Travel Ban, is it renewed?

[Crazy Cat 41,899]

2 minutes ago, usmsbow said:

 

Yes, that is correct, sorry. You still have a bit of hope though: the Supreme Court will rule on the ban in June (most likely), so there is a chance it will be ruled unconstitutional and discarded. 

It won't be ruled unconstitutional....non-citizens outside the borders of the US have no constitutional rights.....The President is well within his power to determine immigration policy.....imo.

[usmsbow 801]

Just now, missileman said:

It won't be ruled unconstitutional....non-citizens outside the borders of the US have no constitutional rights.....The President is well within his power to determine immigration policy.....imo.

Who knows. The ban has yet to win in court. I did not opine on what the Supreme Court will rule, I was saying it will most likely make a ruling then (either for or against it).

 

 

[David & Diana R 1,005]

3 hours ago, missileman said:

It won't be ruled unconstitutional....non-citizens outside the borders of the US have no constitutional rights.....The President is well within his power to determine immigration policy.....imo.

I agree with you on this.  All it takes is for some idiot judge in Hawaii to make a ruling otherwise.  It's just ridiculous but keeps happening.

[Coco8 1,042]

13 hours ago, Geoman said:

missileman,

Thank you, this article is clear but very sad for me.  What should a law abiding, tax paying citizen do to live his/her life the right way?!!

Based on this article and other information, even if I get married to my fiance, she would still not get a visa.  right?

You can contact your representative and senator, and complain to them. They are supposed to oversee what the president does.

[yuini 29]

4 minutes ago, Coco8 said:

You can contact your representative and senator, and complain to them. They are supposed to oversee what the president does.

This could actually work, if you had help from these authorities, maybe you'll have a chance to get the waiver for your fiance/wife if need be.

Anyway, I hope you find a way...  @Geoman

 

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

13 hours ago, usmsbow said:

 

Yes, that is correct, sorry. You still have a bit of hope though: the Supreme Court will rule on the ban in June (most likely), so there is a chance it will be ruled unconstitutional and discarded. 

I have to agree with @missileman on this because how would be ruled unconstitutional at all? If you are from another country then you have no inherent right to come in to this country at all.

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

13 hours ago, usmsbow said:

Who knows. The ban has yet to win in court. I did not opine on what the Supreme Court will rule, I was saying it will most likely make a ruling then (either for or against it).

 

 

Yeah it has not won in any kind of Liberal court that refuses to actually follow the rule of law. Why do you think people go judge shopping or only file suits in specific courts? It's because they are very liberal courts. Once the SC hears this case then it will be ruled constitutional.

[Ben&Zian 4,398]

2 hours ago, cyberfx1024 said:

Yeah it has not won in any kind of Liberal court that refuses to actually follow the rule of law. Why do you think people go judge shopping or only file suits in specific courts? It's because they are very liberal courts. Once the SC hears this case then it will be ruled constitutional.

Exactly. The Supreme Court ruled already once that the travel ban was legal. Then the President put out the third version to include North Korea and some Venezuelan government people as I recall and again a liberal judge tried ot obstruct it. It will again be ruled legal by the supreme court when they get a chance to review it in April I believe it was.

[geowrian 22,337]

Just to clear up a few misconceptions...

• The various forms of the travel ban / restrictions have gone through numerous federal circuit courts and appellate courts. Some were liberal in nature, others not so much (more Republican-appointed judges than Democrat-appointed judges). I've actually listened to the oral arguments and read the briefs and decisions here. At no point has a single judge been able to stop the ban...by the time it has reached SCOTUS, it's gone through at least the initial judge as well as 2 other courts, usually with 3 judge panels. So at a minimum, at least 5 judges have ruled in favor of an injunction before SCOTUS addresses it at all.
• In most cases, a temporary injunction has been ordered either in full or in part.
• There's no such thing as judge-shopping. You file a case in a given jurisdiction, and whoever gets the case, gets it. There are some circuit courts perceived as more liberal than others, but even the ones with the most Democratically-appointed judges has a 65%/35% breakdown. The Hawaii district court has 1 less Republican-appointed judge than Democrat-appointed one (and will be split 50/50 once their 1 vacancy is filled by Trump...which he only nominated somebody in late Dec. 2017).
• SCOTUS has not heard the merits of the case. As such, they have not made a ruling on the legality of it. They only made a ruling about the temporary injunctions. Historically, SCOTUS defers immigration issues to the POTUS.
• SCOTUS will hear arguments on the actual case starting next month.
• As for the merits of the case, the issue isn't so much about any rights to visa applicants abroad. The issue is what is the extent of power that the POTUS can use to restrict a class of aliens, based on the 1952 law (INA 212(f)). The primary counterarguments are that 1) the POTUS extended the scope of the 1952 law, and 2) the 1965 amendment to the law prohibits discrimination based on (among other things) nationality.

Edited March 9, 2018 by geowrian

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

1 minute ago, geowrian said:

Just to clear up a few misconceptions...

• The various forms of the travel ban / restrictions have gone through numerous federal district courts and appellate courts. Some were liberal in nature, others not so much (more Republican-appointed judges than Democrat-appointed judges). I've actually listened to the oral arguments and read the briefs and decisions here. At no point has a single judge been able to stop the ban...by the time it has reached SCOTUS, it's gone through at least the initial judge as well as 2 other courts, usually with 3 judge panels. So at a minimum, at least 5 judges have ruled in favor of an injunction before SCOTUS addresses it at all.
• In most cases, a temporary injunction has been ordered either in full or in part.
• There's no such thing as judge-shopping. You file a case in a given jurisdiction, and whoever gets the case, gets it. There are some circuit courts perceived as more liberal than others, but even the ones with the most Democratically-appointed judges has a 65%/35% breakdown. The Third Circuit (covering Hawaii) has 1 less Republican-appointed judge than Democrat-appointed one (and will be split 50/50 once their 1 vacancy is filled by Trump...which he only nominated somebody in late Dec. 2017).
• SCOTUS has not heard the merits of the case. As such, they have not made a ruling on the legality of it. They only made a ruling about the temporary injunctions. Historically, SCOTUS defers immigration issues to the POTUS.
• SCOTUS will hear arguments on the actual case starting next month.
• As for the merits of the case, the issue isn't so much about any rights to visa applicants abroad. The issue is what is the extent of power that the POTUS can use to restrict a class of aliens, based on the 1952 law (INA 212(f)). The primary counterarguments are that 1) the POTUS extended the scope of the 1952 law, and 2) the 1965 amendment to the law prohibits discrimination based on (among other things) nationality.

There is a thing called Judge Shopping and that's why people/entities will file a case in one jurisdiction over another in hopes of a better outcome to the case.

 

https://definitions.uslegal.com/j/judge-shopping/

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-treacy/is-judge-shopping-a-crime_b_6439640.html

https://ballotpedia.org/Judge_shopping

[geowrian 22,337]

2 minutes ago, cyberfx1024 said:

There is a thing called Judge Shopping and that's why people/entities will file a case in one jurisdiction over another in hopes of a better outcome to the case.

 

https://definitions.uslegal.com/j/judge-shopping/

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-treacy/is-judge-shopping-a-crime_b_6439640.html

https://ballotpedia.org/Judge_shopping

That applies to filing the same lawsuit multiple times to have it heard by a certain judge (or set of judges). That's not applicable here. The various suits had different defendants, who all filed a single suit based on their claims. They could not choose in which court to file the suit, either.

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

1 minute ago, geowrian said:

That applies to filing the same lawsuit multiple times to have it heard by a certain judge (or set of judges). That's not applicable here. The various suits had different defendants, who all filed a single suit based on their claims. They could not choose in which court to file the suit, either.

I know that but almost all of them either filed under the 9th circuit or the 5th circuit court.

[geowrian 22,337]

2 minutes ago, cyberfx1024 said:

I know that but almost all of them either filed under the 9th circuit or the 5th circuit court.

Many but not all, yeah. But where should they have filed instead? They only had the option to file in those courts.

[usmsbow 801]

1 hour ago, geowrian said:

Just to clear up a few misconceptions...

• The various forms of the travel ban / restrictions have gone through numerous federal circuit courts and appellate courts. Some were liberal in nature, others not so much (more Republican-appointed judges than Democrat-appointed judges). I've actually listened to the oral arguments and read the briefs and decisions here. At no point has a single judge been able to stop the ban...by the time it has reached SCOTUS, it's gone through at least the initial judge as well as 2 other courts, usually with 3 judge panels. So at a minimum, at least 5 judges have ruled in favor of an injunction before SCOTUS addresses it at all.
• In most cases, a temporary injunction has been ordered either in full or in part.
• There's no such thing as judge-shopping. You file a case in a given jurisdiction, and whoever gets the case, gets it. There are some circuit courts perceived as more liberal than others, but even the ones with the most Democratically-appointed judges has a 65%/35% breakdown. The Hawaii district court has 1 less Republican-appointed judge than Democrat-appointed one (and will be split 50/50 once their 1 vacancy is filled by Trump...which he only nominated somebody in late Dec. 2017).
• SCOTUS has not heard the merits of the case. As such, they have not made a ruling on the legality of it. They only made a ruling about the temporary injunctions. Historically, SCOTUS defers immigration issues to the POTUS.
• SCOTUS will hear arguments on the actual case starting next month.
• As for the merits of the case, the issue isn't so much about any rights to visa applicants abroad. The issue is what is the extent of power that the POTUS can use to restrict a class of aliens, based on the 1952 law (INA 212(f)). The primary counterarguments are that 1) the POTUS extended the scope of the 1952 law, and 2) the 1965 amendment to the law prohibits discrimination based on (among other things) nationality.

 

Thank you for taking the time to write all that out. Much appreciated! 

[Geoman 0]

Well, this is a cheesy question, but whats the hick.  

I have scheduled a meeting with an emigration lawyer tomorrow.  In order to get the best out of it I need to walk in prepared with written list of questions.  Any help here with what is important to ask? 

 

my main discussion will be around the travel ban and ways around it.  I will talk about what CNN wrote/said (https://www.cnn.com/2017/09/24/politics/trump-travel-restrictions/index.html)

  "Individuals with that "bona fide" exception -- such as a foreign grandparent of a US citizen -- can still apply for visas until October 18. After that date, the new restrictions on travel will begin. "

My I129f application was received and accepted on October 16th, does that mean I will be OK?

 

Nonetheless, I am asking for help in list of important question to ask, should one or two skip my mind.

Thanks