congress and allowing millions of Illegals to remain in the USA

 

If they are being discriminated against because of religion, then why can't my Filipino family come visit without a very hard to acquire Visa ? Is it because they are Catholic or perhaps because there is a trend of data with people from that country?  

THIS EO... not EO

 

Is that a serious question? Did someone write an EO to the effect that they can't?..... 

 

Trend of data... well one of the problems with this EO is that it isn't even following the trend of data that there is... The fact that there might be a need to fight terrorism and that some countries have more issues with terrorism groups than others, doesn't make it ok to write an EO that discriminates against broad groups of ppl based on religious faith. Again, the courts will decide this.. not your opinions, not mine.

[bcking 3,157]

It might help to actually read the TRO. In the written version the key paragraph is below: (Had to type it out myself since it's a pdf and I can't copy/paste)

 

"Specifically, for purposes of the entry of this TRO, the court finds that the States have met their burden of demonstrating that they face immediate and irreparable injury as a result of the signing and implementation of the Executive Order. The Executive Order adversely affects the States' residents in areas of employment, education, business, family relations and freedom to travel. These harms extend to the States by virtue of their roles as "parens patriae" of the residents living within their borders. In addition, the states themselves are harmed by virtue of the damage that implementation of the executive order has inflicted upon the operations and missions of their public universities and other institutions of higher learning, as well as injury to the States' operations, tax bases and public funds. These harms are significant and ongoing. Accordingly, the court concludes that a TRO against Federal Defendants is necessarily until such time as the court can hear and decide the States' request for a preliminary injunction."

 

So I think one thing to keep in mind is the burden required to place a TEMPORARILY retraining order is likely different than the burden to reverse the EO completely. The judge is arguing there is enough cause to temporarily stop it so that the courts can further decide.

 

EDIT:

 

As for the "but other people did it before!" argument, people need to reenter the real world. That is a lie, plan and simple. Obama did not "ban" Iraqi's. Every single month during the 6 month period Iraqis continued to be granted visas. There was no ban. That is truth, move on.

 

Edited February 4, 2017 by bcking

[Suss&Camm 2,213]

19 minutes ago, bcking said:

It might help to actually read the TRO. In the written version the key paragraph is below: (Had to type it out myself since it's a pdf and I can't copy/paste)

 

"Specifically, for purposes of the entry of this TRO, the court finds that the States have met their burden of demonstrating that they face immediate and irreparable injury as a result of the signing and implementation of the Executive Order. The Executive Order adversely affects the States' residents in areas of employment, education, business, family relations and freedom to travel. These harms extend to the States by virtue of their roles as "parens patriae" of the residents living within their borders. In addition, the states themselves are harmed by virtue of the damage that implementation of the executive order has inflicted upon the operations and missions of their public universities and other institutions of higher learning, as well as injury to the States' operations, tax bases and public funds. These harms are significant and ongoing. Accordingly, the court concludes that a TRO against Federal Defendants is necessarily until such time as the court can hear and decide the States' request for a preliminary injunction."

 

So I think one thing to keep in mind is the burden required to place a TEMPORARILY retraining order is likely different than the burden to reverse the EO completely. The judge is arguing there is enough cause to temporarily stop it so that the courts can further decide.

 

 

The document is here

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/2017_2003_robart_tro_ruling.pdf

 

and there were cameras in the court, you can watch the hearing here

 

http://www.uscourts.gov/cameras-courts/state-washington-vs-donald-j-trump-et-al

[bcking 3,157]

1 minute ago, Suss&Camm said:

The document is here

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/2017_2003_robart_tro_ruling.pdf

 

and there were cameras in the court, you can watch the hearing here

 

http://www.uscourts.gov/cameras-courts/state-washington-vs-donald-j-trump-et-al

I know where the document is, hence how I was able to write it out.

 

I just know a certain population of people won't follow a link, or look through a 3 page document so I figured typing out the relevant paragraph might be useless. There was a lot of fluff before that paragraph that you don't really need.