The people who were already in transit, my understanding is a prior court order had already said they had to be let in. The 60,000-100,000 “provisionally cancelled visas”, which State has now been required to reinstate, mostly did not cover people who were in transit to the United States.
I think you need to stop using the Eau of ignorance cologne, you exude too much of it.
Actually the judge said that the hare brained and indiscriminate order adversely affects legal US residents in areas of education, employment, education and freedom to travel.
Add to that the fact that educational institutions, scientific groups (one doctor that can not come back is a very important member for a group in America currently working in a cure of AIDS) and other Americans are negatively affected, like many trade groups involved in aviation, for example.
It so happens that as one reads the judge decision, it is clear that legal residents and the affected citizens have rights too.
So the Temporary Restraining Order does not apply to non-citizens and non-legal-residents?
Legal residents don’t travel on visas. Requiring the State Department to reinstate visas has nothing to do with legal residents. Also not my initial post said this:
So I’m confused as to why you’ve brought up permanent residents. Since the law gives green card holders a legal right to live here, and a legal process is required to revoke/deport them (for permanent residents it usually requires a serious felony and then a follow up case to revoke their permanent residency and then to deport them), it is obvious to me they are “subject to our jurisdiction”, to a degree, even when leaving the country and coming back in. This is because by statute, again, they have a legal right to travel here. So that’ something I had already said before you implied I was ignorant, based in part on your own stupidity and inability to read an entire post before spewing your own ignorance and low intelligence post into the thread.
The fact that it “hurts” companies and academic conferences would seem to be irrelevant to me. It hurt the airline industry when we shut down air travel after 9/11. There’s lot of things the executive branch can do to cause financial (and even physical) harm, but that’s usually not an intrinsic argument the executive lacks the power. Under our current laws it appears the President has broad authority to shut down travel to the country from persons who are not covered under our constitution or laws, which foreign nationals, not resident in the U.S., who are traveling on a visa, almost certainly would be.
Green card holders were also affected.
That part of it had already been both overturned by other courts, and suspended by the administration. Are you just not reading my posts?
Plus, the judge’s order wasn’t restricted to permanent residents. The EO both suspended travel for a specific number of days from seven specific countries, and also ordered that the refugee program be suspended from those countries, and that future refugee applications be considered with a special consideration given to religious minorities.
If the religious minority part was an establishment clause violation, then it could’ve been barred. If the travel prohibition affecting green card holders was a violation of immigration law which governs the green card program, that could’ve been barred. But the order didn’t do that–it barred the entire EO, including–most importantly to me, the President’s order that travel visas not be allowed from those countries. That’s the part that to me is the vast, unconstitutional and unsupportable power grab unprecedented in this area of law.
It’s unusual for a court to strike down an entire law or entire action if one small sub-part of it is viewed as legally invalid, when the option to just strike down that part is open to the court. For example, that’s why other judges had ruled that say, the EO cannot under the law apply to green card holders, but didn’t likewise say “since this order contains something contrary to the law we’re also barring the parts of it which are obviously legal.”
How do you feel about someone who has applied for a visa, has been accepted, vetted, and accepted, someone who has paid for the visa (as visas are not free), and has an agreement with the US that we will let them in, since they already did all the requirements, and we have accepted that, who is then simply told, “No, we will not honor our agreements.”
I suppose we have the constitutional right to abrogate our agreements, but it is certainly not a wise ting to do.
They should be allowed in, and it would be stupid to not allow them in. Likewise with refugees, they are subject to the strictest possible scrutiny. I believe the vast majority of refugees we take from Syria for example don’t even apply to come here, they can’t. Instead, the U.S. looks at refugees who resettle and picks out who they are willing to take. And then that person and their family goes through an extremely long vetting process–unlike really any in the world. Our vetting is massively more involved than any European state’s. Now, obviously Europe’s problems are different in that refugees are literally landing on their shores from the violence in the Middle East, and America, separated by the Atlantic Ocean does not face such a challenge (and thus can more easily have extreme vetting–something we’ve always had for these refugees.)
Let me be clear–Trump’s EO, and Trump himself are manifestly stupid. I say that as someone who oft-argues for giving “ceremonial deference” to the President, i.e. not calling them personally stupid (something I followed during previous Presidencies, including Obama’s despite him being opposite to me on the political spectrum.)
Even if you want to step inside Trump’s world of the alt-right nationalists, his order makes no sense. He thinks any Muslim coming here is bad, and wants to stop it. So he targets seven Muslim countries. Primarily countries like Iran, which due to historic sanctions and limited business activity we have virtually no financial ties to as a country, or countries like Somalia and Yemen which are so poor any economic relations with them are very low value. But he exempted Saudi Arabia, a country where the actual 9/11 hijackers that killed thousands of Americans came from, and who came here on various sorts of visas which were revoked under his EO.
The decision to block Iraqi travel is weird, considering we are ostensibly working with them as a military ally in the fight against ISIS. Especially considering we didn’t prohibit travel from Afghanistan, a country similar to Iraq (a place we’re helping out as military partners, that has a large domestic Islamic terrorist insurgency.) So even if you’re on Trump’s “side” and believe we need to stop Muslims from coming here, or even more charitably “Muslim terrorists” the actual ban made no sense. It’s highly suggestive he just grabbed seven Muslim countries he felt he could ban and get PR points with his alt-right supporters, without really fucking things serious up (like our trade with Gulf Oil States.)
However, all that being said, at least under the text of the law, it appears to me that the President has broad discretion to suspend “nonimmigrant visas”, so your travel visas, certain temporary study visas or etc. I’m not as sure on immigrant visas since they’re covered by a different section of law I haven’t read. So despite thinking Trump’s behavior is stupid, I am genuinely skeptical that the judge’s order in full was appropriate, and I think at the very least the reversal of the travel visa revocations is hard to justify under our laws.
I like these new orders
I haven’t read the stay order, so I don’t know what reasoning the judge applied. But I’d note that the First Amendment says there shall be no establishment of religion. It doesn’t say that while U.S. citizens can’t be discriminated against on the basis of religion, we can discriminate against green card holders or otherwise lawful visitors on that basis.
It just says “no establishment of religion.” Seems pretty plain to me.
Several that take a look at what the Alt-right are saying or doing do report that they are happy as a pig in mud for that action. IMHO what is going on is what many minorities like me have pointed before, bigots and racists do know that they can not ban the whole lot of Muslims (and other minorities are next IMHO if a trade war or worse happens with Mexico), so they do settle on the next best thing: to find ways to make what they originally wanted to be legal or to have a fig leaf as Rudy Gulliani said on TV.
What it is important for the Alt-right is that less of the “undesirable ones” that will cause a slow “white genocide” will be admitted into “their” country.
I don’t think Trump is bright enough to do it but I could see Bannon ordering a few more executive orders like this as a way to flush out anyone who won’t be loyal to the new regime.
Someone opposed to either the Bureau of Land Management or to Black Lives Matter really has no credibility calling other Americans anti-American.
Pathetic. Poe.
The more I see Trump on TV, the more I’m convinced Bannon is running everything and writing everything in this administration. Trump just gets to sign during the video/photo opp. Perhaps that’s part of the reason he has no clue what “his” orders do–he simply is not involved in the process.
Just because he’s clueless as to what his orders do is no reason to think he’s not involved.
You argued this well, but as one message board mope to another, I’m guessing a judge knows the law better than we do.
The guts of Trump’s executive order, though, is about determining who is a lawful visitor. Iran has its own issues wrt the US, but all the other countries on that list are failed states. It’s inconceivable to me that the executive branch does not have the authority to tighten up requirements for issuing visas from countries that are failed states. We shall see. The whole “green card” issue has been resolved, and is no longer part of the order, so I’m not sure why you keep bringing that up.
It’s a stupid, stupid policy, but there is nothing in the constitution that says the executive branch can’t pursue stupid policies.
In this case, there is a lot of “smoking gun” evidence pointing to the fact that it was not a decision made on the basis of national security interests but instead for political reasons…and particularly to craft something that came as close as possible to implementing his original Muslim ban idea. That opens it up for much greater scrutiny than if the process by which it was formulated clearly involved national security considerations and not political ones.
I will have to note this: why not? The reality is that there was no really good reason to think that the early judgments were very limited in scope (and many reports made that point); the executive order was AFAIK only amended by the word of Trump and his crew.
A word that has very little value and AFAIK no formal change was made to the rule. This explains why the common theme on reports about what was going on usually referred to “it seems” “looks like” the green card issue was resolved. In reality it was not really clear that that was the case as no new official executive order was made to tell us so. A change of an order just by the unclear word of the executive with no official paper signed to support it gets you that, I think.
Hence the need for a judge to be more clear, and AFAIK since the original order was not officially changed or a new executive order made to clarify the situation then the order deserved to be admonished whole.
Of course, that is why we have checks and balances… Or at least I hope we do.